[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 112 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5308-H5316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3004, KATE'S LAW, AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 3, 2017, THROUGH JULY 10, 2017
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 415 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 415
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3004) to
amend section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to reentry of removed aliens. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from July
3, 2017, through July 10, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July, 2017.
Sec. 5. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 6, 2017, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2018.
Sec. 6. The Committee on Armed Services may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 6, 2017, file a report to
accompany H.R. 2810.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my dear friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation. This rule provides for consideration of
H.R. 3004, also known as Kate's Law.
It should be instructive, also, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that H.R.
3004 had a companion bill that we debated on the rule yesterday--not
voted on, we will vote on these today--that was a companion bill to
this that is a very important bill. These are both effective law
enforcement tools that need to be made available not only to protect
the people of the United States, but, in particular, people who live in
many of the jurisdictions that are being denied that support by
effective law enforcement because of political policies that are being
instructed by city councils and mayors across the country.
Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2015, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez shot and
killed Kate Steinle at Pier 14 in San Francisco, California, while she
was walking with her father. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez claims that he does not
fully recall the murder, as he took strong sleeping pills prior to the
incident.
Mr. Speaker, this senseless and cowardly murder should never have
happened. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez is and was an unlawful criminal alien who
had previously been deported five times from the United States of
America.
{time} 1230
He had numerous felony convictions in the United States of America,
including for the possession of heroin and the manufacturing of
narcotics in the United States of America.
Despite his lengthy history of criminal acts dating back to 1991, Mr.
Sanchez was able to illegally reenter the United States again and again
and again with minimal consequences, showcasing serious fault lines in
one of our systems of deterrence: our border.
For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and the spread of
dangerous sanctuary policies have failed the American people and cost
lives. The death of innocent Americans, such as Kate, Sarah Root, Grant
Roanebeck, and too many others across this country, is simply
unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. The American people have
had enough. And I believe Congress has heard from the people, and we
have heard enough and had enough.
The bottom line is we now have a President, Donald J. Trump, who not
only heard this same story as he went around the country running for
President, but had a different answer, because I assure you, the major
candidates running for President on the Republican and Democratic
ticket heard this same content. One person stepped up to the plate. He
is now our President: Donald J. Trump.
The American people are sick and tired of turning on their TVs or
radios or newspapers and seeing yet another senseless murder committed
by a previously deported criminal alien. Their deaths are especially
devastating since I believe they could have been prevented if our
immigration laws had been carefully enforced or we had, really, what I
call the national deterrent: the will to stop these senseless acts.
Kate's Law gets close to doing just that.
The underlying legislation that the House will be able to vote on in
this rule and in the legislation today enhances the current maximum
sentences for illegal reentry. The bill raises the maximum sentence for
criminal aliens who reenter the United States to between 10 and 25
years in Federal prison, depending upon the criminal's history.
For all those who are attempting to politicize this legislation--and,
yes, they are--I would encourage them to read the bill. Mr. Speaker, I
have that bill in front of me as we speak, and it is really not too
much of a lift. It is half of a page and four other pages.
Members of Congress do have time to read the bill. Members of
Congress do
[[Page H5309]]
have time to understand why we are here today. And it is more than just
that is just the way it is. It is, in fact, a reality that has become
all too known by every single American, and especially moms and dads,
moms and dads and uncles and grandparents who hurt when our children
are hurt.
So regardless of your position on general immigration reform, I would
hope that you would join us today, join us today in agreeing that we
should do everything we can to discourage murderers and criminal
aliens.
Disagreeing one way or another on immigration policy is not what this
is about. This is about where even there is the slightest potential
that there could be citizens who would be harmed, we need a second
look, a second opportunity, and a chance to address the issue.
The American people, I believe, need and deserve stronger deterrence
of those who have come here illegally and have already proven that they
are willing to break our Nation's most serious laws.
These are not huddled masses yearning to be free or families
attempting to come here for a better life. These are bad people, and we
call them criminals. They have violated the criminal conduct code here
in the United States of America. They are people who we know are
capable of terrible crimes, who, via their own criminal actions, have
made sure that they have taken away the right that others had and, in
doing so, have harmed the lives of our citizens.
The American people spoke clearly in November. President Donald J.
Trump understood that. This is a criminal matter; this is not a
politics issue; and the time of letting the worst criminals back in our
country over and over and over again must stop. The process begins
again today.
Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all of us mourn the death of Kate Steinle, tragically
shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Indeed, there isn't a parent
anywhere who doesn't worry constantly about the well-being and the
health and the safety of a child. And we all know, even though we may
not have lost our own, we have deep sympathy with those who do. But as
the Cato Institute has outlined, the legislation before us today would
not have prevented that tragedy.
