[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14013-14020]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO DEFERRED ACTION FOR ALIENS

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 710, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit certain actions with respect to 
deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the United States, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the 
amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-571 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5272

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD 
                   ARRIVALS; RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT 
                   AUTHORIZATION FOR ALIENS NOT IN LAWFUL STATUS.

       No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may 
     use Federal funding or resources after July 30, 2014--
       (1) to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied 
     application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred 
     action for childhood arrivals, as authorized by Executive 
     memorandum dated June 15, 2012 and effective on August 15, 
     2012 (or by any other succeeding Executive memorandum or 
     policy authorizing a similar program);
       (2) to newly authorize deferred action for any class of 
     aliens not lawfully present in the United States; or
       (3) to authorize any alien to work in the United States if 
     such alien--
       (A) was not lawfully admitted into the United States in 
     compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.); and
       (B) is not in lawful status in the United States on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5272.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 prohibits Federal funding or resources from 
being used to adjudicate any application for the President's Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program; and it prohibits the 
President from issuing employment authorization documents to unlawful 
immigrants in the United States.
  This bill differs from the bill the House was set to consider 
yesterday in that it prohibits funds from being used for adjudication. 
The prior version of this bill was a simple prohibition on the 
President's actions.

                              {time}  2045

  According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon 
Rodriguez, the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
program has already allowed over 714,000 unlawful immigrants, who 
claimed to have arrived as minors, to remain in the United States and 
seek employment. DACA is a major reason for the unprecedented influx of 
minors and family units along our southern borders.
  This deferred action program was announced by the President and the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
  It is a usurpation of the plenary authority over immigration law that 
article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution 
confers on the legislative branch.
  And the President knows that it is a usurpation of congressional 
authority. In fact, in March of 2011, he stated: ``With respect to the 
notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, 
that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that 
Congress has passed. The executive branch's job is to enforce and 
implement those laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress 
that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration 
system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore these 
congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as 
President.''
  Despite this admission, just over a year later, the President 
implemented the DACA program. And today it stands as a beacon for any 
unlawful immigrant to simply cross into the United States illegally 
because word has gotten out that they will be given permission to stay. 
I heard this again and again from unlawful immigrants in Border Patrol 
custody when I visited the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month.
  So let's be clear: the President's administrative policies abandoning 
immigration enforcement and his promises about future administrative 
legalizations continue to encourage unlawful immigrant parents to 
smuggle their children into the United States. These policies and 
promises put money directly into the pockets of human smuggling and 
drug cartels and put children at risk of perilous, illicit journeys to 
the United States. And they undermine the fundamental constitutional 
principles that Congress creates the laws and the President is bound to 
enforce them.
  H.R. 5272 sends the vitally important message that minors tempted to 
come here in the future will no longer be rewarded by a President who 
chooses to use his pen and cell phone to legislate. They will have 
absolutely no opportunity to receive DACA benefits.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for 
introducing the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 5272. This, 
in all honesty and candor, is one of the most mean-spirited and anti-
immigrant pieces of legislation I have seen in all of my years in the 
Congress.
  Now, the main reason, of course, is that it would unfairly harm 
current and future DREAM Act kids. The majority have been clear about 
their intent with this bill: No DREAMers.
  This legislation is designed to prevent young people who have lived 
here most of their lives and are members of our communities from 
benefiting from deferred action. It would foreclose the administration 
from focusing resources

[[Page 14014]]

