[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 520-532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 37, PROMOTING JOB CREATION AND 
  REDUCING SMALL BUSINESS BURDENS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
  H.R. 185, REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR 
      CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 240, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 27 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 27

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 37) to make 
     technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
     and Consumer Protection Act, to enhance the ability of small 
     and emerging growth companies to access capital through 
     public and private markets, to reduce regulatory burdens, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to

[[Page 521]]

     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     185) to reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze 
     and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. 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 the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     240) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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 two hours 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. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 4.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than January 14, 
     2015, such material as he may deem explanatory of H.R. 240.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of failed 
liberal policies of the President of the United States. Through his 
unilateral executive actions taken in November and through policies 
pursued throughout his administration for a number of years, the 
President's policies have harmed the American taxpayer.
  Specifically, that is why we are here today as part of this funding 
bill, to make sure that we address those problems that we see. Today, 
the House of Representatives will fight the President's failed liberal 
Democratic dogma and provide for a Homeland Security bill that actually 
protects the homeland and the American taxpayer.
  This past summer, the American people saw what happens when the 
executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interests of 
the American people. Over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from South and 
Central America entered our country illegally. They did this because 
they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the 
United States--and, by the way, it looks like it worked.
  This influx was a costly mistake for the taxpayer and for communities 
all across this country. Federal taxpayers paid $553 million. We put 
local schools at risk and stretched the resources of communities all 
across this country to a tipping point.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here engaged in this fight. This bill 
represents conservative Republican solutions on how to protect the 
homeland and the rule of law. Within this rule is a bill to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, as well as five amendments that 
represent a united fight against the President's executive amnesty 
plan.
  Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the President's actions on 
executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional, and they must be 
stopped. This package provides this body with the opportunity to 
effectively block and reverse the President's unilateral amnesty, 
reassert the rule of law, and uphold our Constitution.
  America became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt 
with this issue, and it lands directly at the feet of the President of 
the United States. That is why we are here today and are issuing this 
bill to the United States Senate, to have them take the appropriate 
action that is necessary, so that we may work together so that America 
is safe and that we do not have actions that America should not 
undertake.
  We have a number of Republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. 
I look forward to hearing their thoughts, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  First of all, when we have spending bills that make it here to the 
floor of the House, we traditionally have had an open amendment process 
for those appropriations bills. That allows Members on both sides of 
the aisle to offer cuts to move things around.
  At the time of bloated budget deficits, why aren't the Republicans 
allowing any cuts to be made from this bill? They are not allowing 
Democrats or Republicans under a closed rule to offer savings to the 
Federal Government from bloated budgets.
  They are limiting amendments on two other bills, a completely 
unrelated anti-regulatory bill and also a bill with regard to Financial 
Services that I offered an amendment along with Mr. Issa to improve are 
not allowed under this rule as well.
  It is a very bad precedent for congressional procedure here in our 
second week to shut down ideas from both sides of the aisle to make 
either of these bills better beyond a select few ideas that have 
apparently been blessed by the Republican majority.
  I heard in the Rules Committee last night--and my friend, the chair, 
did as well--a number of very good amendments that were offered, some 
that I didn't agree with, but I still thought we ought to be able to 
discuss and debate--I offered a few myself--but hardly any of these are 
actually allowed to be debated or voted on by the Members of this body.

[[Page 522]]

