[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3357-3369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 639, AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO 
             APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 649

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 639) 
     authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf 
     of the House of Representatives in the matter of United 
     States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), 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 
of the House have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, 
which will provide for consideration of House Resolution 639. I believe 
the underlying resolution is imperative to protecting the balance of 
power that our Founders so carefully enshrined in the United States 
Constitution.
  I would also like to point out that the House Committee on Rules held 
an original jurisdiction hearing and markup yesterday in which we 
received testimony and consideration of an amendment from the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, over 25 States or State officials have filed suit 
challenging the Obama administration's expansion of DACA and the 
creation of DACA-like programs for aliens who are parents of U.S. 
citizens or lawful permanent residents.
  On February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Texas entered and the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting further 
implementation of these programs on the ground that States are likely 
to prevail in their argument for the programs that have run afoul of 
the law.
  The Supreme Court indicated that they will begin hearing oral 
arguments on United States v. Texas in April of 2016 and that it will 
consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Because of 
this timely consideration by the highest court in the land, it is 
imperative that the House consider this underlying resolution.
  I want to make it very clear that this resolution is not about 
policy. If you spoke with every single Member of this body, you would 
find a wide spectrum of opinions regarding how to handle the estimated 
11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States 
unlawfully. This resolution is not about those viewpoints. It is about 
the fundamental separation of power ingrained in our founding document, 
the Constitution.
  Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority 
``to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The administration 
simply cannot ignore certain statutes and selectively enforce others or 
bypass the


[[Page 3358]]

 legislative process to create laws for executive fiat.
  This administration has failed in its duty under Article II, section 
3 of the Constitution of the United States to take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed, and the Supreme Court has specifically 
indicated that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take 
Care Clause. Clearly, the Court views this case as an important review 
of Article I and Article II issues and the balance of power between the 
branches.

                              {time}  0915

  For that reason, and that reason alone, the United States House of 
Representatives is uniquely suited to speak to this underlying question 
that has been raised by the court.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the House can't agree on a budget. 
They take futile vote after futile vote to kill ObamaCare. They waste 
millions of dollars and thousands of hours on the futility. Children 
are drinking lead-tainted water from aging pipes crisscrossing the 
country. Young people are saddled with crushing student loan debt. 
Bridges are crumbling. Our schools are falling apart. Obviously, the 
Metro system in Washington is in serious condition. Our airports are 
struggling to function, and we have no high-speed rail.
  But what do we do here? We vote 64 times to take health care away 
from people. We have Benghazi hearings, which come to nothing. We have 
had eight in the House. Many chairs of those committees have said there 
is nothing there, so we set up a Select Committee to look at it again 
and spend millions of dollars to see what they can find.
  We go after Planned Parenthood, investigate them, set up a Select 
Committee to do that--despite the fact that a case in Texas against 
Planned Parenthood found in favor of Planned Parenthood and indicted 
the people who made the film which created such a sensation in this 
House. We waste congressional time with duplicative, baseless 
investigations. Today, the crusade against President Obama reaches new 
heights.
  This resolution surrounding United States v. Texas adds to the 
already overwhelming list of baseless political tactics that the House 
majority has used to discredit, undermine, and disrespect President 
Obama.
  This resolution makes a political statement, one that represents the 
House majority--not the entire House of Representatives or even the 
entire Congress, since a major part of it has been left out of this 
altogether.
  This resolution seeks to put this whole Chamber on record when there 
is significant, vocal, and strong opposition. In fact, 186 House 
Democrats, along with 39 Senate Democrats, have joined together for our 
own amicus brief in support of the President's executive actions.
  Not only were the President's actions constitutional, they are in 
line with decades of bipartisan action by Presidents on immigration 
itself, including action by President Ronald Reagan and President 
George H.W. Bush.
  This is a rarely seen ploy, seeking to file an amicus brief as the 
whole House, leaving out completely the voice of the minority. I hope 
the American people will see it for what it is: purely political. This 
shows us, once again, that the Republicans are willing to prioritize 
their party over their country.
  Adding insult to injury, Speaker Ryan has said:
  ``The president is not permitted to write law--only Congress is.''
  How true, indeed. So why don't we, the Congress, do what we were sent 
here to do: write laws.
  Republicans have reached for a tool that is not in their 
constitutional tool box: running to the courthouse. Rather than 
allowing Congress to do its job, the Republicans insist on telling 
other branches of government how to do theirs.
  It is quickly becoming clear that this is a dangerous moment in our 
country and in our political system. The Presidential primary field on 
the Republican side is resorting to demagoguery and nativism, fanning 
the flames of dangerous anti-immigrant anger and anger in general.
  What the President rightly called ``vulgar and divisive rhetoric'' in 
the Republican contest is a logical and foreseeable consequence of the 
anger and fear carefully and deliberately cultivated by decades of 
Republican campaign strategy, as Republicans went beyond principled 
advocacy for smaller government to the outright encouragement of people 
to think of government as the problem and they're an enemy to be hated.
  This debate would not have even been an issue if, last Congress, the 
House had taken up the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, which they 
were asked time and time again to do but it never saw the light of day 
here. That was an opportunity for our country to come together in a 
bipartisan way, instead of further dividing us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument we are making today is that this President 
has a repeated history of needing to have his actions resolved through 
the court system.
  The Supreme Court has acted over 13 times to rule against the Obama 
administration. This President is an activist President that works 
around the legislature. As a matter of fact, even Members of this body 
have indicated that they don't even know who their White House contacts 
are.
  We have repeatedly tried to work with the President. We hold 
hearings. They ignore and rebuff the things that we do. They disallow 
what are considered to be normal rules of law.
  So this is an action that has been brought by the States, not by the 
United States Congress. We were simply asked to give an opinion, and 
that is what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne) one of our bright, new members of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the underlying resolution.
  I disagree with the gentlewoman from New York. This is not about 
politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States. And it 
is very clear. It says the President ``shall take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed.''
  Now, some people may argue about what that may mean. But in 1792, 
President Washington, who was the chair of the Constitutional 
Convention in 1787, wrote this:
  ``It is my duty to see the Laws executed--to permit them to be 
trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to'' my duty.
  Fast forward to 2010. In response to those arguing for executive 
amnesty at that time, President Obama himself stated:

       I am President. I am not king. There's a limit to the 
     discretion that I can show because I'm obliged to execute the 
     law. I can't just make the laws up myself.

  Six months later, the President went further. He said this:

       There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are 
     very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration 
     system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore 
     those congressional mandates would not conform with my 
     appropriate role as President.

