[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.

                          ____________________