"njosh" proofread paper
helpisneededIn the assigned chapters from Unorthodox Lawmaking (pages 1-72), Barbara Sinclair explains the ways in which the “textbook” account of a how a bill becomes a law no longer describes the process by which major legislation is typically enacted in the U.S. Congress. In your paper, present and explain the “unorthodox” and “textbook” elements of today’s legislative process through an analysis of one bill’s journey from its introduction to consideration on the House and/or Senate floor.
Your paper should be 8-9 pages (double spaced, 12 point font, 1 inch margins). It should also include a bibliography and a legislative chronology (not included in the required page count). Your analysis should draw upon lectures, readings, and legislative research. Cite your sources using the Chicago Manual of Style Author-Date System (see Moodle for examples) and attach a bibliography. The paper is due at the beginning of class, Tuesday December 8. Late papers will be penalized by 5 points per day. Keep a backup copy.
Select a piece of major legislation (not a resolution) that has been voted on in at least one chamber of Congress in the 113th Congress (2013-2014) or the 114th Congress (2015). It must have reached the House or Senate floor for a vote (or both), but it need not have been enacted into law. Be sure to choose legislation that is significant enough to have received ample press coverage. Do not select legislation passed under Suspension of the Rules in the House.
The focus of your paper is your analysis of a bill’s legislative history and how that compares to both the textbook process and the unorthodox processes summarized by Sinclair. You should only briefly summarize the substantive issue (i.e., the problem the bill was designed to address and the approach taken by the bill’s authors). Do not provide your opinion regarding whether or not the bill is good policy. Your paper should:
· Have an introduction briefly describing your main arguments and findings
· Include at least two paragraphs explaining “textbook” and “unorthodox” lawmaking
· Analyze the your bill’s journey/process and explain whether each step was textbook or unorthodox:
· Describe what happened in committee(s) at the hearing(s) and markup(s)
· Explain what happened in the House Rules Committee (if relevant)
· Analyze the activities and strategies of party leaders. At what stages in the process were party leaders active? What impact did leaders have on the bill’s content and the outcome?
· Explain what happened on the House and/or Senate floor (e.g, debate on the bill, rule, amendments, votes). If your bill made it to the floor in both chambers, you can focus most of your analysis on one chamber, but you must include information about what happened in both chambers.
· Analyze how the rules of the House and/or Senate affected the bill’s fate
· Describe major changes to the bill’s content during its journey
· Detail who supported the bill and who opposed it and why (inside Congress, the Executive branch, and interest groups). What were the strategies and tactics used by proponents and opponents?
· Explain what ultimately happened to the bill and why
· Summarize your findings of the textbook and unorthodox processes involved in your bill’s journey, assessing whether the bill’s path was mainly textbook, mainly unorthodox, or a mix
· Include a one-page legislative chronology that lists the important stages of the bill’s journey and their dates
· Include a bibliography. It must include at least one article from CQ Weekly.
· Use secondary and primary sources (see below) and CITE YOUR SOURCES using Chicago Style Author-Date System.
You need to cover each stage of the process. You do not, however, need to give each stage (or each chamber) equal attention; concentrate on the most important aspects.
Unorthodox Lawmaking, Barbara Sinclair explains the ways in which the “textbook” account of how a bill becomes a law is fading in the contemporary congress. Legislations nowadays are being passed through unconventional unorthodox way, and especially the major legislations. My paper is going to argue that the bill H.R 4038 fits Sinclair’s description of unorthodox lawmaking well as it is designed by Party Leader Speak Paul Ryan under the Task Forces, bypassed committee and supervised under a Closed Rule in the Rules of Committee. H.R 4038 is about the partisan ideological battle between the two parties on immigration policies and its unorthodox procedures privileges the majority party GOP to certify the partisan course bill’s originality without being modified; thus, it simultaneously helps its members on credit claiming. The bill H.R 4038 requires certification by the FBI Director that the security vetting process is sufficient to prevent an individual who is a security threat from being admitted as a refugee. The bill also requires the DHS Inspector General to review such certifications annually and report its findings to Congress.
