The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO FAITHFULLY OBSERVE AND RESPECT CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2332-H2340 on March 12, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO FAITHFULLY OBSERVE AND RESPECT CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of South Carolina). It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 113-378.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise affects the ability of the executive branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this Nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not.
The ENFORCEMENT Act is not constitutional, but it gives us an opportunity to raise these issues. That is what freedom is. That is what the opportunity of democracy is all about. So the Jackson Lee amendment engages in this discussion to reinforce that there are constitutional problems with the ENFORCE Act.
My amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the constitutional Federal laws. The amendment would ensure that one House of Congress cannot initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were taken to comply with the judicial decisions.
A couple of weeks ago, I believe in the month of February, the Speaker of the House came forward regarding a serious issue when they announced that they were prepared to move forward with discussions on immigration reform. Then, less than 5 days later, the Speaker took to the airwaves and indicated that that offer of bipartisanship has been pulled down because of the trust question of the President of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you what happened in those 5 days. The President led the country; the President provided for the country; the President listened to the American people; the President has been the Commander in Chief; and the President has provided that kind of fiscal responsibility working on the omnibus, the budget, and I don't know what happened.
But what I will say to you is I can see no reason for this kind of legislation to come to the floor of the House and to be able to clearly poke a spear, if you will, in the eye of article 2 that says, ``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' This President has that power.
My amendment will ensure that whatever passes here allows the President to be able to handle the business of the American people through judicial and Federal statutes without interference. I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for allowing a chance to explain my amendment.
The purpose of H.R. 4138 is to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires the President to
``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed--but in fact has the opposite effect.''
That is why my amendment protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
The Jackson Lee Amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
The amendment would ensure that one house of Congress could not initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were taken to comply with judicial decisions.
The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws.
My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority, but the Supreme Court has Constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the president's powers under the Constitution.
It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW.
If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role.
When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.
The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill.
Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment.
But that is exactly what this bill is doing--in seeking to usurp the powers of the president--particularly President Obama--my colleague whom I realize was a former prosecutor--has put forth a piece of legislation which baffles me.
In our Constitutional Democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.
And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.
In fact Mr. Chair, if the legislation raises no question of constitutionality, the laws that we pass in this pose complicated questions, and executing them can raise a number of issues of interpretation, application or enforcement that need to be resolved before a law can be executed.
This bill, H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process.
The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court.
These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct.
In the wide array of circumstances in which the bill would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes.
Second, the bill violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to decided.
And Mr. Chair, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.
Third, the bill makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to constitute a policy of non-enforcement.
This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the president--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment, which again, protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
Mr. Chair, the United States Constitution is sacrosanct--let's support it!
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as it would gut the bill.
Read the text of the amendment. The amendment would explicitly prohibit the bill from affecting the executive branch's compliance with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. But that is exactly the point of the base bill.
The base bill encourages the courts to decide constitutional issues relating to the Constitution's separation of powers between the branches of government. We would of course expect the President to obey those decisions from the courts, yet this amendment would grant the President the authority to defy those very court decisions by making sure that the President did not have to be, quote, affected by them.
This amendment only adds insult to injury. It would take a bill designed to encourage the Federal courts to engage in the constitutional issues of the day and amend it to explicitly allow the President to defy the decisions of those courts.
There is no reason to exempt court decisions from the bill's coverage. The base bill allows Congress to bring lawsuits if the President fails to faithfully execute the laws. The President is obligated to follow Federal court decisions to the same extent he must follow Federal statutes, treaty obligations, and, of course, the Constitution itself.
Rather than furthering the bill's goal of enforcing the Take Care Clause, the amendment would create an enormous loophole in the bill's coverage, and so I must urge my colleagues to reject this gutting amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me make this point, and I will yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California.
But I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his eloquence. Obviously, he is from the great State of Thomas Jefferson, and I certainly am from the great law school of Thomas Jefferson, the University of Virginia School of Law.