  Unfortunately, in 2012, President Obama reversed course and 
unilaterally imposed a massive program of executive amnesty in 
violation of this country's immigration laws. In 2014, he doubled down 
with a second, more expansive executive amnesty program.
  According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, 87 
percent of all illegal aliens will be exempted from immigration 
enforcement actions under this President's amnesty policies. Thus, 
immigration laws, as actually written by Congress, will apply to a mere 
13 percent of violators.
  In the upcoming case of the United States v. Texas, the Court will 
consider whether the President's executive amnesty violated the 
Constitution. Consequently, that case has the potential

[[Page 3359]]

to be one of the most important constitutional decisions on executive 
power ever decided.
  This resolution authorizes the filing of an amicus brief on behalf of 
this House in legal opposition to the President's unconstitutional 
actions.
  As a lawyer, I can tell you amicus filings are important. They allow 
the court to obtain information and arguments from nonparties who have 
an important bearing on this case.
  This resolution will allow this body to be heard before the Supreme 
Court.
  This is not about immigration policy. This is about ensuring that 
this President and future Presidents, regardless of their political 
party, do not have the authority to ignore or change the laws through 
executive fiat. Ultimately, this is about the Constitution and 
protecting the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this important 
resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's resolution 
expressing the position of the House in support of the Obama 
administration in United States v. Texas.
  If the House is going to take a vote on weighing in on an anti-
immigrant lawsuit filed against the President, we should at least have 
the option of voting to support the President's executive actions, 
which are a worthwhile and temporary first step toward reforming our 
broken immigration system.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), 
the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Border Security, to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth reflecting why we are 
here.
  When we had the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last Congress, 
the Congressional Budget Office calculated that it would mean almost a 
trillion dollars to the positive for the American economy, not to 
mention the human toll that our current broken system inflicts on 
people.
  Now, we failed to act. And when we did, the President went to the 
Office of Legal Counsel, an independent group, and asked them what he 
could do, if anything. I thought they were rather conservative, but one 
of the things they said he could do was to give temporary reprieve to 
children who had been brought here without their concurrence and to the 
parents of American citizens. So he did that.
  How could he do that? Because the Congress has delegated to the 
executive the authority to act. In 1952, we did so--it can be found at 
8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3)--and again in 2002. When we created the Department 
of Homeland Security, we told the Department Secretary that he should 
establish immigration policies and priorities for removal.
  Now, why would that happen? We have only appropriated 4 percent of 
the funds necessary to remove everyone who is here without their proper 
papers. So clearly, there needs to be some prioritization. We recognize 
that. We told the Secretary to do it, and that is exactly what he did. 
We delegated the authority.
  On work authorization, again, we delegated that authority. In 1981, 
President Reagan went to rulemaking and established that authority, 
which is actually in practice; it has been in place. And Congress, in 
1986, explicitly recognized the authority to give work authorization to 
those who are in deferred action status.
  But even without that delegation, the President has long had the 
authority to take the action that the President has in this case. It is 
called prosecutorial discretion and foreign policy.
  In United States v. Arizona, Justices Roberts and Kennedy noted that 
when the executive has broad discretion, a principal feature of the 
removal system is that it extends, and it extends to whether it makes 
sense to pursue removal at all.
  This isn't new with President Obama. When President Reagan held that 
office, he sponsored a bill that gave relief--amnesty, if you will--to 
several million people; but the Congress--and it is reflected in the 
Judiciary Committee report--specifically excluded the spouses and 
children of those who had relief. What did Reagan do? He gave deferred 
action to the spouses and the children who had been specifically 
excluded from relief by the Congress because he didn't want to break up 
families. That was about 40 person of the undocumented people at the 
time--about the same amount that President Obama has dealt with.
  Not only is this resolution wrong, it is the wrong process. Democrats 
went to the Ethics Committee. We got approval to get a volunteer to 
write a brief, which I will later include in the Record. We read it 
before we signed it.
  In contrast, what are you asking Members to do? You have no idea what 
you are signing onto, just that you are against it.
  Now, does this mean that you are saying that the Administrative 
Procedure Act applies whenever the President takes a discretionary 
action? Well, good luck fighting ISIS then. Good luck getting disaster 
relief if there is a flood.
  It is defective for process, too. There is a group called the 
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. I have been involved with that in the 
past. That group is consulted when there is an issue that relates to 
the prerogatives of the House. For example, is there a speech or debate 
issue before the court?

                              {time}  0930

  This did not come before the BLAG because this is political. This is 
not about the prerogatives of the House.
  Now, all Members of the House had an opportunity to file a brief, and 
Republican Members still can if they can meet the time deadlines. But 
using this process, I think there is a reason why CRS was unable to 
tell us any other instance where a process like this was used about the 
prerogatives of the House.
  So this is a radical procedure and a radical act because it says the 
House cannot delegate to the executive, as we have done, because it 
could cripple the President by requiring the Administrative Procedure 
Act whenever he takes a discretionary act, because it violates the 
procedures the House has always used.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. But finally, the net result could be this: if the 
Republicans prevail, we could end up with a roundup of a million kids 
who did nothing wrong, who were brought here as infants, who don't even 
remember the country of their birth.
  When all is said and done, that is what this is about.
  I would urge that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this radical 
resolution. We will attempt to offer a resolution that, instead, is 
something you know what you are buying into, not a pig in a poke, but a 
thoughtful, reasoned brief that outlines what the House has done to 
delegate to the executive, outlines what the executive's authority has 
been since Eisenhower.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if you listen to our colleagues, they make wild 
accusations. They are swinging widely rather than understanding the 
essence of the case. The essence of the case is more than 25 States 
have gone to Federal Court in Texas, at the heart of the border, and 
argued the laws of the United States of America.
  The process that comes about and that we agree with is we do not 
believe that the President of the United States, not any President, has 
the authority, the responsibility, or the legal standing to do what 
this President has done.
  The President repeated that, evidently, some 21 times, that he did 
not have that standing either to do what he eventually did, which was 
purely political, and that is what we are being accused of today.
  We believe that rule of law is the most important attribute, and we 
simply in the House of Representatives are