As the Cato Institute has said, the alleged shooter ``did not end up
in San Francisco due to lax border security, and the case actually
shows the opposite. In recent years, Border Patrol caught him each time
he attempted to cross.''
He was only in the city because the U.S. Justice Department failed to
do its job, and that is why Cato has called this bill, ``a waste of
Federal resources.'' Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, that these are
the words of the Cato Institute, a group founded by the well-known
conservative Charles Koch. Cato could not have been more clear when
they said it this week: ``Kate's Law would not have helped Kate.''
Now, our country has listened as President Donald J. Trump called
Mexican immigrants ``criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.'' The public
has watched him promote the formation of a deportation force to tear
apart immigrants from their families and sign an executive order
directing Federal resources toward the construction of a wall along the
border between the U.S. and Mexico, where there is one mostly already
that has not done that much deterring, but that is despite the fact
that Federal spending on border security over the last few years has
been at the highest level that our country has ever seen. It seems the
majority has now taken a page from the President's playbook, apparently
trying to turn his dangerous rhetoric into law.
It is shameful that they are prioritizing a bill that is completely
unnecessary, since current law already imposes adequately severe
penalties for illegal reentry, including enhanced penalties for
criminal offenses. It is already covered, Mr. Speaker, but we do have
something we need to fill the afternoon since the health bill failed.
All the while, the majority is ignoring the many, many, many major
issues facing the Nation today.
Now, I know, and we all know, that the bill wasn't the only thing
they were hoping to ram through here before we adjourned for the
district work period. They also hoped to pass their healthcare repeal
bill so quickly before leaving town that the American people wouldn't
notice; but, frankly, even as I say that, they have noticed, as I
understand now, that the approval rating for that bill is 12 percent.
They have noticed. I think what they have noticed is that they are
going to kill Medicaid.
The reason they wanted to do this in a hurry, repeal healthcare
first, was in order to fulfill their tax bill promise of corporate tax
cuts as well as tax cuts for the richest people in the United States.
They wanted to take from the health bill, the expanded Medicare money,
$80 billion to pay for tax cuts. The devastation that that would
create, I think most American people understand it.
If they have a loved one in a nursing home, that means that, since 64
percent of the cost of nursing care is borne by Medicaid, that they
would very likely have to bring the person home.
It means that 22 million people would lose their health insurance.
You know, we just say that, ``22 million people.'' Let me put that
number in some perspective. That number, 22 million, is more than the
population of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming
combined. That is pretty impressive, isn't it?
In February, our President Trump said: ``Nobody knew healthcare could
be so complicated.'' Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, those of us
on our side who worked for more than a year to craft the Affordable
Care Act knew that very well. I was chair of the Rules Committee at the
time, and just the Rules Committee heard from 46 different Members of
Congress over the course of three meetings which, together, lasted more
than 20 hours, one of them a full Saturday of hearings.
So, together with the work done by the other committees of
jurisdiction, the healthcare reform law received such a thorough
vetting--and I want to get this on the record because I hear all the
time it was written behind closed doors and strange people and nobody
knew what it was and that we were all surprised. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
Bill Kristol proclaimed on FOX News: ``This is the most thoroughly
debated piece of legislation in my memory in Washington.''
I feel like I need to say that again, but I won't take the time, but
how important it is. But those of us who were there knew it. We knew
how many committee meetings were held on this legislation.
On the bill you are talking about from your side, the majority side,
not a single committee has heard it. I wager that the vast majority of
the Republicans--who deserve to see it--have not even seen that bill,
and that is a tragedy. We do not operate the United States of America
that way.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison between the open, the
transparent, and lengthy process that we went through to craft the
Affordable Care Act--which, by the way, was written by experts--and
what the majority is trying to do with this disastrous repeal bill.
And while I am at it, so many times when I was doing the rule on the
repeal bills--and, you know, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. We
know now that all those 7 years and those more than 60 votes that we
paid for while we are running the House, that all this time there was
no replacement. They still don't have a replacement. If that wasn't a
hoax on the American people, I don't know what was. But the process we
are seeing now is defined by backroom deals and secrecy and a complete
disregard for regular order.
And I understand that, between now and tomorrow afternoon, there will
be a lot of big deals changing hands so that we won't know next week
what is there anyway, but we wait to see the new CBO score and see what
that says.
Nearly every President since Theodore Roosevelt tried to enact
healthcare reform. That is a long time. Teddy Roosevelt tried it and
many
[[Page H5310]]
Presidents after him. But after decades of failed attempts and false
starts, President Obama, working with a Democratic Congress, was
finally able to deliver.
The majority should work with us again. We are willing to do that.
And what we would really like to see you do is take the ACA and the
problems that it has and let's work together and improve that law,
which has already been in effect now for a number of years, since 2014,
and we could just move ahead and get on with things that are terribly
important to us.
