[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 147 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8632-H8651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PREVENTING EXECUTIVE OVERREACH ON IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2014

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5759) to establish a rule of construction clarifying 
the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of 
immigration relief, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 770, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part B of House Report 113-646 shall be considered as 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5759

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Executive 
     Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, the 
     Congress has the power to ``establish an uniform Rule of 
     Naturalization''.

[[Page H8633]]

     As the Supreme Court found in Galvan v. Press, ``that the 
     formulation of . . . policies [pertaining to the entry of 
     aliens and their right to remain here] is entrusted 
     exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded 
     in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic 
     as any aspect of our government''.
       (2) Under article II, section 3, of the Constitution, the 
     President is required to ``take Care that the Laws be 
     faithfully executed''.
       (3) Historically, executive branch officials have 
     legitimately exercised their prosecutorial discretion through 
     their constitutional power over foreign affairs to permit 
     individuals or narrow groups of noncitizens to remain in the 
     United States temporarily due to extraordinary circumstances 
     in their country of origin that pose an imminent threat to 
     the individuals' life or physical safety.
       (4) Prosecutorial discretion generally ought to be applied 
     on a case-by-case basis and not to whole categories of 
     persons.
       (5) President Obama himself has stated at least 22 times in 
     the past that he can't ignore existing immigration law or 
     create his own immigration law.
       (6) President Obama's grant of deferred action to more than 
     4,000,000 unlawfully present aliens, as directed in a 
     November 20, 2014, memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland 
     Security Jeh Charles Johnson, is without any constitutional 
     or statutory basis.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     executive branch of the Government shall not--
       (1) exempt or defer, by Executive order, regulation, or any 
     other means, categories of aliens considered under the 
     immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) to be 
     unlawfully present in the United States from removal under 
     such laws;
       (2) treat such aliens as if they were lawfully present or 
     had a lawful immigration status; or
       (3) treat such aliens other than as unauthorized aliens (as 
     defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))).
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall apply except--
       (1) to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;
       (2) upon the request of Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in 
     the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses 
     at trial; or
       (3) for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at 
     imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.
       (c) Effect of Executive Action.--Any action by the 
     executive branch with the purpose of circumventing the 
     objectives of this section shall be null and void and without 
     legal effect.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as if 
     enacted on November 20, 2014, and shall apply to requests 
     (regardless of whether the request is original or for 
     reopening of a previously denied request) submitted on or 
     after such date for --
       (1) work authorization; or
       (2) exemption from, or deferral of, removal.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5759.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Yoho's important 
bill, the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014.
  President Obama has just announced one of the biggest constitutional 
power grabs ever by a President. He has declared unilaterally that, by 
his own estimation, more than 4 million unlawful immigrants will be 
free from the legal consequences of their lawless actions.
  Not only that, he will, in addition, bestow upon them gifts such as 
work authorization and other immigration benefits. This despite the 
fact that President Obama has stated, over 20 times in the past, that 
he does not have the constitutional power to take such steps on his own 
and has repeatedly stated, ``I'm not a king.''
  Pursuant to article I, section 8, of the Constitution, only Congress 
has the power to write immigration laws. Our Founding Fathers 
established this separation of powers to prevent tyranny. As James 
Madison wrote:

       No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value 
     or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons 
     of liberty than that . . . the accumulation of all powers 
     legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, 
     whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-
     appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very 
     definition of tyranny.

  President Obama is, in effect, rewriting our immigration laws by 
granting deferred action to more than 4 million unlawful aliens.
  Pursuant to article II, section 3, of the Constitution, the President 
is required to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed''; yet 
President Obama is refusing to enforce our immigration laws for these 
millions of unlawful aliens.
  President Obama justifies his actions by claiming that his 
administration is merely exercising the power of prosecutorial 
discretion; yet as Clinton administration INS Commissioner Doris 
Meissner told her agency, ``Exercising prosecutorial discretion does 
not lessen the INS' commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the 
best of our ability.''
  While previous Presidents have provided immigration relief to groups 
of aliens, usually their actions were based on emergencies in foreign 
countries, thereby relying upon the broad constitutional power given to 
a President to conduct foreign affairs.
  Without any such foreign crisis and in granting deferred action to a 
totally unprecedented number of aliens, President Obama has clearly 
exceeded his constitutional authority.
  I commend Mr. Yoho for introducing his bill, which undoes the damage 
to our constitutional system that President Obama's actions are 
causing. The bill reaffirms the constitutional principles that only 
Congress has the power to write immigration laws and that the President 
must enforce those laws.
  Mr. Yoho's bill prevents President Obama or any future President from 
exempting or deferring the removal of categories of unlawful aliens, 
except to the extent that the President is relying on his 
constitutional powers over foreign affairs or utilizing exceptions 
provided for in the bill for exceptional humanitarian and law 
enforcement circumstances.
  The bill prevents President Obama or any future President from 
considering such aliens to be lawfully present in the United States and 
thus ineligible for the rights and privileges available to lawfully 
present aliens.

                              {time}  1230

  It prevents President Obama or any future President from granting 
work authorization to such aliens.
  Finally, the bill takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014, 
thus nullifying the President's recent executive actions. I, again, 
urge my colleagues to vote for this necessary bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1 week this 113th Congress will 
expire without having considered a single piece of legislation to fix 
our Nation's broken immigration system.
  It has been 525 days since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation that would have made meaningful and long 
overdue reforms. But our Chamber here has still steadfastly refused to 
allow an up-or-down vote on that measure.
  No one questions that our immigration system is broken. It is failing 
our economy and millions of families and our businesses. And yet, 
rather than deal with these critical issues, we are here today to vote 
on yet another symbolic, anti-immigrant measure that has absolutely no 
chance of consideration in the Senate.
  I want to be clear. H.R. 5759 is politically motivated, hastily 
drafted, and an attempt, once again, to attack our President, as well 
as immigrant families who contribute to our communities and our 
economy.
  By blocking the protections offered by the President's actions, the 
legislation would deprive nearly 5 million immigrants and their 
families of the hope that they might finally live without constant fear 
of separation and deportation.
  It would undermine the administration's efforts to devote greater 
resources toward securing our borders and deporting felons and not 
families. This would mean millions of undocumented immigrants would not 
be asked

[[Page H8634]]

to pass national security and criminal background checks and pay their 
fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from 
deportation.
  Now, H.R. 5759 falsely claims that President Obama's assertion of 
authority is unlawful. The constitutionality of the President's 
executive order is recognized by both liberal and conservative legal 
experts. In a letter written last month, 11 prominent scholars 
explained that the President's actions ``are within the power of the 
executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of the 
President's authority.''
  This letter was signed--I was amazed at the list of constitutional 
authorities: Walter Dellinger; David Strauss, formerly with the 
Solicitor General's Office; Laurence Tribe; and even conservative 
professors like Eric Posner.
  Five days later, 135 immigration law professors echoed that 
conclusion and provided substantial constitutional, statutory, and 
regulatory authority for these actions; not to mention that the 
President himself was a professor of constitutional law.
  Finally, this measure, H.R. 5759, goes well beyond preventing the 
President from expanding deferred action for childhood arrivals or 
creating a program to protect the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents from deportation.
  It would not only prevent this President, but any future President 
from protecting discrete categories of individuals facing unique 
dangers and challenges. This means that no future administration would 
be able to parole in place the undocumented parents or spouses and 
children of military personnel and veterans, or facilitate enlistment 
in our armed services by American citizens who have undocumented family 
members, or grant deferred action to victims of a crime or serious 
forms of human trafficking.
  For these and other reasons, this legislation is opposed by many 
organizations that care about our immigration system and are working to 
protect the vulnerable among us, including the United States Conference 
of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, the Service Workers International 
Union, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
Against Women.
  Let's think this through carefully, and I urge you to oppose this 
very dangerous anti-immigrant measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to clarify a 
couple of things.
  First of all, it is not true that the House of Representatives has 
not acted to fix our broken immigration system. First of all, last 
summer, we passed two bills, one from the Appropriations Committee and 
one under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, that did just 
that, that provided resources to secure our borders to stop the surge 
of illegal immigrants coming into our country and make sure that the 
similarly unconstitutional DACA program that the President implemented 
earlier was frozen and could not proceed further. So, to me, that is 
simply not true.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that 
the fact of the matter is that when you talk about taxes, there is no 
requirement in the President's executive order that anyone who 
qualifies as an unlawful alien must get this administrative 
legalization to pay back taxes. There is none.
  They have to pay taxes moving forward, but one of the benefits is 
they qualify for the earned income tax credit. So this could cost the 
taxpayers of the country even more.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho), the chief sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that you have done on 
this, and I appreciate the attention that this has brought.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of consternation about this bill. I stand 
here today, obviously, in support of my bill, H.R. 5759, the Preventing 
Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014. It is a simple bill. It 
is four pages, but yet, it has caused a lot of debate.
  It just simply states that the President, Mr. Obama, does not have 
the constitutional authority to grant amnesty by issuing work visas to 
5 million people here illegally.
  I have got a list of scholars too that back up the claim that this is 
unconstitutional.
  This bill doesn't talk about deporting anybody, as you might hear 
later on today that it is going to deport 9 million people. It doesn't 
talk about that. It doesn't talk about granting amnesty. It just stops 
an unconstitutional action by our President, who has taken an oath to 
defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, just like the 
rest of us in this body have.
  To vote ``no'' against this bill is to vote ``no'' against the 
Constitution.
  Harry Reid has already said he will not bring up this bill for a 
vote. The President says he will veto this if it makes it to his desk.
  My question is, to not bring up this bill, or to not sign it, is that 
not a vote against our Constitution?
  It is important that we address the true debate here, and that is the 
separation of powers. This bill is not about border security, work 
visas, E-Verify, or immigration reform. This is about the 
administration overstepping its bounds and unilaterally challenging the 
laws of this great Nation of ours.