[[Page 3360]]

supporting what the Supreme Court has asked at the time the oral 
arguments will be done here before the Supreme Court, probably in the 
next month or so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Buck), an esteemed district attorney in Colorado and currently a member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear picture 
of how our government works. In Article I, section 8, the Founding 
Fathers gave Congress the duty to create laws. More importantly, 
Article I gave Congress the authority to ``establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization.''
  Rather than enforcing the laws Congress created, the President has 
failed to execute them. Through his executive actions, he has even 
bypassed this building, rewriting the laws on immigration to his 
liking.
  Sadly, this is not the only time our President has bypassed Congress 
and, by extension, the will of the people. On energy regulations, 
health care, war powers, gun rights, and even judicial nominations, all 
have faced Presidential work-arounds. Through executive actions, 
failure to enforce laws, and administrative regulations, the executive 
branch is slowly becoming a monarchy.
  I founded the Article I Caucus last year to fight executive overreach 
and reassert the power of Congress. Today we have an incredible 
opportunity to speak to not just one, but two of the other branches of 
government.
  Speaker Ryan has a duty to stand up for Congress and the people of 
this Nation by filing a friend of the court brief in this case. I urge 
my colleagues to vote today to give him that prerogative.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in April, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 
the United States v. Texas, a case that has been repeatedly litigated 
by our colleagues in the halls of Congress. And this resolution is 
absolutely about immigration policy. Let's be clear.
  Numerous hearings have been held in our committee challenging the 
constitutionality of Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans. Our 
colleagues, instead of moving forward on comprehensive immigration 
reform and fixing our broken immigration system, have instead insisted 
on putting forth a resolution, a resolution that has no substantive 
findings, makes no legal arguments against the executive action, and 
exists only in the hopes of securing time before the Court during oral 
arguments.
  If our colleagues do find themselves before the Court in this case, 
it would be helpful if they remember the settled Constitutional law on 
this subject.
  DAPA is a lawful exercise of executive discretion well within the 
bounds of the Constitution. It is based on laws enacted by Congress 
that grant broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  Since 1952, Congress has authorized the executive branch to establish 
such regulations, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts 
as it deems necessary for carrying out its authority. And within that 
authority, it is a reasonable exercise of the discretion delegated by 
Congress to do what it is doing.
  The executive action focuses the limited resources of the Department 
of Homeland Security on public safety priorities, ensuring that we are 
deporting felons, not families.
  It is important to recognize that Congress appropriates enough to 
remove less than 4 percent of the unauthorized immigrants now in our 
country. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the statutory 
responsibility to set enforcement priorities and to adopt policies 
necessary for meeting these priorities.
  It is consistent with the actions of Presidents of both parties for 
the last decades, including President Eisenhower, President Reagan, and 
President George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, the strongest historical 
precedent for DAPA was the Family Fairness
program implemented by President Reagan and President Bush.
  These executive actions will strengthen our communities, keep 
families together, and grow our economy.
  This resolution is not about limiting executive authority. It is 
about attempting to reverse immigration policy set by the executive 
branch.
  I understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want 
to admit that, or they want to frame it in the context of a 
Constitutional question, but it is really about changing policies that 
are keeping families together, that are making sure that we properly 
allocate resources to the most serious individuals who should be 
deported, those who have committed crimes, and keep families together 
while we work to fix our broken immigration system.
  This is about a fundamental change in immigration policy that will 
rip families apart, that will undermine our values as a country. We 
ought to call it what it is.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against this 
resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind this body, Mr. Speaker, that over 13 times the highest 
court in this land, the Supreme Court, has ruled against this activist 
President for exceeding his constitutional authority.
  This President, in his own concoction of the way the country ought to 
be run, does not follow the rules, not the rule of law, not the rule of 
providing enough information for people by properly delineating the way 
rules and laws should be executed.
  That is why we are here today. It has everything to do with our 
belief that the President of the United States has not well and 
faithfully properly executed the laws of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership on this important situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 639.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here again discussing the President and his 
executive actions. Back in November of 2014, President Obama announced 
a series of executive actions that would have provided amnesty to 
approximately 5 million additional illegal immigrants.
  Amnesty for these 5 million illegal immigrants would have been in 
addition to the millions who were provided amnesty under the 
administration's 2012 actions.
  The President continues to degrade the rights of American citizens 
and ignores the U.S. Constitution which this country was founded on.
  The checks and balances that our Founding Fathers established made it 
specifically clear that they wanted Congress to enact laws that shape 
our country, not the President. That is why I am supporting House 
Resolution 639.
  House Resolution 639 will allow the Speaker of the House to submit to 
the U.S. Supreme Court its opinion, arguing that the President's 
executive action on amnesty for illegal immigration is 
unconstitutional. Congress must be able to express its arguments that 
the President's executive order on amnesty is unconstitutional so we 
can continue to maintain the balance of power between Congress and the 
President.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 639 so we can 
continue to deny the President's overreach of power and uphold the 
rights and responsibilities given to this body by the Constitution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I think context is important in this debate 
we are having today. I can't get it out of my head, as we look at House 
Resolution 639, that our Senate has just announced that it is going to 
shut down the Supreme Court nomination process.
  Only a few years ago, the House shut down the government for 16 days.
  We have had 62 ACA repeals.

[[Page 3361]]

  Mitch McConnell once said, famously, that his goal was to make Obama 
a one-term President. He failed at that.
  The fact is that here we are again with Republican efforts to 
undermine, thwart, and shut down President Obama. This is outrageous, 
in my opinion.
  House Resolution 639 is nothing but a continuation of the politics of 
obstruction, just one more way to say you are not really the President, 
you are not legitimate. That is what this represents today. That is the 
exercise we are taking on this floor.
  President Obama's action will bring relief to millions of families 
who live in fear. Families shouldn't be torn apart because House 
Republicans refuse to work together with Democrats to pass an 
immigration bill which would make executive action unnecessary.
  While the Republicans held up progress, President Obama worked within 
his authority and took courageous steps needed to address the problems 
of millions of Americans.
  The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and the expanded 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is an important step 
toward fixing an immigration system that is inhumane and cruel, and it 
is within the right of the President to prioritize removal proceedings 
for certain people. We have to prioritize them. We cannot remove 
everybody at the same time.
  Furthermore, it is consistent with the action of past Presidents, 
dating back to President Eisenhower, including George H.W. Bush and 
Ronald Reagan, who both took executive action to keep immigrant 
families together.
  The Republicans offer no substantive findings and no legal arguments 
in their resolution. This is a delay tactic. This is a political 
tactic. This does not serve the interests of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. The fact that executive action is right for American 
families, and right for our economy, and right for our society, is what 
should guide our actions today, not political delay tactics.
  Republicans won't acknowledge that immigration and immigrants are an 
important part of the society that we live in. I stand with the 
families that President Obama is trying to keep together within his 
authority.
  Vote ``no'' on House Resolution 639.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is a lot of good debate here today. The facts of the case are 
real simple. The Supreme Court of the United States will be deciding 
this.

