[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.

                          ____________________