We wish that you would do that instead of trying to dismantle it. If
it were dismantled, it would disrupt the markets. It would harm the
sick and disproportionately impact those in nursing homes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock), a distinguished Member of this body.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, Kate's Law, the bill that this rule brings to the floor,
is very personal to the people of my district because of two other
names that we will never forget.
{time} 1245
On October 24, 2014, Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver
and Placer County Detective Michael Davis were brutally gunned down in
one of the most cold-blooded rampages in the history of either county.
It began when Deputy Oliver approached a car in a parking lot to ask
if he could help a couple who seemed to be lost. He was shot dead.
A bystander who was too slow turning over his car keys became the
next victim. Miraculously, he survived a gunshot wound to the head but
vividly remembers the smile on the gunman's face as he pulled the
trigger.
The next victim was Detective Michael Davis. His father, a Riverside
County Sheriff's deputy, had lost his life in the line of duty on the
very same day 26 years earlier.
These crimes should never have happened. Their assailant had
repeatedly entered this country illegally. While here, he had been
apprehended for committing other crimes and repeatedly deported, only
to easily recross the border without being challenged.
I have heard it said there is no evidence that illegal immigrants
commit crimes at any higher rate than the general population. Well,
that is just not true. It is true that crime statistics don't aggregate
by legal status. Some States, like California, no longer even report
the legal status of inmates. They can tell us by race, gender, age,
background, and jurisdiction who stole a car last year, but they won't
tell us how many illegal immigrants did.
By painstakingly piecing together all of the available fragmented
data in 2015, FOX News concluded that illegal immigrants are three
times more likely to be convicted of murder than the legal population.
According to this report, illegals account for 3.7 percent of the
population but are convicted of 13.6 percent of all crimes, including
12 percent of all murders, 20 percent of all kidnappings, and 16
percent of drug trafficking. Each year, 900,000 illegal immigrants are
arrested for crimes.
Citing the GAO, FOX reported that 55,000 illegal immigrants were in
Federal prison and 296,000 in State and local jails in 2011. The real
tragedy is that there should be zero crimes committed by illegal
immigrants because there should be zero illegal immigrants in this
country.
For 16 years, two Presidents--one Republican and one Democrat--
ignored their constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed. Well, thank God, we finally have a President
who takes that responsibility seriously.
This rule brings a bill to the floor that increases penalties for
those who return to our country after they have been deported. The
other to be debated today adds long-overdue sanctions to local
jurisdictions that refuse to protect their own citizens, and I rise in
strong support of that bill as well.
It is too late for Officers Davis and Oliver. It is too late for Kate
Steinle. It is too late for thousands of other Americans killed by
illegal immigrants. But perhaps it is just in time for your neighbor,
your family member, or yourself.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks the 2-year anniversary
of the death of Kate Steinle, which was a tragedy for her family and
for our entire community. My colleague from California has mentioned
the murder of Officers Davis and Oliver, something that shook our
northern California community.
These things are terrible, and I think we can agree that every Member
of this House objects to, mourns, and is tremendously distressed and
opposed to these criminal acts. But H.R. 3004 is not the solution to
prevent such tragedies.
The bill expands criminal sentences for illegal reentry offenses,
but, as has been mentioned by the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, the person charged in connection with Kate's death--I
believe he is, in fact, the murderer--spent over 16 years in Federal
prison. He was repeatedly deported. It didn't prevent his crime.
I think it is important to recall that we are not here writing bumper
stickers. We are here writing laws. So we need to examine what is the
current law and what is the proposal to change the current law.
The discussion I have heard seems to assume that there are no harsh
penalties in law for people who reenter without inspection. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Right now, there is a felony provision
for attempts to reenter. There are criminal penalties for reentry of
certain removed aliens. For example, if you are removed subsequent to a
conviction for a commission of three or more misdemeanors involving
drugs, crimes against a person, or both, or a felony, there is a 10-
year sentence. If you are removed subsequent to commission of an
aggravated felony, it is a 20-year sentence, and on and on.
What does the bill do? It, for example, changes the 20-year sentence
to a 25-year sentence. Well, you can argue whether that is wise or
unwise. I personally think whether it is 20 or 25 is not going to be
the major difference for a heinous criminal.
It also expands the definition of the misdemeanors that must be
committed to entail these tremendous penalties. Right now, I mentioned
it is penalties involving violence or drugs. This would just be garden-
variety misdemeanors. If you were driving without a license, if you
were loitering, that would count for the 10 years in Federal prison.
I don't think that those provisions are likely to make a material
difference in the kinds of crimes that we all abhor, but there is
something else that is in this bill that I think needs to be attended
to. The bill's sponsor claims this targets immigrants with criminal
convictions, but the reality is the bill mostly affects other people.
