[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 43 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1422-H1434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 639, AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO
APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 649
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 639)
authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf
of the House of Representatives in the matter of United
States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674. The resolution
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
of the House have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule,
which will provide for consideration of House Resolution 639. I believe
the underlying resolution is imperative to protecting the balance of
power that our Founders so carefully enshrined in the United States
Constitution.
I would also like to point out that the House Committee on Rules held
an original jurisdiction hearing and markup yesterday in which we
received testimony and consideration of an amendment from the minority.
Mr. Speaker, over 25 States or State officials have filed suit
challenging the Obama administration's expansion of DACA and the
creation of DACA-like programs for aliens who are parents of U.S.
citizens or lawful permanent residents.
[[Page H1423]]
On February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas entered and the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting further
implementation of these programs on the ground that States are likely
to prevail in their argument for the programs that have run afoul of
the law.
The Supreme Court indicated that they will begin hearing oral
arguments on United States v. Texas in April of 2016 and that it will
consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Because of
this timely consideration by the highest court in the land, it is
imperative that the House consider this underlying resolution.
I want to make it very clear that this resolution is not about
policy. If you spoke with every single Member of this body, you would
find a wide spectrum of opinions regarding how to handle the estimated
11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States
unlawfully. This resolution is not about those viewpoints. It is about
the fundamental separation of power ingrained in our founding document,
the Constitution.
Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority
``to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The administration
simply cannot ignore certain statutes and selectively enforce others or
bypass the legislative process to create laws for executive fiat.
This administration has failed in its duty under Article II, section
3 of the Constitution of the United States to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, and the Supreme Court has specifically
indicated that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take
Care Clause. Clearly, the Court views this case as an important review
of Article I and Article II issues and the balance of power between the
branches.
{time} 0915
For that reason, and that reason alone, the United States House of
Representatives is uniquely suited to speak to this underlying question
that has been raised by the court.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the House can't agree on a budget.
They take futile vote after futile vote to kill ObamaCare. They waste
millions of dollars and thousands of hours on the futility. Children
are drinking lead-tainted water from aging pipes crisscrossing the
country. Young people are saddled with crushing student loan debt.
Bridges are crumbling. Our schools are falling apart. Obviously, the
Metro system in Washington is in serious condition. Our airports are
struggling to function, and we have no high-speed rail.
But what do we do here? We vote 64 times to take health care away
from people. We have Benghazi hearings, which come to nothing. We have
had eight in the House. Many chairs of those committees have said there
is nothing there, so we set up a Select Committee to look at it again
and spend millions of dollars to see what they can find.
We go after Planned Parenthood, investigate them, set up a Select
Committee to do that--despite the fact that a case in Texas against
Planned Parenthood found in favor of Planned Parenthood and indicted
the people who made the film which created such a sensation in this
House. We waste congressional time with duplicative, baseless
investigations. Today, the crusade against President Obama reaches new
heights.
This resolution surrounding United States v. Texas adds to the
already overwhelming list of baseless political tactics that the House
majority has used to discredit, undermine, and disrespect President
Obama.
This resolution makes a political statement, one that represents the
House majority--not the entire House of Representatives or even the
entire Congress, since a major part of it has been left out of this
altogether.
This resolution seeks to put this whole Chamber on record when there
is significant, vocal, and strong opposition. In fact, 186 House
Democrats, along with 39 Senate Democrats, have joined together for our
own amicus brief in support of the President's executive actions.
Not only were the President's actions constitutional, they are in
line with decades of bipartisan action by Presidents on immigration
itself, including action by President Ronald Reagan and President
George H.W. Bush.
This is a rarely seen ploy, seeking to file an amicus brief as the
whole House, leaving out completely the voice of the minority. I hope
the American people will see it for what it is: purely political. This
shows us, once again, that the Republicans are willing to prioritize
their party over their country.
Adding insult to injury, Speaker Ryan has said:
``The president is not permitted to write law--only Congress is.''
How true, indeed. So why don't we, the Congress, do what we were sent
here to do: write laws.
Republicans have reached for a tool that is not in their
constitutional tool box: running to the courthouse. Rather than
allowing Congress to do its job, the Republicans insist on telling
other branches of government how to do theirs.
It is quickly becoming clear that this is a dangerous moment in our
country and in our political system. The Presidential primary field on
the Republican side is resorting to demagoguery and nativism, fanning
the flames of dangerous anti-immigrant anger and anger in general.
What the President rightly called ``vulgar and divisive rhetoric'' in
the Republican contest is a logical and foreseeable consequence of the
anger and fear carefully and deliberately cultivated by decades of
Republican campaign strategy, as Republicans went beyond principled
advocacy for smaller government to the outright encouragement of people
to think of government as the problem and their an enemy to be hated.
This debate would not have even been an issue if, last Congress, the
House had taken up the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, which they
were asked time and time again to do but it never saw the light of day
here. That was an opportunity for our country to come together in a
bipartisan way, instead of further dividing us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the argument we are making today is that this President
has a repeated history of needing to have his actions resolved through
the court system.
The Supreme Court has acted over 13 times to rule against the Obama
administration. This President is an activist President that works
around the legislature. As a matter of fact, even Members of this body
have implicated that they don't even know who their White House
contacts are.
We have repeatedly tried to work with the President. We hold
hearings. They ignore and rebuff the things that we do. They disallow
what are considered to be normal rules of law.
So this is an action that has been brought by the States, not by the
United States Congress. We were simply asked to give an opinion, and
that is what we are doing today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) one of our bright, new members of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the underlying resolution.
I disagree with the gentlewoman from New York. This is not about
politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States. And it
is very clear. It says the President ``shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
Now, some people may argue about what that may mean. But in 1792,
President Washington, who was the chair of the Constitutional
Convention in 1787, wrote this:
``It is my duty to see the Laws executed--to permit them to be
trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to'' my duty.
Fast forward to 2010. In response to those arguing for executive
amnesty at that time, President Obama himself stated:
I am President. I am not king. There's a limit to the
discretion that I can show because I'm obliged to execute the
law. I can't just make the laws up myself.
Six months later, the President went further. He said this:
[[Page H1424]]
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are
very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration
system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore
those congressional mandates would not conform with my
appropriate role as President.
Unfortunately, in 2012, President Obama reversed course and
unilaterally imposed a massive program of executive amnesty in
violation of this country's immigration laws. In 2014, he doubled down
with a second, more expansive executive amnesty program.