  Instead, what the Republicans have done is effectively hijack the 
discussion of homeland security and safety to instead have a discussion 
about our broken immigration system. Well, I was ready to go for that.
  I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on an 
immigration reform bill as part of the rule, one that passed the Senate 
with more than two-thirds support last session, one that I believe 
would still carry the support of more than 60 Senators--I think it 
would likely pass the House if it had been made in order--but I was 
shut down.
  Instead of allowing a discussion about a solution to our broken 
immigration crisis, the Republicans seek to keep it alive, conflict for 
the sake of conflict, and to somehow lump families and children in with 
criminals for the same enforcement priority, which makes no sense to 
any law enforcement professional or any of our communities, which is 
why we have a broad coalition of the business community, the faith-
based community, the law enforcement community, all outraged over the 
most recent Republican actions, which seem to cater to the far 
rightwing of their party, rather than seek pragmatic practical 
solutions to replace our broken immigration system with one that works.
  With regard to the Financial Services bill, I offered a bipartisan 
amendment along with my colleagues, Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, to 
improve transparency, to modernize our financial reporting standards, 
to ensure that digital data was available and searchable by investors 
everywhere, to increase transparency with regard to public companies. 
Unfortunately, it was not allowed to be debated or voted on here on the 
floor of the House to improve this bill.
  This is truly an obstructive and undemocratic approach to governing. 
Instead of the Members of this body--Democrat and Republican--being 
able to work together and propose ideas to improve bills, we are 
presented with bills that are ``our way or the highway,'' bills that 
will never become law, bills that have the threat of veto from the 
President of the United States, and are presumably only being done to 
appease the rightwing Republican base.
  Well, we should have started off this Congress with a fresh 
sensibility. We could have brought forward a clean Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill, allowed Members to improve it, to make cuts, to 
balance our budget deficit, to move things from programs that didn't 
work to programs that did. We could have brought forth a real jobs bill 
addressing the needs of working families.
  Instead, what the Republicans have chosen to do is to play politics 
and jeopardize the safety of our country and our homeland security over 
a debate that they want to have with regard to immigration without 
offering any solutions.
  One of the things that I took away from the meeting in the Rules 
Committee last night, in the testimony from Members on both sides of 
the aisle, is that nobody thought--Democrats or Republicans--that this 
Republican bill that defunded DACA and undid the executive action would 
actually solve our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats 
acknowledged it wouldn't.
  So rather than playing politics with our defense of our homeland, why 
don't we roll up our sleeves and get to work to actually fix our broken 
immigration system and replace it with one that works?
  Now, look, the bill provides for consideration of the Homeland 
Security bill, but everybody knows it is not a serious attempt at 
funding the Department of Homeland Security. There is a manufactured 
crisis, the first step in a sure-to-fail legislative process that the 
President himself has said he would veto.
  Why is anybody in this body--reasonable lawmakers, all of them--
placing the funding of Homeland Security at a time of increased 
national threat--we saw the events in France this last week--putting 
our defense of our homeland at risk?
  Yes, our President took action. Some agree with it; some disagree 
with it. He used the authority that he has been given by this body to 
establish enforcement priorities with regard to the 10, 11, 12 million 
people who are here illegally.
  Guess what, Mr. Speaker, if we don't solve our broken immigration 
system, there is only going to be more people here illegally; instead 
of 10 or 11 million, there could be 12 million, 14 million, 15 million, 
until we get serious about border security, about enforcement, about 
restoring the rule of law.
  This bill doesn't do it. This bill says let's support children rather 
than criminals; let's prevent people that have registered, gotten right 
by the law, paid a fee, had a background check, had their fingerprints 
taken, let's prevent them from legally working or going to school; 
let's hang the threat of tearing them apart from their American kids 
over their heads.
  Both sides acknowledge that is not the answer to fixing our broken 
immigration system. So let's move past this discussion, let's secure 
our homeland, and let's get to the discussion of how to fix our broken 
immigration system, which both sides agree this debate is not about.
  This bill also provides for consideration of the Regulatory 
Accountability Act, another recycled bill from the last Congress. It is 
not an immigration reform bill; it is not a jobs bill. It is actually a 
bill that makes government function even less efficiently than it 
currently does.
  It adds 84 new bureaucratic hurdles to make sure our food is toxin-
free and safe to eat. It would bury agency rulemaking under a 
bureaucratic blizzard of hurdles and documentation requirements. This 
is a paperwork creation bill, this is a government inefficiency bill, 
the opposite of the direction we should be moving with regard to making 
government streamlined and more efficient.
  Finally, this rule provides for consideration of the Financial 
Services bills, which this body considered last week, but again, when 
something doesn't pass under suspension, a procedure that requires two-
thirds, the rule should hopefully enable Members on both sides of the 
aisle to improve upon the bill. I offered just such an improvement, as 
did some of my colleagues.
  If the goal was to get to two-thirds rather than just pass this bill 
with a Republican majority, why don't we begin the difficult work of 
making this bill better, of improving on it, of taking ideas from 
Democrats and Republicans, to get this bill to the point where two-
thirds of this body support it? Unfortunately, that did not occur, and 
this bill is being brought under a very restrictive rule.
  We can do better. We can do better than closing down the traditional 
open process we have around amending appropriations bills. We can 
restore regular order and allow bills to actually be considered through 
the committee process here in this Congress, instead of appearing with 
48 hours to read for Members of Congress, without even giving the 
opportunity to amend them. Unfortunately, in the second week here, the 
Republican majority is already making good governance a farce.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to show that 
Congress can and will do better if you give the Democrats and 
Republicans who serve in this body the ability to legislate, to offer 
their ideas, to work with Members on their side of the aisle and the 
opposite side of the aisle, and to get to a point where we can present 
a bill that the President of the United States will sign and will 
become the law of the land.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Lou Barletta, who came to the 
Rules Committee last night to speak about the importance of this bill, 
the former mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
amendments offered to the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill, including the amendment I coauthored with my 
colleagues, Congressman Aderholt of Alabama and Congressman Mulvaney of 
South Carolina.

[[Page 523]]

  Our amendment defunds President Obama's unlawful executive amnesty 
program for illegal immigrants.
  Now, when I was mayor of my hometown of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, I saw 
firsthand how illegal immigration can affect a community. I believe 
that my stance against illegal immigration was why I was elected to 
Congress in the first place.
  I am someone who has dealt with this as a smalltown mayor. I know 
what it looks like on the back end when the Federal Government doesn't 
do its job. Very simply, we are making sure that, at long last, we 
enforce the law.
  First, it prevents the funding of carrying out the President's 
actions announced on November 20 of last year.

