[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4236-H4244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, AMERICAN DREAM AND PROMISE ACT
OF 2019
Ms. SHALALA. Madam 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. 6) to
authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of
status of certain aliens, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 116-16, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) two hours 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 with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
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
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 415, providing for consideration of
H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, under a closed rule self-
executing a manager's amendment. The rule provides 2 hours of debate,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill in this rule, H.R.
6, the American Dream and Promise Act. I rise as the granddaughter of
immigrants.
This is a historic day in which we begin to shape immigration policy
that reflects American values. H.R. 6 offers a path to lawful permanent
residence status for Dreamers, TPS holders, and DED beneficiaries.
These are our neighbors, our friends, our schoolmates, our workers, and
our family. They make our communities stronger and fuller. They are
Americans in every way except under the law. We intend to correct that
omission today.
These immigrants are longtime residents of our country with deep
roots in the communities where they reside. For many of them, the
United States is the only country they have ever called home. It is
cruel and un-American that we have left members of our communities to
suffer uncertainty in this way.
With this bill, we keep families together and ensure that these
women, men, and children can continue contributing to the communities
we share. In my district, Florida's 27th, there are 11,400 residents
who are eligible for protection under H.R. 6. Approximately 8,200 are
Dreamers, and 3,400 are TPS or DED holders.
As I have long said, in my south Florida community, it doesn't matter
the color of your skin, the language you speak, whom you hold hands
with, your religion, or your country of origin. You are a Miamian if
you call our city home. Today, the House of Representatives will make
clear that you have every right to call yourselves Americans, too.
Madam Speaker, I proudly support this historic step forward towards a
more just America. Let's pass this rule and H.R. 6.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank Representative Shalala for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Madam Speaker, circumstances demand that we make substantial
improvements to our Nation's broken immigration system. My home State
of Arizona is at the forefront of a crisis on our Nation's southern
border, but the bill before us today offers no solutions and will
instead, I believe, exacerbate the problem.
I have represented the people of Arizona for over a decade. Last
Congress, I was honored when the people of Arizona's Eighth
Congressional District sent me to represent them here in Washington,
D.C.
[[Page H4237]]
For my constituents, as residents of a border State, fixing our
broken immigration system is a top priority. With Customs and Border
Patrol apprehending 4,500 people per day and, in April, over 100,000
people just in that month alone, it is critical to develop and
implement a solution immediately. As a member on the Homeland Security
Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration
and Citizenship, and the House Rules Committee, I stand ready to work
with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to develop real
solutions to our immigration crisis.
Unfortunately, with the bill and the rule before us today, it is
evident that the majority has no intention of advancing consensus
legislation to fix our broken immigration system. The bill advances a
series of what I believe are flawed policies.
As the bill worked its way through the committee process, the
majority denied reasonable amendments to improve the bill; and the rule
passed in a party-line vote--very partisan bill--by the Rules Committee
does not allow for amendments to be considered by this body as a whole
at all. It is a closed rule.
{time} 1300
Democrats have framed this bill as a solution for recipients of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, a laudable
goal.
In fact, last night in the Rules Committee, the chairman said it is
only designed for a small group of people, the DACA recipients. Well,
that is just not true.
In fact, the American people should know what this bill really does.
It provides green cards and, thus, a special path to citizenship to
millions of illegal aliens, whether they are current recipients of DACA
or not.
Unlike President Obama's executive order on DACA, this bill allows
people who have been living in the United States illegally for 40
years--decades--to get a special path to citizenship. That is not what
President Obama's DACA program did.
It places the interests of those who violated U.S. immigration laws
above the interests of those who have been waiting and waiting to enter
this country legally. It provides amnesty. It will only incentivize
further illegal immigration.
The American people should also know what this bill fails to do.
It does nothing to provide the men and women protecting our border
with the resources they need to keep our country safe. It does nothing
to fix the de facto system of catch and release. It does nothing to
remedy the crisis at our southern border. In fact, I believe it will
make it worse.
Finally, the American people should know the changes that my
Republican colleagues and I proposed to improve upon this bill, all of
which my Democratic colleagues rejected.
Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude aliens convicted of
misdemeanor firearms convictions from getting this special pathway.
Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude illegals convicted of a
misdemeanor DUI offense if the alien's conduct killed or injured
another person or if they had multiple DUIs.
What this means is, if there was an illegal immigrant who had a
misdemeanor DUI that severely injured someone, they are still welcomed
in under this plan.
Approximately half of the 158,000 people arrested by ICE in fiscal
year 2018, the illegal immigrants who were arrested, or about 81,000,
had been charged or convicted of driving under the influence. This bill
could reward people like this with a special pathway to citizenship.