According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, 87
percent of all illegal aliens will be exempted from immigration
enforcement actions under this President's amnesty policies. Thus,
immigration laws, as actually written by Congress, will apply to a mere
13 percent of violators.
In the upcoming case of the United States v. Texas, the Court will
consider whether the President's executive amnesty violated the
Constitution. Consequently, that case has the potential to be one of
the most important constitutional decisions on executive power ever
decided.
This resolution authorizes the filing of an amicus brief on behalf of
this House in legal opposition to the President's unconstitutional
actions.
As a lawyer, I can tell you amicus filings are important. They allow
the court to obtain information and arguments from nonparties who have
an important bearing on this case.
This resolution will allow this body to be heard before the Supreme
Court.
This is not about immigration policy. This is about ensuring that
this President and future Presidents, regardless of their political
party, do not have the authority to ignore or change the laws through
executive fiat. Ultimately, this is about the Constitution and
protecting the rule of law.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this important
resolution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's resolution
expressing the position of the House in support of the Obama
administration in United States v. Texas.
If the House is going to take a vote on weighing in on an anti-
immigrant lawsuit filed against the President, we should at least have
the option of voting to support the President's executive actions,
which are a worthwhile and temporary first step toward reforming our
broken immigration system.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren),
the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, to discuss our proposal.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth reflecting why we are
here.
When we had the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last Congress,
the Congressional Budget Office calculated that it would mean almost a
trillion dollars to the positive for the American economy, not to
mention the human toll that our current broken system inflicts on
people.
Now, we failed to act. And when we did, the President went to the
Office of Legal Counsel, an independent group, and asked them what he
could do, if anything. I thought they were rather conservative, but one
of the things they said he could do was to give temporary reprieve to
children who had been brought here without their concurrence and to the
parents of American citizens. So he did that.
How could he do that? Because the Congress has delegated to the
executive the authority to act. In 1952, we did so--it can be found at
8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3)--and again in 2002. When we created the Department
of Homeland Security, we told the Department Secretary that he should
establish immigration policies and priorities for removal.
Now, why would that happen? We have only appropriated 4 percent of
the funds necessary to remove everyone who is here without their proper
papers. So clearly, there needs to be some prioritization. We recognize
that. We told the Secretary to do it, and that is exactly what he did.
We delegated the authority.
On work authorization, again, we delegated that authority. In 1981,
President Reagan went to rulemaking and established that authority,
which is actually in practice; it has been in place. And Congress, in
1986, explicitly recognized the authority to give work authorization to
those who are in deferred action status.
But even without that delegation, the President has long had the
authority to take the action that the President has in this case. It is
called prosecutorial discretion and foreign policy.
In United States v. Arizona, Justices Roberts and Kennedy noted that
when the executive has broad discretion, a principal feature of the
removal system is that it extends, and it extends to whether it makes
sense to pursue removal at all.
This isn't new with President Obama. When President Reagan held that
office, he sponsored a bill that gave relief--amnesty, if you will--to
several million people; but the Congress--and it is reflected in the
Judiciary Committee report--specifically excluded the spouses and
children of those who had relief. What did Reagan do? He gave deferred
action to the spouses and the children who had been specifically
excluded from relief by the Congress because he didn't want to break up
families. That was about 40 person of the undocumented people at the
time--about the same amount that President Obama has dealt with.
Not only is this resolution wrong, it is the wrong process. Democrats
went to the Ethics Committee. We got approval to get a volunteer to
write a brief, which I will later include in the Record. We read it
before we signed it.
In contrast, what are you asking Members to do? You have no idea what
you are signing onto, just that you are against it.
Now, does this mean that you are saying that the Administrative
Procedure Act applies whenever the President takes a discretionary
action? Well, good luck fighting ISIS then. Good luck getting disaster
relief if there is a flood.
It is defective for process, too. There is a group called the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. I have been involved with that in the
past. That group is consulted when there is an issue that relates to
the prerogatives of the House. For example, is there a speech or debate
issue before the court?
{time} 0930
This did not come before the BLAG because this is political. This is
not about the prerogatives of the House.
Now, all Members of the House had an opportunity to file a brief, and
Republican Members still can if they can meet the time deadlines. But
using this process, I think there is a reason why CRS was unable to
tell us any other instance where a process like this was used about the
prerogatives of the House.
So this is a radical procedure and a radical act because it says the
House cannot delegate to the executive, as we have done, because it
could cripple the President by requiring the Administrative Procedure
Act whenever he takes a discretionary act, because it violates the
procedures the House has always used.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LOFGREN. But finally, the net result could be this: if the
Republicans prevail, we could end up with a roundup of a million kids
who did nothing wrong, who were brought here as infants, who don't even
remember the country of their birth.
When all is said and done, that is what this is about.
I would urge that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this radical
resolution. We will attempt to offer a resolution that, instead, is
something you know what you are buying into, not a pig in a poke, but a
thoughtful, reasoned brief that outlines what the House has done to
delegate to the executive, outlines what the executive's authority has
been since Eisenhower.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you listen to our colleagues, they make wild
accusations. They are swinging widely rather than understanding the
essence of the case. The essence of the case is more than 25 States
have gone to Federal Court in Texas, at the heart of the border, and
argued the laws of the United States of America.
[[Page H1425]]
The process that comes about and that we agree with is we do not
believe that the President of the United States, not any President, has
the authority, the responsibility, or the legal standing to do what
this President has done.
The President repeated that, evidently, some 21 times, that he did
not have that standing either to do what he eventually did, which was
purely political, and that is what we are being accused of today.
We believe that rule of law is the most important attribute, and we
simply in the House of Representatives are supporting what the Supreme
Court has asked at the time the oral arguments will be done here before
the Supreme Court, probably in the next month or so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck), an esteemed district attorney in Colorado and currently a member
of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear picture
of how our government works. In Article I, section 8, the Founding
Fathers gave Congress the duty to create laws. More importantly,
Article I gave Congress the authority to ``establish a uniform rule of
naturalization.''
Rather than enforcing the laws Congress created, the President has
failed to execute them. Through his executive actions, he has even
bypassed this building, rewriting the laws on immigration to his
liking.
Sadly, this is not the only time our President has bypassed Congress
and, by extension, the will of the people. On energy regulations,
health care, war powers, gun rights, and even judicial nominations, all
have faced Presidential work-arounds. Through executive actions,
failure to enforce laws, and administrative regulations, the executive
branch is slowly becoming a monarchy.
I founded the Article I Caucus last year to fight executive overreach
and reassert the power of Congress. Today we have an incredible
opportunity to speak to not just one, but two of the other branches of
government.