                              {time}  1300

  But let's be clear about something. The President's amnesty program 
did not just begin all of a sudden 2 months ago. It goes back much 
further than that, to the so-called Morton memos of 2011. They 
instructed immigration officers to ignore broad categories of illegal 
immigrants and halt deportation proceedings for them. In short, these 
memos told immigration officers to view the law the way that President 
Obama wished it had been written rather than how Congress actually 
wrote it.
  We defund the implementation of the Morton memos. We also say that no 
funds can be used to implement any similar amnesty policies. That 
simply means that this or any other President cannot try to tweak their 
policies or try more trickery to try another end around past Congress 
without our approval.
  Mr. Speaker, this states unmistakable congressional intent. The 
amendment says that the President's policies have no basis in law and 
are not grounded in the Constitution. We prevent anyone who receives 
such executive amnesty from being awarded any Federal benefits.
  There are other amendments being considered, including stopping the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which was born 
out of the Morton memos. I support that amendment and all of the others 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is clear: the President of the United 
States does not have unilateral power. In America, we also have a 
legislature. As such, the President cannot simply make laws on his own. 
The Aderholt-Mulvaney-Barletta amendment makes that clear.
  I urge support of the rule and the accompanying amendments to the DHS 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
rule. Here we are, just 2 weeks into the brandnew Congress, and the 
Republican leadership has decided to combine three major controversial 
bills into one rule. They aren't content to exclude amendments. Now 
they also want to stifle debate. It is ridiculous, it is shameful, it 
is undemocratic, and it needs to stop.
  And why are they doing all of this? To what end? So they can attach 
poison pill amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
  We had a perfectly fine bipartisan bill ready to go last year, but 
no, the Republicans would rather play Russian roulette with our 
homeland security. They are being driven by the most extreme anti-
immigrant voices in the Republican caucus. So we are going to waste at 
least this entire week and maybe even more weeks to come debating ugly 
anti-immigrant amendments that are likely dead on arrival in the Senate 
and will most certainly be vetoed by the President.
  I say to my Republican friends: I get it. You can't stand this 
President, and it is making you irrational to the point that you are 
doing real harm to this country. And I understand that you would rather 
tear immigrant families apart than keep them together. But you had the 
opportunity last Congress--for months and months and months--to 
legislate on this issue. You chose not to. Instead, you have chosen to 
make a mess of a very important Homeland Security Appropriations bill. 
You have chosen to demagogue rather than legislate. With all that is 
going on in the world and with what happened in France, I ask my 
Republican friends: What are you thinking, playing politics with our 
national security?
  For 6 years, the Republicans have blocked all efforts to fix our 
broken immigration system, and then they keep wailing and whining about 
it being broken. They keep punishing individuals and families who have 
been in our country for years, working hard, paying taxes, raising 
families. Enough is enough.
  I urge my colleagues to choose fairness and compassion and to vote 
down this shameful rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Burgess, from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage people on both sides of the 
dais, both sides of the aisle, to support the rule and the underlying 
appropriations bill with its attached amendments.
  I do tire of hearing people talk about our broken immigration system. 
Mr. Speaker, last year, in the United States of America, 1.1 million 
people came into this country, raised their right hand, took the oath 
of citizenship, and came in legally. And it has been that way every 
year that I have been in Congress since 2003. So, by my arithmetic, 
that is well over 12 million people that have become naturalized United 
States citizens in the last 10 or 12 years.
  Does that sound like a system that is broken?
  For comparison, let's look at other countries. The fact of the matter 
is, when you combine every other country on the face of the Earth, they 
don't match half of the number of people that are allowed to come into 
the United States and take the oath of citizenship.
  But I will tell you what is broken. What is broken is the enforcement 
of our immigration laws, and we have seen that demonstrated time and 
again.
  The President made some unilateral decisions in June of 2012, and we 
in Texas, particularly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, understand very 
much what happens when someone makes adjustments without going through 
the rule of law. As a consequence, in late 2013, and then throughout 
the spring and summer of last year, we saw unprecedented amounts of 
unaccompanied minors simply coming across the border and turning 
themselves in to Customs and Border Patrol.
  Now, why did they do that? Did someone just suddenly wake up one day 
in Honduras or Guatemala and say: I'm going to make that dangerous trek 
across the Mexican desert? No, it is because child traffickers, 
coyotes, saw what the President did, and said: Here's a business plan. 
Let's go to these families, charge them thousands of dollars, with the 
admonition that if you don't do it now, this door is going to close. 
But right now the President has got the door open for you to come up 
and get your amnesty. Step up and get it while you can.
  So what did the President do in November? He doubled down on that. 
The message to the child traffickers around the world is: Y'all come. 
Y'all come and it will be all right.
  But the fact of the matter is it is not all right. In fact, our 
homeland security is threatened.
  This is an important bill. Judge Carter has done enormous work to 
bring this bill to the floor. For that, I thank him. The bill is 
important, along with the amendments. I urge adoption of the rule, and 
I urge adoption of the underlying bill with its accompanying 
amendments.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
  Let us be perfectly clear about what is happening here today. House 
Republicans are holding our national security hostage to the extreme 
policies of

[[Page 524]]

their most radical Members. I speak from experience, having been one of 
the three or four that started this committee back after 9/11. You know 
that.
  A vote for this rule and the poison pill amendments that will follow 
is a vote to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, plain and 
simple. It is a vote against the brave men and women in our Border 
Patrol, Secret Service, Coast Guard, and local public safety 
departments who put their lives on the line every day.
  As the cochair of the Congressional Fire Caucus and the Public Safety 
Caucus, I am outraged that this stunt will jeopardize important funding 
under the Fire and SAFER grants programs. It provides community 
firefighters with the equipment they need and the ability to hire 
additional firefighters to help keep the risk of loss of life and 
property damage at a minimum.
  I welcome a debate about immigration, but this is another ruse. This 
is an exact ruse. Whether you are talking about border security or 
whether you are talking about ``amnesty,'' it is a ruse. It doesn't 
matter whether it is this or something else to stop immigration, House 
Republicans have done nothing but run from that conversation.
  Speaker Boehner has been sitting on a bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration bill since June of 2013. He has done nothing to move the 
bill through the House. He hasn't proposed an alternative. And if you 
don't like the President's executive actions to help address our broken 
immigration system, why haven't you put your own on the table?
  Policies like the President's executive order provide responsible 
solutions to prevent families from being torn apart. Don't we want 
family unification? Don't we support that? In the bowel of our values, 
don't we support that more than anything else: keeping families 
together?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Republicans have no solutions for these families--and 
they are out there. They are all over. It is quite simply unbelievable 
that they are willing to put politics before national security and shut 
down the Department of Homeland Security to block the President from 
implementing his solutions.
  Let's end this charade now. You want to have a debate about 
immigration? Great. We welcome it. But we will not play along with this 
dangerous plan to jeopardize the safety and security of the American 
people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ranger, Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a few 
quotes. First:

       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.
       Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to 
     enforce and implement those laws.
       The problem is that I'm the President of the United States, 
     I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to 
     execute laws that are passed.
       I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the 
     laws in Congress.
       I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just 
     by myself.
       I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the 
     executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.
       I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of 
     powers. There are some things we can't do.
       Congress has the power of the purse, for example.