The bill, for the first time, would make it a criminal offense for an
individual who was previously denied admission or ordered removed to
seek to reenter the country legally, even if the individual has no
criminal history, no history of repeated reentries. The bill does this
by adding a definition to the term ``crosses the border'' that includes
those who enter the country in ``official restraint.''
This small change means it would be a felony for a person who has
been previously denied admission or previously removed to present
themselves at a port of entry to request asylum, parole, admission, or
another form of entry consistent with immigration laws. This is a
drastic departure from current law.
Under current law, an individual can be prosecuted for illegal entry
if they are trying to evade or intend to evade detection. If they are
trying to sneak in, they get caught, we charge them with a crime. An
individual who comes to a port of entry and voluntarily presents
herself to an immigration officer to ask permission to enter the
country legally has not committed a crime. This bill would change that.
Think about that for a minute. The bill makes it a crime to come to a
port of entry not with the intent to enter the U.S. illegally, but to
ask for a form of entry provided by the immigration laws.
[[Page H5311]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2
minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. In other words, this bill makes it a crime for someone
to try to reenter legally.
If you are a victim of human trafficking and come to a port of entry
to seek protection and, ultimately, a T visa, which the law allows, you
would commit a crime under this bill. If your U.S. citizen relative is
critically injured and you show up at the port to ask for humanitarian
parole so you can donate blood or an organ to your U.S. citizen
relative, you have committed a crime. In each of these cases, you can
be prosecuted and put in jail for up to 2 years, even if you ultimately
win your immigration case.
I also want to make a point about some of the other types of people
this bill would affect.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at least half of all the
individuals convicted of illegal entry under the current statute, which
is the most common Federal prosecution in law today, were coming to
reunite with their family in the United States. Half of them had at
least one child living in the U.S. Two-thirds of the offenders had
other family members--a spouse or others--they were trying to get back
to.
So, in addition to the people who are trying to enter legally, this
bill massively increases penalties on people who are trying to get back
to their families, many of whom are U.S. citizens.
The desperation of these broken families is a direct result of our
failed immigration policy. Hundreds of thousands of immigrant parents
have been deported over the years, leaving their U.S. citizen children
as orphans in the United States. These parents--and I understand it--
are trying to get back to their kids.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. LOFGREN. We may think that is a good thing or a bad thing, but we
don't think that it is a crime to love your child and want to get back
to that child.
The desperation that these families feel is a direct result of our
inability to create a top-to-bottom reform of our immigration laws that
allows families to be united, allows the economy to meet its needs,
allows the crops to be picked legally. We have created this problem by
failing to enforce our laws.
This bill doesn't solve the crime problem that we all care about. It
creates new problems. It is not the answer to the terrible offenses
that are at the name of it. In fact, those terrible crimes seem to me
to be merely an excuse to expand deportation for the many, many people
whose only offense is wanting to be near their families.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
the continuing work he does as the chairman of the Rules Committee. It
is very important work for this Nation and the House.
Mr. Speaker, there are some debates on this floor that are very
complicated. They hinge on technicalities and complex judgment calls.
You need to properly weigh all the data, all the studies, and all the
nuances.
But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that today's debate is not
complicated. This is not about nuance. The subject is not complex. This
is about answering a simple question: Is the purpose of our government
to protect the American people first, or is the purpose of our
government to protect felons who have entered our country illegally,
broken our laws, and threatened our people?
I wish this were an exaggeration, but American citizens have died
because some local governments have refused to uphold our laws. These
so-called sanctuary cities offer safety for illegal felons, but they do
so by putting our families, neighbors, and fellow Americans in danger.
The American people now look to their government and they are
uncertain. They elected people to represent them, but would those
Representatives rather protect felons here illegally or their fellow
citizens?
As far as this House is concerned, let us end the uncertainty today.
Our government should, and always will, put the safety of American
people first. Cities offering sanctuary for criminals will no longer be
ignored. Criminals who threaten our citizens and reenter our country
with no respect for our laws will be punished.
{time} 1300
Kate Steinle, an American citizen, a daughter, and a promising young
woman would be alive today if local governments did not act as a safe
haven for lawbreakers. Juan Lopez-Sanchez shot Kate after being
deported five times. He had seven felony convictions before he murdered
her.
After this crime, we asked the same questions the rest of America
did: How could this man be let free? Why was he in America in the first
place? How can cities across our Nation continue to shield such people
from the law?
In America, the Federal Government has little right to tell States
and localities how to conduct affairs properly left to them. But our
Federal Government has every right to demand that these governments
follow our just laws written in accordance with our Constitution. And
if they do not, if those cities protect criminals at the expense of
law-abiding Americans, they should not expect their fellow citizens to
help them through the Federal Government.
For those cities with laws designed to harbor immigrants who have
entered this country illegally, our legislation will prohibit those
laws, cut off Federal grant money, and allow the families who suffer as
a result of their foolishness the right to have their day in court.