on identifying and removing individuals such as criminals and gang 
members from our communities. And even worse, the legislation would 
mean that the hundreds of thousands of young people who have already 
benefited from deferred action, who are contributing to our economy, 
participating in our communities, and obtaining an education could be 
deported in less than 2 years. And that is why the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, and the American Civil 
Liberties Union, ACLU, have already registered their strong opposition 
to the bill.
  I am confident that there are many more who would oppose this 
legislation because it seeks to roll back protections supported by 
civil rights organizations, religious organizations, college and 
university presidents, labor unions, and national educational 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to both the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy), the majority leader, for purposes of a colloquy. And I will 
begin by yielding to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  There is a section within the bill, which we just passed, that 
provides that the Attorney General--who is currently under contempt of 
Congress--will appoint the 40 new immigration judges established in the 
bill. A number of us have a problem with that. And I know that concerns 
you, Chairman Goodlatte.
  I believe that you, as Judiciary chairman, have agreed to work on a 
solution to deal with that issue going forward and to attempt to craft 
a solution that would be acceptable to a majority of the committee. Is 
that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. And I can assure you that I will work 
with Chairman Goodlatte in an effort to remedy that problem.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you both so much for your commitment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. How did we get here? In the dark of night, Republicans 
are voting to deport DREAMers, take away the DACA program, and make 
every undocumented immigrant deportable.
  In November of 2012, the Republicans were shellshocked, and they 
spoke of turning over a new leaf with young voters, with Asian voters, 
with women, and Latinos.
  A year ago, I was working with Congressman Sam Johnson and Judge 
Carter of Texas. I did town hall meetings and public appearances with 
Judge Carter and with Congressman Valadao. I worked with Mike Coffman 
of Denver and stood up with Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger in my own 
State of Illinois.
  But now Steve King, Michele Bachmann, and Ted Cruz are literally 
writing the immigration script for the Republican Party, a script 
filled with ugly and mean policies that demonize children and 
marginalize immigrants and destroy families.
  In January, you were saying that all of the DREAMers should get green 
cards and citizenship. We always understood you wanted to deport their 
parents.
  But now, late on a Friday night, you are going after the DREAMers, 
who have known no other country but this one, who risked their 
identities and their families to come forward and sign up with the 
Department of Homeland Security and pass FBI background checks so they 
could get right with the law.
  The United States said, come forward and get right with the law. And 
now Republicans are saying they should go back in the shadows, back to 
a life of fear, where opportunities are few, and their futures are 
uncertain.
  The voters had a referendum on the program back in 2012, and the 
winner was President Obama, the DREAMers, and the American people. But 
now you want to take all of that away. Thank God the Senate is gone. 
The President has called this ``veto bait,'' and this will never become 
law.
  Is there no one in your conference who can stand up and talk sensibly 
when others in your party want to demonize children at the border and 
deport the DREAMers who live in our neighborhoods across America? You 
are so frozen in fear of your own voters, so frozen in fear of your own 
colleagues, and the Nation needs you to be courageous.
  Only cowards scapegoat children. And only those who are ashamed of 
themselves do it in the night, on a Friday. You are apparently not 
strong enough to stand up and craft real solution to America's 
problems.
  But here is the truth revealed about the Republican Party in the last 
few weeks, and why all of the talk this year about immigration reform 
was just talk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. In the end, the Republican position on immigration can 
be summed up as ``deport 'em all.'' When push comes to shove, your 
party is standing by the simplistic desire to deport 'em all.
  Most of you know that the approach of deport 'em all is nonsense, and 
you know it is suicide as a political strategy. But you continue to 
say, deport 'em all. Shame on those who will not stand up for the 
children at the border, and shame on all those who will not stand in 
the neighborhoods of our communities for the children who live with us.
  Say ``no'' to this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that 
this bill does not deport anyone. This bill simply freezes a program 
that violates the United States Constitution.
  So now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. I thank the chairman for his excellent work on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed, 
with my support, a strong border security bill. And I rise in support 
of this second reform bill that would, if enacted, immediately and 
effectively address the humanitarian and national security crisis that 
has developed along the southern border of the United States.
  This crisis, which will result in an estimated 90,000 unaccompanied 
children entering the United States illegally through the end of this 
fiscal year, representing a 1,381 percent increase since 2009, was 
entirely caused by the Obama administration's failure to secure the 
border, its unwillingness to enforce existing laws, and its disastrous 
2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which invited this 
surge in illegal immigration.
  The action taken by the House tonight is a serious, bold, and 
thoughtful legislative response to President Obama's failure to secure 
the border and ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
  But there is a second and very important reason besides a policy 
reason why every Member of this House should support this legislation, 
and that is to vindicate the separation of powers.
  There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1983 that dealt with an 
immigration issue, INS v. Chadha. And in that case, the Supreme Court 
talked about the procedure that the Constitution outlines to change the 
law, how legislation is enacted in accordance with constitutional 
command. And the court held that there was a single, finely wrought, 
and exhaustively considered procedure for enacting legislation. And 
unilateral executive memoranda from the White House is not the way to 
change the law.
  So if you are interested in vindicating the separation of powers, if 
you believe that the way to change the law--even if you believe in the 
DREAM Act, even if you believe in the President's policy of deferred 
action--the way that we do that is through constitutional procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 14015]]


