[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 43 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1434-H1446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSE
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 649, I call
up 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. 15674, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman
will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, is the Speaker not already authorized by way
of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to offer an amicus brief with
current authority without the need to pass the resolution under
consideration?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult clause 8 of rule
II for the role of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will please state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is it in order to offer an amendment to amend section
2 of the resolution to make the text of any amicus brief to be filed
available for all Members to review for 3 days previous to its filing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 649, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to
its adoption without intervening motion, except for a motion to
recommit.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Is it in order to amend section 2 of the resolution to
formally include the amicus brief prepared by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and signed by more than 200 Democrats?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair just stated, the previous
question is ordered without intervening motion, except on a motion to
recommit.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. So it is not in order?
Mr. POLIS. Is or isn't?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No intervening motions are in order except
as provided in House Resolution 649.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Is it in order to offer an amendment to section 3 that
would make available all names of outside counsel that will be
providing services to the Office of General Counsel; that way the
American public can know who all the outside counsel is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's response remains the same.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Is it in order to offer an amendment to include a CBO
report on the costs of the Office of General Counsel that would occur
under this resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's response must remain the same.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that every President since
President Eisenhower and up through President Obama has used powers
granted to them by Congress to set aside the deportation of certain
immigrants?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated an inquiry
related to the pending proceedings.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thought I was.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, is it true that Presidents Ronald Reagan and
George Bush protected in excess of 1 million undocumented immigrants by
executive action?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry related to the pending proceedings.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we are seeing here are
some dilatory moves on behalf of the minority. While I respect every
bit of that, we have decorum that is established in this House, and I
believe the Speaker has adequately responded to the questions thereon
by the gentlemen, and I ask that we move on forward.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. All Members will
suspend.
Pursuant to House Resolution 649, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 639
Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to appear as
amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in
the Supreme Court in the matter of United States, et al. v.
Texas, et al., No. 15-674, and to file a brief in support of
the position that the petitioners have acted in a manner that
is not consistent with their duties under the Constitution
and laws of the United States.
Sec. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of
Representatives of a decision to file one or
[[Page H1435]]
more briefs as amicus curiae pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House of
Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall
represent the House in connection with the filing of any
brief as amicus curiae pursuant to this resolution, including
supervision of any outside counsel providing services to the
Speaker on a pro bono basis for such purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Rules.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes, once again, the gentleman from Texas.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will please state her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. LOFGREN. Under the rules of the House, in order to accept
volunteer efforts, one must be cleared by the Committee on Ethics. The
resolution purports to seek pro bono assistance, but the inquiry is
whether this comports with the rules of the House requiring the
Committee on Ethics to preclear the acceptance of such assistance to
avoid unseemly or potentially illegal assistance?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret a pending
measure. That is a matter for debate.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of 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.
Mr. Speaker, as we have earlier stated, as we were debating and
discussing the rule, over 25 States or State officials have filed suits
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.
The States allege that these administrative actions run afoul of the
Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Article II, section 3 declares
that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed,'' which requires any President to enforce all constitutional
valid acts of Congress, regardless of the administration's views of the
wisdom or the policy.
The States in this case that brought the case in southern Texas
allege that these actions run afoul of the separation of powers set
forth in the Constitution Article I, section 8, which gives Congress--
not the President--the authority to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization. That is directly from the Constitution.
Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly
specifies the limited cases in which the executive branch can suspend
the removal of unlawful aliens.
Mr. Speaker, this administration has sought review on this case from
the Supreme Court, which granted its petition, and that is because this
administration lost in the Federal District Court in the Southern
District of Texas and lost its case in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In doing so, the Court indicated that it would also consider the
plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause.
I include in the Record the official document from the Supreme Court.
united states, et al. v. texas, et al.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
addition to the questions presented by the petition, the
parties are directed to brief and argue the following
question: ``Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care
Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 3.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the questions presented in the case are
really extraordinarily significant to the House of Representatives. In
particular, this case raises issues related to the limits on executive
discretion not to enforce laws enacted by Congress as well as the point
at which the exercise of such discretion turns into lawmaking, thereby
infringing on Congress' Article I legislative powers.
{time} 1100
It is precisely because of these constitutional questions pending
before the highest court in our land, the United States Supreme Court,
that the U.S. House of Representatives--which, I believe, will present
a side which we believe is important from a constitutional
perspective--will consider this resolution. The House, I believe, will
and must protect its Article I legislative powers on behalf of the
American people and on behalf of Representatives who believe in self-
governance.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today there are a lot of legal arguments and talk. I
want to make sure the American people listening at home and watching at
home know exactly what we are talking about here today.
I want to talk about somebody whose life is on pause, waiting for the
DAPA program to clear the courts. The brief that the Republicans are
seeking to file is the exact opposite. It is saying that DAPA cannot
occur. And this gentleman and his family, Colorado constituents of
mine--just to put a human face on it--show what DAPA means for so many
families across our country.
Mr. Edin Ramos of Colorado--he is pictured there next to his three
lovely kids and his wife--is a native of Honduras. He has been in the
United States for over 13 years. His kids are American citizens, were
born here, don't know any other country. He fled his home country to
avoid persecution and extortion at the hands of local, corrupt
officials and gangs.
He is married to a U.S. citizen. They have three young children
together. He is a very successful business owner in my district. He and
his wife employ 12 people. They make investments in our local
community. We rely on them for jobs, for the services they provide. Yet
the lack of any peace of mind prevents families like Edin Ramos' from
reaching their full potential.
Every day his kids come home from school, and his wife worries over
something as minor as a taillight being out or a speeding ticket, that
Mr. Ramos could find himself in detention for an indefinite period of
time, removed from his family, or even deported to another country
which he doesn't have any ties to.
I would also like to talk about the case of Ms. Mercedes Garcia.
Mercedes is a long-time resident of my hometown, Boulder, Colorado. Her
life has been greatly affected by the arbitrariness of an immigration
system that is immoral and has lacked meaningful priorities.
She has been in the United States for close to 20 years. She is the
mother of three American children, U.S. citizen children. But you know
what happened? Her husband was removed from the United States in 2011
over a traffic citation, forcing her to be the sole provider for her
three children.
Now, Mercedes is undocumented herself, and she fears contact by
immigration authorities on a daily basis. DAPA was a ray of hope for
her. What DAPA would do is provide Mercedes with a meaningful level of
certainty, the ability to legally seek employment, the ability to
provide her family with expanded opportunities here in the U.S., and
would help make her American citizen children as successful as they are
able to be.
Her children are just as American as you or me, Mr. Speaker, as is
anyone born in the United States. Don't they deserve to have their
mother help them succeed with all the great promises that this country
offers? Why can't we give that certainty to their mother?
DAPA is a legal, commonsense, lawful exercise of discretion. It is
consistent with the actions of Presidents, both Democratic and
Republican, for decades. It directs, very simply, with the limited
amount of enforcement resources we have in the Department of Homeland
Security, that we want to focus on removing undocumented immigrants who
pose a threat to public safety or national security--not Mr.
[[Page H1436]]
Ramos, not Ms. Garcia. We want to remove those who represent a danger
or a threat to our country.