                              {time}  0945

  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court of 
the Southern District of Texas have let their answer be known, and that 
is they believe that the President is wrong. But we have a process to 
follow, and the good part is it is not whether something House 
Republicans are doing is trying to delay or to stop something that 
might be a decisionmaking that has been made by someone else. We are 
simply trying to support an action that was asked as a result by the 
Supreme Court: Do we have an opinion about this issue? And it is thus 
that we are asking the House of Representatives to come together today 
to hear the facts of this issue and to then render a decision.
  That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is normal and regular, and our Speaker, 
Paul Ryan, is most meticulous in looking at this issue. His advice and 
judgment comes from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte. Both of these gentlemen are not 
only well balanced, but really doing what is being asked of them by the 
third branch of government, which is the judiciary. The judiciary has 
asked the House of Representatives and parties to this suit if they 
would please discuss this issue.
  We believe our ideas are material to the question at hand, and that 
is why the United States House of Representatives, through the Rules 
Committee, is here for this rule today and the underlying legislation 
in just a few minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lance), an exciting young member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of Speaker Ryan's House 
Resolution 639.
  Like many of my colleagues, I continue to oppose President Obama's 
illegal amnesty program, and I have long believed that the proper venue 
to challenging the President's overreaching actions is primarily in the 
courts of this country. To this end, I was 1 of 68 Members of 
Congress--and the only member from the New Jersey delegation--to sign 
an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of 26 
States against the President's executive order on immigration.
  As a lawyer who has practiced constitutional law in my home State of 
New Jersey, I have tried to study these issues closely. There is no 
gray area: Congress writes the laws, and the executive branch enforces 
them.
  The executive overreach consistently taken by this administration 
demonstrates not only contempt for law, but a disregard for the 
critical balance of powers central to our Constitution. The American 
system of self-governance would not be as strong as it is if it were 
not for these bedrock principles.
  Today, we have unelected officials in Federal agencies writing our 
laws. The executive branch is appropriating taxpayer funds without 
authorization from Congress, and departments are selectively deciding 
which laws to enforce. Prosecutorial discretion cannot be expanded to 
break the rule of law, as I am confident the Supreme Court of the 
United States will rule.
  I applaud Speaker Ryan for pursuing an amicus brief to defend our 
Article I powers under the Constitution. Given the President's gross 
executive overreach, it is essential for this institution to respond as 
a whole. This action today is not only prudent, but an important and 
necessary step in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 
639.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a political act because this action 
only comes with President Obama. We never did this with Republican 
Presidents.
  Let me give you an example. After Tiananmen Square, the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to preclude the deportation of Chinese 
students. President Bush vetoed that bill. Do you know what he did 
then? He deferred the deportation of the Chinese students because he 
had the executive authority.
  In 1999, a letter was sent to Janet Reno. It was signed by Henry 
Hyde, Lamar Smith, Sam Johnson, and many others asking her to use her 
prosecutorial discretion and citing the fact that the prosecutorial 
discretion is clear in removal proceedings.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include that letter in the Record.
  I was shocked to hear Mr. Sessions say that the Court had solicited a 
brief--maybe I misunderstood him--had asked the House for a brief. If 
that is the case, I would respectfully request to see a copy of the 
document soliciting a brief from the House of Representatives. That is 
a procedure that would be an extraordinary one, and it is certainly 
news to me.
  Finally, I would like to add that the fact that Mr. Goodlatte doesn't 
agree with the President has nothing to do with the fact that the 
procedures were not followed in this case. The Bipartisan Legal 
Advisory Group is the process established in the House to be used when 
the House takes a step in Court to defend its prerogatives, which is 
what the majority is suggesting is at play in this case.

[[Page 3362]]

  This is clearly a political act, and if it succeeds, who will be 
punished? One million children who did nothing wrong, who will be 
rounded up and taken from their homes.
  I don't know what Republicans think they are doing if they sign on to 
this resolution because it doesn't give any findings nor does it say 
what, in fact, they are signing on to.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King), my dear friend.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman from Texas for 
yielding and for leading on this issue.
  As I sit and listen to this debate, a number of things come to mind, 
and they start with this: I am hearing a lot of policy discussion over 
on the other side of the aisle, but this is about a constitutional 
question.
  We have just said good-bye to one of the great, great Justices in the 
United States Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, who often said that, when 
he made a decision based on the Constitution and he was uncomfortable 
with the policy that resulted from that constitutional decision, he was 
most comfortable that he had made the right constitutional decision 
when he disagreed with a policy result of that decision.
  That is also how we should view this case. Every one of us that has 
the privilege to speak and address you on the floor of this House has 
taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States. This is about the President's oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, except his says take care to 
``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States,'' and it is referenced in the Take Care Clause in the 
Constitution that requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed.
  Now, I don't know that there is a schoolchild in this land that is 
going to get that wrong. They don't think that the President should 
execute the law itself and then conduct himself in the fashion that he 
sees fit. I think they understand that the President, multiple times, 
has lectured the country in his adjunct constitutional law 
professorship that he didn't have the constitutional authority to do 
what he did.
  So this issue is about the Take Care Clause, the President keeping 
his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and it is 
about prosecutorial discretion, as the gentlewoman from California 
said; except that, it was a clear understanding, when they wrote the 
Morton Memos, that they were creating groups of people, classes of 
people, and categories of people, and the Morton Memos were the 
beginning of this. They created four different categories of people, 
and as far as I know, anyone who fit into those categories was 
essentially maybe individually dealt with because they processed their 
paperwork, but they were automatically exempted from the application of 
the law. That is when this began.
  We should not think, Mr. Speaker, that the House hasn't weighed in on 
this. It goes back to this. March 2, 2011, was the introduction of the 
Morton Memos. That was the first executive overreach on immigration 
that is starkly on paper. The first opportunity to push back on that 
was a hearing in which Janet Napolitano asserted that it was on an 
individual basis only and repeated herself. And Morton Memos themselves 
have several references to an individual basis only, except that they 
create four categories of people. So the words don't mean what the 
rules do. They abuse prosecutorial discretion by granting it to vast 
groups of people that were defined first in the Morton Memos.
  So I brought an amendment June 7, 2012, that cut off all the funding 
to the Morton Memos. That passed 238-175 on a bipartisan vote. The next 
opportunity was the Morton Memos in DACA, another King amendment, June 
6, 2013, that passed 224-201, another bipartisan vote in the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  So we addressed the Morton Memos in this House and voted to defund 
them in 2012. That was the first opportunity.
  The next opportunity was 2013. We addressed the Morton Memos in DACA 
and defunded them in this House of Representatives. That was also a 
bipartisan vote.
  Then August 1, 2014, we addressed DACA alone, defunded it, a vote of
216-192, another bipartisan vote, Mr. Speaker.
  Not to be completing it there, January 14, 2015, the House addressed, 
separately, DAPA and Morton Memos in an amendment to defund. That 
passed 237-190. And we picked up the DACA in a separate amendment, same 
day, and that passed 218-209.
  The House has voted time and time again. And if that was not enough 
for the voice of the House to weigh in on this, we came back again on 
June 3, 2015, another King amendment, and defunded the DOJ lawsuit we 
are talking about here now because we said: Step back, Mr. President; 
keep your oath of office. We stood up, and we defended ours.
  I will say this. Despite all of these votes, the government and 
Democrat Members claim Congress has acquiesced to the unconstitutional 
actions when the House has a clear voting history of opposing each step 
in the President's path to amnesty.
  So the House has now exhausted our remedies, with the exception of 
the omnibus spending bills, where everything gets packaged up in one 
vote. Except for that, the House has done all it can, Mr. Speaker, 
except for this opportunity to introduce an amicus brief that will be 
the voice of the House keeping our oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Is it the gentleman's proposition that a vote in this 
House that does not become law voids an action of the House that does 
become law, to wit, the 2002 Department of Homeland Security Act that 
directed the Secretary to establish priorities for removal?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am asserting that the House needs to do all it can to keep our oath 
to support and defend the Constitution, and we are doing this today 
with this endorsement of the Speaker's amicus brief so that the House 
can weigh in in defending our constitutional obligation.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Texas.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her 
courtesies.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to take note, in light of the previous 
debate and comments that were made, that this is a House divided. This 
amicus brief more than likely will be supported by a number of Members, 
but it will not be supported by the entirety of the House. So whether 
or not it is a majority, which is the other party, it is not going to 
be the voice of the entirety of the House.
  As far as I am concerned, and as the Constitution has made clear, 
that responsibility that the President has exercised is a 
constitutional authority. So I oppose the resolution because it is 
nothing more than our Republican majority's latest partisan attacks on 
the President and a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing some of the 
more important issues such as the broken immigration system.
  Just a few years ago, the Senate Republicans and Democrats came 
together to produce and pass a very thorough assessment of the 
immigration system, and they actually passed laws, the intent of the 
Nation, represented by Senators, and that came to the House and never 
saw the light of day to be able to be voted on. But yet the