  Article II, section 3 of our Constitution makes very clear that the 
duty of the President is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed.'' Despite this straightforward charge, the administration is 
refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws for millions of 
unlawful aliens.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly states, ``Only 
Congress has the power to write immigration laws.'' And our Founding 
Fathers established this separation of powers to prevent an 
overreaching executive.
  Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court found in Galvan v. Press ``that the 
formulation of policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their 
right to remain here is entrusted exclusively to Congress, and it has 
become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues 
of our body politic as any aspect of our government.''
  Preserving article I, the legislative powers, this is not a partisan 
issue. It is not Republican or Democrat. Allowing executive action like 
this to slide simply because we are frustrated with a system 
establishes a dangerous precedent that could be abused by Presidents of 
both parties for any area of law they disagree with.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues on the other side that if 
we continue to surrender, from this body, our legislative powers to the 
executive branch, then we could easily be standing here in 2, 5, or 10 
years discussing a Republican President who refuses to enforce the 
employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act or uphold portions of the 
Voting Rights Act, and it can go on and on, and it has opened up a 
dangerous precedent.
  Just because one might agree with the outcome does not justify 
overlooking or violating the process to get to that outcome.
  Congress has the constitutional powers to create and write laws, and 
the President has a duty to faithfully execute those laws, not to pick 
and choose, like he does or doesn't like them. And that is according, 
again, to article II, section 3.
  I urge Members to support H.R. 5759, restore constitutional powers to 
Congress, and stand on the side of the Constitution to protect this 
great Nation of ours.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before I call on 
our distinguished gentlelady from California.
  I want everyone, particularly the author of this bill, to know that, 
as the senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I firmly believe 
and support the Constitution, the amendments, and the precedents.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a 
senior member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked on this issue 
for a number of years.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is legal authority for the 
President's immigration actions derived, in part, from his 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
  In Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court explained this duty does not 
require the President to act against every technical violation of the 
law. The Court said: ``An agency's decision

[[Page H8635]]

not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, 
is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute 
discretion.''
  Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Arizona v. United States, struck 
down most of Arizona's S.B. 1070 law. The Court said then the broad 
discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials extends to 
``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.'' The Court said 
discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate 
human concerns and can turn on factors, including whether the alien has 
children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a 
record of distinguished military service.
  When we created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we 
charged the Secretary with the duty to establish national immigration 
enforcement policies and priorities. That is at 6 U.S. Code 202.

                              {time}  1245

  Congress delegated that authority to the executive branch, and they 
are now using this authority. We enacted a law that permits the 
issuance of employment authorization. They are now implementing that 
part of the law.
  This bill would block some portions of the President's recent action 
to keep young people from facing deportation and to prevent parents of 
U.S. citizen kids from being deported, but the bill harms others, too. 
Immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek a green card through 
the Violence Against Women Act are not protected from deportation while 
they wait for a visa. With this bill, they would face deportation.
  Victims of serious crimes approved for U visas get deferred action 
while they wait for a visa. Under this bill, they would face 
deportation. The exception in the bill is insufficient because victims 
may assist law enforcement without appearing at trial.
  Victims of severe forms of human trafficking eligible for 
statutorily-capped T visas could also face deportation. The bill would 
end the ability to parole in place the undocumented families of 
American military personnel and veterans. Deporting the mothers of 
American soldiers could be the result.
  There is strong historical precedent for the President's actions. 
Prior Presidents were not met with such obstructionism. President 
Ronald Reagan created the family fairness program. Once expanded by 
President George H.W. Bush, that program is expected to protect 1.5 
million people. The reason was to keep families together, one of the 
key motivations for the President's actions last month.
  As some wrongly claim, the Reagan program was to carry out 
congressional intent in the 1986 act. That is false. When the Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported the bill, they said: ``It is the intent of 
the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no 
special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be 
required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members 
of other new resident aliens.'' President Reagan decided otherwise.
  Some wrongly argue the scope of the Reagan family fairness program 
was smaller, that it was not intended to provide relief to 1.5 million 
people, about 40 percent of the undocumented population at the time. 
Again, that is false. The INS Commissioner then testified before 
Congress that it covered 1.5 million people. An internal decision memo 
at the time states:

       Family fairness policy provides voluntary departure and 
     employment authorization to potentially millions of 
     individuals.

  The draft processing plan at the time said:

       Current estimates are that greater than 1 million IRCA-
     eligible family members will file for this benefit.

  Now, many Members on the other side of the aisle want to prevent the 
President's actions from going into effect, but the President has 
strong constitutional and statutory authority to take these actions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LOFGREN. He cannot change the law, and he has not done so. He 
does have the authority to grant temporary relief to some. We need 
broad reform, and to do that, we need to legislate.
  It is shameful that the House has failed in its duty to legislate to 
fix our broken immigration system. The Judiciary Committee has reported 
out four bills. We have yet to see them on the floor.
  I would like to enter into the Record the testimony by the 
Commissioner before the Judiciary Committee in 1990, the draft 
processing plan from 1990, and the decision memo from 1990 that prove 
the elements of the Reagan fairness plan.

                                HEARINGS


                               BEFORE THE

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

       Mr. Morrison. Now, Mr. McNary, you used the number 1.5 
     million IRCA relatives who are undocumented but who are 
     covered by your family fairness policy. Do I have that number 
     right?
       Mr. McNary. Yes.
       Mr. Morrison. Under your recent administrative order, these 
     1.5 million people essentially are here to stay, with work 
     and travel privileges. Isn't that right?
       Mr. McNary. We think you are right as to the 1.5 million 
     being here. There is an estimate of another 1.5 million that 
     would come as a result of this change in definition.
       Mr. Morrison. There is another 1.5 million who you think 
     would be eligible to come?
       Mr. McNary. Yes.

                         DRAFT PROCESSING PLAN

             RPF PROCESSING OF FAMILY FAIRNESS APPLICATIONS

                    UTILIZING DIRECT MAIL PROCEDURES

       This proposal identifies one feasible method for 
     accomplishing the initial receipt of documents required for 
     an alien to request coverage under the Service's recently 
     announced policy shift on family fairness. As a result of 
     this change in policy, current estimates are that greater 
     than one million IRCA-ineligible family members will file for 
     this benefit.
       Because of the anticipated scope of this workload on the 
     Service, it is advisable to identify cost-efficient and 
     effective methods to receive and process applications for 
     inclusion under the Family Fairness Policy (PEP). Therefore, 
     it is recommended that one viable option will incorporate 
     many of the resources currently in place throughout the 
     Service. One such plan, which can be activated with a minimum 
     lead time and effort is to have aliens direct mail their 
     applications to Service Regional Processing Facilities (RPF).