But let me just say that what this bill intends to do, the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, exceeds--he knows it exceeds any constitutional boundaries. He is challenging the President on decisions that they don't agree with that are political. They don't agree with deferred adjudication. They don't agree with the DREAM Act youngsters. They don't agree that we should move forward on immigration reform. They are challenging him on his right to exert his power.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the amendment.
I would note that the late Henry Hyde signed the letter urging for prosecutorial discretion. That is part of the law recognized by the Supreme Court in the Arizona case. I do not believe that the late Henry Hyde would have urged the administration to do something that did not comport with the Constitution or the law, and I include for the Record this letter.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.Re Guidelines for Use of Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal
ProceedingsHon. 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 extreme hardship have caused concern. 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 implenent guidelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an expeditious and fair manner.
Sincerely,
Representatives Henry J. Hyde; Barney Frank; Lamar Smith;
Sheila Jackson Lee; Bill McCollum; Martin Frost; Bill
Barrett; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Bilbray; Corrine
Brown; Charles T. Canady; Barbara Cubin; Nathan Deal;
Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
David Dreier; Bob Filner; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Sam
Johnson; Patrick J. Kennedy; Matthew G. Martinez; James
P. McGovern; Martin T. Meehan; F. James Sensenbrenner,
Jr.; Christopher Shays; Henry A. Waxman; Kay Granger;
Gene Green; Ciro D. Rodriguez.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
{time} 1545
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is a political fight. I thought we had settled that fight with Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions, and that it is impossible to decide such questions. Now our friends want to give Congress the right to expedite their lawsuit over the average citizen on a political question, first in a three-judge court, and then right to the Supreme Court of the United States, while the American people suffer because they want that particular position. It is a political question because it is the Republicans who want to be able to move beyond the authority given in the Constitution.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman very much because this is an important amendment. It doesn't gut the bill, and it isn't a loophole. This is a narrow amendment that only ensures that the President can comply with court decisions. The separation of powers principle is very important, and this amendment clarifies and adds to it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for that very astute analysis, and I want to conclude, if I might, by saying that I respect the separation of powers, and I understand what my colleague said, and Mr. Conyers is very right. This amendment does not gut the legislation, but I understand what my colleagues are saying. What I would argue is that we all want the same thing--that the authority of the President remains that, the Congress, and the judiciary, and there is no exceeding. I believe we can do it in a better way. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just say for the reasons already cited, this is a very harmful amendment. It would gut the bill. For that reason, I oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part A of House Report 113-378.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 3. REPORT.
Not later than the last day of the first fiscal year quarter that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a report on the costs of any civil action brought pursuant to this Act, including any attorney fees of any attorney that has been hired to provide legal services in connection with a civil action brought pursuant to this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, clearly as my colleagues have noted, the ENFORCE Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It would give any legislative majority a blank check to challenge in court by filing a lawsuit any decision of the executive branch that it disagrees with.
Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, to fix our broken immigration system, repair our crumbling infrastructure or raise the minimum wage, today the majority has brought to this floor a partisan measure to increase only one thing: congressional litigation. The bill raises serious constitutional questions, and fails to put in place responsible safeguards to prevent abuse. This is a dangerous attack that threatens the careful balance of power developed by our Founding Fathers.
At a time when the American people have lost so much confidence in Congress, my Republican colleagues are offering yet another bill that will do nothing to improve the lives of Americans. Instead this bill will only add to the American people's scorn and ridicule of Congress. Just what we need, more contention, more division here in Congress by encouraging congressional lawsuits.
In addition to its questionable purpose and substantive defects, the ENFORCE Act also fails to adequately protect taxpayer money, as it would open the floodgates to litigation for nearly any executive branch decision that a majority in either chamber disagrees with, and it would do so without a transparent accounting of taxpayer money spent.
That is why I am offering this amendment today which simply requires quarterly reporting of the costs associated with the litigation under this act. Specifically, it would require the Comptroller General of the United States to issue quarterly reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the cost of civil actions brought pursuant to this act, including any attorney fees.