[[Page 3363]]

Homeland Security Committee, in an extensive series of hearings and 
then, of course, legislation, then wrote legislation that passed by 
voice vote in a bipartisan manner to protect the border, everything 
that the Republican side is asking for.
  But lying at the heart of the plaintiff's misguided and wholly 
partisan complaint is a specious claim that President Obama lacked the 
constitutional authority and statutory authority to take executive 
action. This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA 
declared to be invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama 
administration from implementing those salutary policies.
  Let me briefly speak about these actions by the President. They are 
reasonable. The reason they are reasonable is because, 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 laws and 
the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws.

                              {time}  1000

  Arizona v. United States, Bowsher v. Synar, Buckley v. Valeo, Printz 
v. United States, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting 
Oversight Board.
  Let me also say to you that this is a Texas case that they are 
submitting the amicus on. These are Texas DREAMers. Many of us have 
worked with them. They are in our institutions of higher learning. They 
are going to be contributing to society. This is what this amicus brief 
is, to turn them back and to turn their families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. How would DACA and DAPA impact domestic violence? 
DACA provided a sense of peace, knowing that this woman would not be 
deported.
  I would argue to my friends that whatever the vote is today, it is 
not the sense of the House. It is a divided House, and we are not 
supporting an amicus to turn back the President's constitutional 
authority.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule governing 
debate of H. Res. 639, and the underlying resolution, which authorizes 
the Speaker to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the House of 
Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et 
al., No. 15-674.
  I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than the 
Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and 
another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by 
the nation's broken immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 639, if adopted, would vest in the Speaker alone 
the power to file on behalf of the full House an amicus brief with the 
Supreme Court supporting the constitutionally untenable position of 26 
Republican-controlled states in the matter of United States, et al. v. 
Texas, et al., No. 15-674.
  Lying at the heart of the plaintiffs' misguided and wholly partisan 
complaint is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the 
constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to 
implement Administration policy with regard to Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of American 
Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, the creation of (DAPA).
  This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA 
declared invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama Administration 
from implementing these salutary policies, both of which are intended 
to keep law-abiding and peace loving immigrant families together.
  The purely partisan nature of the resolution before us is revealed by 
its text, which authorizes the Speaker to waste precious taxpayer funds 
and file on behalf of every Member of the House an amicus brief that no 
Member has seen in support of a position opposed by virtually every 
member of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken 
by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his 
constitutional authority.
  Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, 
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 inherent power 
to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
  Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and 
implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with 
enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so 
that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission 
critical enforcement goals.
  Mr. Speaker, to see the utter lack of merit in the legal position to 
be supported by the amicus brief permitted by H. Res. 639, one need 
take note of the fact that deferred action has been utilized in our 
nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both 
parties without controversy or challenge.
  In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at 
least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar 
forms of prosecutorial discretion.
  Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and 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.
  Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this 
Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country 
may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable 
offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state 
may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or 
enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his 
family will be harmed upon return.
  The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the 
Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent 
with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other 
realities.''
  Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's 
immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited 
resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent 
with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth.
  Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her 
college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself 
and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security.
  Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support 
their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, 
drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime.

[[Page 3364]]

  The President was correct in concluding that exercising his 
discretion regarding the implementation of DACA and DAPA policies 
enhances the safety of all members of the public, serves national 
security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping 
families together.
  Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the 
Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and 
Council of Economic Advisors, the President's DACA and DAPA directives 
generate substantial economic benefits to our nation.
  For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to 
increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per 
year over the next 10 years.
  That is a lot of jobs.
  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.
  Let me cite a just a few examples of executive action taken by 
American 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 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to 
allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' 
were paroled into the U.S. by 1981.
  3. 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.
  4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals 
of El Salvador.
  5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting 
DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before 
Dec. 31, 1995.
  6. In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting 
parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and visionary 
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.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me note that the President's laudable 
executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute for 
undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's 
immigration laws supported by the American people.
  Only Congress can do that.
  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.
  Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that 
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes 
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that 
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
  Instead of wasting time debating divisive and mean spirited measures 
like H. Res. 639, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass 
legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as 
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and 
will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting against H. Res. 639.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Bost), who serves on the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. BOST. I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, whenever we take these offices--and understand, I have 
raised my hand and took an oath of office many times in my life, 
whether it was in the United States Marine Corps., local government, or 
here in Congress. When I take that oath and mention the fact that I am 
swearing allegiance to the Constitution to do my duty and do it 
correctly, I make that promise, and I make that promise to the American 
people. This document that we take an oath to, the President himself 
has to take that same oath.
  When the President steps away from that oath, this House has no other 
thing that they can do but to act.
  Any grade school civics student knows that Congress makes the law and 
the President executes them. It is called the separation of powers, 
checks and balances. But the President's executive amnesty proves once 
again that he wants to do both--both. That is not in the Constitution. 
It doesn't work that way.
  Immigration law clearly states that individuals who are here 
illegally must be removed. The President does not have the power to 
pick and choose. That is not what the law says. He doesn't get to 
ignore the laws.
  The outcome of this case will be determined in the Court. But I want 
my constituents--and I want to be on the record--to know that I will 
uphold the Constitution; I will stand for the Constitution; and I take 
my oath of office very, very seriously.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the 
underlying resolution so we can stop this unconstitutional move.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
the underlying legislation. And I call on the Speaker to stop this 
political game and allow the vote on comprehensive immigration reform 
that we should have taken 2 years ago.
  Everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken, but instead of 
voting on a solution, Congress is again wasting time on a political 
gimmick that does not address a single real problem.
  The President took lawful action to help families being torn apart by 
our current system. If Republicans take issue with what current law 
allows, they should stop obstructing meaningful debate and get serious 
about comprehensive immigration reform.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I helped lead efforts last 
Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform by introducing the 
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act, H.R. 15. I believe that bill would have passed if we had been 
given a chance to vote on it on the floor. We had 200 cosponsors and a 
chance to fix this problem then.
  I won't blame the current Speaker for mistakes of the past, but he 
has a chance to lead now.
  For too long, Congress has failed to take meaningful action to 
address our broken immigration system. As a result, we have a deeply 
flawed system that is not working for our communities, our businesses, 
immigrants, or families.
  It will take Congressional action to truly repair our broken 
immigration system, so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution and demand that Congress act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the arguments that are on the floor today 
evolve and revolve around the issues that we believe are very 
important; that is, we believe that the President of the United States 
has exceeded his executive authority, and the Supreme Court is going to 
hear the case.
  But, in fact, today the question that lies before the House is about 
an action that will be taken by this House to support, in an amicus 
brief, the positions that will be needed.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the 
Speaker of the House.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise today to 
urge Members to support this measure, House Resolution 649. Let me 
explain why, and why everyone should support this.
  This resolution authorizes me, on behalf of the House, to file an 
amicus brief to defend our Article I powers under the Constitution. 
Normally this question would be considered by what is known as the 
House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, but I am asking the whole 
House to go on the record, as an institution.
  I recognize that this is a very extraordinary step. I feel it is very 
necessary, though. In fact, I believe this is vital.
  This is not a question of whether or not we are for or against any 
certain