  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. BARR. So there is not just a policy issue at stake here, not just 
a humanitarian and national security issue at stake--the Constitution 
is at stake.
  So I appreciate the House leadership for heeding the call that I and 
many of my colleagues made to stay in session and finish the work of 
the American people before the start of the August district work 
period.
  I strongly urge the Senate and President Obama to do their jobs, stop 
trying to score political points, listen to the American people, pass 
this bill, and join the House in solving this very important problem.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains on either side, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 25\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 22\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the brand-new majority whip 
of the United States Congress.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for 
bringing this bill to the floor and for his leadership on Mrs. 
Blackburn's legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, if you go back and look at DACA in 2012, when it was 
issued as an executive order, it was an example of President Obama's 
executive overreach.
  Some want to make this a partisan issue, yet, Mr. Speaker, more than 
a dozen times, the United States Supreme Court has issued 9-0 rulings 
that President Obama has overreached his executive authority. That is 
not a 5-4 decision. That is 9-0. Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized more 
than a dozen times this President has overreached his executive 
authority.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, why is this DACA ruling so dangerous? This has been the 
magnet that has led to the flood of people coming across our border. 
This crisis at the border is partially responsible to the DACA ruling. 
We have got to stop having this kind of message go out that has led not 
only to a flood of people coming across our border, but has led to and 
can be responsible for the human trafficking that is going on. There 
are so many devastating things that this has done. We have got to stop 
this overreach.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the judiciary 
committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I hope the Speaker says that word from Texas very 
loud because I listened earlier today to all of the relief in the 
appropriations bill given to Texans down at the border, $594 million.
  Let me tell you that there are people in Texas who are ready to serve 
and help the unaccompanied children. There are people in Texas who 
recognize that we are the good Samaritans. Don't label us with wanting 
$594 million, and don't label us with standing against the DACA 
children, the DREAMers, who have come to this country and been here for 
5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, these children ran into the arms of the Border Patrol. 
There is no criminal or legal crisis at the border, but the DACA bill 
that is here on the floor of the House is a disgrace to the words of 
the Star-Spangled Banner. We are the home of the free and the brave. We 
are free enough to be able to welcome those in need.
  This body knows that DACA has nothing to do with the unaccompanied 
children, and it is a disgrace that we would undermine the hardworking 
students like Juan Jesus in my office this summer, that we would 
undermine it with a disgraceful bill--a disgraceful bill. It is 
disgraceful. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5272, a bill brought 
to the floor at the eleventh hour by the House Republican leadership to 
placate its extreme right-wing Tea Party faction and one of the most 
hypocritical, irresponsible, and mean-spirited legislative proposals 
brought to the House floor this year.
  H.R. 5272 seeks to prohibit the Administration from exercising its 
administrative discretion to focus resources on identifying and 
apprehending those aliens who are present in country illegally who pose 
the most serious danger to our national security and the safety of our 
citizens.
  This cynical bill is hypocritical because the vast majority of its 
proponents have been claiming for years now that the reason they refuse 
to compromise on budget issues, support for sequestration, and voted to 
shut down the government is because of their belief in the importance 
of setting spending priorities.
  Yet, H.R. 5272 would deny ICE the ability to use its limited 
resources in the most efficient manner to achieve its highest 
priorities which is to apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who pose a 
danger to national security or a risk to public safety.
  This bill is irresponsible because it seeks to prevent trained, 
experienced, and professional agents and prosecutors from exercising 
their discretion and acting on the basis of what everyone knows to be 
true: that there is a vast difference between a terrorist bent on 
harming America and a DREAM Act kid studying hard in school so he or 
she can graduate, join the Armed Services and willingly risk his or her 
life to defend the country, or go to work to support his or her family.
  This inefficient use of resources wastes taxpayer dollars and does 
nothing to keep America safe.
  This bill is mean-spirited because it would have ICE target its 
limited resources on innocent, law abiding, young people who were 
brought to this country as children and would have them deported to a 
foreign land even though America is the country they may know as home 
and the only one to which they may have ever pledged allegiance.
  Mr. Speaker, I traveled many times to Iraq and Afghanistan and always 
the highlight of my visit was meeting the young men and women who were 
willingly risking their lives to defend the country they love more than 
life.
  More than 5,000 of the soldiers who fought for us in Afghanistan and 
Iraq were not yet American citizens but DREAMers who dreamed that one 
day they might become citizens of the nation they gladly risked their 
lives to defend.
  Instead of honoring their service, this heartless bill before us 
crushes their dream by forcing ICE agents and prosecutors to pretend 
that there is no difference between one of these veterans who came to 
this country as an undocumented immigrant and an alien engaged in or 
suspected of espionage or terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 also wastes the money of hard-working 
taxpayers and does nothing to make America safer, and eliminates a fair 
and just policy legal under the President's executive authority which 
allows for relief for young children who have been in America for a 
certain number of years, follow certain requirements and may be 
deferred from deportation to serve in the U.S. military, go to school 
and contribute to America.
  And, just as bad, it is inconsistent with American values of justice 
and fair play.
  We must address our broken immigration system through comprehensive 
reform rather than extinguish Ms. Liberty's lamp of freedom or close 
her Golden Door.
  We are better than that and I urge all Members to join me in 
rejecting this terrible legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, for yielding. There are a lot of people 
in this Congress that I appreciate a great deal tonight, but I have 
listened to the anger and the fury over on the other side, and I have 
never seen the Sergeant at Arms have to come and clear the floor like 
we have seen here tonight.
  I am wondering what is this about? I would take this back to the 
State of the Union Address when I watched the President of the United 
States here on the rostrum speak, and he said, essentially, the summary 
of what he has delivered to America a number of times: Congress, I am 
going to tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, I am going to use 
either my cell phone or my ink pen, and I am going to do it. Here it 
goes again, Mr. Speaker.
  What I saw was this, our Founding Fathers set up this balance in our 
Constitution between the three branches of government, articles I, II, 
and III, the