And to the criminals: If you break our laws and ever return, justice
will come for you, and the penalty will be severe.
Mr. Speaker, being an American means something. We should never
forget that. If America is your home, you are a citizen. If you are
part of this national community, rest assured, the government is here
for you. The American people come first.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has more
speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have several more speakers.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
young gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions
for his continued leadership here in the House of Representatives, and
especially on this issue in the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill, which we are calling Kate's Law. Mr. Speaker, we are calling this
crackdown on illegal immigration and sanctuary city policies Kate's Law
after Kate Steinle.
For those of you who don't know the story of Kathryn ``Kate''
Steinle, she was a beautiful 32-year-old woman from northern California
who was murdered on the streets of San Francisco while walking on a
pier with her father 2 years ago this weekend. Murdered.
The alleged murderer, an illegal immigrant named Juan Francisco, had
seven felony convictions and had been deported from the United States
five times. Deported five times. Let that sink in. It is truly
unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.
Yet he was back in our country after maneuvering through the previous
administration's weak southern border and negligent immigration
enforcement. Then he lived in San Francisco due to that city's blatant
disregard for Federal law, a sanctuary city. San Francisco was no
sanctuary for Kate; no sanctuary for that beautiful 32-year-old woman.
If this story isn't a clear sign that our system is broken, I don't
know what is. We need Kate's Law to increase criminal penalties for
illegal felons like Juan Francisco who have been convicted for crimes,
deported, and then decided once again to illegally re-enter the United
States of America, a sovereign nation.
[[Page H5312]]
Kate's Law is straightforward, it is common sense, and it is the
right beginning to make our homeland safer and get smart about
immigration policy. It is time for us to make America safe again by
addressing the lack of enforcement of Federal law. Kate's Law is the
right answer.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte for introducing Kate's Law so we can crack
down on this kind of illegal behavior that so often means life or death
for American citizens. It is time to enforce the law.
The gentlewoman, a few minutes ago, was talking about the law. Well,
there are laws on the books that say it is illegal to enter this
country. There are laws on the books that prohibit these types of
sanctuary cities or sanctuary campuses as we are now seeing. I hope
Congress will cut off the funding to these cities. It is time to get
their attention, to enforce Federal law.
I am pleased the White House has vocalized their support for the
underlying bill should it reach President Trump's desk.
Now I call upon my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to
support the rule and the underlying bill. It is time again to make
America safe again and honor young women like Kate.
This should be a bipartisan issue. Respect for the rule of law and
protecting the American citizens is really that simple.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of bringing
jobs back home and removing barriers to job creation. But despite these
promises, President Trump's budget does the complete opposite. It cuts
job training programs by 39 percent, and its draconian spending cuts
would lead to massive job losses.
My colleagues will be happy to hear that I have an amendment that
will ensure that the President keeps his promise of bringing jobs back
home.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs
Home Act, H.R. 685.
H.R. 685 will close a tax loophole that rewards companies for moving
jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs
back to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, because I listened very carefully, I hope
that, while I am opposed to the rule, we are debating a bill, in my
estimation, to reinforce negative stereotypes about the immigrants.
I have listened to the response, perhaps, to that. Are you impugning
through the Chair the record of Democrats on fulfilling our oath of
office, the first part of which is to defend America from within and
from without?
That is the oath of office. As co-chairman of law enforcement in the
Congress of the United States for over 14 years, I am very close to the
law enforcement community.
I think we ought to hesitate a second before we start pointing
fingers. We are good at it, all of us, on both sides.
While we are doing that, most of our constituents are concerned about
how to defend middle class jobs and bolster our manufacturing base. The
majority of Americans agree that keeping U.S. jobs from moving overseas
should be a top priority. Yet, despite the empty promises made by this
President, the flow of jobs overseas has not stopped.
Mr. Speaker, the administration had awarded government contracts to
companies that continue to offshore jobs. This is worse than empty
words. These are the facts.
In fact, we use our tax money to help those corporations go offshore.
I hope that makes you feel really good.
In December, then-President-elect Trump told hundreds of workers at
the Carrier manufacturing plant in Indiana that he would save their
jobs. Six hundred union jobs from that plant are moving to Monterrey,
Mexico. This is happening despite Carrier receiving $7 million in tax
incentives from the State of Indiana to keep the plant open.
Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which
represents Carrier employees, said that the President ``lied his'' you
know what ``off.''
Layoffs at the company start July 20. We don't stop companies from
offshoring American jobs by holding rallies. We do it by making good
policy, an exercise this administration and this Congress has refused.
So what we haven't settled for--and we can't--is empty words and
pyrrhic victories while we undermine our values. If they want to change
that, my friends on the other side can start right now, and we will
help them.
Under current law, when companies move overseas, we give them a tax
break for the cost. That is unbelievable. We need to stop offshoring.