                ALIEN MUST FILE BY MAIL WITH THEIR RPF:

       1. One Form I-765, Application for Employment 
     Authorization.
       Instructions are modified for this form to tell aliens to 
     enter in the three (  ) ``F F P'' located in item #16 on the 
     I-765.
       Money order or bank Check for $35.00 made out to INS, if 
     employment authorization is required.
       Affidavit of family membership, using the required format.


         THE RPF WILL USE THE LAPS SYSTEM TO DO THE FOLLOWING:

       Note: Simply stated, the REF will handle the I-765 with 
     accompanying documentation, in very much the same manner as 
     the current I-698, used by temporary residents under 
     Sec. 245a to apply for adjustment to permanent resident 
     status.
       1. If application is complete, as required, process. If 
     not, it is returned to the alien until it is perfected.
       2. If processable, the I-765 is forwarded to data entry. 
     Here, a new A-number will be assigned to the application and 
     the resulting record.
       3. LAPS will be used to capture all data from the I-765 for 
     which there is a comparable field in LAPS. For starters, the 
     form type will be I-765, the fee amount $35.00, etc. 
     Information for which there is no comparable field in LAPS 
     will not be able to be keyed until modifications are made to 
     the system. The resulting electronic record will enable the 
     Service to track individual cases, produce timely management 
     reports, and send notices to the alien.
       4. After data entry, all paperwork is placed in the 
     appropriate A-file folder.
       5. The fee, if indicated, is processed with monies 
     deposited to X accounts.
       6. LAPS will preempt all other interviews which have been 
     scheduled and will schedule I-765 applicants to appear for 
     interview instead, at the earliest practicable date.
       7. LAPS prints an automated mailer to the applicant. This 
     mailer tells the alien that their request for coverage under 
     FFP has been received. The mailer states that it is a 
     replacement I-689 document and grants employment 
     authorization until the date of a scheduled interview. 
     Suggested text:
       ``We have received your request for relief from deportation 
     under the Family Fairness Policy. You must appear at the 
     office listed below on ___ for an interview so we may make a 
     decision on this application. If we approve your application, 
     you will receive employment authorization at that time. If 
     you move, notify the INS of your new address using form I-
     697A, available at any INS office.''
       MESSAGE REPEATS IN SPANISH--MAXIMUM MAILER LINES = 12
       7A. Alternatively, if policy requires that employment 
     authorization be instantaneous, upon processing of the I-765, 
     the suggested language is:
       ``We have received your request for relief from deportation 
     under the Family Fairness

[[Page H8636]]

     Policy. You will be notified to appear at an INS office for 
     an interview so we may make a decision on this application. 
     This document replaces form I-689 and, combined with proper 
     identification, authorizes employment until ___. If you move, 
     notify the INS of your new address using form I-697A, 
     available at any INS office.''
       MESSAGE REPEATS IN SPANISH--MAXIMUM MAILER LINES = 12


ALTEN RECEIVES NOTICE AND SHOW UP AT PHASE II OFFICE HAVING LAPS ACCESS

       1. I-213 completed on alien. Decision on EVD is made.
       2. Alien is interviewed to determine applicability of FFP 
     relief and veracity of family relationship claim. Examiner 
     uses online screen record of I-765 data.
       3. If I-765 approved, alien processed at that office for 
     EAD card.
       4. If FFP coverage denied, alien notified in writing using 
     Form I-210. LAPS screen updated to reflect status.
       5. Copy of I-210, I-213 sent to district Deportation and 
     Investigation branches for issuance of an OSC if alien does 
     not leave the country within 30 days voluntarily, as provided 
     on the I-210.


                      Estimated Resources Required

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Est. cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Clerical staff at RPFs: 100.......................         $1,348,500
2. Adjudicators at RPFs: 250.........................          3,371,250
3. Clerical staff in Field: 250......................          3,371,250
4. Adjudicators in Field: 500........................          6,742,500
                                                      ------------------
est. subtotal personnel costs: 1,100.................         14,833,500
est. software modification costs.....................            200,000
est. miscellaneous support costs.....................          2,000,000
                                                      ------------------
    Total estimated costs:...........................        17,033,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@1,000,000 interviewed in 100 workdays.

                                  PRO:

       Centralizes control, security and consistency.
       Requires less personnel than a more distributed plan.
       Buys the Service valuable time to get ready. The time 
     normally wasted in mailing can work to our benefit.
       Diminishes the potential for a ``circus atmosphere'' 
     created by the media or our critics, who will be avidly 
     looking for signs of disorganization or inconsistency at our 
     offices.


                                  CON:

       Cost. This can be offset if the Legalization program is 
     allowed to use the fees received from Form I-765 
     applications, without restriction, to accomplish this special 
     project and to remedy disruption caused to the ongoing 
     legalization, SAW and RAW programs.
       Holds the alien, and their representative at arms length. 
     This may be perceived as negative by the public. However, 
     given the emotional nature of this issue, the Service cannot 
     take the risk of exposing too much of itself to the public 
     until we are ready to handle however many aliens come 
     forward.
       T. Andreotta (February 8, 1990)
       RPF-1.FFP
                                  ____


                             Decision Memo

                                                 February 8, 1990.
     To: Gene McNary, Commissioner.
     Subject: The implementation of the Family Fairness Policy--
         Providing For Voluntary Departure under 8 CFR 242.5 and 
         Employment Authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12 for the 
         spouses and children of legalized aliens (section 245a 
         and section 210).
       The family fairness policy provides voluntary departure and 
     employment authorization to potentially millions of 
     individuals. The Service must establish specific procedures 
     to ensure consistency of processing requests for voluntary 
     departure and employment authorization from ineligible family 
     members of temporary resident aliens legalized under the 
     legalization (section 245a) and special agricultural (section 
     210) programs. The following processing options are submitted 
     for consideration.


 Traditional processing pursuant to 8 CFR 242.5 (voluntary departure) 
             and 8 CFR (274a.12 (employment authorization).

       Request for voluntary departure will be made in writing to 
     the district director in whose jurisdiction the ineligible 
     spouse or child resides.
       The district's records section will create an A-file, if a 
     file has not been previously opened.
       The district's investigations section will prepare form I-
     213, ``Record of Deportable Alien'' for each ineligible 
     spouse or child, a determination will be made to grant or 
     deny voluntary departure, and the aliens will be placed under 
     docket control.
       The district's deportation section will control both 
     granted and denied cases that have been placed under docket 
     control. One year call-ups will be maintained for granted 
     cases. Requests for extensions will be processed by 
     deportation personnel. Denied cases will be processed for 
     Orders to Show Cause if the alien has not departed the United 
     States within the required time frame.
       Application for employment authorization will be made on 
     form I-765, ``Application for Employment Authorization'', 
     with fee.


                                  pros

       Follows established regulatory procedures and guidelines.
       Utilizes personnel experienced in processing requests for 
     voluntary departure, employment authorization, and file 
     creation.
       Does not ``link'' to legalization's promise of 
     confidentiality and ``no risk'' if alien comes forward to 
     request voluntary departure. (alien can be denied and placed 
     into deportation proceedings, etc.)
       Does not impact on legalization processing, thus complying 
     with Congressional intent for a temporary legalization 
     program that will continue to phase down (adjudicating the 
     remaining 700,000+ Phase I 245a and 210 cases, the remaining 
     800,000 Phase II 245a cases, replacement card applications, 
     processing the 60,000 ongoing litigation cases etc.)
       Allows for maximum use of district director's exercise of 
     discretion.