Democrats also rejected an amendment to make gang members ineligible
for benefits under this bill.
Democrats also rejected an amendment to make fraud a ground for
ineligibility. In fact, I proposed an amendment that said, if they
fraudulently fill out the application form, or misrepresented
themselves as U.S. citizens in the past to get benefits, they would be
rejected. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues said no, welcome them
in.
Democrats rejected an amendment to remedy a confidentiality provision
that prevents information contained in an application from being used
for law enforcement purposes, thereby impeding law enforcement efforts.
To summarize, under this bill: Gun criminals are welcome. Drunk
drivers are welcome. Gang members are welcome. Fraudsters are welcome.
But law enforcement hands are tied.
From the bill's text and failure to adopt reasonable amendments, it
is clear that my Democratic colleagues do not value the integrity of
our immigration system or ensuring that criminals do not exploit
loopholes in their bill. At best, they are choosing to ignore the chaos
at the border and to ignore the perverse incentives of their policy of
wide-reaching amnesty. At worst, they are encouraging it.
Last Congress, Republicans voted for a DACA solution that enforces
the law and remedies our immigration system. Republicans recognized
that America is a nation of immigrants but also that the world has
changed since we put in place the immigration laws governing our
enforcement efforts along the southern border and that we need
immigration laws reformed.
That bill that Republicans proposed and I supported last year would
have addressed DACA by allowing DACA recipients to obtain legal status.
It would not have allowed for a special pathway to citizenship. It
would not have allowed them to jump in front of the line.
That Republican bill recognized that many DACA recipients entered
this country without legal documentation through no fault of their own
but that they were in the country and we needed a solution.
That Republican bill would have also secured our border, improved
enforcement, and addressed our need for skilled workers. It authorized
a border wall, mandated E-Verify, and increased visas for the skilled
workers we need most. It also eliminated the diversity visa lottery and
increased the credible fear standard to combat asylum fraud.
The bill offered reasonable immigration reform, but not one single
Democratic Member of Congress voted in favor of it. Instead, today, my
Democratic colleagues are advancing a bill that offers no reforms to
the legal immigration system, no border security, no solutions for the
humanitarian crisis that is happening each and every day at our border.
And it comes with a $35 billion price tag.
The crisis at our southern border is real and substantial, with
Customs and Border Protection apprehending an average of 4,500 people
per day on the southern border. Border Patrol facilities are beyond
capacity. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are full.
The number of people apprehended in the past 7 months has already
surpassed any year since 2009. At this rate, CBP will apprehend over
1.64 million people in just 1 year. That is more than the last recorded
official population of the city of Phoenix.
We must develop and implement a solution to the crisis at our
southern border immediately. Instead, we have before us a partisan bill
to provide amnesty to millions of people and incentivize countless more
to cross our border illegally.
This bill has no chance of being taken up by the U.S. Senate or
signed by the President.
The majority's inaction to the crisis at our southern border is
absolutely unacceptable. Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership
refused to even fund the extra funding for the humanitarian crisis that
would help the children and the migrants themselves.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of
H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, a product of
decades-long advocacy, grit, and compromise.
I am extremely proud to stand with Dreamers and recipients of
temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure. We are here
because of their hard work, as well as the steadfast determination of
immigrant rights groups, faith-based organizations, labor unions, civil
rights groups, business associations, and so many of my colleagues who
have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor today.
[[Page H4238]]
Our work has paid off. There is widespread, bipartisan support across
the country for protecting Dreamers and passing the American Dream and
Promise Act.
Just yesterday, over 100 business leaders urged us to vote in favor
of the bill, including household companies such as eBay, Hewlett-
Packard, IKEA, Chobani, and Levi Strauss. They support the bill because
the United States will benefit economically from its passage.
The Chamber of Commerce says that it supports the bill, and it may
make the vote on the American Dream and Promise Act a key vote.
Even now, more than 70 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies,
which generate $3 trillion in annual revenue, employ Dreamers. Even the
conservative Cato Institute found that allowing Dreamers to remain here
would add an extra $350 billion to our economy and an additional $90
billion in tax revenue.
On the other hand, failure to support lawful status for Dreamers will
directly undermine our competitiveness and subject them to permanent
exile. That makes no sense.
We have waited long enough. It is time for us to pass the American
Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives.
It was 2001 when the first iteration of the Dream Act was introduced.
Eighteen years later, we are finally poised to pass it.