This Congress could defeat the previous question and bring up the Bring
Jobs Home Act. This bill eliminates the tax deduction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives a tax credit of up to 20
percent of the cost to U.S. businesses that bring jobs back to the
United States. The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax
credit.
Let's stop subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas, and start
bringing jobs back to our shores. In fact, we used it in the last
campaign as a reason why we have a problem with employment, because the
immigrants take these jobs. That has been an empty fact. No details. No
facts. No science.
Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than this. This is not a new
idea. President Obama and Congress raised the bill for years. The House
blocked it on the majority--on the other side.
Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads this bill in the Senate, where it
cleared a procedural vote 93-7.
I challenge you today to stop the small talk, put your money where
your mouth is, take up and pass this bill to stand for American
manufacturing and the workers here at home who need help.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the
Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to
upholding the law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that remarks
in debate may not engage in personalities toward the President of the
United States, including by repeating remarks made elsewhere that would
be improper if spoken in the Member's own words.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of
Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
This Saturday, July 1, marks 2 years since the tragic death of 32-
year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant
who had seven prior felony convictions and who had also been deported
five times.
{time} 1315
Kate's death is a clear reminder that we must do more to stop the
abuse of our immigration laws by criminals who repeatedly flaunt the
rule of law by illegally reentering the United States.
Kate's Law puts in place new guidelines for stiffer penalties for
criminal aliens who continue to reenter the United States illegally.
Kate's Law is desperately needed to protect the residents of the State
of Texas.
Nicodemo Coria-Gonzalez--who had been deported five times to Mexico
for crimes, including three DWIs--reentered the United States illegally
and was charged with committing multiple sexual assaults and kidnapped
a woman solely for the purpose of setting her on fire.
Current policy enables criminals to roam American streets--no matter
[[Page H5313]]
where they come from--with little fear of arrest and deportation.
Kate's Law imposes stronger consequences and is an important step in
restoring law and order. It will protect American lives.
Sadly, there are local and State officials in our great Nation who
put the interests of criminal aliens before the safety of American
citizens. These officials should take the time to meet with the
families of the many victims of these criminal aliens, like I have.
They will see the resulting tragedy of sanctuary city policies.
To rein in such States and localities, we need to pass the No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which will impose consequences on State
and local jurisdictions that ignore Federal immigration law by refusing
to work with Federal immigration officials to remove criminal aliens
from the United States.
In the first month of the Trump administration, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement issued over 3,000 detainers. These are orders for
local authorities to keep criminal aliens in custody for 48 hours to
enable ICE agents to come and get them for deportation. Remarkably, 206
of these detainers were declined by sanctuary city jurisdictions. In
other words, local authorities deliberately ignored ICE's detainer
request and released these dangerous individuals onto American streets.
These weren't just petty criminals, folks. Their crimes included
homicide, rape, assault, domestic violence, indecent exposure to a
minor, sex offenses against a minor, aggravated assault with a weapon,
vehicle theft, kidnapping, driving under the influence, hit and run,
and sexual assault.
Passing the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is common sense, as it
cuts off certain Federal Department of Justice grants to these
sanctuary cities. Our bill redirects these funds to States and
localities that are cooperating with Federal immigration authorities
and making America safer.
The message of this legislation is clear: American taxpayers are
tired of footing the bill for States and localities that threaten their
safety.
Criminal aliens with final deportation orders make up more than 50
percent of foreign-born inmates sitting in our prisons right now. Our
streets will be made safer by deporting these criminal aliens, rather
than letting them loose onto American streets.
Local law enforcement officials should work with Federal law
enforcement agencies to keep criminals out of our country and off of
these streets. This is why we must pass Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary
for Criminals Act to prevent other deaths like Kate Steinle's.
I am proud to support these two commonsense, law and order bills, and
strongly urge my House colleagues to vote in favor of them today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), one of the leading voices in Congress, not only on
this issue, but also issues of great importance and it's Americanism:
that our country is a great country, and that we live in the greatest
country in the world. There isn't one time that I am not around this
gentleman that he does not speak about American exceptionalism, the
rule of law, and the important attributes of our country that make us
world leaders.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reciprocate in a compliment to the
gentleman from Texas, who stands here and leads in this Congress every
day, and takes on a heavy load in the Rules Committee. A lot of times
those are late night meetings--maybe the rest of us have put our feet
up, not so much me, but some of the rest of us, Mr. Speaker--and Pete
Sessions is up there working away, keeping organization in this House,
and helping bring these things to the floor. We would not be here on
the floor today if we didn't have a Rules Committee to work with and
that cooperated.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for joining with me
on this and putting his name on top of this bill as chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, or we would be still stuck back in hearings and
markups.