Textbook lawmaking
Barbara Sinclair portrays Textbook lawmaking as Predictable and linear, the step-by-step congress where lawmaking procedures start with the briefly drafting bill by Introduction from the MC (Sponsor). Once the bill has been introduced the bill, legislative counsel follows up and drafts the bill in legal language. Sponsors gather cosponsors among their colleagues by sending “Dear Colleague” letters and scored by Congressional Budget Office. The bill was referred the committee or committee of jurisdiction. Both chambers can start bill drafting process depends on its sponsor’s introduction of the bill. Nonpartisan employees of the House handle referral of a bill to which committee but are governed by the rules of the House under the supervision of the Speaker to only one committee in particular. Ever since 1975 when rule of referrals had changed and bills can be referred to multiple committees. Traditionally, committees serve the purpose of making the bill possible to pass by maintaining the bill to be bipartisan as the primary shaper of legislation. Committees also serve the purpose of practicing their expertise as well. Reasonable time is given to members in the committee to consider whether or not to report the bill to the floor according to holding public hearings and then making markups. Like the example from Sinclair’s article, the H.R 17255 1970 Clear Air Act had gone through hearing that held from March 16-21 and April 14, 1970, then the bill got markup and been reported on June 3. After that, the Rules committee would always grant open rule, even on major or controversial partisan topics, in this case—regulation on an environmental issue. With Rule committee report granted Open Rule, House Representatives from both parties can amend as many amendments as they wish if they are germane, and each can be voted on by all members of the house. If the bill had been passed in the house first, the bill is to be sent to the Senate. Like Sinclair’s example of 1970 Clear Air Act, Senate can start a similar bill S 4358 simultaneously and do hold hearings on March 16-21 as well. On the Senate floor, Senators are given constitutional rights to put on holds, filibusters, and clotures. Filibuster acts, as a tactic besides extended debate in which senators might hold on to the legislation to give endless speeches. Holds is a longed informal custom authorize to block the legislation by requesting their party leader not scheduling it. After both chambers have passed the bill, members from each chamber would be appointed by their belonging party to hold meetings and to work out the differences would form up the conference committee. And if the Conference Committee reaches an agreement, a written conference report would be written and submitted to each chamber. Both chambers then must approve the conference report before being sent to the President. If the bill has been signed and passed, the bill would ultimately become the law.1
Unorthodox Lawmaking
Not only bills that are considered more than one congress, any bills that bypass committee with no formal committee consideration can also be categorized as unorthodox lawmaking. When half of the House Representatives--the 218 have signed the discharge petition that is filed by any members from the house calling for a measure to be brought out of committee and to the floor, known as an unorthodox procedure. Discharge petition usually resulted in the following causes: unresponsive committee, whereas the committee opposed the measure and had refused to consider or report it. Majority party leadership steps in when a committee is successfully bypassed. Extreme time pressure created by an emergency may also dictate bypassing a committee so as to enact a bill quickly, and the example of that quick reaction would be the 9/11 attack that passed and resolved by Congress authorizing the responding attack on Afghanistan. The Republican leadership often uses the tactic task forces to work out the legislation but not formally bypass committee deliberation. Legislations are very unlikely to be sent back to the committee after the post committee adjustment for formal revision. Both controversial and highly consequential legislation often require fine-tuning post committee alternation (or even rewriting the whole bill) in order to get votes from moderate members of the House. Omnibus measures that most House members have a keen interest in at least some provisions; thus, putting together a version that is satisfactory to most members of the majority party. Whatever sort of omnibus measures that is, would frequently require post committee adjustments implanted by the majority party leadership.
Manipulated by the party leader, Suspension of the rules can be applied to bring legislation that provided the needed flexibility to debate from the Rules of Committee for only 40 minutes maximum with no amendments allowed, and with two-third votes for passage often appeared as unorthodox lawmaking in contemporary congress.
Special Rules is another unorthodox tactic that been used extraordinarily common in today lawmaking, especially the major legislations. Special Rules are made in the reported released by the Rules Committee to output the form of House Resolutions (designated H.Res), but the majority of the House membership must approve each one. Specials Rules, opposites to Open Rules that categorizes as textbook lawmaking means to set terms and time limit (explicit how much time is granted on floor debate) for the measure’s floor consideration. It can restrict amendments offered by any members of the House depend on the Rules Committee designation of the rule but under the direction from majority party leader. Special Rules’ extreme extent is Closed Rules that prohibits all amendments other than those who are in the reporting committee. Such restriction on offering amendments, waive point of order and rather special provisions to govern floor consideration—Closed Rules, is categorized as unorthodox lawmaking.