  These are the words and the statements of the President of the United 
States. And words matter. But, even after the President said all of 
this in a politically motivated action last November, he pursued a 
course that could allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to 
remain in the United States illegally and without consequence.
  Like my constituents, I am outraged. President Obama defied the will 
expressed by the American people last November and blatantly 
contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive 
branch.
  Now, let's be clear, lest others confuse this issue today. This is 
not a debate about immigration. That will come later. But this is about 
the rule of law. This is about the constitutional separation of powers. 
This is about the respect we owe the American people.
  In this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse 
and we are taking a strong, narrow approach that will, first and 
foremost, provide security to our homeland and, secondly, deny any 
funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the President's unwise 
and, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions.
  Now, I have to say, the President was right about a couple of things. 
He is not an emperor, and he is surely not a king. House Republicans 
are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one 
either. And yet before the debate even begins, last night the President 
has already issued threats. He is threatening to shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security because this bill prevents him from 
implementing his own ideology.
  But make no mistake: a veto threat is a threat to our national 
security; a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies. In the 
wake of the horrific terrorist attack this week in France, is the 
President really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million 
Americans to appease his base and score political points? God help us 
if that is the case.
  Today, it is up to us in the House. Let us vote to defend the 
constitutional role of this legislature, let us vote to stop the 
President's blatant overreach, and let us vote to secure our homeland.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the 
floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have 
failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the 
President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have 
articulated, an executive order.
  And it says in the ``take care clause'' that he has the ability to 
manage this government, as Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower did.
  What I would offer to say is, there is nothing in what the President 
has done but to exercise executive action. But I will say to them that 
Secretary Johnson of Homeland Security has said that we are placing 
ourselves in a dangerous position, not because of the President's 
actions, not because of the appropriations bill, but because of these 
enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the President's 
right to executive action.
  I oppose all of the bills that are presently in this rule, including 
the regulatory bill, the Financial Services--all of them have poison 
pills. The regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any 
agency can pass a regulation.
  Yes, to my Republican friends, we are in a moment, a historic moment. 
France was more than a wake-up call. But what I will say to you is that 
we can pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and we can 
end this dangerous condition that we are in.
  I would ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pills of pulling 
back on the President's constitutional authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
  I oppose the rule because, if passed, the five Republican amendments 
made in order by the Rules Committee guarantee the bill will be vetoed 
by the President at a time when ensuring that the agencies charged with 
securing our border and protecting the homeland have the resources 
needed to keep us safe should be our highest priority.
  House Republicans are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette 
with the security of America's homeland by recklessly adding this 
``poison pill'' to legislation needed to fund the agencies and programs 
charged with securing the border and protecting the homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendments to H.R. 240 made in order by the Rules 
Committee are

[[Page 525]]

simply the latest attempt by House Republicans to prohibit the 
executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any 
immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States 
under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from 
treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had 
lawful immigration status.
  The rule we are being asked to accept makes in order an amendment 
that seek to block the executive actions taken by President Obama to 
address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement 
at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing 
certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens 
and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay 
taxes, to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
  Mr. Speaker, the executive actions taken by President Obama are 
reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority.
  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, who 
is the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be 
faithfully executed.''
  In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the 
law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care 
Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and 
enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the 
laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. 
Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.
  Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce 
immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide 
whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
  Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are 
charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems 
they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission 
critical enforcement goals.
  Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed 
the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the 
Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 
S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and 
joined by Chief Justice Roberts:

       Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the 
     United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be 
     removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have 
     been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set 
     by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A 
     principal feature of the removal system is the broad 
     discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal 
     officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes 
     sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings 
     commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary 
     relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to 
     leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations 
     omitted).

  The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly 
suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of 
deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used 
to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized 
workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate 
from countries torn apart by internal conflicts:

       Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces 
     immediate human concerns.
       Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for 
     example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or 
     aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an 
     individual case may turn on many factors, including whether 
     the alien has children born in the United States, long ties 
     to the community, or a record of distinguished military 
     service.

  Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of 
removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and 
reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to 
pursue removal and when it does not.
  In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done 
anything that is novel or unprecedented.
  Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several 
presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting 
immigrants over the past 35 years:
  1. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to 
allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from 
expulsion and work authorization.
  2. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that 
granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the 
People's Republic of China who were in the United States.
  3. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush granted DED to certain 
nationals of El Salvador.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted 
executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of 
Texas are eligible for deferred action.
  If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and 
receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million 
increase in tax revenues, over five years.
  America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security 
challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows 
actors to use pragmatism and common sense.
  And as shown by the success in the last Congress of H.R. 1417, the 
bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and 
introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security 
Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or 
rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation.
  This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan 
``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles 
announced professed last year by House Republicans.
  As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for 
the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse 
backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.
  We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to 
ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure 
our borders while at the same preserving America's character as the 
most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap 
the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will 
result from comprehensive immigration reform.
  President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately.
  If congressional Republicans, who refused to debate comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of 
the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of 
action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the 
President for signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against the rule so we can 
put an end to the dangerous game of playing Russian Roulette with the 
security of America's homeland.
  Let us defeat this rule and bring to the floor a clean Homeland 
Security spending bill that the President can sign into law.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen), one of our brand new freshmen.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this combined rule and the 
underlying bills. Specifically, I came to the floor to speak in support 
of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 
2015.
  First, I applaud House leadership for bringing up this clean 
legislation in a timely fashion and allowing the full House of 
Representatives the opportunity to work the will of the body, which is, 
in fact, the will of the American people.
  The amendments approved in this rule are vital to protecting the 
constitutionally mandated separation of powers between Congress and the 
executive branch, while keeping the Department of Homeland Security 
funded through fiscal year 2015.
  I would like to remind my colleagues who are opposed to this bill, 
just last week, Members of the House read on this floor the 
Constitution of the United States, myself included, and renewed our 
commitment to defending the principles in our Nation's founding 
document.
  In that Constitution, article I gave all legislative powers and 
authority to Congress and established the framework of our legislative 
process.
  The President's executive action on immigration threatens this 
separation of powers, ignores our Constitution, disregards the right of 
the American people to have a voice in important legislation through 
their elected representatives.
  Americans sent a clear message on November 4. They did not want the 
President to act alone on immigration. Now, this bill and the 
accompanying amendments are sending a strong message that Congress will 
not stand by as

