Providing for Consideration of H.R. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 771 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution, in waiving all points of order against consideration of the bill, waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 426(a).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this year's appropriations process has been rocky to say the least. That trend is poised to continue this evening and tomorrow as the House considers the fiscal year '17 Legislative appropriations bill.

Buried in this bill's committee report is controversial language that forces the Library of Congress to continue using the derogatory term ``illegal alien'' in its subject headings. Mr. Speaker, I will explain the background on this issue.

Last month, the Library of Congress announced proposed changes to its subject headings that would replace the term ``aliens'' with ``noncitizens'' and replace the term ``illegal aliens'' with ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration.''

It is not unusual for the Library of Congress to make changes to its subject headings. In fact, each year it makes thousands of such changes. In 2015 alone, there were 4,934 new subject headings that were added. An example of one such change that the Library has made in the past was to replace the word ``Negro'' with a less offensive word.

This sort of evolution of the Library's subject headings is not unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination. However, what is unprecedented is Congress' weighing in on these changes. In fact, the Library has confirmed that this is the first time that Congress will have legislated on any of its subject headings in the history of the Library of Congress. So never before in history has Congress so much as communicated with the Library of Congress about its subject headings, let alone introduced legislation concerning them.

With this bill, that is all about to change. House Republicans are poised to make history by--for the first time ever--interfering in the Library of Congress' subject headings process to preserve a prejudicial term.

Now, I am not going to lump everybody on the other side of the aisle together on this issue. When this bill was marked up in the Appropriations Committee, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz introduced an amendment that would remove the ``alien''-related language from the legislation's committee report. In fact, four Republicans in the committee joined Democrats to vote in favor of that measure, and the amendment only failed by one vote.

So there is bipartisan consensus on this matter, and it deserves debate and a vote in the full House of Representatives so that all of us can take a vote where, for the first time--again, this is the first time in its history--where the Congress is legislating on a subject heading of the Library of Congress, and it is to force the Library of Congress to continue using the word ``illegal alien'' rather than allowing them to do their job and, as they were considering doing, retiring that term.

Yesterday, three amendments were presented to the Rules Committee that would allow this to occur. Astoundingly, the Rules Committee rejected all three of those amendments. In other words, they would have allowed us to debate this and take a vote on it, but the Rules Committee rejected all three of these amendments, preventing a vote on this issue on the House floor.

As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, the language in the committee report that has sparked this debate refers to a portion of U.S. Code that contains the term ``alien.'' I have introduced legislation that would remove ``alien'' from U.S. Code in instances where it refers to immigrants to this Nation. My bill, which is H.R. 3785, the CHANGE Act, would replace the terms ``alien'' and ``illegal alien'' in Federal law with the terms ``foreign national'' and ``undocumented foreign national.''

Let me be clear about why I am doing that. First, these folks may not be American citizens, but they are human beings. They are not people from outer space. When we think of the term ``alien,'' we don't think of human beings; we think of people that are from somewhere else.

The word ``illegal alien'' has also been used oftentimes--although not by everyone--in a pejorative way, in a way that is meant to be pejorative and offensive. It stigmatizes immigrants in this Nation and diminishes the quality of discussion around immigration issues in the United States. When ugly, belittling names are used to describe groups of people, those terms can make discrimination seem okay.

There is precedent for changing language in our laws as words' meanings evolve over time. For example, our Federal code previously used the terms ``lunatic'' and ``mentally retarded.'' Those words have since been taken out.

Just last month, President Obama signed into law a bill that I believe we can all be proud of, which was introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Grace Meng of New York, that removes the terms ``Oriental'' and ``Negro'' from Federal code. It is also time for ``alien'' to be added to the list of words we remove from Federal code.

So I urge my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to stand up for the dignity of all people who call America home and vote in favor of the CHANGE Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would make two points. The first is that this is an unfunded mandate because the Library of Congress was already well on its way to changing this term. Now, Congress is instructing it that it cannot do that. There is no way that money is not spent in following the instruction of Congress. So I disagree with the gentleman. This is an unfunded mandate.

To the issue itself, there was no argument from the other side that these words are pejorative, that this word is an anachronism. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, this word is used in Federal code and applies to people who are here who are undocumented and also people who are here legally who are residents. So this is not only an issue of the undocumented. This is an issue of immigrants generally.

I know that, over the years, ours has been a very devout nation, a nation of faith, and that includes many of the people in this body. I, for example, have had an opportunity to visit with the faith study group that meets once a week that talks about the issues of their own personal faith, their own journeys, and the work that they do for their constituents.

As I think about my own district, which is 64 percent Hispanic in San Antonio, it is a town whose creativity, entrepreneurism, and spirit has been infused by the immigrant spirit. These are hardworking, often humble people who don't ask for much from their government, who work hard to provide for their families and who hardly ever will be heard to complain. Most of them, obviously, are documented; some are not.

But those people who are not and those who are considered resident aliens are human beings, and I believe that our faith would tell us that God considers those folks human beings, not illegals. I don't imagine that God thinks of those people as illegal. They are fundamentally human beings, and they should be respected.

They are not American citizens. We understand that, and there has been much debate over the last few years about passing comprehensive immigration reform or at least considering it here on the House floor. That hasn't happened yet. But I do think that each of us can at least extend some modicum of respect to these people.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in voting for the CHANGE Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, nays 170, not voting 32, as follows: [Roll No. 283] YEAS--231 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Babin Barr Barton Benishek Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blum Bost Boustany Brady (TX) Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Chaffetz Clawson (FL) Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comstock Conaway Cook Costello (PA) Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Culberson Curbelo (FL) Davis, Rodney Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Dold Donovan Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) 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) Graves (MO) Griffith Grothman Guinta Guthrie Hanna Harper Harris Hartzler Heck (NV) Hensarling Hill Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hunter Hurd (TX) Hurt (VA) Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jolly Jordan 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 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 Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Rokita Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce Russell Salmon Sanford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Stefanik Stewart Stivers Stutzman Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Young (IN) Zeldin Zinke NAYS--170 Adams Aguilar Ashford Bass Beatty Becerra Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Bustos Butterfield Capps Cardenas Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Cooper Courtney Crowley Cuellar Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Duckworth Edwards Engel Eshoo Esty Fattah Foster Frankel (FL) Fudge Gallego Garamendi Graham Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Hahn Hastings Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Honda Hoyer Huffman Israel Jackson Lee Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kirkpatrick Kuster Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Levin Lewis Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Lujan, Ben Ray (NM) Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Matsui McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Moulton Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Nolan Norcross O'Rourke Pallone Pascrell Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rangel Rice (NY) Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Sherman Sinema Slaughter Smith (WA) Speier Swalwell (CA) Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Wilson (FL) Yarmuth NOT VOTING--32 Barletta Black Blumenauer Brownley (CA) Capuano Costa Cummings Duffy Ellison Ellmers (NC) Farr Fincher Gabbard Gutierrez Hardy Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Hinojosa Hultgren Lee Lieu, Ted Lipinski Luetkemeyer Lynch Payne Peterson Price, Tom Rice (SC) Rooney (FL) Sires Takai Welch

Mses. EDWARDS and WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source