Since many of my colleagues have previously and routinely expressed significant concern about ensuring taxpayer dollars are used appropriately and carefully, one would expect the ENFORCE Act to have clear oversight and transparency provisions in place. However, it does not.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would provide a transparent, quarterly accounting of the costs of pursuing legal action under this act.
As many of my colleagues know, litigation can be extremely expensive. So let's ensure Members of Congress and the public are aware of exactly how much taxpayer resources are being spent on pursuing legal action under this act. While disbursement reporting requirements already exist for Federal expenditures, recent experience underscores their inadequacy to provide timely, transparent disclosure of precisely how much has been spent on litigation.
For example, over the last few years, the House of Representatives, at the direction of the majority and over strong objections by Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, hired outside counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. What began as a contract for up to $500,000 in legal services to defend DOMA has grown through a series of contract extensions to be up to $3 million, and it is hard to determine at what point and at what cost the majority's pursuits will end.
Today, nearly 9 months since the United States Supreme Court struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, we still don't have an adequate accounting of how much the House majority has spent on defending this discriminatory law, or whether it continues to spend taxpayer funding on this matter.
As minority members of the House Administration Committee reported during this legal challenge in 2012:
No one seems to know where the funds are coming from. There has been no appropriation for this expense. There has been no mention of the funding source in the contract extensions. There is no record of a payment being made in the statement of disbursements.
Clearly, the existing reporting requirements are insufficient to inform Members of Congress and the general public of its litigation disbursements. While Members may disagree on the merits of DOMA, as well as the legislation before us today, we should all recognize that neither side, nor the public interest, is served by obscuring the disclosure of litigation expenses.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, a simple reporting requirement that will safeguard and provide transparency to ensure that spending under this very misguided legislation is made clear.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will support the adoption of this amendment. This amendment basically codifies, at least as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, requirements that already exist regarding reporting the costs of congressional litigation. When the House engages in litigation, the costs of that litigation are already reported to the House Appropriations Committee and the Committee on House Administration. This amendment merely expands these existing reporting requirements to include the Government Accountability Office.
Had the gentleman from Rhode Island prefiled this amendment during Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill, we may have been able to consider it during markup. However, without notice of the amendment, we were not able to determine at markup whether the amendment implicated any attorney-client privilege concerns. We are now satisfied, given existing reporting requirements, that this amendment does not present a privilege problem.
For these reasons, I support the adoption of this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 113-378 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, noes 227, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
AYES--188
BarberBarrow (GA)BassBeattyBecerraBishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)ChuCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDelBeneDeutchDoggettDoyleDuckworthEllisonEngelEnyartEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGarciaGibsonGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)Heck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHoltHondaHorsfordHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewisLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaffeiMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMathesonMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNegrete McLeodNolanO'RourkeOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPeters (CA)Peters (MI)PetersonPocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchiffSchneiderSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)Shea-PorterShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTitusTonkoTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatersWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOES--227
AderholtAmashBachmannBachusBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBentivolioBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBoustanyBrady (TX)BridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)Broun (GA)BuchananBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCampCampbellCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ConawayCookCottonCramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDainesDavis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)Heck (NV)HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanJoyceKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLankfordLathamLattaLoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMarchantMarinoMassieMcAllisterMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulsenPearcePerryPetriPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)ReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRos-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRoyceRunyanRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchockSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStewartStiversStockmanStutzmanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
AmodeiBera (CA)DeLauroDingellEdwardsFrankel (FL)GosarMatsuiMengPelosiPingree (ME)RangelRooneySchakowskyVelazquez
{time} 1621
Messrs. BENTIVOLIO, CAMPBELL, RENACCI, and YOHO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. McNERNEY, MAFFEI, and HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, noes 225, not voting 15, as follows:
AYES--190