This is a great week to be debating these immigration bills that are
here. A big reason for that is that this is a hold-their-feet-to-the-
fire week that many of us have joined, as the radio talk show hosts
that believe in secure borders, the rule of law, enforcing immigration
law, and building a wall come together at the Phoenix Park Hotel in
Washington, D.C. We talk about the rule of law and enforcing
immigration law. That has gone on now for a long time. I have joined in
most of those.
But, also, this is a week that the grieving families, who have lost a
loved one at the hands of a criminal alien in this country, have not
only come to this city and joined in the radio discussion that has
taken place at the Phoenix Park Hotel, but they also were invited out
to the White House to meet with the President yesterday, where there
were a number of these families that were there to be represented and
respected. I would say two-thirds to three-quarters of them are people
who I have worked with from nearly the beginning of the tragedy that
struck their family.
I am greatly respectful of the individuals who have had the courage
to step forward that President Trump has identified. I recall those
times when he asked some of these families--Jamiel Shaw, for example;
Michelle Root; Mary Ann Mendoza; and Sabine Durden, whose son Dominic
was killed by an illegal alien.
These families are families that have paid a huge price, but they
were strong enough and courageous enough to step up on the stage with
Presidential candidate Donald Trump and recount their stories to the
media, some of them to speak before the national convention and
reiterate these stories.
Just this morning, I heard Jamiel Shaw reiterate the story of the
murder of his son that took place within the sound of the gunshots of
the living room that Jamiel Shaw was sitting in. I have heard that now
for 9 years, but the pain has not gone out of his voice, Mr. Speaker.
We have some obligations here. And I heard it in the previous speaker:
Keep our people safe.
Well, of those who die at the hands of criminal aliens, illegal
aliens--anyone who is unlawfully present in America and perpetrates
violence against an American citizen, kills an American citizen, or
someone who is lawfully present in America--every one of those are
preventable crimes, 100 percent preventable crimes.
I would just direct the attention here, Mr. Speaker, of a tweet that
I had them pull down for me. I didn't know the date, but I saw the news
story about Kate Steinle. It says: ``Family devastated after woman
shot, killed in San Francisco.
``The family of a San Francisco woman who was killed in a seemingly
random act of violence is mourning her loss as police continue to
search for a . . . .''
And then it is lost in space--the article that I read.
But it must have been published on the 2nd of July--she was killed on
the 1st--of 2015. My tweet came up on the 3rd, the very next day. I
didn't stop to think about it. I didn't wait to see if it became a
national story that Bill O'Reilly would bring up. By the way, I thank
Bill O'Reilly. He helped a lot in getting us here today.
But here is a message I sent out, with a picture of Kate Steinle. It
says: ``100 percent preventable crime. Just enforce the law. This will
make you cry, too, and it happens every day.''
That is within only 142 characters, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a tweet regarding Sarah Root.
Sarah Root, 21, would be alive, living & loving life if
Obama had not violated his oath & ordered ICE to stand down.
Teen charged in Iowa woman's death may've fled the country
Authorities say a teenager who was at the wheel of a car
that was involved in a crash in Omaha last month that killed
an Iowa woman has missed a court hearing and may have fled
the count . . .
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, every day in this country, at the
hands of criminal aliens, people who are lawfully here are suffering,
and they are paying a huge price. There isn't a way that we quantify
loss to a crime. The crime victim is often out of the equation when it
comes to enforcing the law.
I sat in on a case where I was the subject of a severe property
rights crime. I listened to them announce the case,
[[Page H5314]]
the case of the State v.--I remember his name--Jason Martin Powell. It
occurred to me that I am not in this. My name isn't part of the
proceedings because we don't honor the victims enough.
Well, we are honoring them here today in a couple of pieces of
legislation that are coming down, and we are honoring the life of Kate
Steinle, and we are honoring the work of Jim Steinle, the rest of her
family, and all of those adults who came forward and put their necks on
the line for this.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe), a gentleman who my party prays for on a daily basis.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot. We hear every day about healthcare.
This is a healthcare bill. It is for the health of Americans, the
physical health of people, so that they have the right to good health,
health that is sometimes prevented by those people who are foreign
nationals that commit crimes in the U.S., go to prison, get deported,
go back, come back to the U.S., and commit another crime. It is a
healthcare bill. And I would hope that our friends on the other side
would vote for at least one healthcare bill this year, and this is that
bill.
The idea that a person could commit a crime in this country, get
deported, come back, commit more crimes back and forth across the
border, as we have heard, and continue to do it with lawlessness and
arrogance is nonsense because the law is not enforced.
Our cities talk about the immigrant communities that live there. I
live in Houston, Texas. This bill helps protect the immigrant
population. We have got MS-13 gangs, criminal gangs, who come to the
U.S. They set up shop in our immigrant communities, they terrorize
those communities, and they do it with lawlessness because they
believe, if they ever get caught, they will eventually be able to come
back into the United States and continue their wicked ways.