Speaker Ryan has a duty to stand up for Congress and the people of
this Nation by filing a friend of the court brief in this case. I urge
my colleagues to vote today to give him that prerogative.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in April, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in
the United States v. Texas, a case that has been repeatedly litigated
by our colleagues in the halls of Congress. And this resolution is
absolutely about immigration policy. Let's be clear.
Numerous hearings have been held in our committee challenging the
constitutionality of Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans. Our
colleagues, instead of moving forward on comprehensive immigration
reform and fixing our broken immigration system, have instead insisted
on putting forth a resolution, a resolution that has no substantive
findings, makes no legal arguments against the executive action, and
exists only in the hopes of securing time before the Court during oral
arguments.
If our colleagues do find themselves before the Court in this case,
it would be helpful if they remember the settled Constitutional law on
this subject.
DAPA is a lawful exercise of executive discretion well within the
bounds of the Constitution. It is based on laws enacted by Congress
that grant broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Since 1952, Congress has authorized the executive branch to establish
such regulations, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts
as it deems necessary for carrying out its authority. And within that
authority, it is a reasonable exercise of the discretion delegated by
Congress to do what it is doing.
The executive action focuses the limited resources of the Department
of Homeland Security on public safety priorities, ensuring that we are
deporting felons, not families.
It is important to recognize that Congress appropriates enough to
remove less than 4 percent of the unauthorized immigrants now in our
country. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the statutory
responsibility to set enforcement priorities and to adopt policies
necessary for meeting these priorities.
It is consistent with the actions of Presidents of both parties for
the last decades, including President Eisenhower, President Reagan, and
President George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, the strongest historical
precedent for DAPA was the Family Fairness program implemented by
President Reagan and President Bush.
These executive actions will strengthen our communities, keep
families together, and grow our economy.
This resolution is not about limiting executive authority. It is
about attempting to reverse immigration policy set by the executive
branch.
I understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want
to admit that, or they want to frame it in the context of a
Constitutional question, but it is really about changing policies that
are keeping families together, that are making sure that we properly
allocate resources to the most serious individuals who should be
deported, those who have committed crimes, and keep families together
while we work to fix our broken immigration system.
This is about a fundamental change in immigration policy that will
rip families apart, that will undermine our values as a country. We
ought to call it what it is.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against this
resolution.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind this body, Mr. Speaker, that over 13 times the highest
court in this land, the Supreme Court, has ruled against this activist
President for exceeding his constitutional authority.
This President, in his own concoction of the way the country ought to
be run, does not follow the rules, not the rule of law, not the rule of
providing enough information for people by properly delineating the way
rules and laws should be executed.
That is why we are here today. It has everything to do with our
belief that the President of the United States has not well and
faithfully properly executed the laws of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership on this important situation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 639.
Mr. Speaker, we are here again discussing the President and his
executive actions. Back in November of 2014, President Obama announced
a series of executive actions that would have provided amnesty to
approximately 5 million additional illegal immigrants.
Amnesty for these 5 million illegal immigrants would have been in
addition to the millions who were provided amnesty under the
administration's 2012 actions.
The President continues to degrade the rights of American citizens
and ignores the U.S. Constitution which this country was founded on.
The checks and balances that our Founding Fathers established made it
specifically clear that they wanted Congress to enact laws that shape
our country, not the President. That is why I am supporting House
Resolution 639.
House Resolution 639 will allow the Speaker of the House to submit to
the U.S. Supreme Court its opinion, arguing that the President's
executive action on amnesty for illegal immigration is
unconstitutional. Congress must be able to express its arguments that
the President's executive order on amnesty is unconstitutional so we
can continue to maintain the balance of power between Congress and the
President.
I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 639 so we can
continue to deny the President's overreach of power and uphold the
rights and responsibilities given to this body by the Constitution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I think context is important in this debate
we are having today. I can't get it out of
[[Page H1426]]
my head, as we look at House Resolution 639, that our Senate has just
announced that it is going to shut down the Supreme Court nomination
process.
Only a few years ago, the House shut down the government for 16 days.
We have had 62 ACA repeals.
Mitch McConnell once said, famously, that his goal was to make Obama
a one-term President. He failed at that.
The fact is that here we are again with Republican efforts to
undermine, thwart, and shut down President Obama. This is outrageous,
in my opinion.
House Resolution 639 is nothing but a continuation of the politics of
obstruction, just one more way to say you are not really the President,
you are not legitimate. That is what this represents today. That is the
exercise we are taking on this floor.
President Obama's action will bring relief to millions of families
who live in fear. Families shouldn't be torn apart because House
Republicans refuse to work together with Democrats to pass an
immigration bill which would make executive action unnecessary.
While the Republicans held up progress, President Obama worked within
his authority and took courageous steps needed to address the problems
of millions of Americans.
The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and the expanded
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is an important step
toward fixing an immigration system that is inhumane and cruel, and it
is within the right of the President to prioritize removal proceedings
for certain people. We have to prioritize them. We cannot remove
everybody at the same time.
Furthermore, it is consistent with the action of past Presidents,
dating back to President Eisenhower, including George H.W. Bush and
Ronald Reagan, who both took executive action to keep immigrant
families together.
The Republicans offer no substantive findings and no legal arguments
in their resolution. This is a delay tactic. This is a political
tactic. This does not serve the interests of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ELLISON. The fact that executive action is right for American
families, and right for our economy, and right for our society, is what
should guide our actions today, not political delay tactics.
Republicans won't acknowledge that immigration and immigrants are an
important part of the society that we live in. I stand with the
families that President Obama is trying to keep together within his
authority.
Vote ``no'' on House Resolution 639.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is a lot of good debate here today. The facts of the case are
real simple. The Supreme Court of the United States will be deciding
this.
{time} 0945
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court of
the Southern District of Texas have let their answer be known, and that
is they believe that the President is wrong. But we have a process to
follow, and the good part is it is not whether something House
Republicans are doing is trying to delay or to stop something that
might be a decisionmaking that has been made by someone else. We are
simply trying to support an action that was asked as a result by the
Supreme Court: Do we have an opinion about this issue? And it is thus
that we are asking the House of Representatives to come together today
to hear the facts of this issue and to then render a decision.
That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is normal and regular, and our Speaker,
Paul Ryan, is most meticulous in looking at this issue. His advice and
judgment comes from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte. Both of these gentlemen are not
only well balanced, but really doing what is being asked of them by the
third branch of government, which is the judiciary. The judiciary has
asked the House of Representatives and parties to this suit if they
would please discuss this issue.