                                  cons

       Places large workload on in place INS structure, that will 
     strain existing resources.
       Jeopardizes the Regional Commissioners and the District 
     Directors performance goals in other operational activities.
       Operational budgets do not contain sufficient funds for 
     this effort. ( a ``user fee'' may have to be charged 
     generating negative publicity and charges that the Service's 
     policy was a ruse to raise money)
       Large numbers of individuals will visit in place INS 
     offices that already experience unacceptable crowds and long 
     waiting times. (Again, the risk of negative publicity is 
     great)
       Congressional complaints are likely to increase as 
     resources are diverted from other activities, slowing the 
     disbursement of benefits and services associated with these 
     activities)
       The morale of personnel in investigations and deportation 
     is likely to suffer in that the perception of this program 
     will not ``fit'' with their regular mission assignments. (Low 
     morale can translate into inadequate processing and poor 
     service and consequently reflecting badly on the Service)
       Not an efficient way to consistently process large numbers.
                                  ____


                         DRAFT PROCESSING PLAN

             RPF PROCESSING OF FAMILY FAIRNESS APPLICATIONS

                    UTILIZING DIRECT MAIL PROCEDURES

       This proposal identifies one feasible method for 
     accomplishing the initial receipt of documents required for 
     an alien to request coverage under the Service's recently 
     announced policy shift on family fairness. As a result of 
     this change in policy, rent estimates are that greater than 
     one million IRCA-ineligible family members will file for this 
     benefit.
       Because of the anticipated scope of this workload on the 
     Service, it is advisable to identify cost-efficient and 
     effective methods to receive and process applications for 
     inclusion under the Family Fairness Policy (FFP). Therefore, 
     it is recommended that one viable option will incorporate 
     many of the resources currently in place throughout the 
     Service. One such plan, which can be activated with a minimum 
     lead time and effort is to have aliens direct mail their 
     applications to Service Regional Processing Facilities (RPF).


                ALIEN MUST FILE BY MAIL WITH THEIR RPF:

       1. One Form I-765, Application for Employment 
     Authorization.
       Instructions are modified for this form to tell aliens to 
     enter in the three (  ) ``F F P'' located in item #16 on the 
     I-765.
       Money order or bank check for $35.00 made out to INS, if 
     employment authorization is required.
       Affidavit of family membership, using the required format.


         the rpf will use the laps system to do the following:

       Note: Simply stated, the RPF will handle the I-765 with 
     accompanying documentation, in very much the same manner as 
     the current I-698, used by temporary residents under 
     Sec. 245a to apply for adjustment to permanent resident 
     status.
       1. If application is complete, as required, process. If 
     not, it is returned to the alien until it is perfected.
       2. If processable, the I-765 is forwarded to data entry. 
     Here, a new A-number will be assigned to the application and 
     the resulting record.
       3. LAPS will be used to capture all data from the I-765 for 
     which there is a comparable field in LAPS. For starters, the 
     form type will be I-765, the fee amount $35.00, etc. 
     Information for which there is no comparable field in LAPS 
     will not be able to be keyed until modifications are made to 
     the system. The resulting electronic record will enable the 
     Service to track individual cases, produce timely management 
     reports, and send notices to the alien.
       4. After data entry, all paperwork is placed in the 
     appropriate A-file folder.
       5. The fee, if indicated, is processed with monies 
     deposited to X accounts.
       6. LAPS will preempt all other interviews which have been 
     scheduled and will schedule I-765 applicants to appear for 
     interview instead, at the earliest practicable date.
       7. LAPS prints an automated mailers to the applicant. This 
     mailer tells the alien that their request for coverage under 
     FFP has been received. The mailer states that it is a 
     replacement I-689 document and grants employment 
     authorization until the date of a scheduled interview. 
     Suggested text:
       ``We have received your request for relief from deportation 
     under the Family Fairness Policy. You must appear at the 
     office listed below on___ for an interview so we may make a 
     decision on this application. If we approve your application, 
     you will receive employment authorization at that time. If

[[Page H8637]]

     you move, notify the INS of your new address using form I-
     697A, available at any INS office.''
       MESSAGE REPEATS IN SPANISH--MAXIMUM MAILER LINES = 12
       7A. Alternatively, if policy requires that employment 
     authorization be instantaneous, upon processing of the I-765, 
     the suggested language is:
       ``We have received your request for relief from deportation 
     under the Family Fairness Policy. You will be notified to 
     appear at an INS office for an interview so we may make a 
     decision on this application. This document replaces form I-
     689 and, combined with proper identification, authorizes 
     employment until ___. If you move, notify the INS of your new 
     address using form I-697A, available at any INS office.''
       MESSAGE REPEATS IN SPANISH--MAXIMUM MAILER LINES = 12


ALIEN RECEIVES NOTICE AND SHOW UP AT PHASE II OFFICE HAVING LAPS ACCESS

       1. I-213 completed on alien. Decision on EVD is made.
       2. Alien is interviewed to determine applicability of FFP 
     relief and veracity of family relationship claim. Examiner 
     uses online screen record of I-765 data.
       3. If I-765 approved, alien processed at that office for 
     EAD card.
       4. If FFP coverage denied, alien notified in writing using 
     Form I-210. LAPS screen updated to reflect status.
       5. Copy of I-210, I-213 sent to district Deportation and 
     Investigation branches for issuance of an OSC if alien does 
     not leave the country within 30 days voluntarily, as provided 
     on the I-210.


                      Estimated resources required

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           est. cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Clerical staff at RPFs:..................      100         $1,348,500
2. Adjudicators at RPFs:....................      250          3,371,250
3. Clerical staff in Field:.................      250          3,371,250
4. Adjudicators in Field:...................      500          6,742,500
                                                      ------------------
est. subtotal personnel costs:..............    1,100         14,833,500
est. software modification costs............  .......            200,000
est. miscellaneous support costs............  .......          2,000,000
                                                      ------------------
    Total estimated cost:...................  .......        17,033,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ 1,000,000 interviewed in 100 workdays.

                                  pro:

       Centralizes control, security and consistency.
       Requires less personnel than a more distributed plan.
       Buys the Service valuable time to get ready. The time 
     normally wasted in mailing can work to our benefit.
       Diminishes the potential for a ``circus atmosphere'' 
     created by the media or our critics, who will be avidly 
     looking for signs of disorganization or inconsistency at our 
     offices.


                                  con:

       Cost. This can be offset if the Legalization program is 
     allowed to use the fees received from I-765 applications, 
     without restriction, to accomplish this special project and 
     to remedy disruption caused to the ongoing legalization, SAW 
     and RAW programs.
       Holds the alien, and their representative at arm's length. 
     This may be perceived as negative by the public. However, 
     given the emotional nature of this issue, the Service cannot 
     take the risk of exposing too much of itself to the public 
     until we are ready to handle however many aliens come 
     forward.
       T. Andreotta (February 8, 1990)
       RPF-1.FFP

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would point out that the Supreme Court decision in Heckler v. 
Chaney in no way justifies the claim that the President of the United 
States has this authority to issue this enormous order.

       Nor do we have a situation where it could justifiably be 
     found that the agency has consciously and expressly adopted a 
     general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an 
     abdication of its statutory responsibilities.

  That is what has happened here. The President has abdicated his 
statutory responsibilities in enforcing the law and changed the law, 
and that is why it cannot be upheld.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing 
this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama, just last week, made the action and 
said, ``Change the law,'' on immigration granting amnesty to millions 
of illegal aliens. The President should not be allowed to do this. In 
fact, article II, section 3, of the Constitution requires the President 
to take care that the law is being faithfully executed.
  On March 28, 2011, President Obama said he would not use an executive 
order for amnesty, explaining that, ``Temporary protective status 
historically has been used for special circumstances.'' Those are his 
words.
  More than 20 times, the President said executive action on 
immigration would not be appropriate. Nothing has changed in our 
Constitution, but now, the administration is singing a different tune.
  Mr. Speaker, I am from the Show-Me State. I would love for any of my 
colleagues in this body to show me in this document, the Constitution 
of the United States, where it grants the President the authority to 
change the laws. Article I of the Constitution says Congress will 
change the laws, not the President. The President will execute the 
laws--faithfully execute the laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I proudly support this legislation, and I ask all my 
colleagues to do so to stop this action.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
commend him for his leadership as chairman and now ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee and his important work for comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  I also salute the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Border Security, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California, who has 
not only chaired the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, she 
has taught immigration law, she has been an immigration lawyer. She 
represents a very diverse district in California blessed with a strong 
immigrant population.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 520 days ago, the Senate passed bold 
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform by an overwhelming margin. 
It was bipartisan, it was overwhelming, 520 days ago--more than that.
  Time and again, the Republican leadership of the House has promised 
productive action to fix our clearly broken immigration system; yet, 
time and again, Republicans have refused to give the American people a 
vote on this critical issue.
  They have ignored law enforcement, the badges; faith leaders, the 
Bibles; and business groups--the three Bs. They have denied our country 
billions of dollars in economic benefits and $1 trillion in deficit 
reduction, turned their backs on millions of hardworking immigrant 
families forced to live in daily dread of separation and deportation.
  In the face of Republicans' failure to act, President Obama has used 
his well-established legal and constitutional authority to bring our 
immigration system back into line with our needs as a Nation and our 
values as a people.
  The President's executive actions will restore accountability to our 
immigration enforcement: securing our borders; deporting felons, not 
families; and requiring undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal 
background check and pay taxes.
  Presidents have had broad authority to defer removal when it is in 
the national interest, and past Presidents have regularly used this 
authority. President Ronald Reagan understood that immigration was the 
constant reinvigoration of our Nation.
  As a new President in 1981, President Reagan said:

       Our Nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other 
     country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage 
     and our capacity to welcome those from other lands.