We have seen the benefit of President Obama's DACA announcement, a
temporary initiative that allowed these young people to temporarily
work and to stay without looking over their shoulders. The courts have
kept us from seeing the destruction of DACA that President Trump had
ordered, even though polls show that almost 90 percent of Americans
support legal recognition for Dreamers.
Dreamers are Americans. All they lack is the paper to prove it. They
live in every one of our 50 States. Their families hail from every
region of the world. Their contributions are felt all across the
landscape of this country.
Among them are future industry leaders; nurses; doctors; chefs;
construction workers; teachers, including 5,000 teachers in California;
and care providers for our children and parents.
Dreamers are joined in their efforts by TPS and DED brethren. In the
same month that the administration announced the end of DACA, they also
announced the termination of TPS for six countries and, a few weeks
later, the termination of DED for Liberians, even though many of them
have been here for 30 years.
More than 400,000 nationals of seven countries now face exile from
the United States. The majority have lived here for at least 20 years,
building their lives, raising families that include more than a quarter
of a million U.S. citizen children.
The future for Dreamers and longtime TPS and DED recipients does not
have to be uncertain. We have the opportunity to pass the American
Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives today and, by
doing so, put those Dreamers and strivers on the path to legal
recognition.
Let's put partisan fights aside for the good of our Nation, for the
good of our economy and our communities. Approve this rule and, later
today, vote for the American Dream and Promise Act.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I want to give context to this before I
talk specifically about the idea of a closed rule here, which I oppose
so much.
First of all, there are about 690,000 in the DACA population, but
there is an estimate that there is another 1 to 1.2 million, though no
one really knows what that number is, who might have applied but chose
not to apply under the Obama-era DACA regulations.
We also have a significant population, post-2012, who have been
brought here. We had a surge in 2013 and a surge in 2014 of
unaccompanied minors. We have again seen a surge in the last few months
even. We don't know what the population looks like for this.
Another way to put this into context is this way: We have a million
people who have absconded from their court dates. That means they
haven't shown up. They got an order to appear, and they are not showing
up. We have another million with active removal orders.
That is 2 million people who are roaming the country. We don't know
who they are, where they are.
We brought in 1.2 million legal immigrants last year. That is a good
thing.
We are going to catch more than 1.2. We will apprehend more than 1.2
million illegal aliens coming across our border this year. These are
numbers that are almost unfathomable.
That population I just mentioned would be the second largest city in
the United States after New York City, more than Los Angeles itself.
{time} 1315
When we say that we are going to apprehend 1.2 million this year,
when one talks to Border Patrol agents, people who conduct censuses on
these things, they will say that we have no idea any longer what the
getaway number is. A year ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 2.
Four months ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 3. Today, they
will say that they have absolutely no idea.
Last week, in El Paso alone, one group of over 1,000 people were
apprehended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Arizona an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. BIGGS. A group of 1,000 was apprehended, and 2,200 came in
through El Paso, in 1 day alone, who were apprehended. We are averaging
about 4,500 apprehensions a day in this country.
What happened when this bill came to markup? Why is it, in my
opinion, a real problem that we have a closed rule here? The
Republicans offered a number of amendments. We pointed out issues that
we thought were of concern. We offered amendments to address those
issues, such as allowing repeat criminals and gang members to obtain
green cards. We offered amendments that would allow application
information regarding illegal status to be used for deportation. We
attempted to prevent fraudulent applications from being filed.
But none of these and a whole host of other amendments offered by
Republicans were accepted, even some that were just absolutely
rational, such as those with DUIs that resulted in an accident where
someone was seriously injured or even killed. They were not prevented
from obtaining this path of legalization.
Here we are today, and now they are saying no amendments can be
offered from either side of the aisle. I have essentially opposed every
closed rule since I came to Congress. I think it actually undermines
this process where we represent districts and come to try to offer
amendments. I have offered many amendments and had them all shut down,
quite frankly, whether by vote or in the Rules Committee.
But the reality is, I represent a district, and when the majority
closes a rule like this, it is preventing me from representing a border
State that has a great deal of difficulties because of the rampant
border crossings of illegal aliens.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill
and the rule that is presently before us.
As I do so, let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. We
have served for any number of years, and Congresswoman Lofgren has been
on the front lines of reason and trying to address the question of
comprehensive immigration reform.
Together, respectively, and parallel to each other, we have
introduced, over and over again, comprehensive immigration reform. We
have watched it be refuted and rebutted by those who really could have
helped us solve even the problem of the surge that we are seeing
crossing the border today.
Let me, as well, thank Madam Speaker, who has been engaged in a very
important way, and my friend and colleague Lucille Roybal-Allard, who
has clearly been leading on this issue and many others. Let me thank
the Judiciary Committee as well, where we came together as a team.