To somehow misfocus those limited resources on tearing apart families
instead of going after criminals would put the American people at risk.
The President has acted to make the American people safer by ensuring
that our limited law enforcement resources are focused where they will
have the biggest impact.
These policies are very simple. They create a process for low-
priority enforcement immigrants who come forward, submit to a
background check, register, be able to get a provisional work permit,
and work legally. It enhances our public safety and national security.
Yet we hear people from the other side saying: Well, this is
something Congress should have done. I agree. This is something
Congress should have done. You know what? It is not my fault Congress
didn't do it.
I have talked about immigration every week and every month here on
the floor of the House. I cosponsored a comprehensive bill. I signed a
discharge petition last Congress to try to bring it forward. Yes, I
agree.
You know what? Congress didn't do it, Mr. Speaker. And that is on the
Republican majority that Congress failed to act.
So the President moved forward with the legal authority he has and
that Republican and Democratic Presidents in the past have used to say
that Ms. Garcia is not the same risk to this country as a dangerous
criminal.
It is common sense, and it is about time that we move forward with
DAPA and DACA.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time you will see that our
Republican Members that will come and speak are men and women not only
with extensive legal experience, grounded in the law and the
Constitution of the United States but will make their arguments from a
professional nature that are directly related to the law.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who served
as a judge in Texas, and is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is whether the U.S.
Constitution will be followed by the President or not. That is the
issue. That is why we have this unusual situation, where the House of
Representatives, by this resolution, is joining in on a legal action to
let that be resolved by the judiciary branch of government.
It all started in November of 2014, when the Department of Homeland
Security wrote out a memo and sent it out to the fruited plain and said
that the Department of Homeland Security would no longer enforce U.S.
immigration law.
The Department of Homeland Security is a branch, a portion of the
administration.
This unprecedented, unilateral action by the executive branch was a
nullification of immigration law of the United States. And it was not
done by Congress. It was done by administrative edict that came from
the White House.
Article I, section 8, clause 4 states that Congress--that is us--has
the power ``to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'' in the
United States.
So what value is the law or the Constitution if the executive, who is
supposed to enforce the law--not make it, as we all learned in ninth
grade civics--sends out a memo saying it will no longer enforce the
law?
The law of the land is repealed by the administrative pen because the
President doesn't like the law, as written.
Repealing a law is supposed to be a legislative action--that is
Congress--and is not supposed to be an executive action; that is, if
the Constitution is followed, which it is not under these
circumstances.
This illegal executive action will place a burden on the States that
the action is taking place against, such as my home State of Texas,
where the amnesty proclamation by the executive branch, through its
memo, has been in effect.
The Federal Government is not going to pay for the benefits of these
5 million-plus folks. The States will be forced, required, and
obligated to pay for that.
So the States will pay for the driver's licenses, government
benefits, and health care benefits for these newly legalized
individuals. All of the money the State spends will be taken away from
the ability to provide services for U.S. citizens and residents who are
already legally in the U.S.
This action is in direct contravention of U.S. law. Texas, my State,
will be one of the hardest-hit. That is why the Governor of the State
of Texas was the first to file a lawsuit--this lawsuit--against the
unconstitutional action by the executive branch of government. And that
occurred in 2014.
The Constitution, to me, is very simple. It lays out an outline for
democracy. Congress makes the laws; the executive branch faithfully
executes the laws; and the judiciary resolves disputes between
government, other entities, and between the branches of government.
So, if U.S. immigration law is going to be changed, the Constitution
states that it should be changed by the U.S. Congress. That is us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. POE of Texas. Even if the Congress doesn't act, that doesn't give
the executive branch Burger King authority.
The Burger King philosophy is: the President wants it his way. He
can't have it his way. He has got to follow the Constitution. He is a
former constitutional law professor. He ought to know better.
That is what this lawsuit is about. That is why it is a
constitutional issue. And that is why we should join in with those
other Governors in filing this lawsuit with an amicus brief to support
the Constitution of the United States against executive memos from the
executive branch.
The executive branch should take care of the Constitution, not tear
up the Constitution.
That is just the way it is.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a great leader on the issue of uniting
families.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, we shouldn't even be here
today. This is partisan politics at its worst. And using the resources
of the Federal Government and the legislative branch of government to
promote a political agenda is just an affront to all Americans.
Why don't you just say it clearly? This is your: I want to deport 4
to 5 million people. I wish the majority would stop talking about the
Constitution and really talk about what it is they mean to achieve
here.
If you want to see people deported, why don't you all stand up and
say it? Be men and women of integrity and of your word and say: I want
4 to 5 million unprotected, and amend this to say, ``this is a mass
deportation for 4 to 5 million people.''
You keep saying that the candidates out there on the Presidential
trail do not represent your values, do not represent who you are
politically, and then you come back here and stoke the fire even more.
What you are demonstrating here is that you should be doing
immigration reform. What you are demonstrating here is your impotence
at being able to get it done. Why don't you just say that this is what
it is all about?
Because out on the campaign trail, on immigration, we get lots of
demagoguery from the majority. The debate has sunk to a level where
people are actually throwing punches, and worse.
Two refugees from Southeast Asia and a gentleman from Puerto Rico
were shot and murdered in front of their children in Milwaukee because
they didn't have the right accent in their voice.
{time} 1115
Two students, a Muslim and a Latino, were attacked by a man when they
encountered him beating a Black man in Kansas this week, and he turned
to them and shouted racist threats and said they should just go and
leave the country.
We have Go Back to Africa and Hitler salutes, and all of this is
becoming more and more what we expect, the reality we see in 2016.
And now the Republicans in the House are stoking the same anti-
immigrant fears and mass deportation fantasies some more. No, they are
not
[[Page H1437]]
leading. They are not calling for calmer rhetoric, let alone more
rational policies. They are playing politics with immigrants, plain and
simple. Shame on them.
If Republicans are so secure in the validity of their arguments, they
should write a brief and submit it, just like the 259 Democrats did
last week, without politicizing and using this august body to bring
about your partisan political hatred against immigrants.
The vote is a political stunt disguised as a legal brief. This is not
a legal brief. This is a political stunt. The Republican majority sees
a crass political opportunity to stand with the anti-immigrant wing of
their party.
I guess the Speaker thinks, hey, why play it straight when you can
force a purely political vote on immigration, designed to deepen the
partisan line and validate the very angry people who go around showing
their hatred, their bigotry, and their prejudice in the political
process in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I recognize that there are people in this body who are frustrated,
and I have engaged a number of those people very thoughtfully, and they
have tried to engage me, I think, thoughtfully.
But the essence of what today's argument is about is actually a legal
exercise because, in fact, the Federal District Court in southern
Texas, Judge Andy Hanen, looked at the law, and he, in a judicial
sense, heard evidence that would be presented from all of the some 25
States, as well as the Federal Government; and findings of facts and
conclusions of law, not upon hyper-political accusations or bombastic
comments that are made to attack another side, is what actually
prevailed in the case.
I am well aware that a number of our colleagues want to talk about
politics, politics, politics, and make accusations. This is about the
foundation of law, and it actually goes to direct words out of the
Constitution of the United States.