[[Page 3365]]

policy. Members who are making immigration policy arguments are missing 
the entire point here. This comes down to a much more fundamental 
question. It is about the integrity of our Constitution.
  Article I. Article I states that all legislative powers are vested in 
Congress.
  Article II. Article II states that the President ``shall take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed.''
  Those lines, that separation of powers, could not be clearer. Article 
I: Congress writes laws. Article II: Presidents faithfully execute 
those laws.
  In recent years, the executive branch has been blurring these 
boundaries to the point of absolutely overstepping them altogether. As 
a result, bureaucrats responsible for executing the laws, as written, 
are now writing the laws at their whim.
  This just doesn't throw our checks and balances off-balance, it 
creates a fourth branch of government. This creates a fourth branch of 
government that operates with little or no accountability whatsoever. 
Most profoundly, this means that we the people, through our elected 
representatives, are not drafting the laws that we live under. This is 
the profound difference that is occurring here. This fourth branch of 
government is a danger to self-government itself.
  The Supreme Court has recognized the severity of this threat. In 
United States v. Texas, the Court has asked whether the President's 
overreach violates his duty to faithfully execute the laws. This House 
is uniquely qualified and, I would argue, obligated to respond.
  Colleagues, we are the body closest to the people. We are the ones 
who are directly elected by the American people every other year. And 
if we are going to maintain the principle of self-government, if we are 
going to maintain this critical founding principle of government by 
consent of the governed, then the legislative branch needs to be 
writing our laws, not the executive branch, and certainly not a branch 
of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. This is what is happening. And 
it is not just this administration, although this administration has 
taken it to whole new levels.
  As Speaker, I believe the authority of the office that I have been 
entrusted by each and every one of you is to protect the authority of 
this body. I am prepared to make our case.
  We must defend the principle of self-determination, of self-
government, of government by consent of the governed.
  This Constitution protects our rights, as people. It makes sure that 
the government works for us and not the other way around. It makes sure 
that we, as citizens, if we don't like the direction our government is 
going, if we don't like the laws that we are being forced to live 
under, that we can change that through the ballot box. And this is 
being undermined every day.
  I am prepared to submit this defense of our Article I powers, and I 
ask the whole House for its support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we all like and honor the 
Speaker of the House. I was pleased to hear his recognition that this 
should have gone through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group because 
that is how the House organizes itself before asserting a privilege of 
the House in court.
  What he didn't say is why, since cert was granted on January 19--and 
today is March 17--he didn't call together the Bipartisan Legal 
Advisory Group. Certainly, we have met in a much shorter time frame. I 
know because I have been a participant in that process.
  The failure to follow the procedures in this instance can only lead 
observers to conclude that this is a more politicized action than is 
traditional in terms of intervening in the court.
  Now, the Speaker said: ``All legislative powers are vested in 
Congress.'' No one can disagree with that. And that the President must 
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' No one can disagree 
with that.
  Is the Speaker saying that we did not, in 2002, delegate to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility to establish 
priorities and policies, the priorities for removal, that we did not 
fail to provide most of the money that would be necessary to actually 
remove every single undocumented person in here? I think not. In fact, 
the President has done exactly what we said he should do in 2002.
  To approve this resolution, which says that he has acted inconsistent 
with his duties, is a mystery. It is a pig in a poke for the 
Republicans.
  The District Court made a finding that in order to take a 
discretionary action, one would need to comply with the Administrative 
Procedures Act. That is a very bulky procedure--90 days posting.
  Are the Members of the House being asked to say that whenever the 
President takes a discretionary action, he must post a rule for 90 
days? We don't know because this resolution only says we are against 
it.
  If we are saying that a rule must be adopted whenever a discretionary 
action is taken, that would be an extraordinary departure from the 
President's power to act, and it is certainly something that Members 
ought to know they are doing before they vote on this resolution.
  Much has been said about the States that filed the lawsuit. They were 
all States with Republican Governors. But there are States who 
disagree, including my State of California.

                              {time}  1015

  There is a brief filed by the Californians which reads that the 
discretionary action the President took would generate 130,000 jobs in 
California and that it would provide $3.8 billion in taxes to 
California.
  So if we are going to use as an excuse the fact that Republican 
Governors filed a lawsuit to stop it, let's think about the States that 
have been enjoined unfairly and that are experiencing extreme economic 
damage because of the Fifth Circuit's misguided opinion.
  I hate to say it, because I do appreciate the Speaker of the House, 
but there is only one way to look at this resolution--as a highly 
politicized effort. This is not the way the House has traditionally 
proceeded when adopting a court proceeding, a court intervention, that 
deals with the privileges of the House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have come to 
the end of my speakers and would wait for her to offer her final 
comments, and I will close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's resolution expressing a 
position of the House in support of the Obama administration in United 
States v. Texas.
  If the House is going to vote on weighing in on the anti-immigration 
lawsuit that was filed against the President, we should at least have 
the option of voting to support the President's executive actions, 
which are a worthwhile, if temporary, first step toward reforming our 
broken immigration system.
  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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, our immigration system is broken, as 
evidenced by the fact that there are 11 million undocumented persons 
who are living in the United States.
  Instead of engaging in a bipartisan legislative process to reform the 
system, the House majority has decided to focus on discrediting the 
President rather than forming policies that benefit our country. There 
is ample evidence of Presidents long before this one having exercised 
the same executive order privilege without there having