  In the lead-up to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, President 
Reagan, again, called our Nation to action when he said:

       We are also going to have compassion and legalize those who 
     came here sometime ago and have legitimately put roots down 
     and are living as legal residents of our country, even though 
     illegal. We are going to make them legal.

  In his signing statement of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 
President Reagan said:

       We have consistently supported a legalization program which 
     is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless 
     thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to 
     come to America.

  He went on to say:

       The legalization provisions in this act will go far to 
     improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide 
     in the shadows without access to many of the benefits of a 
     free and open society.

  Does that sound familiar?
  He went on to say:

       Very soon, many of these men and women will be able to step 
     into the sunlight, and, ultimately, if they choose, they may 
     become Americans.

  In the years immediately following the enactment of the 1986 
Immigration Reform and Control Act, President Reagan and President 
George Herbert

[[Page H8638]]

Walker Bush took bold action to protect the spouses and children of 
people who received status under that law.
  Although Congress explicitly chose not to grant status to these 
people, Presidents Reagan and Bush recognized that it was not in the 
national interest to separate families. Using their authority to 
establish a family fairness program by executive action, they offered 
spouses and children indefinite protection from deportation and gave 
them work authorization.
  Every President since President Dwight David Eisenhower has used this 
same broad authority, Republicans and Democrats alike. Dating back more 
than 50 years, Presidents have granted Extended Voluntary Departure to 
nationals of more than a dozen countries, including Cuba, Vietnam, 
Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Uganda.
  President George Herbert Walker Bush granted Deferred Enforced 
Departure to Chinese nationals after the Tiananmen Square massacre, 
even though he vetoed a similar bill passed by Congress.
  I remember that well. It was my bill. He vetoed the bill because he 
didn't want to sign the bill, and then he issued the executive order 
doing exactly what the bill would do. Several years later, he granted 
the same status to 200,000 Salvadorans.
  Thanks to President Obama's immigration accountability executive 
actions, in the same vein, millions of hardworking, law-abiding 
families will be able to celebrate the holidays with renewed hope in 
the future.
  In response to this Presidential action of common sense and 
compassion, Republicans are advancing today on this floor a radical 
bill of appalling callousness and cruelty. With this bill, Republicans 
are demanding that we deport hundreds of thousands of young DREAMers 
who know no country but the United States. With this bill, Republicans 
would tear apart millions of families and throw thousands upon 
thousands of American children into foster care.
  With this bill, Republicans would deport the family members of our 
heroes in uniform who are serving overseas, deny relief and respite to 
victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, and reject the 
values that are at the heart of our heritage and our history.
  This legislation is unworthy of our Nation.
  Don't take it from me. That is why this bill is opposed by groups, 
including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wrote:

       Instead of traumatizing these children and young adults--
     the future leaders of our country--we should invest in them 
     by ensuring that their families remain intact.

  Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will take the advice of the 
Conference of Catholic Bishops and vote against this legislation.
  Democrats in the House will continue to demand comprehensive 
immigration reform, which honors our heritage, giving certainty to 
families, fueling innovation, creating jobs, and reducing the deficit. 
We know that the President's steps cannot be a substitute for 
legislation. They must be a summons to action.
  Here in Congress and across the country, we will keep up the drumbeat 
for the progress of advancing comprehensive immigration reform. We will 
do so in heeding the advice of President George W. Bush, who told us as 
we dealt with this issue to treat the people who are affected by it 
with respect.
  Republicans should reject this coldhearted bill and give the American 
people the vote on immigration reform that they deserve.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding and for his leadership on immigration issues.
  I especially want to thank my colleague and friend from Florida, 
Congressman Yoho, for bringing forward this important piece of 
legislation, which just goes back and reestablishes the rule of law, 
Mr. Speaker. You have got a President who has consistently gone out, 
time and time again, and shown disregard for the Constitution and the 
rule of law of this Nation.
  We just had an election in November. The President, himself, said 
this was going to be a referendum on his agenda, and the American 
people were crystal clear about their dislike of this failed agenda 
from this President. They have told him: Get back to work. Go work with 
Congress to solve problems.
  What is the first response? The President has to poke his finger in 
the eye of the American people, people who spoke loud and clear to him, 
in saying that he is going to disregard what they said; and he is going 
to ignore the rule of law and, in fact, ignore what our constitutional 
framework of checks and balances is. He thinks he can just sit in the 
Oval Office and write his own laws, and then he comes forward with this 
proposal to literally disregard enforcement of our Nation's immigration 
laws.
  This isn't going to stand, Mr. Speaker. This legislation says: You 
can't do that, Mr. President. There is a rule of law. You need to start 
enforcing that law.
  We came together as a House just a few months ago and passed a border 
security bill. Let's actually get back to the rule of law and 
protecting our Nation's borders. It is not just an immigration issue; 
it is a national security issue.
  So what is the President's response to this legislation? He threatens 
a veto. Again, the President thinks he can just sit in the Oval Office 
and make up his own laws.
  That is not the way our system of government works, Mr. Speaker. So 
we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of 
law and to remind the President that it is time for him to heed the 
message that millions of Americans across the country sent just a few 
weeks ago in saying: You need to start working with Congress to solve 
real problems.
  In fact, this weekend, in my home State of Louisiana, there are three 
more elections on that ballot. Pay close attention, Mr. President. Pay 
close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that is going 
to occur this Saturday with a Senate election and two more House races. 
The American people want you to get out of the cocoon of the Oval 
Office and start working with Congress to solve real problems.
  We have passed legislation to solve those problems. You can try to 
ignore them, issue veto threats, but it is time for to you roll up your 
sleeves and get to work with us and solve those problems together. Pull 
back your executive action. This legislation ensures that happens.
  I urge approval.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California, Judy Chu, a dedicated member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, it seems the Republicans will do anything other 
than put a bill on the floor to pass immigration reform. So far, they 
have refused to allow for a vote on the bipartisan H.R. 15; they are 
threatening another government shutdown; and they suggest impeaching 
the President for doing what is right.
  When they did put a bill on the floor, it was to repeal DACA. It has 
been more than a year and a half of refusing to allow a vote on H.R. 
15, even though, if it were on the floor today, it would pass. Instead, 
we have this bill to undo the President's executive action, a step he 
wouldn't have had to take had Congress done its job.
  This is just another distraction when what we need are real 
solutions. There are real families at stake who need real immigration 
reform. American businesses need it. Our communities need it.
  If Republicans are unhappy that the President acted, there is still 
an option for them--legislative. Join us in crafting and voting on a 
bill that will fix our broken immigration system.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of this very reasonable legislation, which really 
simply requires that our present immigration

[[Page H8639]]

laws be fully enforced, or at least not be violated. I commend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) for bringing this legislation to the 
floor.
  The President has said he has been forced to act because the Congress 
has not done so. That is not correct, as Chairman Goodlatte pointed out 
a few minutes ago. Congress can act in any one of three ways: writing a 
new law, changing an old law, or leaving present law in effect.
  The administration is glossing over--or is ignoring--the fact that we 
have very detailed immigration laws on the books now. They may not like 
present law, but no one has the right or the power or the authority to 
pick and choose and enforce some laws but not others.
  Presidential executive orders have traditionally been used almost 
entirely for noncontroversial, administrative-type actions. They were 
not meant to be a way for a President to bypass the Congress. We do not 
live or are not supposed to live under a system where all the power is 
vested in the Executive. We have a Constitution, and it should be 
followed.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us admire those who have immigrated here legally 
and have contributed so much to this Nation. We have allowed many 
millions here legally since the Simpson-Mazzoli law of 1986, far more 
than any other country. But with 58 percent of the people in the world 
having to get by on $4 or less a day, that means that almost 4 billion 
people are hoping to get one good meal today and probably aren't.
  We are blessed beyond belief to live in this Nation, but our entire 
infrastructure--our schools, our hospitals, our jails, our roads, our 
sewers--simply cannot handle the rapid influx of megamillions who would 
come in a relatively short time if we simply opened our borders. We 
have to have a legal, orderly system of immigration, and it must be 
enforced.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of moral indignation that we would 
want to block parents from loving their children, children from loving 
their parents, and deporting persons who have no reason to criminally 
act in this Nation.