A Federal District Court is particularly in tune with those arguments
as they handle constitutional issues and questions, and the Court
clearly found in favor of these States. The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, in reviewing that case, came to that same conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I believe you will see that the Supreme Court will also
rule on the law, not upon political sound bites that come back and
forth from this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished
gentleman who, I believe, represents not only thought and balance, but
who is trying to work within the constitutional confines and the laws
of this country.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, without enforcement of the law, there cannot be
accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to
a functioning democracy. We in the House of Representatives who face
re-election every 2 years, under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded
of that more than others. And while there is at least one political
branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through
whatever means by which we can successfully avail ourselves.
When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has
appropriations and other powers over the President. But none of those
powers can be exercised if a sizable Senate minority controlled by the
President's own political party refuses to exercise them, or in the
absence of veto-proof majorities in both Houses. Nor would the exercise
of those powers solve the problem at hand because they would not
actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.
Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving
the problem at hand is to vote out of office a President who abuses his
power. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment
of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.
So today we consider a resolution to authorize the Speaker to file on
behalf of the House in litigation brought by a majority of the States
challenging the constitutionality of the President's unilateral
immigration amnesty program.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear that
constitutional challenge to the President's immigration plan, which the
people's legislative representatives never approved.
So far, a Federal judge in Texas has issued a preliminary injunction
in the case blocking the enforcement of the President's unilateral
immigration amnesty. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that
injunction.
Importantly, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and,
rather than limiting the issue the way President Obama requested, it
took the State's suggestion and requested briefing on the following
question: ``whether the President's action violates the Take Care
Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.''
That clause of the Constitution requires the President to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
The Founders would have expected Members of the House of
Representatives, known as the people's House for its most direct
connection to the will of the people, to aggressively guard their role
in the constitutional legislative process. The resolution before us
today will provide another means of doing just that.
The stakes of inaction are high. The lawsuit challenges the
President's failure to enforce key provisions of the immigration laws.
We should all support this resolution today as it aims to help
deliver a simple message: Congress writes the laws, under Article I,
section 1, the very first sentence of the United States Constitution.
We should all support this resolution today. Our own constitutionally
required oath to support the Constitution of the United States requires
no less.
What is required of the President of the United States is found in
Article II, section 3, which says, ``he shall take care that the laws
be faithfully executed.'' That is the issue before us.
For the Court to pay attention to this institution's concern, the
Court requires that the Congress take a vote, and that is what we
should do today in order to let the Court know that this brief is not
just a collection of a group of Members; this is an actual vote of the
United States House of Representatives to ask the Court to consider our
very well-founded concerns and protect the people's House, protect the
people's rights under the Constitution, protect the Constitution
itself, and Article I, section 1, which said very simply, ``All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States.''
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of Latin used on the other side. But the
plain English is this vote is about ripping apart the families of my
constituents, Mr. Ramos, Ms. Garcia, countless others, millions across
the country. And this vote would weigh in from the House of
Representatives that the House of Representatives, those who vote for
this, want those families ripped apart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
So last week, 186 Members of this House and 39 Senators from the
Senate filed an amicus brief. We filed it before the Supreme Court in
this very case that is being discussed, United States v. Texas. But we
filed it without using taxpayer dollars. We filed it individually,
separately from our official duties.
The brief that we submitted supports the actions which President
Obama took because he is our Nation's chief executive and he has the
right to try to make our laws work as best as possible.
In the case of our immigration laws, everyone agrees that they are
broken, they are fractured, and it is a system that does not work
coherently. There are more than 4 million people who will be impacted
by the decision that the Supreme Court reaches in the case of United
States v. Texas. President
[[Page H1438]]
Obama took his actions exercising his authority under the Constitution
to execute and implement the laws of the land.
So here we are today. Speaker Ryan and my colleagues on the House
side, on the Republican side, will force this House to vote on a
resolution authorizing the House to file a similar type of amicus
brief, albeit in this case opposing the President's position in the
case of United States v. Texas.
But there is a big difference between the amicus brief that was filed
by 186 Members of this House and 39 Members in the Senate and what the
Republican majority in the House is intending to do today--a big
difference. They are looking to use taxpayer money to push forward
their political partisan agenda and their position in this case of
United States v. Texas; so they are injecting every American who pays
taxes into this fight, even though most Americans support a
comprehensive fix to our immigration system.
Why would we want to use taxpayer dollars to go litigate? These days
it seems that my Republican colleagues in Congress spend more time and
taxpayer money filing partisan lawsuits and legal briefs than working
to pass the country's must-do legislation. We have got a budget to do.
We should be passing jobs legislation, and, yes, we should be fixing a
broken immigration system by passing comprehensive immigration reform.
Congress doesn't need to file a legal brief lobbying the Supreme
Court to fix our broken laws. Most Americans know from their high
school civics classes that the Constitution vests the Congress with the
power to make or change any law without having to hope or wait for the
Supreme Court to bail out Congress for not doing its work.
In fact, today, Speaker Ryan said: ``The legislative branch of
government needs to be the branch making our laws, not the executive.''
He is absolutely right. So rather than doing legislation to file a
lawsuit, let's do our job, which is to make the laws.
This Republican Congress, unfortunately, is completely out of step
with the interests and expectations of the American people. It is time
to legislate, not to litigate.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the Republican message
today, one of our other senior Members who is a former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee now serves as the chairman of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee. He is a gentleman who has devoted himself and
his life to the rule of law, a gentleman who is in the thick of the
understanding of the immigration issue, being from San Antonio, Texas.
He has seen for a long time the need and the desire for not just
Congress to work with the executive branch, but the rule of law. He has
believed in that in his years of service to the Judiciary Committee. He
stands as a testament to his belief in constitutional law--including
Federal court and Supreme Court decisions--and how important they are.
I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman has, for a long
time, spoken with balance and credibility on the issue, not just to
rule of law, but also about this Nation and how we do treat those who
come to this country with dignity and respect.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith), the young chairman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the
chairman of the Rules Committee and my Texas colleague for yielding me
time and also for his very generous comments.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution authorizing the Speaker to
submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Texas-led
lawsuit challenging the President's amnesty policies.
It is critical that the House of Representatives defend the
Constitution, which specifically gives Congress, not the President, the
power to enact immigration laws.
Regrettably, the President's policies have ignored laws, undermined
laws, and changed immigration laws. The President's policies have led
to a surge of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants across our
borders, allowed unlawful immigrants to compete with unemployed
Americans for scarce jobs, and established sanctuary cities that
release dangerous criminal immigrants into our neighborhoods where many
go on to commit other crimes.
The House of Representatives must reinforce the rule of law and
protect the lives and livelihoods of the American people. Mr. Speaker,
that is why I support this resolution.
{time} 1130
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day to you. What a way
House Republicans have chosen to celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
Today we pay tribute to the contributions of generations of Irish
immigrants and their descendants to the fabric of America. Today we are
reminded that ours is truly a nation of immigrants--that immigrants
have truly made America more American with their optimism, their hope,
and their courage to come to America, and to make a future better for
their families. That is what America is all about, and that is what
immigrants have strengthened.