[[Page 14016]]

legislative, the executive, and the judicial branch of government.
  They drew as fine a line as they could between the three, but they 
always knew that there would be a gray area, and they anticipated that 
each branch of government would jealously protect the constitutional 
authority that is vested within it within the Constitution, the supreme 
law of the land.
  When the President said, I am going to usurp your legislative 
authority, I am going to take over article I, and I am going to 
legislate if you don't do what I tell you, what happened? The people 
that are applauding now applauded then, and they said, Mr. President, 
take the power that is in the Constitution, take it from me, take 
article I, too, take your pen, take your cell phone. You run this 
country as if you were a king, rather than only the President of the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about here. This is about 
the DACA language that the President has introduced 2-plus years ago, 
and I said then when we had Hill hearings before the Judiciary 
Committee and Janet Napolitano--I said that we will take you to court 
on this, this will be litigated.
  It will be litigated because the President does not have legislative 
authority. He is only the President of the United States. If the 
President wants to somehow grant amnesty to one person, he has some 
prosecutorial discretion to do that, but they argued in the Morton 
Memos, and they argued in the DACA memos--seven times in the Morton 
Memos--on an individual basis only, on an individual basis only, 
prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis only.
  They put it in there seven times because they knew they were wrong, 
and they knew it was going to be litigated. You don't do 700,000 people 
on an individual basis only. You don't suspend the law. If the 
President wants the law changed, he knows to come to Congress, ask us--
and ask us, and when you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, you 
had better believe that it means what it says.
  Why would you just throw your authority over the side and say, Mr. 
President, take this from us? That is not what you pledged to your 
constituents. That is not the oath that you take.
  So what this says is that the DACA language says this: Mr. President, 
stop violating the Constitution from this point forward. As the 
chairman said, it does not deport anybody. It just restores 
constitutional article I authority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, this just restores the constitutional authority of the 
United States Congress, and it says: President Obama, don't continue to 
violate this Constitution. President Obama, when you waved your ink pen 
at us a week and a half ago and you said you were going to legalize 5 
to 6 million people, it is unconstitutional.
  He knows it. He has many times given the lecture that he knows it. He 
gave his word, and he needs to keep it. I want to remind him, it won't 
go cheap if you try this, Mr. President. I urge the adoption of this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members of the House are reminded to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Congressman Conyers.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I rise 
today to strongly oppose H.R. 5272, an extreme and highly partisan bill 
that would prevent the continuation or expansion of President Obama's 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA.
  Simply put, this misguided bill limits President Obama's 
prosecutorial discretion and seeks to dismantle the DACA program. I am 
very concerned that the majority has brought this anti-Hispanic amended 
bill to the floor in order to prevent President Obama from building 
upon the successes of the DACA program and to appease the most extreme 
wing of the Republican Conference.
  The underlying bill punishes hardworking DREAMers and immigrants who 
are eager to contribute to America's prosperity and have waited long 
enough for comprehensive immigration reform.
  Since its inception in 2012, the DACA program has protected DREAMers 
who meet certain requirements from deportation, allowing hundreds of 
thousands of young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the 
United States as children to remain and work in the United States.
  In my view, closing the door on undocumented youth is un-American. We 
in the Congress of the United States have a moral responsibility to 
protect the welfare and rights of vulnerable children and youth, 
including children and youth who are undocumented or are fleeing from 
violence and despair in their countries of origin.
  Mr. Speaker, I close by urging my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote in strong opposition to H.R. 5272, extreme and highly 
partisan legislation that does nothing to fix our Nation's broken 
immigration system.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and I listen to the other 
side talk about this issue, I wonder if they even understand what is 
happening at the border.
  In 2011, there were only 6,500 children coming to the border. In 
2012, the President acted through DACA, and we started seeing an 
increase of these children coming to the border. Today, in 2014, we 
will have 90,000 children rushing to the border, and next year, it is 
estimated that we will have 142,000 children coming to the border.
  Almost 2 months ago, Gilberto Ramos, a 15-year-old boy from 
Guatemala, was found lying in brush, dead from the heat. Many of these 
children that are coming to the border don't make it across the river. 
There are reports of discoveries of small, lifeless bodies washed up 
along the riverbanks. Many of these children are abused, they are 
victimized, and they are raped.
  We must understand that the President is responsible because of his 
failure to fully comply with the law. We have heard a lot from the 
other side that the President acted because we did not act. Well, that 
is not true.
  The reality is that the President and his party had majorities in 
both Houses of Congress for 2 years, and you failed to act, so don't 
point your finger at us. In November of 2012--in November of 2012--we 
passed in this House a STEM Jobs Act, which was the beginning of a 
step-by-step approach to actually deal with the immigration process. 
What did you do? You didn't vote for it, and the Senate refused to take 
it up.
  In September of 2011, we passed here in the House the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, and the Senate again refused to act, which 
would have been the beginning of a step-by-step approach for us to deal 
with the immigration process. You have refused to do small things.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman is reminded to direct his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Stop the hypocrisy. If you truly care about these kids, 
stop encouraging them to come to the United States illegally. They are 
crossing the border. Most of them are being harmed, many of them are 
being abused, and a few of them are dying.
  It is time for us to stop this nonsense and to have the President of 
the United States actually follow the law and work with the Congress, 
so we can actually do immigration reform.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mrs. Blackburn 
who is responsible for this wonderful bill this evening, which I 
wholeheartedly support. This is why: last