BarberBarrow (GA)BassBeattyBecerraBera (CA)Bishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)ChuCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDelBeneDenhamDeutchDiaz-BalartDoggettDoyleDuckworthEllisonEngelEnyartEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGarciaGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)Heck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHoltHondaHorsfordHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewisLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaffeiMaloney, CarolynMathesonMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNegrete McLeodNolanO'RourkeOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPeters (CA)Peters (MI)PetersonPocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRichmondRos-LehtinenRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchiffSchneiderSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)Shea-PorterShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTitusTonkoTsongasValadaoVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatersWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOES--225
AderholtAmashBachmannBachusBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBentivolioBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBoustanyBrady (TX)BridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)Broun (GA)BuchananBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCampCampbellCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ConawayCookCottonCramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDainesDavis, RodneyDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)Heck (NV) HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanJoyceKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLankfordLathamLattaLoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMaloney, SeanMarchantMarinoMassieMcAllisterMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulsenPearcePerryPetriPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)ReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRoskamRossRothfusRoyceRunyanRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchockSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStewartStiversStockmanStutzmanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
AmodeiDeLauroDingellEdwardsFrankel (FL)GosarJohnson, E. B.MatsuiMengPelosiPingree (ME)RangelRooneySchakowskyVelazquez
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1629
Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, noes 231, not voting 14, as follows:
AYES--185
Barrow (GA)BassBeattyBecerraBera (CA)Bishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)ChuCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDelBeneDeutchDoggettDoyleDuckworthEllisonEngelEnyartEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGarciaGibsonGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)Heck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHoltHondaHorsfordHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewisLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaffeiMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMathesonMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNegrete McLeodNolanO'RourkePallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPeters (CA)Peters (MI)PocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchiffSchneiderSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)Shea-PorterShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTitusTonkoTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatersWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOES--231
AderholtAmashBachmannBachusBarberBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBentivolioBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBoustanyBrady (TX)BridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)Broun (GA)BuchananBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCampCampbellCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ConawayCookCottonCramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDainesDavis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)Heck (NV)HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanJoyceKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLankfordLathamLattaLoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMarchantMarinoMassieMcAllisterMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonOwensPalazzoPaulsenPearcePerryPetersonPetriPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)ReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRos-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRoyceRunyanRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchockSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStewartStiversStockmanStutzmanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
AmodeiDeLauroDingellEdwardsFrankel (FL)GosarMatsuiMengPelosiPingree (ME)RangelRooneySchakowskyVelazquez
{time} 1635
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4138) to protect the separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States by ensuring that the President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 511, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ruiz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4138 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 3. PROTECTING STATES' RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise affects any action taken by the President, the head of a department or agency of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States, in order to prevent an unconstitutional intrusion into States' rights.
SEC. 4. RESTORING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S JOB
SEEKERS.
This Act shall not take effect until the most recent percentage of the insured unemployed (those for whom unemployment taxes were paid during prior employment) who are receiving Federal or State unemployment insurance (UI) benefits when they are actively seeking work is at least equal to the percentage receiving such benefits for the last quarter of 2013, as determined by the Department of Labor's quarterly UI data summary measurement of the Unemployment Insurance recipiency rate for all UI programs.
Mr. GOWDY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Right now, House leadership is forcing a vote on a bill that they know will go nowhere. Instead of working to find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing problems, they have chosen to put politics above the needs of the American people.
They have chosen to put politics above jobs, the economy, health care, comprehensive immigration reform and, again, they are playing politics with millions of hardworking families who have lost their job through no fault of their own and are currently looking for jobs.
Currently, over 2 million people have lost unemployment insurance because of these political games. Every week, 72,000 people, on average, are losing their unemployment benefits nationwide while they are looking for jobs. In my home State of California, almost 350,000 people are living on the brink of financial disaster because of these games. This is exactly the kind of political gamesmanship that the American people are sick and tired of.
House leadership continues to refuse to restore these vital economic lifelines that help people support their families and pay their bills while they look for a new job.