  I join with the President in saying let us keep families and deport 
felons. That is a discretion that is given by the law to allow 
Presidents to take care and ensure that the laws are enforced properly.
  This legislation is wrongheaded and misdirected. Allow me to say that 
this November 20 executive order is now being retroactively judged by 
this Congress. That is not the Congress' responsibility. The Congress, 
if they desire to do so, as they have done on many occasions, is to 
bring this to the judicial courts. But if they do so, they will find 
that the law has dictated that courts grant without much interest in 
deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with 
fault. The President, through his executive order, is making an 
administrative decision in terms of how laws are prosecuted.
  Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed 
a lawsuit against the executive actions announced by the President on 
November 20. Much to my surprise--and, of course, with great joy--the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have already issued a 
decision, dismissing such a complaint. It did so in 1997 when Governor 
George W. Bush was arguing that the Federal Government's failure to 
enforce our immigration laws violated article I, and the court rejected 
Texas' argument that the Federal Government had breached a 
nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
  Specifically, the court said: ``We are not aware of and have 
difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for 
determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are 
constitutionally adequate.'' Why? Because there is an interpretation of 
the law and an administrative component of the law.
  Likewise, in Heckler v. Chaney, the Court said: ``An agency's 
decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the 
Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard 
against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.''
  The President of the United States is not exercising discretion of 
executive order. He is instructing and giving guidance to 
administrative agencies who will make decisions accordingly to the 
framework of making sure that those who are felons are out but families 
are not.
  If you want to stop human trafficking, if you want to have a 
conscience in this Nation, if you want to protect the vulnerable, if 
you want to keep young people who are bright-eyed simply to serve in 
the United States military----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to recognize those individuals who have come 
here to do what is right and if you want to stop the siege of human 
trafficking, as I have said, where Houston is the epicenter of such, 
where we see it every day, where people are out of the shadows, if you 
want to do that, then you will vote against this misdirected law and 
you will read the constitutional dictates--first from the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, then from the United States Supreme Court in Arizona 
v. United States--and understand that the President has the executive 
authority to do just what he has done, to be a moral keeper and to give 
discretion to the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of 
H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive Overreach On 
Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it is nothing more 
than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President 
and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed 
by the nation's broken immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily 
introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the 
ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction 
clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain 
forms of immigration relief.''
  As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided:
  No provision of the United States Constitution, the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall be interpreted or applied 
to authorize the executive branch of the Government to exempt, by 
Executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of persons 
unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the 
immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act).
  Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of circumventing 
the objectives of this statute shall be null and void and without legal 
effect.
  Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no 
hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows.
  The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and 
considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the 
federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No 
provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted 
or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .''
  Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when 
the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that 
the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters 
when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief 
Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury:
  ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department 
to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, 
must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict 
with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.''
  Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been 
subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been 
revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet 
death.
  Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, 
it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill 
to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules 
Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the

[[Page H8640]]

Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in 
remedying the many deficiencies of the original bill.
  As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 seeks to 
prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from 
deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the 
United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the 
administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully 
present or had lawful immigration status.
  The amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition:
  1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution:''
  2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be 
tried for crimes or to be witnesses at trial''; and
  3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk 
of serious bodily harm or death.''
  The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date 
of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive 
actions taken on that date by President Obama to address our broken 
immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, 
prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain 
undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and 
lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to 
temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken 
by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his 
constitutional authority.
  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the 
nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
executed.''
  In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the 
law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care 
Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and 
enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the 
laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. 
Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.
  Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce 
immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide 
whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
  Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are 
charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems 
they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission 
critical enforcement goals.
  Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide'', indeed 
the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad''; as the 
Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 
S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined 
by Chief Justice Roberts:
   ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United 
States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they 
were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain 
crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, 
not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the 
broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, 
as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue 
removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum 
and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country 
or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added) 
(citations omitted).
  The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly 
suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of 
deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used 
to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized 
workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate 
from countries torn apart by internal conflicts:
   ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces 
immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their 
families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or 
aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case 
may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born 
in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of 
distinguished military service.
  Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this 
Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country 
may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable 
offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state 
may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or 
enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his 
family will be harmed upon return.
  The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the 
Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent 
with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other 
realities.''
  Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of 
removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and 
reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to 
pursue removal and when it does not.
  In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama has not done 
anything that is novel or unprecedented.
  Here are just a few examples of executive action taken by several 
presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting 
immigrants over the past 35 years:
  1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to 
allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' 
were paroled into the U.S. by 1981.
  2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to 
allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from 
expulsion and work authorization.
  3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that 
granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the 
People's Republic of China who were in the United States.
  4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals 
of El Salvador.
  5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting 
DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before 
Dec. 31, 1995.
  6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole 
to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted 
executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of 
Texas are eligible for deferred action.
  If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and 
receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million 
increase in tax revenues, over five years.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome 
development but not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration 
laws. Only Congress can do that.
  America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security 
challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows 
actors to use pragmatism and common sense.
  And as shown by the success of H.R. 17, the bipartisan ``Border 
Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with 
the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do 
this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national 
heritage as a welcoming and generous nation.
  This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan 
``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles 
announced earlier this year by House Republicans.

  As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for 
the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse 
backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.
  It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp 
to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in 
the American Dream.
  These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for 
far too long for their chance.
  We can and should seize this historic opportunity to pass legislation 
to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to 
secure our borders while at the same time preserving America's 
character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the 
world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic 
productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform.
  President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in 
exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws 
in an effective and humane manner.
  If congressional Republicans, who have refused to debate 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, 
disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative 
course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it 
to the President for signature.
  The President has shown responsible leadership. The next step is up 
to congressional Republicans.
  I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed 
a lawsuit challenging the executive actions announced by the President 
on November 20. The lawsuit,

[[Page H8641]]