[[Page 526]]

the President attempts to rewrite our Nation's laws.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Just over 1 
month ago, I stood on this floor urging the majority to allow Members 
of this Chamber to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the 
omnibus. The majority did not listen.
  In the past month, even as the majority plotted to punish the 
Department for the President's action on immigration, a series of 
terrorist incidents across the globe have brought into sharp focus the 
need for a fully funded and fully functional DHS.
  First, in Sidney, Australia, we witnessed a terrorist attack on a 
cafe where, at the end of a lengthy standoff, two innocent people lay 
dead.
  The crippling cyber attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment's network 
raised awareness of the damage that hacks can do.
  Then, last week in Paris, there were a series of terrorist attacks 
that have sent shock waves beyond the borders of France.
  The execution-style murders of 12 members of the creative team of 
Charlie Hebdo, followed by the indiscriminate killing at a Jewish 
supermarket, are not simply tragic incidents; they serve as a reminder 
that the terrorist threats we face are evolving, and they are evolving 
quickly.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to give the 
Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to be dynamic 
and agile in response to these evolving threats.
  The underlying DHS appropriations bill under consideration today, 
although not perfect, could certainly pass both Chambers and be enacted 
into law with the President's signature.
  However, the likelihood, dare I say inevitability, that one or more 
of the poison pill amendments that the Rules Committee approved will 
get attached ensures a DHS shutdown or slowdown continues.
  And to what end?
  The majority decries the administration's immigration actions but 
offers no solution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for the additional 
30 seconds.
  The majority decries the administration's immigration actions, but 
offers no solution or alternatives of its own. Instead, it plays and 
replays the game of we will or we won't fund the government.
  Mr. Speaker, the game of chicken has come and run its course. It is 
time to provide full-year funding to DHS so it can continue its 
critical mission.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from the First District of Georgia, Pooler, Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding some of his time.
  This bill is necessary to make sure that the negative effects 
associated with the President's actions do not cause long-term damage 
to our country.
  As a new Member of Congress, I was sent to Washington to represent 
the people of southeast Georgia against the numerous harmful actions 
taken by the President and his administration.
  From the time that I have been here, I have been shocked by the 
actions of the President and the way he directly ignores the will of 
the American people, statutory law, and, most importantly, the 
Constitution of this country.
  This bill makes sure that no funds will be used to implement the 
President's executive order that allowed thousands of illegal 
immigrants to stay in this country.
  This bill also makes sure that no funds will go to implement any rule 
or regulation that has been issued by the administration over the last 
several years.
  It is time to stand up to the President and say, no more. No more, 
Mr. President. No more rewarding bad behavior. No more rules that 
ignore the will of the American people. No more ignoring statutory law. 
And most importantly, no more ignoring the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240. It is 
sad, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 weeks into this new Congress, Republicans 
have turned a bipartisan issue, funding our Department of Homeland 
Security, into a cesspool of despicable amendments that cater to the 
most extremist anti-immigrant fringe.
  There is the Blackburn amendment mandating that we deport thousands 
of students who are as American in their hearts as you or I.
  There is the Aderholt amendment prohibiting DHS from prioritizing 
whether we deport hardworking parents or hardened criminals.
  And there is the Schock amendment decrying the legal immigration 
backlog but doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix it.
  Guess whose amendment wasn't accepted?
  The Deutch-Foster amendment, which would save taxpayers over $1 
billion a year by ending the detention bed mandate, effectively an 
earmark that requires 34,000 beds be filled by immigrants every single 
day inside for-profit detention centers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here to solve problems. 
What this bill reveals instead, unfortunately, is a majority with no 
interest in solving our broken immigration system. If they had that 
interest, we would have passed comprehensive immigration reform 2 years 
ago.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Monroe, Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 
240, the fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the President of the 
United States is to faithfully carry out the laws sent to him by 
Congress. Unfortunately, this President, over the past several years, 
has chosen time and time again to ignore our immigration laws in order 
to achieve his executive amnesty objectives.
  His actions continue to fundamentally threaten the separation of 
powers set forth by the Constitution that was read on this floor last 
Friday, and it needs to stop.
  This rule will provide the House with the opportunity to completely 
defund and end this executive amnesty. With the adoption of the 
amendments made in order under this rule, H.R. 240 will responsibly 
fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the 
fiscal year and ensure the protection of our borders, while, at the 
same time, restoring the boundaries between the legislative and 
executive branches of the Federal Government.
  In addition to defunding this power grab by the President, we will 
also consider an amendment that will express the sense of Congress that 
we should stop putting the interests of illegal immigrants above legal 
immigrants, who are being punished for simply obeying the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard 
regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of 
Representatives.