Let me reinforce what has been said over and over again, and that is
that Dreamers are Americans. Those who
[[Page H4239]]
are beneficiaries of TPS, they have been here 20 to 30 years because of
the difficulty of their home countries. They have, likewise, shown
themselves to love this country.
There was a period of time when Dreamers had joined in and went to
the Iraq war. They were not citizens, but they went there because they
loved this country so much. They came as a child, and they realized the
wonderment of this country.
It is important to convince those who believe that we are opening the
doors and that we are reckless. Let me be very clear. Besides the
Immigration and Nationality Act that is already in existence, there are
very clear parameters on dealing with people who are felons or a threat
to national security, individuals who have committed DUIs, those who
have misdemeanors. There are clear parameters of ensuring that the
Nation is protected. But, as well, there is dignity and human rights.
There is also the question of what investment in dollars you will
lose, what you will throw away, $460 billion from the national GDP over
the decade from 685,000 workers--in my own State, $8 billion annually
in the State GDP.
Immigrants are in the fabric of our society. We are immigrant and
nonimmigrant. All of us have come from that history. Mine is different,
having been brought here by, meaning those who are of African American
heritage, as slaves.
386,300 immigrants are eligible under the American Dream and Promise
Act, and 120,000 live in Harris County.
But this is the story that I want to tell and dwell on. A Dreamer
died trying to rescue Hurricane Harvey victims. That is Alonso Guillen,
who came to help those in the darkest moments of our region, during
Hurricane Harvey, the greatest and most significant disaster.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
courtesy.
He came from Lufkin, Texas. He loved Texas football and country
music. He had fundraisers for any manner of needs in his area.
When he saw the devastation and the people in water in Harris County,
and we were in 51 trillion gallons of water, he came, with a little
boat and a friend. He didn't ask whether they were immigrant or
nonimmigrant, Dreamer or non-Dreamer, what their background was. As
they were in the water, as they were on their rooftops, as they were
desperate without food, he came.
Tragically, his family had come to, ultimately, find him floating in
the water, when his boat had toppled and, we believe, had been impacted
by the wires in the water.
This is the face of Dreamers. This is the face of those who would
benefit from temporary protective status coming from Nepal, from El
Salvador, and from countries that are under major devastation.
Many times, there is crime in America, and I understand that. But
people don't imagine what it is to flee from the natural disasters that
these individuals have fled from, to have no relief from the
government, and to compound that with the violence that is going on,
knowing so much violence.
I stand here today to ask for rational thought. With a multitude of
organizations, I want to raise up one, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It
doesn't come lightly to this question. I would argue that, had we
passed comprehensive immigration reform 10 years ago, 15 years ago, the
question of surging across the border would not be an issue.
Let me also be clear that we have built barriers across the border
for more than a decade. I remember giving huge sums of money to ensure
it, in certain spaces.
What we are saying now is that that is not a sole solution. The
solution is regularizing individuals with the safeguards of this
legislation.
I would hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans,
understand that this Nation was built with the sweat and tears and love
of immigrants. Every American, except Native Americans, can point to
coming from somewhere else, no matter what condition they were in when
they came.
I ask our colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 6, because it
is the American thing to do.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary
and on Homeland Security, and a representative of a state on the
southern border, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate
of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the
underlying legislation.
The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to
U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and (2) current or potential
holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred
enforced departure (DED).
Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle
for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform
legislation.
Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a
central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have
co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and
introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act,
(H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.
Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned
legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided
in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility
requirements.
Madam Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the
American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds
of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the
better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams
and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.
And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic
DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the
United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized
while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane
Harvey in the Houston area.
That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are
talking when we speak of DREAMERS.
Madam Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains
provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.
Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains
provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains
general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).
Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to
the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows
and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American
community.
The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident
(CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status
and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who
entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency,
and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).
H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for
people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who
have three or more years of residency.
Madam Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the
bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the
average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the
average TPS- or DED-eligible person arrived in 1997.
Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, these
immigrants' and their families' futures in the United States--as well
as the fiscal and economic contributions they make--are at risk.
Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time
to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.
I am mindful also Madam Speaker that in addition to helping restore
America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the
legislation the House will pass also positions America to better
compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.
According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American
Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in
a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade
and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy
and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately
needed.
And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose
more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.
Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are
part of Texas's social fabric.
Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection
under the Dream
[[Page H4240]]
and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County.
These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those
family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.
Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill
arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.
TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for
protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States
since 1996.
Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in
Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.
Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute
$2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local
taxes each year.
Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power
in Texas and help power the national economy.