We believe our ideas are material to the question at hand, and that
is why the United States House of Representatives, through the Rules
Committee, is here for this rule today and the underlying legislation
in just a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Lance), an exciting young member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of Speaker Ryan's House
Resolution 639.
Like many of my colleagues, I continue to oppose President Obama's
illegal amnesty program, and I have long believed that the proper venue
to challenging the President's overreaching actions is primarily in the
courts of this country. To this end, I was 1 of 68 Members of
Congress--and the only member from the New Jersey delegation--to sign
an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of 26
States against the President's executive order on immigration.
As a lawyer who has practiced constitutional law in my home State of
New Jersey, I have tried to study these issues closely. There is no
gray area: Congress writes the laws, and the executive branch enforces
them.
The executive overreach consistently taken by this administration
demonstrates not only contempt for law, but a disregard for the
critical balance of powers central to our Constitution. The American
system of self-governance would not be as strong as it is if it were
not for these bedrock principles.
Today, we have unelected officials in Federal agencies writing our
laws. The executive branch is appropriating taxpayer funds without
authorization from Congress, and departments are selectively deciding
which laws to enforce. Prosecutorial discretion cannot be expanded to
break the rule of law, as I am confident the Supreme Court of the
United States will rule.
I applaud Speaker Ryan for pursuing an amicus brief to defend our
Article I powers under the Constitution. Given the President's gross
executive overreach, it is essential for this institution to respond as
a whole. This action today is not only prudent, but an important and
necessary step in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution
639.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a political act because this action
only comes with President Obama. We never did this with Republican
Presidents.
Let me give you an example. After Tiananmen Square, the House of
Representatives passed a bill to preclude the deportation of Chinese
students. President Bush vetoed that bill. Do you know what he did
then? He deferred the deportation of the Chinese students because he
had the executive authority.
In 1999, a letter was sent to Janet Reno. It was signed by Henry
Hyde, Lamar Smith, Sam Johnson, and many others asking her to use her
prosecutorial discretion and citing the fact that the prosecutorial
discretion is clear in removal proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, I will include that letter in the Record.
I was shocked to hear Mr. Sessions say that the Court had solicited a
brief--maybe I misunderstood him--had asked the House for a brief. If
that is the case, I would respectfully request to see a copy of the
document soliciting a brief from the House of Representatives. That is
a procedure that would be an extraordinary one, and it is certainly
news to me.
Finally, I would like to add that the fact that Mr. Goodlatte doesn't
agree with the President has nothing to do with the fact that the
procedures were not followed in this case. The Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group is the process established in the House to be used when
the House takes a step in Court to defend its prerogatives, which is
what the majority is suggesting is at play in this case.
[[Page H1427]]
This is clearly a political act, and if it succeeds, who will be
punished? One million children who did nothing wrong, who will be
rounded up and taken from their homes.
I don't know what Republicans think they are doing if they sign on to
this resolution because it doesn't give any findings nor does it say
what, in fact, they are signing on to.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), my dear friend.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman from Texas for
yielding and for leading on this issue.
As I sit and listen to this debate, a number of things come to mind,
and they start with this: I am hearing a lot of policy discussion over
on the other side of the aisle, but this is about a constitutional
question.
We have just said good-bye to one of the great, great Justices in the
United States Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, who often said that, when
he made a decision based on the Constitution and he was uncomfortable
with the policy that resulted from that constitutional decision, he was
most comfortable that he had made the right constitutional decision
when he disagreed with a policy result of that decision.
That is also how we should view this case. Every one of us that has
the privilege to speak and address you on the floor of this House has
taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States. This is about the President's oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States, except his says take care to
``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States,'' and it is referenced in the Take Care Clause in the
Constitution that requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
Now, I don't know that there is a schoolchild in this land that is
going to get that wrong. They don't think that the President should
execute the law itself and then conduct himself in the fashion that he
sees fit. I think they understand that the President, multiple times,
has lectured the country in his adjunct constitutional law
professorship that he didn't have the constitutional authority to do
what he did.
So this issue is about the Take Care Clause, the President keeping
his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and it is
about prosecutorial discretion, as the gentlewoman from California
said; except that, it was a clear understanding, when they wrote the
Morton Memos, that they were creating groups of people, classes of
people, and categories of people, and the Morton Memos were the
beginning of this. They created four different categories of people,
and as far as I know, anyone who fit into those categories was
essentially maybe individually dealt with because they processed their
paperwork, but they were automatically exempted from the application of
the law. That is when this began.
We should not think, Mr. Speaker, that the House hasn't weighed in on
this. It goes back to this. March 2, 2011, was the introduction of the
Morton Memos. That was the first executive overreach on immigration
that is starkly on paper. The first opportunity to push back on that
was a hearing in which Janet Napolitano asserted that it was on an
individual basis only and repeated herself. And Morton Memos themselves
have several references to an individual basis only, except that they
create four categories of people. So the words don't mean what the
rules do. They abuse prosecutorial discretion by granting it to vast
groups of people that were defined first in the Morton Memos.
So I brought an amendment June 7, 2012, that cut off all the funding
to the Morton Memos. That passed 238-175 on a bipartisan vote. The next
opportunity was the Morton Memos in DACA, another King amendment, June
6, 2013, that passed 224-201, another bipartisan vote in the House of
Representatives, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
So we addressed the Morton Memos in this House and voted to defund
them in 2012. That was the first opportunity.
The next opportunity was 2013. We addressed the Morton Memos in DACA
and defunded them in this House of Representatives. That was also a
bipartisan vote.
Then August 1, 2014, we addressed DACA alone, defunded it, a vote of
216-192, another bipartisan vote, Mr. Speaker.
Not to be completing it there, January 14, 2015, the House addressed,
separately, DAPA and Morton Memos in an amendment to defund. That
passed 237-190. And we picked up the DACA in a separate amendment, same
day, and that passed 218-209.
The House has voted time and time again. And if that was not enough
for the voice of the House to weigh in on this, we came back again on
June 3, 2015, another King amendment, and defunded the DOJ lawsuit we
are talking about here now because we said: Step back, Mr. President;
keep your oath of office. We stood up, and we defended ours.
I will say this. Despite all of these votes, the government and
Democrat Members claim Congress has acquiesced to the unconstitutional
actions when the House has a clear voting history of opposing each step
in the President's path to amnesty.