[[Page 3366]]

been any great rush by the House of Representatives to go to court to 
try to stop him. House Democrats would welcome the chance to work on a 
bipartisan solution to the Nation's broken immigration system, but we 
can't because we simply are not allowed to participate--only to show up 
to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. If we have a ``no'' vote on this closed rule, we 
then will be able to present our own resolution in support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her engagement on this 
important issue and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, most of all, what we are doing here is acknowledging 
that the Supreme Court of the United States will make this decision; 
but in seeking input on this important question, we feel like the House 
is uniquely qualified to begin answering that question, literally, with 
a vote. That is how we do things around here.
  I do recognize and respect that the minority leader has gathered a 
group of those who might be Democrats--from the Democrat Party, House 
and Senate sides--for their own opinion, and they did file that. This 
is an action that will be taken today that is by the House of 
Representatives, and I think the Speaker outlined why we are here and 
the importance of it.
  Mr. Speaker, in July of 2011, President Obama stated: ``I swore an 
oath to uphold the laws on the books. Now, I know some people want me 
to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea 
of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on 
immigration reform, but that's not how our system works. That's not how 
our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.''
  I quote the President of the United States on addressing the same 
issue exactly that is before us today.
  Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority 
to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. It is directly out of 
the Constitution. The President had it right at least 21 times.
  Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States 
requires the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today, before this body, is not 
about policy. It is not about how we should handle the 11 million 
undocumented, illegal immigrants who are currently residing in this 
country. It is about our Nation's Constitution. It is about the checks 
and balances that our Founders labored over so intensely to ensure a 
government will always be by and for the people. It has even been noted 
that it has been taught and is taught today in elementary school that 
the legislature--the Congress--writes the laws. That is why we are here 
today. It is even taught in our elementary schools.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration, as well as future administrations 
from either party--whoever serves--must not be allowed to ignore the 
Constitution and circumvent those who write the laws, and it is 
imperative that the House speaks as an institution on this matter.
  I am pleased with the arguments that have been made today. I believe 
they were right and just, and I believe that our Speaker, Paul Ryan, in 
his own wisdom and experience and temperament, is attempting to 
approach this as an important constitutional issue and as the 
prerogative and the right and the responsibility of the United States 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following amici curiae brief:

                               No. 15-674

               In the Supreme Court of the United States

             United States of America, et al., Petitioners,

                                   v.

                  State of Texas, et al., Respondents.


  ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
                             FIFTH CIRCUIT

   BRIEF OF 186 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 39 
  MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

       Kenneth L. Salazar.
       Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.
       Seth P. Waxman, Counsel of Record.
       Jamie S. Gorelick.
       Paul R.Q. Wolfson.
       David M. Lehn.
       Saurabh H. Sanghvi.
       Ryan McCarl.
       John B. Sprangers.
       Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP.


                        INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

       Amici are 186 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 
     and 39 Members of the U.S. Senate. A complete list of amici 
     is set forth in the Appendix. Among them are:
       U.S. House of Representatives:
       Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader.
       Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip.
       James E. Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader.
       Xavier Becerra, Democratic Caucus Chair.
       Joseph Crowley, Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair.
       John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
       Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 
     and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.
       U.S. Senate:
       Harry Reid, Democratic Leader.
       Richard J. Durbin, Democratic Whip.
       Charles E. Schumer, Democratic Conference Committee Vice 
     Chair and Policy Committee Chair, and Ranking Member, 
     Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference.
       Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
       Robert Menendez, Democratic Hispanic Task Force Chair.
       As Members of Congress responsible, under Article I of the 
     Constitution, for enacting legislation that will then be 
     enforced by the Executive Branch pursuant to its authority 
     and responsibility under Article II, amici have an obvious 
     and distinct interest in ensuring that the Executive enforces 
     the laws in a manner that is rational, effective, and 
     faithful to Congress's intent. Given their institutional 
     responsibility, amici would not support executive efforts at 
     odds with duly enacted federal statutes. But where Congress 
     has chosen to vest in the Executive discretionary authority 
     to determine how a law should be enforced and the Executive 
     has acted pursuant to that authority--as is the case here--
     amici have a strong interest in ensuring that federal courts 
     honor Congress's deliberate choice by sustaining the 
     Executive's action.


                          SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

       Congress understands that the Executive is often better 
     positioned to determine how to adjust quickly to changing 
     circumstances in complex fields, particularly ones involving 
     law-enforcement and national-security concerns. Congress 
     therefore regularly gives the Executive broad discretion to 
     determine how to enforce such statutes. Rarely has it done so 
     more clearly than in the Nation's immigration laws.
       Recognizing the Executive's institutional advantages in the 
     immigration context, Congress has for more than sixty years 
     granted the Executive broad discretionary authority to 
     ``establish such regulations; . . . issue such instructions; 
     and perform such other acts as [the Secretary] deems 
     necessary for carrying out his authority'' under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA''). 8 U.S.C. 
     1103(a)(3). And in 2002, in the face of a yawning gap between 
     the size of the unauthorized immigrant population and the 
     amount of resources reasonably available for enforcement, 
     Congress charged the Secretary of Homeland Security with 
     ``[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies 
     and priorities.'' 6 U.S.C. 202(5). Congress thereby 
     encouraged the Executive to focus its resources in a rational 
     and effective manner on cases in which the Nation's interest 
     in removal is strongest, to provide the maximum return on 
     Congress's sizeable but necessarily finite investment in 
     immigration enforcement.
       As representatives of diverse communities across the United 
     States, amici have witnessed how an approach to enforcement 
     of the immigration laws that does not focus on appropriate 
     priorities undermines confidence in those laws, wastes 
     resources, and needlessly divides families, thereby exacting 
     a severe human toll. Amici thus regard the DAPA Guidance as 
     exactly the kind of ``enforcement polic[y]'' that Congress 
     charged the Secretary with establishing. Building on the 
     Secretary's decision to prioritize for enforcement threats to 
     national security, border security, and public safety, the 
     DAPA Guidance establishes a ``polic[y]'' that certain 
     nonpriority immigrants may be considered for ``deferred 
     action,'' i.e., memorialized temporary forbearance from 
     removal, which triggers eligibility for work authorization 
     upon a showing of economic need.
       This Court has observed that deferred action is a 
     ``commendable exercise in administrative discretion.'' Reno 
     v. American-Arab

[[Page 3367]]

     Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 484 (1999) 
     (``ADC''). Deferred action is not just a humanitarian 
     exercise. Like other uses of deferred action, the DAPA 
     Guidance facilitates the implementation of the Secretary's 
     priorities and promotes the efficient and effective execution 
     of the immigration laws consistent with the limited 
     enforcement resources available. The Guidance does this by 
     encouraging eligible persons to submit to a background check 
     so they can be identified and classified according to removal 
     priority, and by enabling those with an economic need to 
     support themselves lawfully.
       That the Secretary's guidance is within his statutory 
     authority should not be open to doubt. For half a century, 
     the Executive has used deferred action and other forms of 
     discretionary relief in a variety of circumstances, even when 
     not specifically authorized by statute. Congress has approved 
     of those practices, repeatedly amending the immigration laws 
     without foreclosing the Executive's broad discretion to use 
     them--and even enacting provisions that presume the Executive 
     will continue its discretionary practice of deferred action. 
     Similarly, Congress has explicitly recognized the Executive's 
     broad discretion to determine which removable individuals 
     qualify for work authorization and has never disturbed the 
     Executive's decades-long practice of providing work 
     authorization to those granted deferred action.
       The court of appeals' holding that the DAPA Guidance is 
     ``manifestly contrary to the INA'' reflects a misreading of 
     the INA and a faulty approach to interpreting complex 
     regulatory statutes like the immigration laws. The court 
     reasoned that the immigration laws' specific references to 
     discretionary relief from removal and work authorization 
     under certain circumstances implicitly foreclosed 
     discretionary relief and work authorization under others. But 
     deferred action is not a substitute for specific statutory 
     statuses and forms of discretionary relief, as it grants none 
     of the legal rights that lawful status provides. Moreover, 
     the court's expressio unius analysis disregards the broad 
     grants of discretion that are explicit in the immigration 
     laws and the long history of undisturbed executive exercise 
     of that discretion. The court's approach would make it 
     virtually impossible for Congress to grant the Executive the 
     broad authority and discretion required to tackle urgent and 
     unforeseen immigration challenges, while retaining the 
     ability to direct specific enforcement action it deems 
     appropriate. More generally, it would hamper Congress's 
     ability to allocate to the Executive the combination of broad 
     discretion and specific responsibilities so often needed to 
     administer sprawling statutory schemes effectively.
       Finally, even if a claim under the Take Care Clause is 
     justiciable, and even if such a claim may be asserted against 
     an Executive officer other than the President, the claim must 
     fail here. The States' challenge rises and falls on the 
     proper interpretation of the immigration laws, and thus 
     should be viewed as presenting only a statutory claim. In any 
     event, the Take Care Clause surely does not prevent an agency 
     faced with the task of removing hundreds of thousands of 
     individuals each year from pursuing such removals in a 
     rational rather than haphazard manner in light of its limited 
     enforcement resources.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.
     Embargoed for release Monday, November 8, 1999.
     Contact: Allen Kay, Rep. Lamar Smith.
     Re Guidelines for use of prosecutorial discretion in removal 
         proceedings.

     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Doris M. Meissner,
     Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner: 
     Congress and the Administration have devoted substantial 
     attention and resources to the difficult yet essential task 
     of removing criminal aliens from the United States. 
     Legislative reforms enacted in 1996, accompanied by increased 
     funding, enabled the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     to remove increasing numbers of criminal aliens, greatly 
     benefitting public safety in the United States.
       However, cases of apparent extent hardship have caused 
     concerns Some cases may involve removal proceedings against 
     legal permanent residents who came to the United States when 
     they were very young, and many years ago committed a single 
     crime at the lower end of the ``aggravated felony'' spectrum, 
     but have been law-abiding ever since, obtained and held jobs 
     and remained self-sufficient, and started families in the 
     United States. Although they did not become United States 
     citizens, immediate family members are citizens.
       There has been widespread agreement that some deportations 
     were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. If the 
     facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to 
     us, we must ask why the INS pursued removal in such cases 
     when so many other more serious cases existed.
       We write to you because many people believe that you have 
     the discretion to alleviate some of the hardships, and we 
     wish to solicit your views as to why you have been unwilling 
     to exercise such authority in some of the cases that have 
     occurred. In addition, we ask whether your view is that the 
     1996 amendments somehow eliminated that discretion. The 
     principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established. 
     Indeed, INS General and Regional Counsel have taken the 
     position, apparently well-grounded in case law, that INS has 
     prosecutorial discretion in the initiation or termination of 
     removal proceedings (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, a 
     number of press reports indicate that the INS has already 
     employed this discretion in some cases.
       True hardship cases call for the exercise of such 
     discretion, and over the past year many Members of Congress 
     have urged the INS to develop guidelines for the use of its 
     prosecutorial discretion. Optimally, removal proceedings 
     should be initiated or terminated only upon specific 
     instructions from authorized INS officials, issued in 
     accordance with agency guidelines. However, the INS 
     apparently has not yet promulgated such guidelines.
       The undersigned Members of Congress believe that just as 
     the Justice Department's United States Attorneys rely on 
     detailed guidelines governing the exercise of their 
     prosecutorial discretion, INS District Directors also require 
     written guidelines, both to legitimate in their eyes the 
     exercise of discretion and to ensure that their decisions to 
     initiate or terminate removal proceedings are not made in an 
     inconsistent manner. We look forward to working with you to 
     resolve this matter and hope that you will develop and 
     implement guidelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an 
     expeditious and fair manner.
           Sincerely,
         Henry J. Hyde; Lamar Smith; Bill McCollum; Bill Barrett; 
           Barney Frank; Sheila Jackson Lee; Martin Frost; Howard 
           L. Berman; Brian P. Billbray; Charles T. Canady; Nathan 
           Deal; David Dreier; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Patrick J. 
           Kennedy.
         James P. McGovern; F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.; Henry A. 
           Waxman; Gene Green; Corrine Brown; Barbara Cubin; 
           Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Bob Filner; Sam Johnson; Matthew 
           G. Martinez; Martin T. Meehan; Christopher Shays; Kay 
           Granger; Ciro D. Rodriguez.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 649 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 646) 
     expressing the position of the House of Representatives in 
     the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-
     674. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 646.
                                  ____


        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]

[[Page 3368]]

     has no substantive legislative or policy implications 
     whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. 
     Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 
     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 181, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               YEAS--234

     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)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     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
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Buchanan
     Comstock
     DeSantis
     Fincher
     Frankel (FL)
     Graves (MO)
     Himes
     Jordan
     Kirkpatrick
     Lieu, Ted
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1043

  Mr. McDERMOTT, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Messrs. RUIZ, COHEN, 
TONKO, and HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COFFMAN and Mrs. LUMMIS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 180, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 128]

                               YEAS--234

     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)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)

[[Page 3369]]


     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     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
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Buchanan
     Comstock
     DeSantis
     Fincher
     Frankel (FL)
     Graves (MO)
     Jordan
     Kirkpatrick
     Lieu, Ted
     Quigley
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Stutzman
     Westmoreland
     Young (IN)
       
       

                              {time}  1050

  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.

                          ____________________