The two New Parliamentary Devices, “king-of-the-hill” and “queen-of-the-hill” opt-in by the Rule Committee (directed under the Speaker). The rule “king-of-the-hill” regulates a list of amendments or all substitutes to be voted on ad seriatim, and the very last one typically succeeds. The party leaders can manipulate the result of which adjustment they intend to make by placing the one he or she wants to pass the most at the last position. The “queen-of-the-hill”, another tactic available for party leaders, means that congress passé the legislation by the given single vote among each House members on all the versions of the same bill and whichever gets the most, majority votes wins. Party leader places the version that fits their party’s agenda the most as the last option since it has become clear how many votes exactly do they need to have that version of bill wins. Another unorthodox device party leaders can use the self-executing rule, which “provides when a rule is adopted by the House, the accompanying bill is automatically amended to incorporate the text of an amendment either set forth or referenced in the rule”. Self-executing rule raises the language of “consider as adopted” and with no separate vote is needed. Unorthodox lawmaking can be brought to the floor debate as well after the House approves the rule and when it resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole. Committee of the Whole contains the quorum of the 100 members, where the legislation permitted only 5 minutes for its member to offer or speak on an amendment. Since the House is involved with more legislators, its rule has been straighter generally. Therefore, it’s easier to spot procedurally what has been done in an unconventional way. The Senate’s nature, however, has always been less formal than the House and thus more flexible in a way. But when bills that successfully passed floor as an Omnibus bill (“Mega bills”: bills that contain and combine many bills), through a policy rider (extraneous policy provisions attached to appropriations bills or when both chambers passed a bill in two-part that first passed both chambers and then passed additional Budget Reconciliation with “fixes” (that only require 51 votes in the Senate and can’t be filibustered) to the bill that already been passed.1
The Absence of Committee Referrals, Meetings, Hearings and Markups on H.R.4038
The legislative process of the bill H.R. 4038 has started with obvious unorthodox lawmaking as it has completely bypassed the Committee consideration, referrals, meetings, hearing, and markups. H.R 4038 is sponsored by Rep. McCaul, Michael the Homeland Security Committee of Chairman. Rep. McCaul introduced the bill on November 17th, 2015. Although his position as the Homeland Security Chairman does not consider as any party leaders ranks to represent the Republican Party. However, the bill H.R. 4038 is the product of unorthodox lawmaking under the Task Force tactic the Gop leaders employed. It is straightly designed according to the Republican Party’s agenda and has been backed up by the Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell, and the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. All these three party leaders of the Republican Party have respectively declared in front of the press, standing unitedly to “seek ‘pause’ in Syrian refugees”. Speaker Paul Ryan said to the reporters that “"We have ... a refugee situation that we think requires a pause and a more comprehensive assessment of how to better guarantee that members of ISIS are not infiltrating themselves among the refugee population.” Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has an identical approach that echoed Speaker Ryan’s speech as he proposed to put "a pause or a moratorium" is needed on resettling Syrian refugees in the United States. As the bill is drafted and started in the House floor, the Majority House leader Kevin McCarthy took the lead to enforce the counterterrorism Task Force formed by the House Republicans to halt the Syrian refugees in response to the Paris attack.2 The Republican leadership is employing the exact same strategy to work out legislation in the 104th congress led by Speaker Newt Gingrich that worked out contours of the Medicare reform bill Sinclair references.1 GOP party leaders are excessively involved in such high profile giving speeches harmonizing each other statements in front of the press in early stage where the bill has not even been introduced to mobilize support among the members of the House and also the public of them drafting the legislation.
The following reasons explain why GOP party leader actively involved and ensured H.R 4038 bypassed the Committee of Jurisdiction to be brought directly to the House floor in such unorthodox fashion and how it can advantage the majority party members and GOP its own. Speaker Ryan set up the task force for Rep. McCaul to drafted and managed the legislation under the supervision of majority leader Kevin McCarthy. This legislation H.R 4308 is a "design team" lead by current Speaker Ryan. He used the device Task Force allowing himself leadership to override their interested members, Rep. McCaul the Homeland Security Committee Chairperson in the process.