So the House has now exhausted our remedies, with the exception of
the omnibus spending bills, where everything gets packaged up in one
vote. Except for that, the House has done all it can, Mr. Speaker,
except for this opportunity to introduce an amicus brief that will be
the voice of the House keeping our oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Is it the gentleman's proposition that a vote in this
House that does not become law voids an action of the House that does
become law, to wit, the 2002 Department of Homeland Security Act that
directed the Secretary to establish priorities for removal?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. SESSION. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I am asserting that the House needs to do all it can to keep our oath
to support and defend the Constitution, and we are doing this today
with this endorsement of the Speaker's amicus brief so that the House
can weigh in in defending our constitutional obligation.
I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Texas.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her
courtesies.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to take note, in light of the previous
debate and comments that were made, that this is a House divided. This
amicus brief more than likely will be supported by a number of Members,
but it will not be supported by the entirety of the House. So whether
or not it is a majority, which is the other party, it is not going to
be the voice of the entirety of the House.
As far as I am concerned, and as the Constitution has made clear,
that responsibility that the President has exercised is a
constitutional authority. So I oppose the resolution because it is
nothing more than our Republican majority's latest partisan attacks on
the President and a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing some of the
more important issues such as the broken immigration system.
Just a few years ago, the Senate Republicans and Democrats came
together to produce and pass a very thorough assessment of the
immigration system, and they actually passed laws, the intent of the
Nation, represented by Senators, and that came to the House and never
saw the light of day to be able to be voted on. But yet the Homeland
Security Committee, in an extensive series of hearings and then, of
course, legislation, then wrote legislation that passed by voice vote
in a bipartisan manner to protect the border, everything that the
Republican side is asking for.
But lying at the heart of the plaintiff's misguided and wholly
partisan
[[Page H1428]]
complaint is a specious claim that President Obama lacked the
constitutional authority and statutory authority to take executive
action. This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA
declared to be invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama
administration from implementing those salutary policies.
Let me briefly speak about these actions by the President. They are
reasonable. The reason they are reasonable is because, in addition to
establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme
Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring
Presidential control over those who execute and enforce the laws and
the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws.
{time} 1000
Arizona v. United States, Bowsher v. Synar, Buckley v. Valeo, Printz
v. United States, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board.
Let me also say to you that this is a Texas case that they are
submitting the amicus on. These are Texas DREAMers. Many of us have
worked with them. They are in our institutions of higher learning. They
are going to be contributing to society. This is what this amicus brief
is, to turn them back and to turn their families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. How would DACA and DAPA impact domestic violence?
DACA provided a sense of peace, knowing that this woman would not be
deported.
I would argue to my friends that whatever the vote is today, it is
not the sense of the House. It is a divided House, and we are not
supporting an amicus to turn back the President's constitutional
authority.
With that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule governing
debate of H. Res. 639, and the underlying resolution, which authorizes
the Speaker to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the House of
Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et
al., No. 15-674.
I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than the
Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and
another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by
the nation's broken immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 639, if adopted, would vest in the Speaker alone
the power to file on behalf of the full House an amicus brief with the
Supreme Court supporting the constitutionally untenable position of 26
Republican-controlled states in the matter of United States, et al. v.
Texas, et al., No. 15-674.
Lying at the heart of the plaintiffs' misguided and wholly partisan
complaint is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the
constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to
implement Administration policy with regard to Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of American
Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, the creation of (DAPA).
This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA
declared invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama Administration
from implementing these salutary policies, both of which are intended
to keep law-abiding and peace loving immigrant families together.
The purely partisan nature of the resolution before us is revealed by
its text, which authorizes the Speaker to waste precious taxpayer funds
and file on behalf of every Member of the House an amicus brief that no
Member has seen in support of a position opposed by virtually every
member of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken
by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his
constitutional authority.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President,
the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed.''
In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the
law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the ``Take Care''
Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and
enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the
laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v.
Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.
Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce
immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the inherent power
to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and
implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with
enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so
that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission
critical enforcement goals.
Mr. Speaker, to see the utter lack of merit in the legal position to
be supported by the amicus brief permitted by H. Res. 639, one need
take note of the fact that deferred action has been utilized in our
nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both
parties without controversy or challenge.
In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at
least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar
forms of prosecutorial discretion.
Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and the
federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme
Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct.
2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by
Chief Justice Roberts:
``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United
States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they
were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain
crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil,
not criminal, matter. A rincipal feature of the removal system is the
broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials,
as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue
removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum
and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country
or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added)
(citations omitted).
The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly
suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of
deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used
to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized
workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate
from countries torn apart by internal conflicts:
``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate
human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families,
for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who
commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on
many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the
United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished
military service.
Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this
Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country
may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable
offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state
may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or
enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his
family will be harmed upon return.
The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the
Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent
with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other
realities.''
Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's
immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited
resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent
with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth.
Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her
college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself
and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security.
Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support
their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers,
drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime.
The President was correct in concluding that exercising his
discretion regarding the implementation of DACA and DAPA policies
enhances the safety of all members of the public, serves national
security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping
families together.
Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the
Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and
Council of Economic Advisors, the President's DACA and DAPA directives
generate substantial economic benefits to our nation.
For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to
increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per
year over the next 10 years.
That is a lot of jobs.
[[Page H1429]]
Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of
removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and
reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to
pursue removal and when it does not.
In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done
anything that is novel or unprecedented.
Let me cite a just a few examples of executive action taken by
American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues
affecting immigrants over the past 35 years:
1. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to
allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from
expulsion and work authorization.
2. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to
allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans''
were paroled into the U.S. by 1981.
3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that
granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the
People's Republic of China who were in the United States.
4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals
of El Salvador.
5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting
DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before
Dec. 31, 1995.
6. In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting
parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.
Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and visionary
executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of
Texas are eligible for deferred action.
If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and
receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million
increase in tax revenues, over five years.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me note that the President's laudable
executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute for
undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's
immigration laws supported by the American people.
Only Congress can do that.
America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security
challenges.
Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to
use pragmatism and common sense.
Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
Instead of wasting time debating divisive and mean spirited measures
like H. Res. 639, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass
legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and
will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.
I urge all Members to join me in voting against H. Res. 639.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Bost), who serves on the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. BOST. I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, whenever we take these offices--and understand, I have
raised my hand and took an oath of office many times in my life,
whether it was in the United States Marine Corps., local government, or
here in Congress. When I take that oath and mention the fact that I am
swearing allegiance to the Constitution to do my duty and do it
correctly, I make that promise, and I make that promise to the American
people. This document that we take an oath to, the President himself
has to take that same oath.
When the President steps away from that oath, this House has no other
thing that they can do but to act.