[[Page 527]]

  This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another 
abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It 
deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add 
it up. One rule, 14 bills.
  Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero 
amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills 
have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the 
floor without controversy. Not true.
  One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with 
an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever 
been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the 
floor? No.
  And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to 
deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or 
a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that?
  Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
  Mr. SHERMAN. The Financial Services bill contains quite a number of 
noncontroversial provisions that will improve Dodd-Frank, and we could 
improve our economy today and have a bill on the President's desk by 
the end of the month.
  But no, the majority has structured this to force Democrats to vote 
against nearly a dozen good provisions so that they can say, look at 
those Democrats; they won't help the economy.
  They are playing politics instead of legislating. It is morally 
wrong. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, that is a very sad way to explain what we 
are doing here today. The gentleman knows that these 11 bills have all 
been heard, most of them voted on the floor, overwhelming majorities, 
if not----
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a point of truth?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, sir. We covered this yesterday in the Rules 
Committee, and we intend to move forward. And they are great bills that 
will help the economy and jobs in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield----
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker----
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have the time and I appreciate that.

                              {time}  1330


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  Is there any method that allows me to object when a Member says 
something demonstrably false?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is under 
recognition and has not yielded for the purpose of a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Cassville, Georgia, Congressman Loudermilk, a freshman Member of 
this delegation.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, John Adams, as President of these United States, stated:

       Our Constitution is for religious and moral people. It is 
     wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

  What John Adams was referencing is that our Constitution is only as 
solid--it is only as resolute--as the willingness of the people to 
uphold the limits of its power.
  What has sustained the United States of America as the longest 
continual constitutional republic in the history of the world is our 
commitment to recognizing and our respecting the limits of power 
inscribed in this Constitution. A clear and distinct division of those 
powers among the three separate branches of government is what we have 
all sworn to uphold.
  The President through his recent executive orders has seized the 
constitutional authority of the United States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not bring an immediate end to the 
President's pattern of executive overreach, it does, within the rule of 
law, begin to restore the constitutional authority of this governing 
body.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible time for Republicans in Congress to 
play political games with America's homeland security. Our country and 
its citizens must remain safe and secure. International travel, border 
crossings, and our transportation systems must be protected. In 
Florida, this is an economic issue as well.
  In a recent Gallup Poll, Americans named politicians as their top 
concern over even the economy and jobs, and this Republican bill is a 
fine example of why that is: at the heart of the House Republicans' 
obstruction of homeland security is their inattention to bipartisan 
solutions and their continued dodging of needed immigration reform.
  Remember last session? The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. It was 
passed overwhelmingly, but it hit a roadblock here in the House, and 
this roadblock continues to be a drag on the economy. One particularly 
heartless amendment will be offered by Republicans that directs young 
DREAM Act students to pack their bags and leave America, even though 
America is the only country they have ever known.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am perplexed with the heartless amendments 
from the Republicans in Congress because, in the State of Florida, our 
Republican legislature passed a law last year to provide instate 
tuition to the same DREAM Act students.
  Now, the Republican Congress wants to send them packing. This is 
unnecessarily harsh, and it is inconsistent with our American values. I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Seventh Congressional District of Texas, Congressman Culberson, the 
gentleman from the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican House takes an 
important step in restoring the trust of the American people in their 
elected Representatives and in restoring the rule of law in our Nation.
  Two of the most important principles underlying our entire system of 
government are trust and the rule of law. The American people in the 
election last November decisively rejected the aggressive, liberal 
agenda of this President and of the Democrats in Congress.
  They elected this Republican majority to stop the President from 
doing further damage to our system of laws and further damage to our 
Constitution. The American people elected us to preserve and protect 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, but that work begins 
with trust.
  We, today, are doing what the voters of America asked us to do in 
enforcing our laws on the border to ensure that our laws are respected, 
to ensure that our immigration law is fair, and that it treats everyone 
equally as the Constitution requires.
  We are keeping our word to the American people to do precisely what 
we said we would do, and that is to overturn these illegal executive 
memos that are attempting to ignore what the law says the President 
must do. Not even King George III had the authority to waive a law 
enacted by the Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker, once we have begun this path today of restoring that 
bond of trust, we will restore the rule of law in America because, 
without the law, there is no liberty.
  In fact, the first design on one of the first coins ever minted in 
the Republic of Mexico, a coin which I have here with me, shows the 
liberty cap--liberty and law. There is no liberty without law 
enforcement, and the House today is doing what the American people 
hired us to do: to restore their trust and to restore the rule of law.
  This is a law enforcement issue. Border security and immigration, 
these are matters of law enforcement. We trust the good hearts and the 
good sense of the officers in the field to do the right thing for the 
right reasons,

[[Page 528]]