We have spent this entire week with our Irish friends celebrating the
heritage of immigrants in America. The Taoiseach--that would be the
Prime Minister of Ireland--was here in the Capitol earlier in the week.
He spoke about immigration last night at the dinner. In the letter that
was read by the Irish Ambassador from the Taoiseach, he talked about
immigration. Here on the floor of the House, we are talking about
immigration in a totally negative way.
Why would House Republicans want to spend St. Patrick's Day in this
insulting manner to Irish immigrants?
House Republicans have brought forward a resolution authorizing the
Speaker to file an anti-immigrant amicus brief with the Supreme Court,
but they won't tell the House or the American people what they are
planning to say in it. Given Republicans' past positions and rhetoric,
that raises serious questions:
Will the Republicans yet again call for tearing apart families?
Will they call for deporting DREAMers?
Will they yet again suggest a religious test for prospective
immigrants?
Will they ask the Court to explore ending birthright American
citizenship, as they did in their Immigration and Border Security
Subcommittee hearing?
Sadly, there is not much difference between the rhetoric of the
Republican candidate for President and House Republicans when it comes
to a record of appalling anti-immigrant statements--an agenda of
discrimination.
Furthermore, Republicans have denied House Democrats the opportunity
to have a meaningful vote on our alternative amicus brief in support of
the President's immigration executive actions, which we filed with the
Court last week, 225 House and Senate Democrats.
The fact is the President's immigration actions fall within the legal
and constitutional precedent established by every administration,
Republican and Democrat, since President Eisenhower.
The fact is the President has the right to take these administrative
actions under the law, and he also is following in the precedents of
former Presidents to do so.
I don't know if the Republicans were silent or didn't know what was
going on when President Reagan went further in his administrative
actions on immigration in terms of affecting a higher percentage of
immigrants than President Obama's actions have affected.
The President is acting because Congress has refused to act to pass
comprehensive immigration reform. Even when the Republicans in the
Senate had a bipartisan bill, it did not get the chance to have a vote
in this House. So the President has acted.
President Reagan, to his credit, acted even after Congress acted, and
he signed their bill into law, and then he said back to Congress that
you didn't go far enough to protect families. So he initiated, by
executive action, Family Fairness. That was carried on by President
George Herbert Walker Bush, and the spirit of all of that was carried
on by President George W. Bush, all of those, including President
Clinton in between and President Obama, were
[[Page H1439]]
strong, strong advocates for comprehensive immigration reform and
respecting the role that immigrants play as a consistent reinvigoration
of America.
So, by law, legal authority and by precedent, legal authority, the
President has the right to do this. If it was okay when President
Reagan did it and President George Herbert Walker Bush did it, why
isn't it okay when President Obama takes these same administration acts
and, as I said, affecting a smaller percentage of people than President
Reagan did?
So here we go. It is long past time for us to have comprehensive
immigration reform that honors our heritage and our history.
Immigration has always been the reinvigoration of America. Each wave of
immigrants brings their hopes, their aspirations, their faith, their
work ethic, and their determination to succeed to our shores.
Let us not tear families apart and deport young DREAMers and their
parents. Let us oppose this radical, narrow-minded, anti-immigrant
resolution. This St. Patrick's Day, let us recognize the immense
contributions that immigrants of all cultures and all creeds have made
to the past, to the present, and to the greatness of America.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, consistent with what we have seen for the last 8 years
by a White House and administration, so we see here on the floor of the
House of Representatives a denial of trying to follow the law but,
rather, to blame people, including using the word ``discriminatory''
and trying to attach that to a party.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, this issue is far different. This is based upon
rule of law. In the Federal District Court in the Southern District of
Texas, during the trial, there was a determination that was being
pushed about whether DACA would be characterized as an exercise of
prosecutorial discretion. In fact, when challenged, because this was a
claim that the administration made, that Federal district court
examined the operation of the DACA process, and despite the claim or
the reason why the President had this authority, that DACA was applied
on a case-by-case basis, the administration could not provide one piece
of evidence in the Federal district court, no examples of DACA
applicants who would meet the program's criteria.
Mr. Speaker, it does matter why you do something, how you do
something, and, if you are going to be a professional, how you sustain
that which you have done, in a Federal district court, when asked
directly to sustain what the assertions are, could not even sustain
their answers.
This is why we are talking about rule of law, Mr. Speaker, and to
come here and ascribe insults to a party, to a Presidential process, or
to a rule, a body that operates under rule of law, I believe misses the
point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Gowdy) in order to further this example of why Republicans are on
the floor at this time, and he will so adequately explain our case.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, the issue in this case actually implicates
the very existence of the House. The law is the reason we exist. We do
not exist to pass ideas or to pass suggestions. We make law with the
corresponding expectation that that law will be enforced, respected,
and executed.
We do so because the law is the thread that holds the tapestry of
this country together. It is the most unifying, equalizing force that
we have. It makes the rich respect the poor, and it allows the
powerless to challenge the powerful. Attempts to undermine the law, Mr.
Speaker, regardless of the motivation, are detrimental to the social
order.
In 2014, President Obama declared unilaterally that almost 5 million
unlawful immigrants would receive deferred action under some tortured
definition of ``prosecutorial discretion.''
I can't help but note the word ``discretion'' means sometimes you say
yes, and sometimes you say no. But, of course, the administration has
never said no. The Court found not a single time has the administration
said no. So that is not prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Speaker. That is
lawlessness.
You may like what the President did. I take it from some of the
speakers that they do, and you may actually wish what the President did
was actually law. You may wish--Mr. Speaker, you may wish that when
Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House for 2
years that they had lifted a finger to do a single, solitary thing
about what they are talking about this morning. You may wish that. You
may wish that all these grandiose policies that we are talking about
this morning on the other side, that they cared enough about them to
actually make law when they had a chance, but they did not.
They know now that one person doesn't make the law in a republic. You
may want to live in a country where one person makes the law, but that
would not be this country. You would have to look for another one.
The President knows this because, more than 20 times, Mr. Speaker, he
said he could not do the very thing that he eventually did. His power
didn't change. The law didn't change. The politics is all that changed.
We should have seen this coming, Mr. Speaker. He warned us. On this
very floor, he warned us that he didn't need the people's House. He
said he would do it with or without Congress. Many of you cheered when
he said that. Many of you cheered because you benefit from the
nonenforcement of the law today.
But tomorrow will be different. Tomorrow is coming, and tomorrow will
be different. Tomorrow you will cry out for the enforcement of the law.
Tomorrow you will want others to follow the law.
We are here, Mr. Speaker, because this administration violated one
law in its haste to allow others to violate yet another law. The
administration lost, and then they appealed. So here we are before the
Supreme Court.
For too long, Mr. Speaker, Congress has let the executive branch
engage in constitutional adverse possession. Today it is immigration.
Tomorrow it will be some other law. One day, I say to my friends on the
other side of the aisle, one day your party may not control the gears
of enforcement. One day a Republican President might decide that he or
she doesn't like a law and is going to ignore it and fail to enforce
it.
For more than two centuries, Mr. Speaker, the law has been more
important than any political issue. It has been more important than any
election, and it has been more important, frankly, than any one of us.