Any grade school civics student knows that Congress makes the law and
the President executes them. It is called the separation of powers,
checks and balances. But the President's executive amnesty proves once
again that he wants to do both--both. That is not in the Constitution.
It doesn't work that way.
Immigration law clearly state that individuals who are here illegally
must be removed. The President does not have the power to pick and
choose. That is not what the law says. He doesn't get to ignore the
laws.
The outcome of this case will be determined in the Court. But I want
my constituents--and I want to be on the record--to know that I will
uphold the Constitution; I will stand for the Constitution; and I take
my oath of office very, very seriously.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the
underlying resolution so we can stop this unconstitutional move.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and
the underlying legislation. And I call on the Speaker to stop this
political game and allow the vote on comprehensive immigration reform
that we should have taken 2 years ago.
Everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken, but instead of
voting on a solution, Congress is again wasting time on a political
gimmick that does not address a single real problem.
The President took lawful action to help families being torn apart by
our current system. If Republicans take issue with what current law
allows, they should stop obstructing meaningful debate and get serious
about comprehensive immigration reform.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I helped lead efforts last
Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform by introducing the
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act, H.R. 15. I believe that bill would have passed if we had been
given a chance to vote on it on the floor. We had 200 cosponsors and a
chance to fix this problem then.
I won't blame the current Speaker for mistakes of the past, but he
has a chance to lead now.
For too long, Congress has failed to take meaningful action to
address our broken immigration system. As a result, we have a deeply
flawed system that is not working for our communities, our businesses,
immigrants, or families.
It will take Congressional action to truly repair our broken
immigration system, so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
resolution and demand that Congress act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the arguments that are on the floor today
evolve and revolve around the issues that we believe are very
important; that is, we believe that the President of the United States
has exceeded his executive authority, and the Supreme Court is going to
hear the case.
But, in fact, today the question that lies before the House is about
an action that will be taken by this House to support, in an amicus
brief, the positions that will be needed.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the
Speaker of the House.
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise today to
urge Members to support this measure, House Resolution 639. Let me
explain why, and why everyone should support this.
This resolution authorizes me, on behalf of the House, to file an
amicus brief to defend our Article I powers under the Constitution.
Normally this question would be considered by what is known as the
House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, but I am asking the whole
House to go on the record, as an institution.
I recognize that this is a very extraordinary step. I feel it is very
necessary, though. In fact, I believe this is vital.
This is not a question of whether or not we are for or against any
certain policy. Members who are making immigration policy arguments are
missing the entire point here. This comes down to a much more
fundamental question. It is about the integrity of our Constitution.
Article I. Article I states that all legislative powers are vested in
Congress.
Article II. Article II states that the President ``shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.''
Those lines, that separation of powers, could not be clearer. Article
I: Congress writes laws. Article II: Presidents faithfully execute
those laws.
In recent years, the executive branch has been blurring these
boundaries to the point of absolutely overstepping them altogether. As
a result, bureaucrats responsible for executing the laws, as written,
are now writing the laws at their whim.
This just doesn't throw our checks and balances off-balance, it
creates a fourth branch of government. This creates a fourth branch of
government
[[Page H1430]]
that operates with little or no accountability whatsoever. Most
profoundly, this means that we the people, through our elected
representatives, are not drafting the laws that we live under. This is
the profound difference that is occurring here. This fourth branch of
government is a danger to self-government itself.
The Supreme Court has recognized the severity of this threat. In
United States v. Texas, the Court has asked whether the President's
overreach violates his duty to faithfully execute the laws. This House
is uniquely qualified and, I would argue, obligated to respond.
Colleagues, we are the body closest to the people. We are the ones
who are directly elected by the American people every other year. And
if we are going to maintain the principle of self-government, if we are
going to maintain this critical founding principle of government by
consent of the governed, then the legislative branch needs to be
writing our laws, not the executive branch, and certainly not a branch
of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. This is what is happening. And
it is not just this administration, although this administration has
taken it to whole new levels.
As Speaker, I believe the authority of the office that I have been
entrusted by each and every one of you is to protect the authority of
this body. I am prepared to make our case.
We must defend the principle of self-determination, of self-
government, of government by consent of the governed.
This Constitution protects our rights, as people. It makes sure that
the government works for us and not the other way around. It makes sure
that we, as citizens, if we don't like the direction our government is
going, if we don't like the laws that we are being forced to live
under, that we can change that through the ballot box. And this is
being undermined every day.
I am prepared to submit this defense of our Article I powers, and I
ask the whole House for its support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we all like and honor the
Speaker of the House. I was pleased to hear his recognition that this
should have gone through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group because
that is how the House organizes itself before asserting a privilege of
the House in court.
What he didn't say is why, since cert was granted on January 19--and
today is March 17--he didn't call together the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group. Certainly, we have met in a much shorter time frame. I
know because I have been a participant in that process.
The failure to follow the procedures in this instance can only lead
observers to conclude that this is a more politicized action than is
traditional in terms of intervening in the court.
Now, the Speaker said: ``All legislative powers are vested in
Congress.'' No one can disagree with that. And that the President must
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' No one can disagree
with that.
Is the Speaker saying that we did not, in 2002, delegate to the
Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility to establish
priorities and policies, the priorities for removal, that we did not
fail to provide most of the money that would be necessary to actually
remove every single undocumented person in here? I think not. In fact,
the President has done exactly what we said he should do in 2002.
To approve this resolution, which says that he has acted inconsistent
with his duties, is a mystery. It is a pig in a poke for the
Republicans.
The District Court made a finding that in order to take a
discretionary action, one would need to comply with the Administrative
Procedures Act. That is a very bulky procedure--90 days posting.
Are the Members of the House being asked to say that whenever the
President takes a discretionary action, he must post a rule for 90
days? We don't know because this resolution only says we are against
it.
If we are saying that a rule must be adopted whenever a discretionary
action is taken, that would be an extraordinary departure from the
President's power to act, and it is certainly something that Members
ought to know they are doing before they vote on this resolution.
Much has been said about the States that filed the lawsuit. They were
all States with Republican Governors. But there are States who
disagree, including my State of California.
{time} 1015
There is a brief filed by the Californians which reads that the
discretionary action the President took would generate 130,000 jobs in
California and that it would provide $3.8 billion in taxes to
California.
So if we are going to use as an excuse the fact that Republican
Governors filed a lawsuit to stop it, let's think about the States that
have been enjoined unfairly and that are experiencing extreme economic
damage because of the Fifth Circuit's misguided opinion.