Upon to the terror arose among the American Public of the unexpected Paris attack, majority party leaders can finally legitimize their push of the GOP long-wanted immigration agenda (to stop accepting Islamic refugees) by proposing through vetting the immigration program. To fulfill the GOP’s urge of the quick response by such terrorist act that they under the compulsion under their constituents’ concerns of unvetted entering the country. Rep. Bill Flores (Texas), the chairman of the 170-member Republican Study Committee said that his phone has kept receiving calls from his worried constituents nonstop. Republican party leader Speaker Ryan has well manipulated the American people’s emotions by using rhetoric as he “characterized the Paris attack as ‘pure evils’ and an “act of evil” to the reporters.3 To enhance the people’s feeling of powerlessness and fear, and has been proven a successful tactic to enhance the chance of the bill’s passage. Due to the raising concerns of the common people he had built upon, he had pushed the constituents to pressure their representatives (especially Democrats) on their position taking during this emotional sensitive episode.
According to the Hill article House rushes to halt refugees, “Republican lawmakers are feeling enormous pressure to act before they leave town on Thursday for a 10-day Thanksgiving recess”. Therefore, I argue that The bill H.R 4038 designed in this particular way to bypass committee is to facilitate the legislative process. So that, its H. Res 381 can be voted on before the 10 days Thanksgiving break before member of the House had returned back to their district to claim credits and to show their constituents of their position taking.4
Such extreme time pressure created by the emergency may dictate bypassing a committee so as to enact the bill quickly. It is the majority party leadership decision to maintain the bill’s unorthodox path to bypass committee as the bill initiated successfully with Task Force already. The bill H.R. 4038 was first introduced in the House on November 17, 2015, referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and to the Subcommittee on the Immigration and Border Security for the proper reason--to let the committee consider whether to report or not. However, this bill has gone to a very opposite path than the “regular order” (textbook lawmaking) Speaker Paul Ryan promised to restore a month ago. Speaker Ryan once emphasized the importance of the importance of congress by deliberation rather than members of congress loose rein to amend and shape the legislation when he has just assumed the position of the Speaker of the House. He also added that “when we rush to pass bills, a lot of us do not understand we are not doing our job.”5 However, he has chosen to let this piece of legislation to bypass committee. He failed to let committees to their job to hold hearings, make alternation with their expertise insight, making markups and t release its report H.R 4038 detoured the regular order he prospected and the journey of the bill passed on to another unorthodox lawmaking process in the House Rule Committee.
House Rule Committee Analysis
Barbara Sinclair stresses that the cause of partisan polarization not only “affects far more than the final vote in the committee” but also excludes minority party members participation from shaping the legislation when it comes to decision-making sessions.1 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res 531. fits in Sinclair portray of unorthodox contemporary congress lawmaking within the committee completely.1 House. Res. 381 is passed with 7 attending Majority Members voted straight party-line in the committee report this resolution to the floor whereas the 3 attending Minority leader voted straight party-line on not to.
The language of this resolution House. Res 381. made it clear that no concession is given to Democrats the minority party as it is constructed under a closed rule. Closed rule not only has restricted House members from the Democratic Party to offer amendments; it does the same to their Republican House members as well. This way, party leaders can ensure the bill to stay in its original form. With no amendments granted on the floor, the resolution only provides one motion of recommit for the minority party as well. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
Taken the form of the House resolution, a majority of the House membership must approve on as it is designated as House. Res. I argue that this piece of House. Res is fairly unorthodox, as such major legislation should be given more than one or two hours to be debated on occasionally according to Barbara Sinclair.1 As House. Res. 381 waives all points of order and restricts all opportunities for all members of the House to offer amendments and refuse to proceed such violation of how this bill and the House. Res resolution is brought up or the House rules within this legislation. As this resolution waives all points of order against the consideration of the bills, the attempt of the minority party (the Democrats) failed to postpone or kill the bill.