This bill helps prevent that. If cities do not want to protect their
immigrant communities, and law enforcement does not want to help
enforce the law, then those communities shouldn't get Federal funds for
law enforcement. That is what these two bills do.
So I would hope Members of Congress would understand the importance
that this bill deals with criminal aliens that run through the United
States committing crimes, get deported, and continue to come back. This
legislation helps us, all together, to protect the American health of
everybody--those people who live in big cities and those people who
live in small cities. It is a bill that protects the people who live in
the United States and makes them healthier because we make sure that
those people, who want us to be unhealthy by their criminal violent
acts, are not in the United States.
And that is just the way it is.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 38th closed rule allowing no amendments that
House Republicans have brought to the floor this year alone, and it is
only June. At this rate, the majority is well on its way to becoming
the most closed Congress in history.
Regular order seems to be a thing of the past under this leadership,
with bills coming to the House floor, as these two are, for a vote
without even going through the committee process. The immigration bills
we considered this week didn't even go through regular order. The
disastrous healthcare repeal bill, which would impact one-sixth of the
Nation's economy, didn't get a single hearing, and hardly anybody saw
it.
No experts were ever called to discuss its impacts, and it was jammed
through the Chamber last month without even a score from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its costs or its
impacts. The Senate has also completely bypassed the committee process.
I was proud to bring the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, to
the House floor in 2009, as chair of the Rules Committee. That process
couldn't have been more different.
Let me remind those watching today that the House held 79 bipartisan
hearings and markups on health insurance reform in 2009 and 2010.
During this time, House Members heard from 181 witnesses from both
sides of the aisle, considered 239 Democratic and Republican
amendments, and accepted 121 of them.
{time} 1330
That process was entirely different from what we go through today. In
fact, a lot of the Members of the House are really cut out of most of
the process. The idea of getting an amendment is really pretty rare.
The legislation we consider here should be able to withstand
scrutiny, but, more and more, the Nation's business is done in the
dark, or by a few people.
Let's get out of the back rooms, Mr. Speaker, and let legislators of
both parties do their job under an open process. That is what the
Speaker promised when he took the gavel, and it is what all the books
and Rules of the House of Representatives desire, and it is certainly
what the American people deserve.
Mr. Speaker, we should not consider a bill that would cost tens of
millions of people to lose health insurance, and not consider the anti-
immigration bills before us today.
So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the
rule, and the bill, and hope for better days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue today with the
gentlewoman, my friend, from New York, the ranking member of the
committee, not only for her professional conduct today, but also for
her day-to-day service to the Rules Committee as both she and I work
through these difficult issues that face our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today has a lot to do with two
bills that were taken out of a larger immigration bill. Yesterday, we
heard a debate on H.R. 3003, and today, on H.R. 3004. They are, in
sense, companion bills. Balancing acts is what I would refer to them
as, acts about addressing two very specific problems that are in our
country that are very interrelated.
These are law enforcement bills. Make no mistake about it. These are
not political. These are law enforcement bills. These are law
enforcement bills that are designed to make sure that we effectively
codify into Federal law the viewpoint that cities cannot harbor
criminals, rapists, murderers, or people who are robbing and killing
people as they choose--multiple times--and cities turning a blind eye
to not even recognize requests from other cities that might want these
people, but also from the Federal Government.
The second bill that we have got is one that says that what we are
going to do is not only not fund these cities that are sanctuary
cities, but we are going to deal more effectively with these criminals
in the system. That is Kate's Law.
Both of these bills, H.R. 3004 and H.R. 3003, effectively balance
each other because, as Members of Congress, we hear from people back
home, many times, not just families from people who are impacted, but
really citizens who are worried about our country dividing itself on
this issue of criminals.
Make no mistake about it, these are criminals. Make no mistake about
it, this is a law enforcement bill. Make no mistake about it, the
United States Congress needs to ensure that our cities and States
follow the laws, the Federal laws that we know have been, not only
cleared by Congress, but signed by the President of the United States.
They will be subject to review by the courts. We will be very pleased
to take that review also.
Because, in fact, what we are doing is protecting American citizens.
We are answering the call. And I would say, we are also making sure
that we support the President of the United States, President Trump,
who spoke very clearly on these issues, not only during the campaign,
but he was elected therein.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 415 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
[[Page H5315]]
Sec 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
685) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 685.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 339]
YEAS--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
[[Page H5316]]
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Cummings
Engel
Franks (AZ)
Gutierrez
Long
Napolitano
Scalise
Stivers
{time} 1357
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WALKER and WITTMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 191, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 340]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--191
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Cummings
Franks (AZ)
Long
Napolitano
Scalise
Stivers
{time} 1404
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
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
339 and No. 340 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of 3004.
I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 415--Rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3004--Kate's Law.
____________________