Madam Speaker, during general debate on H.R. 6, I will have more to
discuss about the salient features of this long overdue legislation
that fulfills the American promise that all of its residents who share
our values and respect for the Constitution and laws have an
opportunity to realize their dreams.
But in the limited time I have now, let me highlight some of the more
important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.
H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:
1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status
from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill
requirements;
2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief
but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from
school;
3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR)
status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational
tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or
immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');
4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to
obtain CPR status;
5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;
6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying
for CPR status;
7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional,
commercial, and business licenses;
8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential
from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR
status; and
9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility
requirements.
Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve
in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or
obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75
percent of the time in CPR.
Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier
for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and
establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work
study, services, and grants.
For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise
Act provides much needed relief.
First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and
those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years
from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of
continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the
last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2)
were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on
September 28, 2016.
This protection covers national of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea,
Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan
nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the
``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this
outcome.
Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and
admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA)
section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing
channels (e.g., a family-based petition).
Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an a individual
while an application is pending.
Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling
of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.
Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the
Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for
and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS
designation for certain nationals.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome
development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive
reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by
the American people.
Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House
has the will and is up to the challenge.
Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
Madam Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the
American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass
legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and
will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.
I urge all Members to support the rule governing debate of H.R. 6 and
the underlying bill.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a grandchild of legal
immigrants to this country.
We are debating whether or not to grant the greatest gift our Nation
has to offer, permanent residency and citizenship. We must get our
priorities straight.
While we are here in the middle of a humanitarian crisis on the
southern border, Democratic leadership is choosing to bring amnesty for
millions of illegal immigrants to a vote.
By choosing to ignore our current immigration laws, Democrats are
effectively inviting the mass migration of illegal immigrants across
our border States, including Arizona. If enacted, this would be the
largest amnesty in U.S. history. It would do nothing to enforce our
laws but, instead, reward lawbreakers.
This legislation grants smugglers and gang members with green cards
and a path to citizenship. It will simply serve to incentivize more
migrants to come to the United States illegally.
Congress should work with the administration in stopping the surge of
illegal immigration, not incentivizing more caravans.
My constituents have recently and repeatedly made it clear that
Arizona's Fourth Congressional District does not support amnesty.
This bill does not promise the American Dream but, rather, the
perpetration of a crisis. This crisis is doing real harm to Arizona and
all of America.
I encourage my colleagues not to vote for H.R. 6, which would only
serve to enable the humanitarian crisis on our southern border and does
nothing to close loopholes or even enforce existing law.
I find this legislation to be a disgrace. The American people deserve
better. It is time this Congress started putting American citizens
first.
It came as a closed rule. That shows you that it is bad process and
bad policy.
As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is quoted: ``In a
government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it
fails to observe the law scrupulously. . . . If the government becomes
a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to
become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.''
Do I need to say anything else?
I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation and vote ``no.''
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this is a bright day in the history of the
House. We are going to provide relief to people who are innocent.
We have the debate about immigration, no question about it. But we
are talking about children, infants, in some cases, who were brought
here through no decision of their own. They then went to school here,
began a career here, built a family here. In many cases, they served in
the military here and served as first responders.
This is finally an opportunity for those Dreamers to have legal
status, 2.5 million of them.
We are also going to provide temporary protected status to other law-
abiding people living and contributing here.
This is a big deal in Vermont. First, for the people, for those
affected, it is
[[Page H4241]]
relief. It is about time. Second, they are contributing to the economy
with the jobs that they perform and the taxes that they pay, about $3.5
million in Federal taxes and $2 million in State and local taxes.
One, in particular, is a student at the University of Vermont Medical
School, Juan Conde. He was brought here from Mexico when he was 9 years
old. His mom later died of cancer.
His goal in life is to help cancer victims. First, he got a master's
degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in molecular biology, doing research to
advance a cure for cancer. Now he is a student at the University of
Vermont Medical School, and he is dedicating his life to cancer
research and cancer treatment.
What a win it is for this country to have the services of this
bright, idealistic young man. This legislation is going to allow him to
have the security that we all need in order to be the best that we can
possibly be as a contributing member of society.
A confident nation welcomes people who are law-abiding citizens. Pass
this legislation overwhelmingly.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I have noticed a trend lately with the bills
that we are voting on. They all have attractive names: the Save the
Internet Act, the Equality Act, and now the thing that we are voting on
this week, the American Dream and Promise Act.
I rise in opposition to this bill because great titles don't equal
great policies. H.R. 6 doesn't really provide a legal pathway for the
DACA population. Instead, it gives green cards to, potentially,
millions of illegal aliens. There is no age limit, and the bill is so
broad that it prohibits DHS from using evidence found in Federal or
State gang databases as the reason to deny an application.