[[Page 14017]]

weekend, I think the Nation was stunned when our President said that he 
would unilaterally use his power--raw power--to effectively grant 
amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals here in the United States 
illegally.
  He said that he would do that with his power, and what happened this 
week is that this body came together and we decided to answer the 
President's unconstitutional call.
  So with this DACA bill, effectively, we will put forward the 
strongest possible legislative response that this body could put 
forward. We say in this bill that the President has no power, no 
authority administratively to grant permits which would effectively 
grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals illegally in the 
United States.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will put a handcuff on one of the 
President's hands.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Now, in the United States Senate, the majority leader, 
Harry Reid, has left town. He has left town. Not only did he fail to 
complete an immigration bill, but he knows full well that President 
Obama may illegally grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals 
illegally in the United States without doing anything.
  What Harry Reid has the opportunity to do is to come back and join 
us. We will be here any time, any day, anywhere, anyhow. We will join 
him here in August, September, whenever, and he needs to put the other 
handcuff on this lawless President's hands, so we constrain this 
President from granting amnesty.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people want us to do. We do 
that tonight with this bill. We invite Harry Reid to bring the Senate 
back and put the handcuff on the President's other hand, so that we can 
have sovereignty again on our southern border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                              {time}  2115


                         Parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is: Is it not a fact that we 
are here because the Republicans opposed this legislation in the Senate 
and there were not sufficient votes to move the bill and that is why we 
are here?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who comes from the 
State of Texas, and like many in this House, I have been down on the 
Texas-Mexico border. I was there last weekend. You have to be there to 
know what is going on. I went up and down the Rio Grande River with law 
enforcement officers from the State of Texas. We see the people on the 
Mexican side--and I think the Mexican Government is complicit--just 
waiting for us to pass, and then they start coming across.
  And the other side talks about it just being one group of people--
children. Well, that is just not true, because the people who are being 
apprehended are not just children. A lot of them are teenagers. A lot 
of them are older. The chief of Border Patrol of the McAllen sector 
said there are 144 nations that came across the border this year 
represented. Just a week ago before I got there, there were three 
Ukrainians.
  Why, Mr. Speaker? Why is everybody coming to America through south 
Texas? Because they believe wherever they start out, whether it is kids 
in Honduras looking for a better life, or terrorists, or Ukrainians, or 
someone else, they believe that this President, this administration, 
said: You get to America, we are going to let you stay.
  We have all kinds of different legal reasons. Some of it is called 
DACA, and there are other reasons. But the bottom line is you are going 
to get to stay in America, and Americans will take care of your needs. 
That is what they believe. And the reason they believe that is because 
the rule of law is not being enforced in America.
  Third World countries protect their borders better than the United 
States.
  And who is benefiting from all of this? Well, it is not the kids. As 
pointed out, many of them are dying or getting hurt. It is not America. 
It is not legal immigrants. Who is benefiting? It is the drug cartels, 
the criminal gangs, the MS-13 gang. They are making money off the fact 
that the rule of law in this country is not being enforced.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. POE of Texas. The rule of law is not enforced when it comes to 
the sovereignty and security of the Nation. And that is all we are 
asking. Let's have some rules and follow them so people all over the 
world who want to come to America, let them know there is a right way 
to come. And the wrong way is they shouldn't believe that you get here, 
you are going to get to stay because the administration is not going to 
enforce the law. That is why we have the chaos. That is why we have the 
50,000 to 60,000 people crossing in south Texas.
  So all we are trying to do with this little piece of legislation is 
get back to let's enforce the rule of law. Let's not grant amnesty and 
let's not treat people from different countries differently. Let's 
treat them all the same way. That is why I support this legislation, 
because it will send the message that even in America the rule of law 
will be enforced.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I know you said that is just the way it is, and I 
agree, but I just want to make an added point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman if 
he will yield to me.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I continue to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. So 50,000 coming across the border, that is 50,000 
unaccompanied minors coming to the border, and they are a small 
percentage of the total number of people. Eighty-five percent of the 
people coming to the border right now--and all categories are up. 
Children are up most, but all categories are up, and 85 percent are not 
unaccompanied minors.
  So the gentleman makes a very valid point about the crisis at our 
border and the cause of that crisis. The President caused it. The 
President can solve it. The President should act now, and we need to 
send a strong message that America is not open to people who violate 
our laws.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry as to the bill 
that is on the floor, is this not the bill dealing with deferred action 
for juveniles or young people who have been in this country for 5 
years, graduated from high school, going to college or working, and in 
actuality is not dealing with the unaccompanied children? But more 
importantly, is it not true that this bill is destined for a veto, will 
not be passed in the Senate, and in essence, we are here passing a bill 
that has no future?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to close on this side.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I also only have one speaker remaining 
and am prepared to close.