It binds us together, and it embodies the virtues that we cherish like
fairness, equality, justice, and mercy.
We symbolize our devotion to the law with this blindfolded woman
holding a set of scales and a sword. That blindfold keeps her focus on
the law. But I want you to understand this, Mr. Speaker: once that
blindfold slips off, it is gone forever. You can want to put it back
on, but it is gone forever, because once you weaken the law, good luck
putting it back together.
So once you decide that some laws are worth enforcing and some are
not, once you decide that some laws are worth following and others are
not, then you have weakened this thing we call the law, and you have
weakened it forever.
Let me just say this. I will say this, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't take
any courage to follow a law you like. That doesn't take any courage,
following a law you like? What takes courage, which makes us different,
is we follow laws even that we don't like, and then we strive to change
them--legally. That is the power and the fragility of the law. But once
it is abandoned, it is weakened in the eyes of those we expect to
follow it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes
Mr. GOWDY. I will say this, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, in the oath
of citizenship that we require new citizens to take--and I am sure the
Speaker already knows this, and perhaps some of my colleagues on the
other side may know this as well--but in that oath, it references the
law five separate times, five separate references to this thing we call
the law--in the very oath that we want new citizens to take, five times
in a single paragraph.
Mr. Speaker, good luck explaining why new citizens should follow the
law when those in power do not have to.
[[Page H1440]]
Good luck explaining the difference between anarchy and the wholesale
failure to enforce the law simply because you do not like it. Good luck
stopping the next President from ignoring a law that he or she does not
like.
If the President can pick and choose which laws he likes, then so can
the rest of us, and you have undermined the very thing that binds us
together. So be careful what you do today. Tomorrow is coming.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Castro).
{time} 1145
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, even 100 years ago,
if you asked somebody who was living in Asia or Latin America or Europe
where on Earth they would want to go if they were going to leave their
home country, the answer was very clearly the United States of America.
We proudly say, as Americans, that we are a Nation of immigrants, yet
throughout the generations, immigrants from different corners of the
world have encountered resentment and scapegoating here in our land.
Today we celebrate St. Patrick's Day for the Irish. When the Irish
came in the 1800s, they were greeted by signs that said ``No Irish need
apply'' in cities like New York and Boston. The Chinese, for many
decades, were excluded from admission into the United States. The
Japanese and Germans were interned through World War II.
There was an operation called ``Operation Wetback'' in the Eisenhower
administration that rounded up and deported thousands, if not over a
million, Mexicans and Mexican Americans back to Mexico.
The latest iteration of those politics, the latest attempt to relive
our worst mistakes started when a man--who may become President--called
Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.
There are times in our Nation's history when our politics become a
race to the bottom, and it takes people of good faith, of different
political stripes and beliefs, to stand up and put the brakes on it.
Sometimes we have, and sometimes we have fail to do that. But make no
mistake that we are in one of those eras now, and this resolution
represents just the beginning.
My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), about 45 minutes ago
referenced talk of mass deportations. That is not just talk. That is
coming from the leading Republican frontrunners for President.
Do you know what that means? That means that you are going to go pull
2- and 3- and 4-year-old kids out of homes, from their parents
forcibly, and send them out of here. It means that you are going to
take parents and drag them away from their kids, leaving them alone.
I know that there are people of very good faith who disagree with
Democrats on this issue. In fact, many have spoken today, and I respect
their opinions. But I would ask all of us, as Americans, to ask
ourselves whether this represents the very best of our Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. The fact is we are a Nation of immigrants, we
have always been a Nation of immigrants, and we will always be a Nation
of immigrants. It is what has made us strong, it is what has made us
powerful around the world, it is what has earned us friends, and it is
what has made us the envy of the world.
All of us have to make sure, in governing, that 50 years from now,
when somebody in Europe or Latin America or Asia is asked where on
Earth they would want to move, if they were going to leaving their home
country, that the answer is still the United States of America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
And to my fellow Texan who is managing on the other side, the
chairman of the Rules Committee, it is a moment in history that we are
speaking of, and it is powerful to follow my fellow Texan on the moment
in history that we have.
Earlier today, I said that as my friends on the other side were
debating about the will of the House, I indicated that it is a divided
House, and that is not the will of the American people. It is evidenced
in the rules.
So to go and suggest that any brief that would wish to overcome, if
you will, the President's constitutional authority is bogus; it is not
true. If this was a consensus, the brief would be prepared, and all
Members would sign onto the brief. That is not the case.
As I come from Texas, let me say that much of what is being done is
out of fear. You don't understand it. You don't understand DREAMers.
We do in Texas. We have a State law that allows our DREAMers to go to
college, and they are making good. I see them in my office. And I know
their parents, of whom we are speaking about, because some of their
parents' children are, obviously, children who are citizens and who are
able then at a point in time to be able to be under the DACA and the
DAPA.
So let me reinforce the fact that the President has acted under
executive orders that squarely fall under the Take Care Clause, as
ensuring Presidential control over those who execute and enforce the
laws. You can rely on Arizona v. United States, Bowsher v. Synar,
Buckley v. Valeo, Printz v. United States, and Free Enterprise Fund v.
PCAOB.
The enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, properly may exercise their discretion to devise and
implement policies specific to laws they are charged with enforcing,
the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can
prioritize our Nation's resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are we to kick out children who are on their way to
success and then their parents?
And the reason why I want to dispel this myth of fear: These parents
are working. Maybe they are working in positions that others would not
have; maybe they are working alongside of fellow Americans. I don't
adhere to in any way to think of people displacing Americans looking
for jobs. That is not this issue.
A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion
exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial
matter--we have prioritized criminals and those who would do us harm.
But we are operating out of fear, just as was earlier said. When
someone who--the world does not know whether he is a Presidential
candidate or whether he is a spokesman for America--blocks and puts his
hand up to stop all Muslims from coming in. Who will be next? Would it
have been the Irish in the 1800s? Would it have been the Italians in
the 1900s?
America has to get back to reasonable lawmaking, pass a comprehensive
immigration reform bill, and make a difference.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying I don't want the next
victim of domestic violence to be thrown out.
Vote against this 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 regard to Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents
[[Page H1441]]
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 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 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 principal 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.
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 continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very eloquent comments
[[Page H1442]]
today. I was particularly taken by my colleague from South Carolina
(Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the committee, his passionate speech about
the rule of law. In fact, we all do agree about the importance of the
rule of law in American life and in the vitality of our country.
Unfortunately, the facts of this case have nothing to do with the
speech given by Mr. Gowdy.
On November 20, 2014, a number of memoranda were issued by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. One of them is titled: ``Policies for
the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.''
That was pursuant to the 2002 action of this Congress, creating the
Department of Homeland Security and directing the Secretary to
establish priorities for removal. And it is worth pointing out that
this memorandum has not been enjoined. Nobody sued to stop it. It is in
effect. Nobody has challenged its legality. It is what is happening
right now.
In fact, the only things that have been enjoined temporarily are the
DAPA, the relief for parents, and the expansion of relief for children.
My colleague, who I respect and like, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe), did mention that the deferred action provides benefits, health
care, and education. In fact, the deferred action provides no such
benefits. It is not a legal status. It is a deferral of deportation. It
is revocable at any time.