which is to enforce our laws fairly and equally, because the people on 
the Rio Grande understand better than anyone else that if the law is 
not enforced, there cannot be safe streets and that you cannot have 
good schools and a strong economy without law enforcement.
  We in Texas understand better than anyone else that this debate is 
far larger than it just being about immigration or border security. It 
is far larger than just these individual issues we will debate today.
  Today, we in the Republican House are honoring the will of the 
American people. We will keep our word. We will make sure that the laws 
of the United States are enforced equally and fairly for all.
  Above all, we will preserve and protect the Constitution and the 
America that we know and love. That was the message of the election 
last November.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, the world is mourning. 
Millions have marched in Paris in memory of the victims and to stand 
against terrorism; yet, at a time when we should strengthen our 
response against terrorism, Republicans are playing games.
  By hijacking this bill with measures that dismantle the President's 
executive action, Republicans are threatening to endanger the security 
of our entire Nation for the sole purpose of playing partisan politics.
  Despite claims of support for reform, we are not being asked to vote 
for a better immigration system; we are being asked to vote for a 
crueler one--a system of mass deportation, one that tears parents away 
from children, disrupts communities, and weakens our economy, one that 
replaces the open hands of the Statue of Liberty with a sign that 
reads: You are not welcome here.
  Worse, Republicans know that this will not become law, so today's 
debate serves only to placate an extreme wing of their party while 
making millions of hardworking and aspiring Americans afraid and 
unsettled.
  Undocumented or not, immigrants are integrated into our communities, 
and pulling a thread once woven just weakens the fabric. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this toxic bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Raleigh, North Carolina, Congressman Holding.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
underlying DHS bill and relevant amendments.
  Already, the United States admits 1 million legal permanent 
immigrants per year, so long as they follow our Nation's legal 
immigration process. Unfortunately, like those coming to the United 
States illegally, this administration wants to ignore our Nation's 
immigration laws and immigration process.
  The problem is twofold, Mr. Speaker. This not only undermines the 
rule of law in our country, but it also unfairly treats those who 
follow our legal immigration process, as complicated as it is.
  After this administration established DACA in 2012, unilaterally 
granting amnesty to illegal minors, the number of unaccompanied 
children at the border increased almost tenfold in just 3 years.
  The President's most recent amnesty actions send a resounding message 
to wishful immigrants that our Nation may have immigration laws, but 
that it is just not important that they are respected.
  Simply put, this is wrong, so I support this rule, and I support 
restoring the rule of law.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to 
the bill.
  For over 500 days, Republican leadership refused to bring 
comprehensive immigration reform for a vote, this despite ample support 
from both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation from the 
Senate.
  In the face of Republican inaction, however, President Obama made the 
appropriate and the lawful move to expand the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals program and to create deferred action for parents. 
Now, Republicans have decided to hold our national security hostage in 
order to placate the anti-immigrant fringe.
  Make no mistake, this rule and bill have nothing to do with our 
national security and have everything to do with tearing down the 
President's legal executive action on immigration.
  It has been clear to me, though, that whatever this President puts 
forward, Republicans will oppose; but it is hard to believe, given the 
dangers we face, that Republicans won't work in a bipartisan manner to 
keep our country safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. Thank you for the additional time.
  This is cynical. It is anti-immigrant. We should defeat this rule, 
and we should defeat the underlying legislation if these poison pill 
amendments are adopted.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, Wisconsin, Reid Ribble.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but the President has dropped a 
poison pill with his executive amnesty--of his own choosing, I might 
add--into the well of goodwill in this Chamber.
  Now, before anything even gets sent over to him, he is issuing a veto 
threat on the front end. The President has now made it abundantly clear 
that he is willing to risk national security to protect those who have 
come here illegally.
  What the President should be doing is exactly what the gentlewoman 
just mentioned a moment ago: working in a bipartisan fashion with 
Congress, through the rule of law, to pass immigration reform.
  This debate is no longer about immigration reform. The debate, 
unfortunately, isn't even about homeland security. The debate has 
become about choices and the President's choices, about the choices 
that the President, himself, has made in regard to this issue. He will 
soon have another choice to make.
  I wish this were just about immigration reform because I believe, 
quite frankly, that we can find a path forward on immigration reform, 
Mr. Speaker. We need to fix our immigration system. Every single person 
here, unless Native American, is a son or a daughter of an immigrant.
  We need to address our immigration system to make it easier for 
people to enter our Nation legally and to make it more difficult to 
come here illegally. This appropriations bill does that very thing: it 
puts more guards on the border than ever before, and it creates 
security that is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the President not to veto this piece of 
legislation but to work with this Congress to do this in the correct 
way, which is within the confines of the Constitution.
  I encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this bill as fast and as 
quickly as possible.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is both 
risky and callous. It asks Americans to give into their worst 
instincts. If you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an 
immigrant; if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like 
that.
  We are at a moment when there are growing security threats to our 
Nation, and Republicans in this House of Representatives are willing to 
play Russian roulette with the security of the American people. The 
American people know better.
  Wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform, including 
those in my home State of Texas. Majorities disagree with taking away 
DACA for young kids who came here through no fault of their own.

[[Page 529]]