[[Page 14018]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member 
of the Judiciary Committee, to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, some Members have asked whether this bill 
terminates deferred action for DREAMers with DACA. This question was 
put to Chairman Goodlatte at the Rules Committee today, and he 
answered, as I saw on TV, that the text speaks for itself. He is right. 
The text does speak for itself. And on lines 5 through 7 on page 1, the 
text clearly terminates DACA by prohibiting DREAMers from applying to 
renew their deferred action, which they must do after a 2-year time 
period.
  It also prevents future deferred action to ensure that we continue to 
deport the parents of the DREAMers and parents of U.S. citizen 
children, sending those children, by the way, into foster care, or 
prevent DREAMers who have not yet filed for deferred action from doing 
so.
  So basically, this bill will have the effect of removing DACA from 
the DREAMers and making them deportable.
  Now, there has been a lot of discussion about the role that DACA has 
had, and I will put into the Record a report from the Cato Institute, 
titled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children.'' If 
you do statistic analysis, you can see that it is impossible that DACA 
has been the cause of these children coming from the three war-torn 
countries, as the report reports.

                [From the Cato Institute, July 29, 2014]

         DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children

                          (By Alex Nowrasteh)

       In June, 2012 the Obama Administration announced that it 
     had authored a memo deferring the deportation of unauthorized 
     immigrant childhood arrivals in the United States, a program 
     known as deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The 
     memo directed then Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security to practice prosecutorial discretion toward a small 
     number of unauthorized immigrants who fulfilled a specific 
     set of characteristics. In essence, some unauthorized 
     immigrants who had come to the United States as children were 
     able to legally stay and work--at least temporarily.


                     Did DACA Cause the UAC Surge?

       Some politicians contend that DACA is primarily responsible 
     for the surge in unaccompanied child (UAC) migrants across 
     the border in recent years. A recent House Appropriations 
     Committee one-pager stated that, ``The dire situation on our 
     Southern border has been exacerbated by the President's 
     current immigration policies.'' Proponents of this theory 
     argue that DACA sent a message to Central Americans that if 
     they came as children then the U.S. government would legalize 
     them, thus giving a large incentive for them to come in the 
     first place. Few facts of the unaccompanied children (UAC) 
     surge are consistent with the theory that DACA caused the 
     surge.
       First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15, 2012 
     announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed 
     in late May 2012 but the surge was underway by that time. 
     From October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93 percent 
     increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in Fiscal 
     Year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama 
     about the rapid increase in UAC at the border in early May 
     2012--more than a full month before DACA was announced. In 
     early June 2012, Mexico was detaining twice as many Central 
     American children as in 2011. The surge in unaccompanied 
     children (UAC) began before DACA was announced.
       Second, the children coming now are not legally able to 
     apply for DACA. A recipient of DACA has to have resided in 
     the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15, 
     2012, a requirement that excludes the unaccompanied children 
     coming now.
       Third, if DACA was such an incentive for UAC to come from 
     Central America, why are so few Nicaraguan children coming? 
     They would benefit in the same way as unaccompanied children 
     from El Salvdaor, Honduras, and Guatemala. The lack of 
     Nicaraguans points to other causes of the surge.
       The timing, legal exclusion of the UAC from DACA, and lack 
     of Nicaraguans indicate that DACA was not a primary cause of 
     the surge. Of the 404 UAC interviewed by the United Nations 
     High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, only 9 mentioned 
     that U.S. laws influenced their decision to come to the 
     United States. Other American laws could have influenced the 
     unaccompanied children to come but DACA is not the main 
     culprit.