Here is what the memorandum establishing this said:
``This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or
pathway to citizenship. Only an act of Congress can confer these
rights. It remains within the authority of the executive branch,
however, to set forth policy for the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion and deferred action within the framework of existing law.
This memoranda is an exercise of that authority.''
In fact, the exercise of that authority is nothing new. We have
mentioned earlier that President Reagan deferred action on the
deportation of the wives and children of those who got relief through
the 1986 IRCA Act that Congress passed, despite the fact that Congress
told him not to do it, because he had the authority to do it.
We have also had instances where wives of American soldiers were
going to be deported. Do you know what? The President gave them
deferral from deportation because it was unconscionable to us that a
soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan would have his wife deported
while he is over in the battlefield.
We have private bills that we take up, egregious cases. Do you know
what? If we ask for a report from the Department about that bill, the
Department defers action on it. They defer deportation for the person
who is the subject of that bill.
We, on the committee, thank them for doing that. We know that they do
that, and we agree and like that they do that.
I mentioned earlier that the Congress, after Tiananmen Square, passed
a bill to prevent the deportation of Chinese students who had been
murdered, some of them, in Tiananmen Square. President Bush vetoed that
bill. Why did he veto it? He vetoed it so he could give deferred
deportation to the students because it was his position--and no one
challenged that--it was the President's authority to do that.
I want to raise another issue. My friend, the Chairman of the Rules
Committee, mentioned earlier this morning that the House had received a
request to brief this issue. I was very surprised by that. It was the
first I had heard of it. It is my understanding from the paper
submitted that what he was referring to was the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari, which was granted. This is what it says:
``In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties
are directed to brief and argue the following question--''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. LOFGREN. I know that Mr. Sessions is not a lawyer and I would not
suggest he intended to mislead this House. But the comment was, in
fact, misleading because that is not a requirement for the House to
brief that point. It is simply directed to the parties in the
litigation, which we are not.
This is about whether we deport kids or not, but it is also about
whether we engage in rhetoric that is injurious to the public because
it distorts the actual facts of this case.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has repeatedly and explicitly passed laws
delegating enforcement authority to the executive branch in the
immigration context.
Through DAPA and the expansion of DACA, the Secretary of Homeland
Security is simply enforcing these existing laws that have previously
been passed.
{time} 1200
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Words matter.
In talking about the families, like Ms. Garcia's from my district, we
really know that, especially during a campaign season or when there is
rhetoric on the floor, the words that those of us in elected office say
matter. I found that out firsthand as I talked to some of the families
in my district who have mixed status children who turn on to VTV and
see some of our national politicians rail against them.
I asked permission to use stories from some of our families here
today. In the past, it has always been very customary that they have
said, ``Yes. If it will help to share my story, please share it with
the American people. The American people will understand that I want to
be with my child. What is more family oriented than that?''
Those are the values of the people. Yet, when I asked over the last
few days and when my staff asked, there were many families who said no
to having their stories told on the House floor.
Why? Because major, national political figures, like Donald Trump,
are running for higher office and are trying to win votes by promising
that they will do everything in their power to break up families like
Ms. Garcia's. They promise to do everything in their power to rip apart
our communities at the core, to separate American children from one or
both parents. By any means necessary, they say, we will deport mothers
and fathers of American children.
We are better than that, Mr. Speaker. We are better than that. DAPA
and DACA are an enormous step forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
I find it so annoying that they argue this is Congress' job; yet the
very people arguing that it is Congress' job are the people who are
preventing Congress from doing its job. Thank goodness the President
used his executive authority, which already exists, to move forward in
prioritizing immigration cases just as President Reagan did, just as
President Bush did.
If those on the other side believe that Congress should solve this,
let them stop standing in the way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, four really quick points.
I would say to my friend from Colorado, through the Speaker, that one
reason Congress may not enact new laws is that we have absolutely zero
confidence they will actually be enforced. Maybe if this President
enforced current law, we would be more willing to embark on new ones.
Secondly, I think Judge Poe was right. I do think part of the opinion
deals with the conferring of benefits, but I would invite people to
read it for themselves.
Thirdly, on this issue of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Speaker, all
law enforcement agencies have limited resources, but they don't hold
press conferences ahead of time and announce ``you are not going to be
prosecuted or investigated if you just steal 'this' amount of money.
You are not going to be prosecuted or investigated if you just possess
'this' amount of controlled substances.'' This is not prosecutorial
discretion. This is a political decision to not enforce the law.
Lastly, I want to say--and she is my friend--I have great respect for
Ms.
[[Page H1443]]
Lofgren, and I am actually not including her in what I am getting ready
to say because I will bet you, in 2008, she was ready, Mr. Speaker, to
move on comprehensive immigration reform when nobody else was. From
2008 to 2010, when they had all the gears of government, they didn't
lift a finger Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, they did not lift a finger. So with all of
the ideas I hear my friends talking about, it just makes me wonder:
Where were you when you had the House? Where were you when you had the
Senate? Where were you when you had the White House? You had all three
of them, and you didn't do any of the things you are talking about
doing this morning.
In conclusion, yes, you are right. It is Congress' job to pass the
law. As soon as you show us that you are willing to enforce it, maybe
we will be willing to pass some new ones; but asking us to trust an
administration, Mr. Speaker, that is deciding, wholesale, certain
categories not to enforce, we may not be smart, but we are smarter than
that.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue about the
constitutional equilibrium. The House needs to speak up for itself, and
I applaud Speaker Ryan for doing exactly that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members, once again,
to please direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Colorado.
Where we were was doing a lot of business unlike we are doing now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
I say to my friends across the aisle, who are so passionate about
Congress having a role in this case: where was that enthusiasm when
Congress had ample opportunity to prevent this case by doing its job
and enacting real, bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform?
The only reason this case exists is that Congress did not do its job,
and then President Obama had no choice but to act in the limited
capacity that he could under the law. He acted within his legal
authority--something I am confident the Court will affirm. He acted
because it would have been inhumane not to do anything while families
were being torn apart by our broken immigration policies and this
Congress' failure to act.
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a comprehensive immigration
reform bill in June of 2013, and House Republicans did nothing for more
than 500 days before President Obama resorted to the power of his pen.
Now to authorize the Speaker to file an amicus brief opposing the
President's actions rather than acting through the office known as the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a break from the usual procedure by
which the House weighs in on a matter before the courts in which it may
have an interest.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. In other words, this is not regular order, as is so often
the cry of my Republican colleagues. This is regular disorder. I am a
member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. It was never brought to
us. We never considered it.
Mr. Speaker, we ought to oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
I say to my friends across the aisle, who are so passionate about
Congress having a role in this case--where was that enthusiasm when
Congress had ample opportunity to prevent this case by doing its job
and enacting real, bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform?
The only reason this case exists is Congress did not do its job.
And then President Obama had no choice but to act in the limited
capacity that he could under the law.
He acted within his legal authority--something I am confident the
court will affirm.
And he acted because it would have been inhumane not to do anything
while families were being torn apart by our broken immigration policies
and this congress failure to fix them.