I hate to say it, because I do appreciate the Speaker of the House,
but there is only one way to look at this resolution--as a highly
politicized effort. This is not the way the House has traditionally
proceeded when adopting a court proceeding, a court intervention, that
deals with the privileges of the House.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have come to
the end of my speakers and would wait for her to offer her final
comments, and I will close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's resolution expressing a
position of the House in support of the Obama administration in United
States v. Texas.
If the House is going to vote on weighing in on the anti-immigration
lawsuit that was filed against the President, we should at least have
the option of voting to support the President's executive actions,
which are a worthwhile, if temporary, first step toward reforming our
broken immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, our immigration system is broken, as
evidenced by the fact that there are 11 million undocumented persons
who are living in the United States.
Instead of engaging in a bipartisan legislative process to reform the
system, the House majority has decided to focus on discrediting the
President rather than forming policies that benefit our country. There
is ample evidence of Presidents long before this one having exercised
the same executive order privilege without there having been any great
rush by the House of Representatives to go to court to try to stop him.
House Democrats would welcome the chance to work on a bipartisan
solution to the Nation's broken immigration system, but we can't
because we simply are not allowed to participate--only to show up to
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. If we have a ``no'' vote on this closed rule, we
then will be able to present our own resolution in support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her engagement on this
important issue and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, most of all, what we are doing here is acknowledging
that the Supreme Court of the United States will make this decision;
but in seeking input on this important question, we feel like the House
is uniquely qualified to begin answering that question, literally, with
a vote. That is how we do things around here.
I do recognize and respect that the minority leader has gathered a
group of those who might be Democrats--from the Democrat Party, House
and Senate sides--for their own opinion, and they did file that. This
is an action that will be taken today that is by the
[[Page H1431]]
House of Representatives, and I think the Speaker outlined why we are
here and the importance of it.
Mr. Speaker, in July of 2011, President Obama stated: ``I swore an
oath to uphold the laws on the books. Now, I know some people want me
to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea
of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on
immigration reform, but that's not how our system works. That's not how
our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.''
I quote the President of the United States on addressing the same
issue exactly that is before us today.
Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority
to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. It is directly out of
the Constitution. The President had it right at least 21 times.
Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States
requires the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today, before this body, is not
about policy. It is not about how we should handle the 11 million
undocumented, illegal immigrants who are currently residing in this
country. It is about our Nation's Constitution. It is about the checks
and balances that our Founders labored over so intensely to ensure a
government will always be by and for the people. It has even been noted
that it has been taught and is taught today in elementary school that
the legislature--the Congress--writes the laws. That is why we are here
today. It is even taught in our elementary schools.
Mr. Speaker, this administration, as well as future administrations
from either party--whoever serves--must not be allowed to ignore the
Constitution and circumvent those who write the laws, and it is
imperative that the House speaks as an institution on this matter.
I am pleased with the arguments that have been made today. I believe
they were right and just, and I believe that our Speaker, Paul Ryan, in
his own wisdom and experience and temperament, is attempting to
approach this as an important constitutional issue and as the
prerogative and the right and the responsibility of the United States
House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following amici curiae brief:
No. 15-674
In the Supreme Court of the United States
United States of America, et al., Petitioners,
v.
State of Texas, et al., Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF 186 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 39
MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Kenneth L. Salazar.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.
Seth P. Waxman, Counsel of Record.
Jamie S. Gorelick.
Paul R.Q. Wolfson.
David M. Lehn.
Saurabh H. Sanghvi.
Ryan McCarl.
John B. Sprangers.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici are 186 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
and 39 Members of the U.S. Senate. A complete list of amici
is set forth in the Appendix. Among them are:
U.S. House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader.
Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip.
James E. Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader.
Xavier Becerra, Democratic Caucus Chair.
Joseph Crowley, Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair.
John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary.
Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration
and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.
U.S. Senate:
Harry Reid, Democratic Leader.
Richard J. Durbin, Democratic Whip.
Charles E. Schumer, Democratic Conference Committee Vice
Chair and Policy Committee Chair, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest,
Committee on the Judiciary.
Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference.
Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary.
Robert Menendez, Democratic Hispanic Task Force Chair.
As Members of Congress responsible, under Article I of the
Constitution, for enacting legislation that will then be
enforced by the Executive Branch pursuant to its authority
and responsibility under Article II, amici have an obvious
and distinct interest in ensuring that the Executive
enforces the laws in a manner that is rational, effective,
and faithful to Congress's intent. Given their
institutional responsibility, amici would not support
executive efforts at odds with duly enacted federal
statutes. But where Congress has chosen to vest in the
Executive discretionary authority to determine how a law
should be enforced and the Executive has acted pursuant to
that authority--as is the case here--amici have a strong
interest in ensuring that federal courts honor Congress's
deliberate choice by sustaining the Executive's action.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Congress understands that the Executive is often better
positioned to determine how to adjust quickly to changing
circumstances in complex fields, particularly ones involving
law-enforcement and national-security concerns. Congress
therefore regularly gives the Executive broad discretion to
determine how to enforce such statutes. Rarely has it done so
more clearly than in the Nation's immigration laws.
Recognizing the Executive's institutional advantages in the
immigration context, Congress has for more than sixty years
granted the Executive broad discretionary authority to
``establish such regulations; . . . issue such instructions;
and perform such other acts as [the Secretary] deems
necessary for carrying out his authority'' under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA''). 8 U.S.C.
1103(a)(3). And in 2002, in the face of a yawning gap between
the size of the unauthorized immigrant population and the
amount of resources reasonably available for enforcement,
Congress charged the Secretary of Homeland Security with
``[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies
and priorities.'' 6 U.S.C. 202(5). Congress thereby
encouraged the Executive to focus its resources in a rational
and effective manner on cases in which the Nation's interest
in removal is strongest, to provide the maximum return on
Congress's sizeable but necessarily finite investment in
immigration enforcement.
As representatives of diverse communities across the United
States, amici have witnessed how an approach to enforcement
of the immigration laws that does not focus on appropriate
priorities undermines confidence in those laws, wastes
resources, and needlessly divides families, thereby exacting
a severe human toll. Amici thus regard the DAPA Guidance as
exactly the kind of ``enforcement polic[y]'' that Congress
charged the Secretary with establishing. Building on the
Secretary's decision to prioritize for enforcement threats to
national security, border security, and public safety, the
DAPA Guidance establishes a ``polic[y]'' that certain
nonpriority immigrants may be considered for ``deferred
action,'' i.e., memorialized temporary forbearance from
removal, which triggers eligibility for work authorization
upon a showing of economic need.