The Rule Committee and the party leaders’ decision to make the House.Res. 381 under such Special Rule, the Closed rule, in this case, served the purpose of saving time and “prevent obstruction and delay...and to structure the choices members confront on the floor in a way that promotes a particular outcome.”1 Republicans did not leave any Democrats to modify the bill at all--even within the Rule Committee. The only two amendments made within the Rules Committee have both been defeated with party-line votes 3-7, respectively are the “motion offered by ranking member Mr. Slaughter to make in order to provide that appropriate waivers #16” and “motion by Mr.McGovern to report an open rule”.
For there is no alternative approaches designated within the resolution nor the bill that provide chances for members of the House to focus attention and debate on the critical choices as it is Modified Open Rule that allow all germane amendments being offered or restricted amendments whereas members are allowed to offer amendments as long as their amendments have been printed in the Congressional Record a couple days before the being discussed on the floor. The only right that has been given to the minority party is the granted Motion of Recommit with the instruction that allow the minority to amend a single germane amendment.
House Floor Debate and Discussion
Complaints on the floor for such unorthodox lawmaking procedures appears to be not uncommon among minority party members when the majority party has dominated participation in lawmaking. On the floor debate on November 19th, 2015, Rep. Levin pointed it out directly as he squawks in regards in his floor speech during the one-hour general debate—feeling unheard and unfair since he is unable to propose amendments on the floor. Rep. Levin emphasized that “at times of crisis it is crucial that we act in the bipartisan fashion. Regrettably that was not the process followed by Republican Majority. They crafted the legislation before us today on their own and with no hearings, no expert testimony, no Committee markups, and no opportunity to offer amendments.” He was disappointed that this legislation has failed to channel “feelings into effective solutions” but set a partisan course that been use as “vehicle to criticize the President’s foreign policy.”
Without granting permissions for the minority party to make adjustments on the bill except the motion to recommit with instruction, the flexibility to alter the legislation is very limited. The House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi had left with not many options to modify the bill. Hence, she mentioned the Democratic version of the bill in the form of Thompson-Lofgren legislation in a bipartisan way. As Sinclair points out that such restricted rule with only as short as only one hour of time to debate, the ones that do get to speak on the floor usually do stand party-line and represents their party or they are the expertise on that particular issue. It is fair to interpret Rep. Levin’s talking points correspond to Minority leader Pelosi’s approach. When she showed her support on the Thompson’s bipartisan legislation. It implied her and her minority party the Democrat’s unsatisfactory on H.R 4038 as partisan course due to the unorthodox tactics Republicans throughout the whole bill’s journey from bypassing committee to granting Closed Rules in the House Committee.
Although House.Res 381 has allowed minority party have the motion to recommit with instructions, Rep. Thompson moved that to the Committee on the Judiciary as the tactic Minority Party can possible employ as the final chance to possibly kill the bill. With only given 10 minutes of the debate his motion of recommit as it's pending a reservation of a point of order, it eventually failed to pass by the 180 Yeas and 244 Nays.
Finally, the bill passed the house by recorded vote 289-137, the super majority that is Veto-proof. It is surprising the bill passed with such many votes even with President Obama Veto threated it on November 18 with a Whitehouse Published statement. The legislature has now been passed on to the Senate floor. S. 2300 is the identical bill drafted regard to this passage; however, it has only been introduced to the Senate but the Senate has not acted on it. With the incident outbreak in San Bernardino, suspects that open fired and killed 14 people and had 20 wounded with Syrian ISIS background that raised increasing concerns among the public. The approaches GOP party leaders take can vary, and it is very likely they will again do it in an unorthodox way.
According to CQ weekly’s article Bill to Slow Refugee Flow Sets Up Senate Showdown, “Minority Leader Harry Reid has promised Congress will not clear the bill, suggesting he believes there is strong enough Democratic opposition in the Senate for a filibuster”.6 It is understandable Minority Leader Reid has strong hope and confident the bill can be filibuster. Filibuster is the constitutional right even using it as a tactic is arguably unorthodox, but it can be recruited if the bill is to be debated on the floor as it is now placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders No. 300. Yet, the Republican leaders and appropriate are very likely to continue this House-passed H.R 4038 in the unorthodox as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed to insert it into the must-passed Year-End Omnibus Bill.6
Major changes to the bill’s content during its journey
For there is nothing major nor minor alteration has been made to the bill’s content during its journey, I argue that the majority party leader handled this bill with Task Forces and Closed Rules to attain the goal of not having any alternations in the content to make it a partisan course for position taking and credit claiming for their GOP members back home. The majority party leaders, Speaker Paul Ryan, House Majority leader Kevin McCarthy and Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell succeeded to maintain the bill Res. 4038 as the original form as it was drafted without having any changes made in the committee nor the floor. As it was mentioned, this bill was not considered in the committee; therefore, no adjustments from the committee can be amended.