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a comprehensive immigration
reform bill in June 2013, and House Republicans did nothing for more
than 500 days before President Obama resorted to the Power of his pen.
Now, to authorize the Speaker to file an amicus brief opposing the
President's actions, rather than acting through the office known as the
``Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,'' is a break from the usual
procedure by which the House weighs in on a matter before the courts in
which it may have an interest.
This amicus brief, which no one has even yet seen, reflects this
majority's policy of opposing the administration's legal, policy
determinations to help immigrant families after having earlier
abandoned its reponsibility to do so through statute.
I was proud to be one of 225 Democratic members of the House and
Senate to sign our own amicus brief last week supporting the
administration's position.
I'm also among the Democratic members of the House proud to cosponsor
a reslution today in support of the President's executive actions and
offering our amicus brief as an alternative to the one Republicans are
putting forward to represent the views of the House.
And I will continue to work toward the goal of comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that offers an earned pathway to
citizenship, keeps families together, and makes it easier to recruit
and retain talented innovators and entrepreneurs from abroad to
contribute to our economy and create jobs here in America.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time remains on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This discussion is about my constituents, Mr. Ramos and his family.
It is about keeping them together. As Mr. Gowdy says, it is about
Congress not doing its job, Democrats and Republicans. In the absence
of Congress doing its job, thank goodness this President or any
President has used his executive authority that exists under the law,
most recently in the form of DAPA and DACA, to provide some certainty
to Mr. Ramos and his family so that his American kids come home from
school to a loving family and so that those 12 jobs Mr. Ramos and his
wife have created in our community are protected and preserved and
their business is given every ability to expand.
Rather than doing the right thing by debating how to fix our broken
immigration system, this Chamber is working, once again, to undermine
the only significant progress that has been achieved in recent years.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to support the
families of Ms. Garcia, of Mr. Ramos, and of so many others who are
scared to be named, and to reject this approach we see today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I believe what
happened up in the Rules Committee was going through regular order--
regular order to hear the original jurisdiction and regular order as we
were discussing, debating, and voting on the rule. Going through
regular order here on the floor of the House of Representatives is
important, and I appreciate the American people and the Speaker in
understanding what we are attempting to accomplish.
I also reiterate that this resolution is not about policy. It is
about the law. It is about the Constitution of the United States. It is
about the fabric of our democracy and the checks and balances which are
demanded by every single Member of not only this House of
Representatives, but also by the American people. It is about our
American Constitution.
The House, I believe, must speak, will speak, and will defend its
Article I legislative powers on behalf of the American people. Today
you have watched Republicans argue thoughtfully and carefully on behalf
of this, and I urge my colleagues to join me and the Speaker in support
of this important resolution.
While we have consulted with the Committee on Ethics and been advised
that this
[[Page H1444]]
resolution complies with its guidance in the House Ethics Manual,
section 3 of the resolution provides further authorization for the
Speaker to accept pro bono assistance so there is no question as to its
propriety.
Mr. Speaker, the relevant portion of the House Ethics Manual states:
``[A]s detailed below, Members and staff may accept pro
bono legal assistance for certain purposes without Committee
permission.
``As to pro bono legal assistance, a Member, officer, or
employee may accept such assistance without limit for the
following purposes:
``To file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a
Member of Congress;''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my
support for the President's executive actions on immigration to expand
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the
creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.
Soon, the Supreme Court will consider U.S. v. Texas, the case
concerning President Obama's executive actions on immigration to extend
temporary relief from deportation for undocumented immigrants who
arrived in the U.S. when they were children and eligible parents of
American citizens or legal permanent residents. These crucial programs
have been halted as this litigation continues and our families, our
businesses, and our economy hang in the balance.
Today, the House Republicans brought a polarizing resolution to the
floor authorizing the Speaker to file an anti-immigrant amicus brief
with the Supreme Court opposing these executive actions. I am
disappointed that House Republicans are attempting to block the
President's executive actions on immigration from taking effect.
The President acted to keep hard-working immigrant families together
and to ensure that DREAMERS can continue to live in the only country
they've ever known. As co-chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus'
Immigration Task Force, I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will
recognize the legality and importance of President Obama's executive
actions for our immigrant families. We compromise our nation's family
values when we tear apart families and instill fear and mistrust among
communities.
With so much at stake, we can't rely on the courts to correct this
injustice. America deserves a fair and just immigration system, and our
hard-working immigrant families have waited long enough. It's time for
Congress to do its job and pass comprehensive immigration reform
immediately.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H. Res. 639, a misguided resolution forced on all Members
of the House of Representatives in an attempt to block President
Obama's execution action on immigration. This is yet another partisan
effort by House Republicans to tear families apart and separate
children from their parents.
This amicus brief that Speaker Ryan will file on behalf of the entire
House of Representatives not only goes against well-established
Constitutional precedents but also against our economic interest. The
Congressional Budget Office and numerous other researchers have found
that immigration raises average wages for U.S. born workers and grows
our economy by billions of dollars. In my State of California alone,
the President's Executive action will generate 130,000 jobs and lift
40,000 Californian children out of poverty.
The actions taken by the President on the subject of immigration are
within authority of the executive branch. I am proud to join 186 of my
House colleagues in support of the President's immigration executive
actions.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House
Resolution 639, which would allow the Speaker to file an amicus brief
on behalf of the entire House of Representatives in United States v.
Texas.
This case deals with critical executive actions implementing
immigration initiatives that will strengthen our communities, protect
the dignity of families, enhance public safety and national security,
raise average wages for U.S.-born workers, and grow our economy by tens
of billions of dollars.
Unfortunately, the majority opposes these initiatives and now seeks
to influence this pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
I oppose this resolution for several reasons.
First, it is entirely unnecessary. Earlier this month, 185 of my
colleagues and I filed an amicus brief in this case with the Supreme
Court.
And other individual Members of this body are already free to file
their own amicus briefs as well.
The Speaker, however, has chosen to expend legislative time on this
measure instead of focusing on what Americans truly care about.
Americans are worried about jobs, about overwhelming student loan debt,
and in my State, the safety of the drinking water.
Another problem with this resolution is that it authorizes the filing
of an amicus brief on behalf of the entire House of Representatives in
United States v. Texas when in fact it would not reflect the views of
the entire legislative body.
The amicus brief authorized pursuant to House Resolution 639 would
represent the views of only the Republican majority.
The majority should not be able to bind the minority to this ill-
conceived and misleading undertaking.
Finally, we have already thoroughly debated the constitutionality of
the President's executive actions and it is clear that the Deferred
Action for Parents of Americans and expanded Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals immigration programs are lawful exercises of
executive discretion.
Presidents from both parties, including George H.W. Bush and Ronald
Regan, have routinely used similar deferred deportation policies to
promote family unity in our immigration system.
These programs are commonsense solutions to our broken immigration
system that has divided families for decades.
The Supreme Court is the proper venue to resolve this issue, and I am
confident the Court will find these actions consistent with the law and
the Constitution.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill conceived and
wasteful resolution.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this resolution. H. Res. 639 is an unprecedented measure by the House
Majority to make its opposition to deferred action the official policy
of the United States House of Representatives.