This Court has observed that deferred action is a
``commendable exercise in administrative discretion.'' Reno
v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 484
(1999) (``ADC''). Deferred action is not just a humanitarian
exercise. Like other uses of deferred action, the DAPA
Guidance facilitates the implementation of the Secretary's
priorities and promotes the efficient and effective execution
of the immigration laws consistent with the limited
enforcement resources available. The Guidance does this by
encouraging eligible persons to submit to a background check
so they can be identified and classified according to removal
priority, and by enabling those with an economic need to
support themselves lawfully.
That the Secretary's guidance is within his statutory
authority should not be open to doubt. For half a century,
the Executive has used deferred action and other forms of
discretionary relief in a variety of circumstances, even when
not specifically authorized by statute. Congress has approved
of those practices, repeatedly amending the immigration laws
without foreclosing the Executive's broad discretion to use
them--and even enacting provisions that presume the Executive
will continue its discretionary practice of deferred action.
Similarly, Congress has explicitly recognized the Executive's
broad discretion to determine which removable individuals
qualify for work authorization and has never disturbed the
Executive's decades-long practice of providing work
authorization to those granted deferred action.
The court of appeals' holding that the DAPA Guidance is
``manifestly contrary to the INA'' reflects a misreading of
the INA
[[Page H1432]]
and a faulty approach to interpreting complex regulatory
statutes like the immigration laws. The court reasoned that
the immigration laws' specific references to discretionary
relief from removal and work authorization under certain
circumstances implicitly foreclosed discretionary relief and
work authorization under others. But deferred action is not a
substitute for specific statutory statuses and forms of
discretionary relief, as it grants none of the legal rights
that lawful status provides. Moreover, the court's expressio
unius analysis disregards the broad grants of discretion that
are explicit in the immigration laws and the long history of
undisturbed executive exercise of that discretion. The
court's approach would make it virtually impossible for
Congress to grant the Executive the broad authority and
discretion required to tackle urgent and unforeseen
immigration challenges, while retaining the ability to direct
specific enforcement action it deems appropriate. More
generally, it would hamper Congress's ability to allocate to
the Executive the combination of broad discretion and
specific responsibilities so often needed to administer
sprawling statutory schemes effectively.
Finally, even if a claim under the Take Care Clause is
justiciable, and even if such a claim may be asserted against
an Executive officer other than the President, the claim must
fail here. The States' challenge rises and falls on the
proper interpretation of the immigration laws, and thus
should be viewed as presenting only a statutory claim. In any
event, the Take Care Clause surely does not prevent an agency
faced with the task of removing hundreds of thousands of
individuals each year from pursuing such removals in a
rational rather than haphazard manner in light of its limited
enforcement resources.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.
Embargoed for release Monday, November 8, 1999.
Contact: Allen Kay, Rep. Lamar Smith.
Re Guidelines for use of prosecutorial discretion in removal
proceedings.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Hon. Doris M. Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner:
Congress and the Administration have devoted substantial
attention and resources to the difficult yet essential task
of removing criminal aliens from the United States.
Legislative reforms enacted in 1996, accompanied by increased
funding, enabled the Immigration and Naturalization Service
to remove increasing numbers of criminal aliens, greatly
benefitting public safety in the United States.
However, cases of apparent extent hardship have caused
concerns Some cases may involve removal proceedings against
legal permanent residents who came to the United States when
they were very young, and many years ago committed a single
crime at the lower end of the ``aggravated felony'' spectrum,
but have been law-abiding ever since, obtained and held jobs
and remained self-sufficient, and started families in the
United States. Although they did not become United States
citizens, immediate family members are citizens.
There has been widespead agreement that some deportations
were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. If the
facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to
us, we must ask why the INS pursued removal in such cases
when so many other more serious cases existed.
We write to you because many people believe that you have
the discretion to alleviate some of the hardships, and we
wish to solicit your views as to why you have been unwilling
to exercise such authority in some of the cases that have
occurred. In addition, we ask whether your view is that the
1996 amendments somehow eliminated that discretion. The
principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established.
Indeed, INS General and Regional Counsel have taken the
position, apparently well-grounded in case law, that INS has
prosecutorial discretion in the initiation or termination of
removal proceedings (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, a
number of press reports indicate that the INS has already
employed this discretion in some cases.
True hardship cases call for the exercise of such
discretion, and over the past year many Members of Congress
have urged the INS to develop guidelines for the use of its
prosecutorial discretion. Optimally, removal proceedings
should be initiated or terminated only upon specific
instructions from authorized INS officials, issued in
accordance with agency guidelines. However, the INS
apparently has not yet promulgated such guidelines.
The undersigned Members of Congress believe that just as
the Justice Department's United States Attorneys rely on
detailed guidelines governing the exercise of their
prosecutorial discretion, INS District Directors also require
written guidelines, both to legitimate in their eyes the
exercise of discretion and to ensure that their decisions to
initiate or terminate removal proceedings are not made in an
inconsistent manner. We look forward to working with you to
resolve this matter and hope that you will develop and
implement guildelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an
expeditious and fair manner.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde; Lamar Smith; Bill McCollum; Bill Barrett;
Barney Frank; Sheila Jackson Lee; Martin Frost; Howard
L. Berman; Brian P. Billbray; Charles T. Canady; Nathan
Deal; David Dreier; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Patrick J.
Kennedy.
James P. McGovern; F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.; Henry A.
Waxman; Gene Green; Corrine Brown; Barbara Cubin;
Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Bob Filner; Sam Johnson; Matthew
G. Martinez; Martin T. Meehan; Christopher Shays; Kay
Granger; Ciro D. Rodriguez.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 649 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 646)
expressing the position of the House of Representatives in
the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-
674. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 646.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
[[Page H1433]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 181, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
YEAS--234
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)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
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
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
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
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Buchanan
Comstock
DeSantis
Fincher
Frankel (FL)
Graves (MO)
Himes
Jordan
Kirkpatrick
Lieu, Ted
Rooney (FL)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
{time} 1043
Mr. McDERMOTT, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Messrs. RUIZ, COHEN,
TONKO, and HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COFFMAN and Mrs. LUMMIS changed their 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 180, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 128]
YEAS--234
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)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
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
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
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
[[Page H1434]]
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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)
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Buchanan
Comstock
DeSantis
Fincher
Frankel (FL)
Graves (MO)
Jordan
Kirkpatrick
Lieu, Ted
Quigley
Rooney (FL)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Stutzman
Westmoreland
Young (IN)
{time} 1050
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.
____________________