{time} 1330
The bill also does nothing to address the humanitarian crisis at our
southern border, absolutely nothing.
Madam Speaker, I visited the southern border earlier this year and I
saw the crisis firsthand. I talked with our Border Patrol agents, who
need Congress' help.
Many things are needed to fix our immigration system, but what isn't
needed is a political messaging bill that has no chance of passing the
Senate or being signed into law.
Madam Speaker, clever bill titles don't equal good policy, and good
intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. I swore an oath to
defend the rule of law, and that is what I will continue to do.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs.
Lesko) for her time and energy on this important issue. I thank my
colleagues who have been speaking on the floor.
Madam Speaker, I have got to say, this bill, like my colleague from
North Carolina just spoke of, is more of the same. It is more of the
same political theater that we see day in and day out in this body,
where we refuse to actually address the issues of the day.
We have 100,000 people pouring across the border of the United States
per month who are apprehended--100,000. And then I watch with complete
disbelief while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle dare to
complain about how children are being housed, about how people are
being housed when we don't have the facilities to do it, and they
literally refuse to bring forward legislation to fund dealing with the
problem.
I have never seen greater hypocrisy in this body, and that is saying
something pretty profound. I don't know how Members can look, with a
straight face, at the American people and say that this House is
actually addressing this concern legitimately.
The Democrats are bringing forward a bill, now, under the idea of
taking care of people who are here illegally--who, by the way, were
given status by the President of the United States previously,
illegally and unconstitutionally, as we proved in DAPA, which I was
proud to litigate on behalf of Texas along with Attorney General
Paxton, Solicitor General Scott Keller, where we won in the Fifth
Circuit. We were upheld in the Supreme Court for DAPA, the DACA class
was illegally and unconstitutionally granted status.
It matters what we do here; it matters what the government does; it
matters that we follow the rule of law; and it matters that we not look
at the American people and claim to be, in the false name of
compassion, concerned about the migrants coming here when we have open
borders that are exploiting these kids.
A little girl today is going to be raped on the journey coming up
through Mexico while we pretend to care. When are we going to do
something about it?
If we actually care about the people at the border right now, if we
actually care, why wouldn't we fund beds right now?
Why wouldn't we fund immigration judges right now?
Why wouldn't we fix asylum laws right now, not to prevent asylum, but
to match it up with the 88 percent who are found to be fraudulently
claiming asylum once they go through the process and immigration judges
look at it? Why wouldn't we fix that problem today?
Why are we empowering cartels to profit to the tune of $2 billion in
2018 by moving human beings across our border?
Why are we empowering 54 migrants being stashed in a stash house in
Houston, Texas, by the Reynosa faction of the Gulf Cartel while we do
nothing about it, when we can?
We are the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Why
don't we go to our southern border and address the problem rather than
engaging in the political theater of this ridiculous bill?
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 16 minutes remaining.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona
(Mrs. Lesko), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, you heard my colleague's passion from this microphone
just seconds ago.
Lest anyone thinks this is about money, this rule today combines two
bills: one, CBO estimates to cost $8 billion, not a penny for border
security; another, the CBO estimates to cost $26 billion, not a penny
for border security.
Lest anyone thinks this conversation today is about helping those
young people here under DACA protections, remember, the Republican
majority brought two bills to the floor last year that would do exactly
that, got not one Democratic vote on either one of them.
If anyone thinks this bill is about protecting folks who are trying
to strive for the American Dream, Madam Speaker, I would encourage you
to read from page 3 of the bill. It says:
This bill applies to an alien who is inadmissible or
deportable from the United States, and those aliens only.
I tell you that, Madam Speaker, because I represent a constituency
that is 25 percent first-generation Americans. I represent a
constituency that has played by the rules, done everything right, come
to this country legally. Their children are unprotected today, and this
bill does not one thing to protect those children. In order to qualify
for the protections in this bill, Madam Speaker, people had to have
come to America the wrong way.
If people came to America the right way and have been waiting in line
for 5 years or 10 years or, in the case of my constituents--and you
know this well, Madam Speaker--15 years, 20 years for a green card
while their children are aging out of the system, this bill does not
one thing to protect them. Only if people came the wrong way are there
protections in this system.
To be in the DACA program, people had to get here before 2007.
President Obama's crisis on the border came in 2014. This bill today
not only grandfathers all the DACA kids, it grandfathers all of those
kids. In the meantime, we have spent not one penny on border security.