A resolution offering the full House to file an amicus has never been
done before. Last week, I proudly joined 222 congressional colleagues
in sending a amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of immigrant
communities and deferred action. House Republicans are welcome to do
the very same. However, to send a brief in the name of the full House
and the American people is unprecedented and unwarranted.
DAPA, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, and expanded DACA,
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, created by the President's 2014
Executive Order, would give over 5 million immigrants living in our
country today--including an estimated 182,000 immigrants living in
Harris County, Texas--the opportunity to no longer live in fear and a
shot at the American Dream.
The President's Executive Order that created DAPA and expands DACA is
entirely within the Department of Homeland Security's legal authority
to grant or deny applications for deferred action. Congress has
explicitly passed laws delegating broad immigration enforcement
authority to the Executive Branch.
There is a strong historical precedent for DAPA: During the
administrations of President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush,
deferred action was granted to hundreds of thousands of immigrants in
the 1980's and early 1990's.
All of this would be completely unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, if the
House Majority had stood with the American people in the last Congress
and passed comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, we will be voting
on an unprecedented resolution that has little, if anything, to do with
fixing our nation's broken immigration system and everything to do with
the political season.
I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many
of whom I have worked with for years and consider good friends, will
not allow the People's House, or their party, to adopt the anti-
immigrant views of Donald Trump. Mr. Trump's demagoguery and
fearmongering against immigrants who came to this country for a better
life--just like our forefathers and foremothers before us--must not be
allowed to become the sanctioned policy of Congress.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me and
vote against this needless and unprecedented resolution.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 639.
This bill would allow Speaker Ryan, on behalf of the House, to file an
amicus brief in the Supreme Court case on expanded Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). An amicus brief submitted by the
House of Representatives should convey the sentiments of the entire
House and not just those of the Republican party--a party whose
frontrunner in the presidential campaign has maligned our immigrant
communities with hateful and demeaning rhetoric. The Speaker and his
party do not speak for the whole House on this matter, and they
certainly do not speak for me.
I support the president's executive actions to expand DACA and
implement DAPA. Every president for more than fifty years, regardless
of party, has taken executive action on immigration, including
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. President Obama's
[[Page H1445]]
actions are a step forward in allowing more people to come out of the
shadows to participate more fully in our communities.
If Speaker Ryan and House Republicans are serious about reforming our
broken immigration system, they should not waste time and taxpayer
money on partisan political stunts. Instead, I call on the Speaker to
bring his caucus to the table to help negotiate a sensible, bipartisan
immigration reform package that will enhance our national security,
protect the dignity of families, grow our economy, and put millions of
immigrants on a path to citizenship.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express frustration and
disappointment in my Republican colleagues' obstinate and insulting
discussion about President Obama's Executive Action on Immigration. We
are a nation built on the shoulders of immigrants. For most of us, our
family trees will reflect a history with roots in other nations--making
us the sons and daughters of immigrants ourselves. It has become
profoundly clear, however, that many of us today have forgotten this.
The arguments being made on the House floor today not only
disrespect the legacy of the immigrants who helped shape this nation,
but it undermines the authorities we entrust to our nations President.
Simply put, the Executive Action taken to address the immigration
crisis in this country fall wholly and legally into his executive
authority. DACA and DAPA are necessary in approaching our immigration
policy in a compassionate and humane way. We are not prepared to rip
babies from the arms of their mothers and deport them. We do not
support destroying the families of hardworking men and women who came
here looking for a better life. We are better than that. America is
better than that.
We all recognize that the President is responsible for upholding and
executing the laws passed by this Congress. The actions taken on
immigration policy are not only legal but necessary, yet my friends on
the other side of the aisle appear to ignorantly and vehemently
disagree. So to them I ask, if this approach to immigration reform does
not sit well with you, why don't you instead do your job and bring
forward legislation on comprehensive immigration reform and let us vote
on it in this House? You've made it clear in this discussion today that
you understand that it is Congress' job to create immigration law and
yet, all I see is a Party content to sit on its hands and scream at the
administration for taking the action that they refuse to take
themselves. This nation is ready for comprehensive immigration reform.
Our constituents deserve answers, our hardworking immigrant families
deserve relief and our undocumented guests, who work tirelessly to
contribute to the economy of this country, deserve a clear and fair
pathway to citizenship.
I support comprehensive immigration reform. I do not support this
ill conceived resolution. I urge a no vote.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is taking up H. Res.
639, authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of
the House of Representatives in the matter of United States v. Texas
concerning the creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and the expansion of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I adamantly
oppose H. Res. 639. Congress needs to prioritize and pass comprehensive
immigration reform instead of wasting precious time with partisan,
backwards legislation like H. Res. 639.
For over a decade, Democrats and Republicans in both houses have been
trying to pass immigration reform. My colleagues and I have voted
repeatedly against Republican attempts to defund DACA and have signed a
discharge petition requesting a vote on comprehensive immigration
reform. Because Arizona is a border state, we have suffered from years
of federal inaction to fix our broken system. It's time for leadership
to stop trying to obstruct programs like DAPA and DACA, which are
keeping Arizona families together, and pass comprehensive immigration
reform to address border security in our state, offer a fair but tough
pathway to citizenship and provide an effective system to meet
Arizona's and the country's labor needs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 649, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 186, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 129]
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
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
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
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
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--186
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
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
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
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
Hanna
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)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
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
[[Page H1446]]
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Buchanan
Chaffetz
Comstock
Fincher
Frankel (FL)
Graves (MO)
Jordan
Kirkpatrick
Lieu, Ted
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Smith (WA)
{time} 1233
Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. WALORSKI changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 14; Tuesday,
March 15; Wednesday, March 16; and Thursday, March 17, 2016, I was on
medical leave while recovering from hip replacement surgery and unable
to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have
voted:
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 111 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass S. 2426).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 112 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H. Con. Res. 75, as amended).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 113 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H. Con Res. 121, as amended).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 114 (on ordering the previous question on
H. Res. 640).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 115 (on agreeing to the resolution H.
Res. 640).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 116 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 2081).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 117 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 3447, as amended).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 118 (on agreeing to the Pallone
Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 3797).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 119 (on agreeing to the Pallone
Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 3797).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 120 (on agreeing to the Bera Amendment
to H.R. 3797).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 121 (on agreeing to the Veasey Amendment
to H.R. 3797).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 122 (on the motion to recommit H.R.
3797, with instructions).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 123 (on passage of H.R. 3797).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 124 (on passage of H.R. 4596).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 125 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 4416).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 126 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 4434).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 127 (on ordering the previous question on
H. Res. 649).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 128 (on agreeing to the resolution H.
Res. 649).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 129 (on agreeing to the resolution H.
Res. 639).
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127, 128, 129, I was
unable to vote, as I was attending a funeral service for a close family
friend. Roll No. 127 was ordering the previous question; Roll No. 128
was H. Res. 649, providing for consideration of the resolution H. Res.
639, which authorizes the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf
of the House of Representatives in the matter of U.S., et al. v. Texas,
et al., No. 15-674; and Roll No. 129 was agreeing to that resolution,
H. Res. 639. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all
three rollcall votes.
____________________