                            Details on DACA

       The DACA beneficiaries, at the time of the memo, would have 
     to fulfill all of these requirements to have their 
     deportations deferred: under the age of 31; arrived to the 
     United States before reaching their 16th birthday; entered 
     the United States without inspection or overstayed a visa 
     prior to June 15, 2012; continuously resided in the United 
     States from June 15, 2007 to the time of the memo; physically 
     present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at 
     the time of requesting deferred action from United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); been in school 
     at the time of application, or have already graduated or 
     obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or 
     have obtained a general education development (GED) 
     certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the 
     U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; not been convicted 
     of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other 
     misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national 
     security or public safety.
       Beneficiaries of DACA were also allowed to apply for 
     employment authorization according to the Code of Federal 
     Regulations. There is a debate amongst legal scholars over 
     whether the administration's grant of deferred action was 
     legal. Those who argue that DACA was illegal contend that the 
     President overstepped his constitutional authority to defer 
     the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants. Those who 
     argue that DACA was legal point to the general power of the 
     Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to defer 
     enforcement action. They argue that the Supreme Court has 
     ruled that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement 
     proceedings fall within the authority of the Executive--an 
     enforcement power used since the early 1970s. Here is more of 
     their argument. This disagreement has not been settled.
       By the end of September, 2013, 580,000 requests for DACA 
     were accepted by the U.S. government and 514,800, or 89 
     percent, were approved. Seventy-six percent of the requests 
     came from Mexicans. Twenty-nine percent of the requests were 
     filed from California, 16 percent from Texas, and 6 percent 
     from Illinois.
       Read the Full Article: DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in 
     Unaccompanied Children

  Ms. LOFGREN. Now, we know that this bill would eliminate DACA for 
DREAMers and make them deportable, but few in this body may know that 
the bill also returns to our bitter 2-year fight about reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act. It took this House 2 years to 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this 
Congress, and when we did it, we did it over the strong opposition of 
the majority of House Republicans.
  Today's bill undermines the basic premise of that act, that victims 
of domestic violence should be empowered to leave their abusers. It 
does that by denying the ability of battered immigrant spouses who have 
left their abusers and successfully self-petitioned for a VAWA visa the 
ability to work for the months it may take for a visa number to become 
available. This one change will prevent countless battered immigrant 
spouses from ever leaving their abusers and will drive others right 
back into the hands of their abusers.
  Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about the law, but I think it 
is important to recall that the ability to make prosecutorial decisions 
is well-grounded in the law. In fact, in 1999, I recall well the letter 
sent by then-Chairman Henry Hyde, signed by 28 bipartisan Members of 
Congress, to the Clinton administration asking for the use of 
prosecutorial discretion. And most recently, the Supreme Court in the 
Arizona case recognized the broad authority of the administration to 
make decisions about whom to prosecute. The Arizona case reaffirmed the 
legality of the deferred action program.
  So all this discussion to the contrary is really nothing more than 
legal nonsense.
  What does this bill do?
  It deports the DREAMers. It reinvigorates the Republican war on women 
by forcing women with VAWA visas back to their abusers. This is bad 
policy. It is an outrageous bill. It is being done in the worst 
possible process, and I wish so much that the Republicans had reached 
out, taken the offer of our leaders to sit down and work together to 
come up with a solution that really works for our country instead of 
deporting the DREAMers who are so much the hope and future of our great 
American Nation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that 
DACA is more than just abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also 
creates

[[Page 14019]]

benefits that are not provided for under the law.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I rise in support of my amendment to prevent the extension of the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that was indeed 
unlawfully put in place by an executive memo on August 15, 2012. What 
this amendment does is to return us to the original language of H.R. 
5160. Plus, it strengthens that original language by looking beyond 
July 30. What it will do is to tie the President's hands as to future 
executive actions that he might take to expand amnesty for illegal 
entrants into this country. It would freeze DACA.
  Now, I want to read the bill because it is not a lengthy bill. 
Beginning on line 1, section 1, Limitation on deferred action for 
childhood arrivals; restrictions on employment authorization for aliens 
not in lawful status.
  No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may use 
Federal funding or resources after July 30, 2014:
  One, to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied 
application of any alien requesting consideration of Deferred Action 
for Childhood Arrivals, as authorized by the executive memo dated June 
15, 2012, and effective on August 15, 2012, or by any other succeeding 
executive memorandum or policy authorizing a similar program.
  Number two, to newly authorize deferred action for any class of 
aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
  Number three, to authorize any alien to work in the U.S. if such 
alien, A, was not lawfully admitted into the U.S. in compliance with 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); and, B, is 
not in lawful status in the U.S. on the date of the enactment of this 
act.
  That is it. That is it. That is what is in this piece of legislation.
  What it does, in effect, is to give Central American children a false 
hope. It says that they are going to be able to obtain amnesty, as 
those before them have done in this program. And the reason we are so 
concerned about this and the reason my colleagues have come and have 
talked about their concern, what is happening is you have the 
traffickers, you have the smugglers, you have the coyotes who are 
preying on these innocent people. And they believe if these children 
can make it here, they will get amnesty. It is a false hope. Certainly 
we know and we care about these families. We know these countries want 
to get their children back and reunite them with their families in 
their home countries.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is that the administration 
would like to expand DACA. Indeed, we have heard that the President has 
instructed Secretary Johnson and General Holder to come up with a list 
of executive actions to address immigration.