[[Page H4242]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for
yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, we could be doing something together today. My friend,
the chairwoman of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, has a bill that has been cosponsored by
more than half of the Democrats and by more than half of the
Republicans that would go directly to this issue of folks who have been
standing in line for decades and cannot get a green card. We could be
bringing that bill today. It has not even gotten a hearing in the
committee or the subcommittee so far.
This is not beyond our control. The rabbi who prayed for us this
morning, Madam Speaker, said we can achieve the unachievable. We
absolutely can come together and do that. This is not a serious effort
to do that today, Madam Speaker, but it doesn't have to be the last
word.
If we defeat this rule, we can come back together with bills that
have been cosponsored by a majority of the Republicans, a majority of
the Democrats, and move forward on this issue together. I know that is
what the Speaker wants to do. I know that is what the chairwoman of the
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee wants to do. I know that is
what most of us in this Chamber want to do, and we can.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you know I am from the State of Arizona. Border
security and immigration has been the top issue for years now, not only
in my district, but the entire State of Arizona, because we see it
firsthand. We also see the DACA recipients. I mean, they are good kids,
going to school, and I applaud the good and great DACA recipients that
we have.
But what Representative Woodall says is true: Republicans offered two
bills to give legal status and one a pathway to citizenship to DACA
recipients, but this bill goes beyond DACA. It is like DACA on
steroids, because it will allow millions more people to get a special
pathway to citizenship in front of the line of other legal immigrants
who are trying to do it the legal way.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this is going
nowhere in the Senate and the President is not going to do this. I hope
at one point we are actually going to work together, because as
Representative Woodall said, on those two bills that we put forward
last year that would have solved the DACA problem, not one Democrat
voted for them.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Speaker
Pelosi for making the Dream and Promise Act one of the top 10
Democratic priorities for the people and the Judiciary Committee for
all their hard work on this bill.
As coauthor of H.R. 6, I rise in strong support of the rule and the
Dream and Promise Act. I will focus primarily on the Dream portion of
the bill.
Eighteen years ago, I was coauthor of the original DREAM Act, known
as the Student Adjustment Act. Today's vote on H.R. 6 is a major
milestone in a long fight to protect Dreamers who are part of the
fabric of our American society.
This bill eliminates the fear of deportation, which each day haunts
2.1 million Dreamers at school, at work, and as they care for their
families.
I represent 24,000 Dreamers, the largest number of Dreamers of any
congressional district. I think of these talented and patriotic
Dreamers and the barriers that they have overcome to build lives and
families in America, the only country they call home. I think of the
courage that they have shown by standing up and sharing their stories
of endurance, resourcefulness, sacrifice, and heartbreak.
Dreamers exemplify American values and what it means to pursue the
American Dream.
I think of Dreamers like Yasmin, who was raised in a mixed status
family and watched her father fight against a serious illness. This
experience inspired her to help others. She is now studying to be a
physician's assistant, serving patients like her father.
H.R. 6 will enable Dreamers like Yasmin to reach their full
potential, contribute to their community, and help ensure America is a
stronger and greater nation.
Dreamers like Yasmin are why Democrats, Republicans, and Independents
all support our Dreamers, as well as businesses, organized labor, faith
groups, educators, health professionals, and former Cabinet officials,
among others.
This broad and unprecedented coalition of support highlights the fact
that this is not a partisan issue. This is about who we are as
Americans and what is in the best interests of our country.
Just like generations of immigrants before them, these incredible
young people are vital to the well-being of our Nation. According to
the Center for American Progress, each year, Dreamers contribute $17.3
billion in Federal taxes and nearly $9.7 billion in State and local
taxes, and their households have $75 billion in buying power.
Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to lose the Dreamers' talents and
valuable contributions to our country. Let's make the dream a reality
once and for all. I call on my colleagues to pass the Dream and Promise
Act today.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has any
more speakers.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, again, Republicans, too, want to have a DACA solution
for the DACA recipients, but this bill isn't it, because it goes way
above the DACA recipients and basically lets millions more people in,
people who could be gang members, who have DUIs, and so on and so
forth.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide for additional consideration of H.R.
3056 authored by Representative Rogers.
Madam 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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
{time} 1345
Mrs. LESKO. H.R. 3056, the bill, provides $4.5 billion in funding to
address the immediate humanitarian crisis we have on the southern
border. It includes $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance, including
shelter capacity for unaccompanied children, care for children in
custody, and transportation for safe and efficient border processing
centers.
It also includes $1.1 billion for operational support, including
personnel, transportation, and resources to combat human trafficking
and drug trafficking--very serious issues.
It also includes $178 million for technology upgrades and law
enforcement pay adjustments to respond to this great influx of families
coming from Central America to our border.