                              {time}  1345

  I will leave with you with this question to ponder, Mr. Speaker: What 
do you tell somebody who was 3 years old when they were brought here to 
the United States of America, knows no other country and no other 
language but the English language, what do you tell that person when 
you tell them that they have got to leave here? This is the only life 
that they have ever known. How are they not as American as you and I?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia, Congressman Collins, a member of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the 
underlying bills, many of which have not been discussed because we have 
been discussing the one that is, frankly, the most effective and have 
been discussing what the President has done and the funding issues. But 
the one thing that I want to emphasize is what is not being discussed 
here, and what is not being discussed is the simple opportunity to 
restore constitutional checks and balances.
  My friends across the aisle have talked about what question would you 
want to talk about. Well, let's talk about immigration. When they had 
the opportunity, they punted on that issue, so I wouldn't want to talk 
about it if I were them either.
  They want to talk about how we are going to leave the country in 
jeopardy. No, we are not. The President can sign this bill, get back to 
proper constitutional order, and then everything is funded; and there, 
order is restored.
  What I find amazing is the blame on running other things. And even 
when we bring up this, some of my friends from across the aisle will 
bring up, well, other Presidents have done it. Well, that reminds me of 
what my mother used to say: If everybody jumped off the roof, would 
you?
  Just because it was wrong then does not make it right now.
  It is time. And what people in America tell us all the time is it is 
time for Congress to reassert its congressional authority. That is what 
this is about. Throw the blame anywhere you want to, try to direct us, 
but you are not deceiving the American people, as the speaker just 
said. The American people do know the difference when you are trying to 
misdirect them.
  So this package of rules, these bills underneath, they get at the 
heart of restoring constitutional order, of taking back regulations 
that need to be rolled back so that our businesses can function, our 
markets can function, and we can get back to doing exactly what we are 
supposed to be in here doing.
  So as long as we hear the distractions, I know the American people 
aren't fooled because I am not fooled. I did what I have said I would 
do--I came here to fight--back at the first of the year: to fight what 
was being done around Congress and around this executive order. I will 
continue that fight. That is the promise that we made to the American 
people. That is the promise the Republicans are bringing forth. Jobs, 
people, and kitchen table. That is what we are about. It is about what 
the Founding Fathers said we would do.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans offer a very clear 
immigration plan today: Deportation now. Deportation tomorrow. 
Deportation forever.
  They don't just want to roll back what the President has recently 
done with pro-family action; they would roll back previous protection 
for our DREAMers, young adults brought here as children, who have so 
much to offer. Republicans would deny them that opportunity, just as 
they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work 
hard, and pass a criminal background check--they would deny them an 
opportunity to stay together.
  Republicans want to deport Pedro. Pedro is a young man who came to 
America at age three. He excelled in school. He graduated near the top 
of his class at the University of Texas. And he hopes to work for the 
district attorney's office, securing our community from crime, or in 
some other public service. This bill does not just deny opportunity to 
Pedro; it denies our entire community the opportunity to benefit from 
his talents. I say let these DREAMers help us build a better and 
stronger America.
  Sadly, we have had so many broken promises in this House that the day 
would come when people of goodwill in both parties could come together 
and consider broader reform. Yet we are still denied that opportunity. 
Republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken 
immigration system. They will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything.
  This amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work. 
It would deny hope for so many of these young people who pledge 
allegiance to America, who have so much to offer. Pandering to angry 
isolationists is not a sound immigration policy. It is not what this 
country, where the Statue of Liberty stands so tall, is all about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Vote for the dream, Mr. Speaker, and vote ``no'' on this 
nightmare of an amended bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I 
would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan 
games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on 
unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland 
Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our 
Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean 
version of the Homeland Security bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. We do not need to start this new Congress going down a 
path of legislative brinkmanship and crises of our own making. We 
shouldn't be treating funding for our national security like a 
political pawn.
  There are differences of opinion about how to solve immigration. 
There are differences of opinion about the President's actions. The 
venue for taking out those disagreements is not to put the homeland 
security of our country at risk. We don't have to attach these 
controversial amendments to a must-pass bill to keep our borders 
secure. We have no shortage of other things we should be focusing on.
  There seems to be pent-up frustration about our broken immigration 
system. I share that. Let's address our broken immigration system and 
fix it and pass immigration reform. I tried to do that in the Rules 
Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, that discussion is not allowed 
under this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule.
  Instead, we are spending our time here in Congress with yet another 
crisis of our own making. Instead of solving pressing issues, instead 
of creating jobs, instead of protecting our homeland, we are putting a 
bipartisan, important appropriations bill right smack in the middle of 
an unrelated political fight.
  The American people can no longer afford an immigration enforcement 
system that spends extraordinary sums of money every year detaining and 
deporting individuals with strong ties to their community and who pose 
no meaningful threat to anyone. We should focus on criminals rather 
than

[[Page 530]]

children. That is exactly what the President's actions do.
  If the Republicans don't like it, we are happy to work with them to 
address the underlying issues of immigration and why we have 11 million 
people living here illegally in the first place. Until we do, this bill 
doesn't solve a thing. But let's not get hung up over the side issue 
and make sure that we continue to protect our homeland against a 
terrorist threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here because the law requires that the House of 
Representatives pass funding bills. Today we are here because we are 
going to fund Homeland Security, and that we are. We are going to fund 
Homeland Security because every single member of this Republican 
Conference, and I believe every single Member of this House, 
understands how important Homeland Security funding is to protect this 
country and our citizens.
  But we also need to understand that the President of the United 
States last year, and perhaps the year before, took actions which we 
disagreed with, which I believe embarrassed this country, which I 
believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities, and that is 
directly related to issues of executive orders and ideas that he had 
about illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here because we feel passionately about the rule 
of law and the Constitution of the United States. It is the President 
of the United States who we believe has gone well past not only his 
constitutional authority, but the authority that I believe is vested in 
him: well and faithfully executing the laws of the country, which is 
his oath of office.
  So we have gathered together, united in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. We are also going to follow the Constitution 
and pass it here today and tomorrow with the bill and send it to the 
United States Senate and let them deal with it.
  Thank goodness we have Republican control in the Senate; otherwise, 
it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation 
that the former head of the Senate decided not to take up in that body 
to debate or to have a vote on.
  So we stand today prepared to fight the President's unwise and 
unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. It is time for this House to 
fight, I believe, for what is a constitutional issue, and we are going 
to politely do this. There was no screaming and yelling on our side. We 
have great resolve. We have an understanding about what is in the best 
interest of the United States.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 27 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Strike section 3 and insert the following (and redesignate 
     subsequent sections accordingly):
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     240) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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 two hours 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. When the 
     Committee of the Whole 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 240.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)

[[Page 531]]


     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Hardy
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)
     Titus
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1421

  Mrs. DINGELL changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. LUMMIS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 180, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee

[[Page 532]]


     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Bishop (UT)
     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)
     Titus
     Wasserman Schultz
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. DeSAULNIER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. STEFANIK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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.

                          ____________________