Aside of what have happened in the Congress, what have happened outside of it should also be discussed. GOP leader claimed that the bill’s content have mainly been drafted in response to the Paris attack on November 13, 2015 that killed 130 people as ISIS claimed themselves responsible.3 I argue that this bill might actually be GOP leaders’ “vehicle to criticize the President’s foreign policy” as Rep. Levin illustrated and is a partisan ideological battle between the two parties on immigration policies.
Arguments can be chased back on November 16 when Republicans Governors from 25 states published similar public statements and letters to Presidents claiming their refusal to accept Syrians refugees. Governor Jeb. Bush spoke to “CBS This Morning” on November 16th morning that the U.S Screening process should only grant refugees status to Syrian.7
These Republicans Governors countered the news that emerged one of the suicide bombers may have had a Syrian passport and entered Europe amid the number of recent migrants in Paris.
Later that day on November 16, 2015, President Obama’s announcement of his administration plan of accepting at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming fiscal year seem to be the remarks responding to these Republican Governors’ statements at G20 leaders summit in Antalya, Turkey meeting. President Obama arraigned Republicans’ approaches as “shameful” and saying, “that’s not America. It’s not who we are”.8
The following day, November 17, 2015, Speaker Ryan announced the Task Forces that he created and the colleagues that he appointed from chairmen from the Homeland Security, Armed Services, Intelligence, Appropriations, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees to launch and draft the legislation to cease Obama’s Syrian refugees plan.9 According to the Hill’s article House rushes to halt refugees that published on November 17, 2015, Republicans said they “they’ve received hundreds of phone calls from constituents asking Congress to stop President’s plan to admit 10,000 refugees from Syria” under the House Republican Press Conference.4 Yet, Speaker Ryan’s action of taking the lead is claimed as a requested by the GOP congressional members concerning the security posed by the potential influx of people from Syria.
Notes
1. Sinclair, Barbara. "Clear Air: An Introduction to How the Legislative Process Has Changed." In Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, 1-72. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.
2. Singer, Paul. "Republican Leaders Seek 'pause' in Syrian Refugees; Plan Legislation Soon." November 18, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/17/paul-ryan-refugees-pause-syria/75923400/.
3. "Ryan: The Ultimate Solution Is a Strategy to Defeat ISIS." Speaker.gov. November 17, 2015. Accessed December 6, 2015. http://www.speaker.gov/video/ryan-ultimate-solution-strategy-defeat-isis.
4. Wong, Scott, Jordan Fabian, and Alex Bolten. "House Rushes to Halt Refugees." Policy, November 17, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2015. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260505-house-rushes-to-halt-refugees.
5. Milbank, Dana. "Opinions Paul Ryan Quickly Restores the House’s Regular Disorder." Opinion 4 (2015): 1-2. Accessed December 6, 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryan-abandons-his-promise/2015/11/18/2512fdc6-8e3e-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html.
6. "Bill to Slow Refugee Flow Sets Up Senate Showdown." CQ Weekly (November 30, 2015). http://library.cqpress.com.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/cqweekly/weeklyreport114-000004796143.
7. Barajas, Joshua, and Gretchen Frazee. "Which States Are Saying No to Resettlement of Syrian Refugees?" Paris Attack, November 16, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-governors-dont-have-power-to-refuse-refugees-access-to-their-states/.
8. Lucus, Fred. "Obama Blasts Those Urging Greater Caution Before Accepting More Syrian Refugees: ‘That’s Shameful’." Government, November 16, 2015. Accessed November 16, 2015. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/16/obama-uses-post-paris-news-conference-to-blast-those-urging-caution-before-accepting-more-syrian-refugees/.
9. Walsh, Deirdre, and Ted Barrett. "Paul Ryan Calls for Pause in Refugee Program." Politics, November 17, 2015.