The Democrats today are waiving all the rules to spend $35 billion on
their, I call, amnesty bill, but they have chosen to ignore the
humanitarian crisis that is happening right now on our southern border.
H.R. 3056 takes steps to resolve that problem.
Madam Speaker, in closing, it is critical that we develop and
implement a solution to the crisis at our southern border immediately.
I am from Arizona. There is a crisis at our border. Instead, H.R. 6 is
just another political messaging bill because my colleagues know it is
not going anywhere.
Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the
underlying message, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I wish to remind
them what the President said after terminating DACA and ending TPS for
hundreds of thousands of immigrants: ``It is now time for Congress to
act.'' And today, we are acting.
We are in the midst of the longest probationary period for
citizenship and
[[Page H4243]]
permanent status in American history. But today, we are finally
providing real solutions for Dreamers, TPS recipients, and DED
beneficiaries.
We are providing solutions for people like Maria Moreno, who came to
the United States as a child and is a constituent of mine. She is now a
22-year-old anthropology student at Florida International University
and currently working at HistoryMiami Museum.
She has spent her life focused on her education. Now, as she pursues
her career as an anthropologist, she continues to find ways to make
changes within her community. She is a tutor for local kids, empowering
them to find joy in learning.
To say that Maria is not worthy of permanent legal status is cruel
and unjust. She is just as American as you and I.
And Maria is just one of millions of Dreamers who cherishes the
American Dream. They work hard and believe in a country that has been
shamefully slow in recognizing their worth.
Despite all the hardship we have put them through, like the newcomers
before them, they still believe in our country's commitment to
opportunity and fairness.
Today, the Dreamers, Madam Speaker, are one step closer to getting
their dream. Today, the Dreamers, Madam Speaker, are one House closer
to getting their dream.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res.
415, a rule providing for House consideration of H.R. 6, the American
Dream and Promise Act of 2019.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 6 increases
the deficit by at least $30 billion over ten years. CBO indicates that
this is additional mandatory spending. Under current projections,
mandatory spending is set to increase from 69 percent to 78 percent of
the federal budget over the next decade. Adding to this already
unsustainable projected growth, mandatory spending threatens to crowd
out necessary spending on defense, homeland security, veterans,
infrastructure, public health, education, and other discretionary
priorities. Absent the waiver made by this rule, H.R. 6 would be
vulnerable to a PAYGO point of order.
The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6 waives all points of
order against the bill, including clause 10 of rule XXI, the House
PAYGO, or ``Pay-As-You-Go,'' rule, which requires any legislation
increasing the deficit to be offset with spending cuts or tax
increases.
Unsurprisingly, this rule was met with strong objections at the start
of the 116th Congress by many progressive lawmakers who viewed PAYGO as
an impediment to costly proposals such as the ``Green New Deal'' and
``Medicare-for-All,'' which is projected to cost at least $32 trillion
on top of what the federal government is already spending. After much
debate, the PAYGO rule was adopted by the new House majority on January
3, the first day of the 116th Congress. Immediately after this new
House rule was adopted, a number of stories circulated in the press
indicating that my colleagues in the Democratic Leadership intended to
waive the PAYGO rule any time they needed to. In a sign of more
division on that side of the aisle, Democrats introduced bills to
repeal the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, even though they had just voted
for PAYGO in the House rules package.
From a budget enforcement perspective, it's clear Democrats continue
to circumvent their own rules. l hope this waiver does not continue the
practice that the House PAYGO rule will be waived by the House Rules
Committee whenever a bill is non-compliant, feels inconvenient, or
stands in the way of advancing their costly agenda.
I oppose the rule for H.R. 6, since it enables a fiscally
irresponsible bill to move forward without following House rules.
Budget enforcement should be an important priority of the House Budget
Committee. I hope the House will limit the extent to which future
legislation increases already unsustainable budget deficits.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 415
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution,
the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3056) to provide supplemental appropriations relating to
border security, and for other purposes. 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 Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during
consideration of the bill. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3056.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam 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.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam 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, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Agreeing to House Resolution 415, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 235]
YEAS--228
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Yarmuth
NAYS--192
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
[[Page H4244]]
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Clyburn
Green (TN)
Hastings
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
LaMalfa
Mullin
Omar
Reed
Sherman
Swalwell (CA)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1416
Messrs. JOYCE of Ohio and RUTHERFORD changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LAMALFA. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 235.
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.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 203, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 236]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Malinowski
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peters
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--10
Clyburn
Green (TN)
Hastings
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Mullin
Omar
Sherman
Swalwell (CA)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1426
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.
____________________