Long-term unemployment remains an enormous challenge for millions of Americans and our overall economy, which is exactly why we should put the American people first and renew this important program. We need a focus on creating new jobs and help American families temporarily weather the storm.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as colleagues--not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority, but colleagues who are blessed to serve in the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, with all the tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to talk as colleagues. Because our foundational document gave us, as the House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every 2 years because they intended for us to be closest to the people.
{time} 1645
The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
So my question, Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you, that the laws be faithfully executed?
We know the President can veto a bill for any reason or no reason. We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute, even one that he signs into law.
We know the President can issue pardons for violations of the very laws that we pass, and we know the President has prosecutorial discretion, as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys.
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough?
What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law?
What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation, when a President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law?
How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed by Congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court?
How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court?
Why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass?
You know, in the oaths that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. If it is good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same?
If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually has to enforce?
What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker?
What is our remedy?
Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies.
What is the remedy if we want the Executive to enforce our work?
This bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This bill allows us to petition the judicial branch for an order requiring the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.
Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe Members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law.
Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law, it be treated as law.
Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a desire to keep or retain or acquire the gavel and picked up the history, the tradition, and the honor of this, the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make law.
While you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into this hallowed Chamber and promises to do it, with or without you, I will never stand and clap when any President, no matter whether he is your party or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. We make law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was 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 passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, noes 228, not voting 15, as follows:
AYES--187
BarberBarrow (GA)BassBeattyBecerraBera (CA)Bishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)ChuCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDelBeneDeutchDoggettDoyleDuckworthEngelEnyartEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGarciaGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)Heck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHoltHondaHorsfordHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewisLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaffeiMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMathesonMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNegrete McLeodNolanO'RourkeOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPeters (CA)Peters (MI)PetersonPocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchiffSchneiderSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)Shea-PorterShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTitusTonkoTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatersWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOES--228
AderholtAmashBachmannBachusBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBentivolioBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBoustanyBrady (TX)BridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)Broun (GA)BuchananBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCampCampbellCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ConawayCookCottonCramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDainesDavis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)Heck (NV)HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanJoyceKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLankfordLathamLattaLoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMarchantMarinoMassieMcAllisterMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulsenPearcePerryPetriPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)ReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRos-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRoyceRunyanRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchockSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStewartStiversStockmanStutzmanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
AmodeiDeLauroDingellEdwardsEllisonFrankel (FL)GosarMatsuiMengPelosiPingree (ME)RangelRooneySchakowskyVelazquez
{time} 1656
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, noes 181, not voting 16, as follows:
AYES--233
AderholtAmashBachmannBachusBarlettaBarrBarrow (GA)BartonBenishekBentivolioBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBoustanyBrady (TX)BridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)Broun (GA)BuchananBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCampCampbellCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ConawayCookCottonCramerCrawfordCrenshawCuellarCulbersonDainesDavis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGallegoGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)Heck (NV)HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanJoyceKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLankfordLathamLattaLoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMarchantMarinoMassieMcAllisterMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulsenPearcePerryPetersonPetriPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)RahallReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRos-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRoyceRunyanRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchockSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStewartStiversStockmanStutzmanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IN)
NOES--181
BarberBassBeattyBecerraBera (CA)Bishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)ChuCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDelBeneDeutchDoggettDoyleDuckworthEllisonEngelEnyartEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFudgeGabbardGaramendiGarciaGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)Heck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHoltHondaHorsfordHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA) Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewisLipinskiLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaffeiMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMathesonMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMooreMoranMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNegrete McLeodNolanO'RourkeOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPeters (CA)Peters (MI)PocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchiffSchneiderSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)Shea-PorterShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTitusTonkoTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatersWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
AmodeiDeLauroDingellEdwardsFrankel (FL)GosarLoebsackMatsuiMengMiller, GeorgePelosiPingree (ME)RangelRooneySchakowskyVelazquez
{time} 1703
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