                              {time}  2130

  The increase and the statistics that Mr. Labrador gave us on the 
percentages of increase cannot be denied.
  We see what is happening on this border. Mr. Poe talked about what he 
has seen happening with those families. And true to form, just as 
Governor Perry warned us in 2012 that this was going to happen, indeed, 
it is. We are seeing this unprecedented increase going back to 2009, 
looking at where we are with today, with the children, with the teens, 
with the adults that are streaming across this border and are 
disrupting life along the southern border for American families.
  I want to make one other point. Chairman Goodlatte mentioned this 
earlier. We have talked a little bit about the Constitution tonight, 
and, indeed, we all know that when you look at the Constitution, 
article I, section 8, clause 4, that is where those enumerated powers 
are given to Congress. They are given to Congress ``to establish an 
uniform rule of naturalization.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5272 
In this legislation, Republicans are turning their backs on children, 
toddlers, and infants who are trying to escape violence and abuse. The 
reality is that there is a humanitarian crisis on our doorstep.
  Militarizing these borders and expelling children are not long-term 
solutions. If you read in the news about a country taking these 
actions, you would assume it was a third-world dictatorship--not the 
U.S. Instead, we should be rising to the occasion--not cowering from 
it.
  Republicans say that they are just closing a loophole. But, they are 
really slamming the door shut. Subjecting 5-year-olds to sham legal 
hearings without counsel is un-American. What's next for the 
Republicans, sending these kids to Guantanamo Bay?
  The reality is that this is a cowardly approach. Time and time again 
Republicans say ``Deport them!'' But we know that this does not work--
and we do know this is not right.
  We like to call ourselves ``the land of brave.'' But the real ``brave 
ones'' are those children who travel thousands of miles to reach a 
better place. We must reject this unjust and dehumanizing Republican 
bill.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject 
this mean-spirited bill that will slam the door in the faces of young 
DREAM Act students who know America as their only home, their only 
country.
  Rarely have I seen fear and hatred turned into an actual piece of 
legislation and debated on the floor of the People's House.
  This GOP bill proposes to deport DREAM Act students like Jose 
Godinez-Samperio from Tampa, Florida, who was only 9 when his parents 
brought him to the United States.
  He has done everything right. Jose graduated as Valedictorian from 
Armwood High School in Hillsborough County.
  Jose graduated from the State of Florida's Honors College, New 
College, and then graduated from law school with honors from Florida 
State University College of Law.
  He passed the bar exam, and this year the Republican-dominated 
Florida Legislature said Jose should receive his license to practice 
law. They passed a law to do so. In fact, Republicans and Democrats 
gave him a standing ovation.
  There are hundreds of thousands of students like Jose across America 
tonight who have been living in limbo, waiting for Congress to pass 
comprehensive immigration reform. They were given a lifeline by the 
President through the DREAM Act and America has invested in them.
  Now, the Republican Congress is moving us farther away from 
immigration reform, farther away from justice, farther away from smart 
policy to utilize the talents of young men and women who love America, 
and farther away from the values America holds dear.
  Vote ``no'' on this malicious piece of legislation.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't just an assault on 
Dreamers who grew up in our communities and except on paper, are 
Americans in every way.
  It's not just an attack on their parents who raised them and taught 
them their values and love of this great country.
  What it is, is an affront to everyone who believes in the American 
Dream and our American values. It is an affront to those who uphold and 
subscribe to the basic notion that America is a fair, compassionate, 
and welcoming nation.
  It is unconscionable that this bill will condemn Dreamers and their 
parents to second-class status.
  It is unconscionable that this bill will cruelly foreclose any 
possibility that Dreamers and their parents could adjust their status, 
regardless of how hard they work or how much they contribute to their 
communities and our country.
  If deported, their loss will be America's loss as we will lose the 
benefits of their talents and their ability to strengthen our economy 
and enrich our nation.
  If we end DACA, our country could lose young people like Paola, a 
medical student from Los Angeles, to cure the sick. We would lose 
Andree, a brilliant young woman who is also from LA, who is studying at 
Harvard and dreams of one day curing cancer.
  President Clinton once observed that ``we cannot build our own future 
without helping others to build theirs.''
  That sentiment--the basic awareness that we're all in this together--
is at the center of the American Dream, a Dream which is threatened by 
the bill before us.
  Let's stand up for Dreamers, for their families and for our nation's 
future by defeating this mean-spirited and destructive legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.

[[Page 14020]]

  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
this 15-minute vote on the passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the motion to concur in the Senate 
amendments to House Joint Resolution 76.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Amodei
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Blumenauer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Davis (CA)
     DesJarlais
     Fattah
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock
     Speier
     Whitfield

                              {time}  2155

  Mr. PETERS of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 479 (On Passage of H.R. 
5272), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________