which will be known as Texas v. United States of America, was filed in 
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
  Much to my surprise, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to 
have already issued a decision dismissing the Complaint. In the case of 
Texas v. United States--sound similar?--the Fifth Circuit in 1997 
dismissed a lawsuit by then Governor George W. Bush arguing that the 
Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution--the Naturalization 
Clause. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Texas's argument that the 
Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control 
immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  In rejecting the Naturalization Clause argument, the Fifth Circuit 
wrote that ``A judicial action presents a nonjusticiable political 
question not amenable to judicial resolution where there is . . . a 
lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving 
it.'' In this case, the Court stated plainly that ``We are not aware of 
and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards 
for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are 
constitutionally adequate.'' Of course the President lawsuit challenges 
the enforcement actions of the President, not of Congress, but the 
broader point is the same.
  In rejecting the statutory claim brought by Texas, the Court cited 
the Administrative Procedure Act and Heckler v. Chaney--the Supreme 
Court's leading case on the non-reviewability of agency decisions not 
to take enforcement actions--for the proposition that ``An agency's 
decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the 
Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard 
against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.''
  At a time when illegal border crossings was at its peak--1.5 million 
returns each year in 1996 and 1997--the Court stated: ``We reject out-
of-hand the State's contention that the federal defendants' alleged 
systemic failure to control immigration is so extreme as to constitute 
a reviewable abdication of duty. The State does not contend that 
federal defendants are doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws or 
that they have consciously decided to abdicate their enforcement 
responsibilities. Real or perceived inadequate enforcement of 
immigration laws does not constitute a reviewable abdication of duty.''
  During this President's tenure, well over 2 million people have been 
formally removed from this country. Prosecutions for illegal entry and 
reentry after removal have increased exponentially. And even if 5 
million people come forward and receive temporary protection from 
removal through DACA and the new Deferred Action for Parental 
Accountability program, there will still be well over 6 million 
undocumented immigrants who have received no such protection. With 
funds to deport no more than 400,000 people each year I assure my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the President is in no 
danger of ``doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws'' and that he 
had not ``consciously decided to abdicate [his] enforcement 
responsibilities.''
  The argument that the President has declared that he will no longer 
enforce our immigration laws is offensive to the 34,000 people--
including thousands of women and children--who are sitting in detention 
centers today waiting for their day in court. It is also frivolous.
  The lawsuit filed yesterday will fail and this bill never will become 
law. Rather, the President's actions will soon take effect and will 
bring a small measure of sanity to our broken immigration system.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 14\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this question transcends the issue of illegal 
immigration. The President's action has crossed a very bright line that 
separates the American Republic, which prides itself on being a nation 
of laws and not of men, from those unhappy regimes whose rulers boast 
that the law is in their mouths.
  It is true that throughout the Nation's history, Presidents have 
tested the limits of their authority, but this is the first time a 
Chief Executive, who is charged with the responsibility to ``take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed,'' has asserted the absolute power 
to nullify or change these laws by decree.
  Under our Constitution, the President does not get to pick which laws 
to enforce and which laws to ignore. He does not get to pick who must 
obey the law and who gets to live above the law. He is forbidden from 
making laws himself. ``All legislative power herein granted shall be 
vested in a Congress of the United States.''
  Whether we choose to recognize it or not, this is a full-fledged 
constitutional crisis. If this precedent is allowed to stand, it will 
render meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and balances 
that comprise the fundamental architecture of our Constitution, that 
have preserved our freedom for 225 years. If this precedent stands, 
every future President--Republican and Democrat--will cite it as 
justification for lawmaking by decree.
  The measure before us is the first act of this Congress to restore 
the balance of powers within this government. The President would be 
well advised to heed it before sterner measures are required.
  The seizure of legislative authority by the executive proved fatal to 
the Roman republic. Now that is happening in our own time. Let that not 
be the legacy of this administration.
  For more than two centuries, Americans have successfully defended our 
Constitution, and now history requires this generation to do so again, 
which it does beginning with this measure today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Cicilline, a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone in Congress and most people in this country 
understand that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. 
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked a bipartisan 
Senate bill from coming to the floor, and President Obama has taken 
action that he is legally permitted and morally obligated to take.
  Executive orders are not unusual. Every President since President 
Eisenhower has used this authority to take action on immigration 
issues, including six Republican Presidents.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Florida said voting against 
his bill is like voting against the Constitution, I suggest it is just 
the opposite. The contours for the executive authority of the President 
are defined in the Constitution and by precedent of the courts. There 
is no question that the President has the authority to exercise 
prosecutorial discretion in this regard. So, in fact, voting for this 
bill undermines the Constitution because the executive authority of the 
President is set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
  We all recognize there are 11 million undocumented residents of this 
country. We don't allocate resources to deport all 11 million. We 
allocate resources to deport about 400,000, which means, by definition, 
we are asking the department to set priorities in deciding whom to 
deport. Setting those priorities ensures that they deport the most 
serious offenders, people who pose threats to our communities.
  That act of prosecutorial discretion is what is reflected in the 
President's executive order.

                              {time}  1315

  It is very important to understand that there is practically very 
little question from legal scholars.
  I insert in the Record a letter which has the signature of 136 law 
professors who support the constitutionality of this provision, as well 
as a separate letter from additional titans in the legal community, 
beginning with President Lee Bollinger from Columbia University, Adam 
Cox from New York University, Walter Dellinger, and several other legal 
scholars.

                                                 25 November 2014.
       We write as scholars and teachers of immigration law who 
     have reviewed the executive actions announced by the 
     President on November 20, 2014. It is our considered view 
     that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood 
     Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for 
     Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are within the legal 
     authority of the executive branch of the government of the 
     United States. To explain, we cite federal statutes, 
     regulations, and historical precedents. We do not express any 
     views on the policy aspects of these two executive actions.
       This letter updates a letter transmitted by 136 law 
     professors to the White House on

[[Page H8642]]

     September 3, 2014, on the role of executive action in 
     immigration law. We focus on the legal basis for granting 
     certain noncitizens in the United States ``deferred action'' 
     status as a temporary reprieve from deportation. One of these 
     programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was 
     established by executive action in June 2012. On November 20, 
     the President announced the expansion of eligibility criteria 
     for DACA and the creation of a new program, Deferred Action 
     for Parental Accountability (DAPA).


        Prosecutorial discretion in immigration law enforcement

       Both November 20 executive actions relating to deferred 
     action are exercises of prosecutorial discretion. 
     Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the 
     Department of Homeland Security to decide how the immigration 
     laws should be applied. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-
     accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement 
     context, unavoidable whenever the appropriated resources do 
     not permit 100 percent enforcement. In immigration 
     enforcement, prosecutorial discretion covers both agency 
     decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement like 
     cancelling or not serving or filing a charging document to 
     Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as 
     decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a 
     stay of removal, parole, or deferred action.
       Prosecutorial discretion provides a temporary reprieve from 
     deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like 
     deferred action, confer ``lawful presence'' and the ability 
     to apply for work authorization. However, the benefits of the 
     deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not 
     unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an 
     independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United 
     States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility 
     to apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As the 
     President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the 
     qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship.


         Statutory authority and long-standing agency practice

       Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, Sec. 103(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the 
     ``Act''), clearly empowers the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) to make choices about immigration enforcement. 
     That section provides: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of 
     this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and 
     naturalization of aliens . . . .'' INA Sec. 242(g) recognizes 
     the executive branch's legal authority to exercise 
     prosecutorial discretion, specifically by barring judicial 
     review of three particular types of prosecutorial discretion 
     decisions: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate 
     cases, and to execute removal orders. In other sections of 
     the Act, Congress has explicitly recognized deferred action 
     by name, as a tool that the executive branch may use, in the 
     exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain 
     victims of abuse, crime or trafficking. Another statutory 
     provision, INA Sec. 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch 
     authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not 
     otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their 
     particular immigration status. This provision (and the formal 
     regulations noted below) confer the work authorization 
     eligibility that is part of both the DACA and DAPA programs.
       Based on this statutory foundation, the application of 
     prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups has been 
     part of the immigration system for many years. Longstanding 
     provisions of the formal regulations promulgated under the 
     Act (which have the force of law) reflect the prominence of 
     prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. Deferred action 
     is expressly defined in one regulation as ``an act of 
     administrative convenience to the government which gives some 
     cases lower priority'' and goes on to authorize work permits 
     for those who receive deferred action. Agency memoranda 
     further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in 
     immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Sam Bernsen 
     stated in a legal opinion, ``The reasons for the exercise of 
     prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian. 
     There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the 
     rules and regulations presently on the books.' In 2000, a 
     memorandum on prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters 
     issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner provided that 
     [s]ervice officers are not only authorized by law but 
     expected to exercise discretion in a judicious manner at all 
     stages of the enforcement process,'' and spelled out the 
     factors that should guide those decisions. In 2011, 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of 
     Homeland Security published guidance known as the ``Morton 
     Memo,'' outlining more than one dozen factors, including 
     humanitarian factors, for employees to consider in deciding 
     whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. These 
     factors--now updated by the November 20 executive actions--
     include tender or elderly age, long-time lawful permanent 
     residence, and serious health conditions.


 Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in 
                           immigration cases

       Federal courts have also explicitly recognized 
     prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in 
     particular: Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its 
     Arizona v. United States decision in 2012: ``A principal 
     feature of the removal system is the broad discretion 
     exercised by immigration officials . . . Federal officials, 
     as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to 
     pursue removal at all . . .'' In its 1999 decision in Reno v. 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme 
     Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. This 
     affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with 
     congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement, 
     which are at an annual level that would allow for the arrest, 
     detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the 
     noncitizens in the United States who lack lawful immigration 
     status.
       Based on statutory authority, U.S. immigration agencies 
     have a long history of exercising prosecutorial discretion 
     for a range of reasons that include economic or humanitarian 
     considerations, especially--albeit not only--when the 
     noncitizens involved have strong family ties or long-term 
     residence in the United States. Prosecutorial discretion, 
     including deferred action, has been made available on both a 
     case-by-case basis and a group basis, as are true under DACA 
     and DAPA. But even when a program like deferred action has 
     been aimed at a particular group of people, individuals must 
     apply, and the agency must exercise its discretion based on 
     the facts of each individual case. Both DACA and DAPA 
     explicitly incorporate that requirement.


  Historical precedents for deferred action and similar programs for 
                         individuals and groups

       As examples of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, 
     numerous administrations have issued directives providing 
     deferred action or functionally similar forms of 
     prosecutorial discretion to groups of noncitizens, often to 
     large groups. The administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan 
     and George H.W. Bush deferred the deportations of a then-
     predicted (though ultimately much lower) 1.5 million 
     noncitizen spouses and children of immigrants who qualified 
     for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
     (IRCA) of 1986, authorizing work permits for the spouses. 
     Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though 
     Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA. Among the 
     many other examples of significant deferred action or similar 
     programs are two during the George W. Bush administration: a 
     deferred action program in 2005 for foreign academic students 
     affected by Hurricane Katrina, and ``Deferred Enforcement 
     Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007.'' Several decades 
     earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of 
     prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary 
     Departure'' in 1981 to thousands of Polish nationals. The 
     legal sources and historical examples of immigration 
     prosecutorial discretion described above are by no means 
     exhaustive, but they underscore the legal authority for an 
     administration to apply prosecutorial discretion to both 
     individuals and groups.
       Some have suggested that the size of the group who may 
     ``benefit'' from an act of prosecutorial discretion is 
     relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal 
     authority for such an assumption. Notably, the Reagan-Bush 
     programs of the late 1980s and early 1990s were based on an 
     initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population 
     (about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial 
     estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions. 
     The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of 
     people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the 
     conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but 
     this would be a policy choice, not a legal issue. For all of 
     these reasons, the President is not ``re-writing'' the 
     immigration laws, as some of his critics have suggested. He 
     is doing precisely the opposite--exercising a discretion 
     conferred by the immigration laws and settled general 
     principles of enforcement discretion.


        The Constitution and immigration enforcement discretion

       Critics have also suggested that the deferred action 
     programs announced on November 20 violate the President's 
     constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be 
     faithfully executed.'' A serious legal question would 
     therefore arise if the executive branch were to halt all 
     immigration enforcement, or even if the Administration were 
     to refuse to substantially spend the resources appropriated 
     by Congress. In either of those scenarios, the justification 
     based on resource limitations would not apply. But the Obama 
     administration has fully utilized all the enforcement 
     resources Congress has appropriated. It has enforced the 
     immigration law at record levels through apprehensions, 
     investigations, and detentions that have resulted in over two 
     million removals. At the same time that the President 
     announced the November 20 executive actions that we discuss 
     here, he also announced revised enforcement priorities to 
     focus on removing the most serious criminal offenders and 
     further shoring up the southern border. Nothing in the 
     President's actions will prevent him from continuing to 
     remove as many violators as the resources Congress has given 
     him permit.
       Moreover, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised, 
     particularly when the numbers are large, there is no legal 
     barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound 
     procedures that include a formal application and 
     dissemination of the relevant criteria to the

[[Page H8643]]

     officers charged with implementing the program and to the 
     public. As DACA has shown, those kinds of procedures assure 
     that important policy decisions are made at the leadership 
     level, help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and 
     consistently, and offer the public the transparency that 
     government priority decisions require in a democracy.


                               Conclusion

       Our conclusion is that the expansion of the DACA program 
     and the establishment of Deferred Action for Parental 
     Accountability are legal exercises of prosecutorial 
     discretion. Both executive actions are well within the legal 
     authority of the executive branch of the government of the 
     United States.
       Hiroshi Motomura & Susan Westerberg Prager, University of 
     California, Los Angeles, School of Law*; Shoba Sivaprasad 
     Wadhia, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of 
     Law; Stephen H. Legomsky, Washington University School of 
     Law; David Abraham, University of Miami School of Law; Raquel 
     Aldana, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; 
     Farrin R. Anello, Seton Hall University School of Law; 
     Deborah Anker, Harvard Law School; Sabrineh Ardalan, Harvard 
     Law School; David C. Baluarte, Washington and Lee University 
     School of Law; Melynda Barnhart, New York Law School; Jon 
     Bauer, University of Connecticut School of Law; Lenni B. 
     Benson, New York Law School; Jacqueline Bhabha, Harvard Law 
     School;
       Linda Bosniak, Rutgers University School of Law-Camden; 
     Richard A. Boswell, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Jason 
     A. Cade, University of Georgia Law School; Janet Calvo, CUNY 
     School of Law, New York; Kristina M. Campbell, University of 
     the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law; Stacy 
     Caplow, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin Casper, University of 
     Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, University of Minnesota; 
     Howard F. Chang, University of Pennsylvania Law School; 
     Michael J. Churgin, University of Texas at Austin; Marisa 
     Cianciarulo, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law; 
     Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State University; Ingrid Eagly, UCLA 
     School of Law; Philip Eichorn, Cleveland State--Cleveland 
     Marshall School of Law;
       Bram T. Elias, University of Iowa College of Law; Stella 
     Burch Elias, University of Iowa College of Law; Jill E. 
     Family, Widener University School of Law; Niels Frenzen, 
     University of Southern California; Maryellen Fullerton, 
     Brooklyn Law School; Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, 
     University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Lauren Gilbert, 
     St. Thomas University School of Law; Denise L. Gilman, 
     University of Texas School of Law; John F. Gossart, Jr., 
     University of Maryland School of Law; P. Gulasekaram, Santa 
     Clara University; Anju Gupta, Rutgers School of Law--Newark; 
     Susan R. Gzesh, University of Chicago; Jonathan Hafetz, Seton 
     Hall University; Dina Francesca Haynes, New England Law, 
     Boston; Susan Hazeldean, Cornell Law School;
       Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Chapman University; Laura A. 
     Hernandez, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, John Marshall 
     Law School; Barbara Hines, University of Texas School of Law; 
     Laila L. Hlass, Boston University School of Law; Geoffrey 
     Hoffman, University of Houston Law Center; Mary Holper, 
     Boston College Law School; Alan Hyde, Rutgers University 
     School of Law--Newark; Kate Jastram, University of 
     California, Berkeley, School of Law; Kit Johnson, University 
     of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Drexel University 
     Kline School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, Boston College Law 
     School; Elizabeth Keyes, University of Baltimore School of 
     Law; Kathleen Kim, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; David C. 
     Koelsch, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer 
     Lee Koh, Western State College of Law;
       Kevin Lapp, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Christopher 
     Lasch, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Jennifer J. 
     Lee, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Stephen Lee, 
     University of California, Irvine; Christine Lin, University 
     of California, Hastings College of the Law; Beth Lyon, 
     Villanova University School of Law; Stephen Manning, Lewis & 
     Clark College; Lynn Marcus, University of Arizona James E. 
     Rogers College of Law; Miriam H. Marton, University of Tulsa 
     College of Law; Elizabeth McCormick, University of Tulsa 
     College of Law; M. Isabel Medina, Loyola University New 
     Orleans College of Law; Stephen Meili, University of 
     Minnesota Law School; Vanessa Merton, Pace University School 
     of Law; Andrew Moore, University of Detroit Mercy School of 
     Law; Jennifer Moore, University of New Mexico School of Law;
       Daniel I. Morales, DePaul University College of Law; Nancy 
     Morawetz, NYU School of Law; Karen Musalo, U.C. Hastings 
     College of the Law; Alizabeth Newman, CUNY School of Law; 
     Noah Novogrodsky, University of Wyoming College of Law; 
     Fernando A. Nunez, Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares, 
     Howard University School of Law; Michael A. Olivas, 
     University of Houston Law Center; Patrick D. O'Neill, Esq., 
     University of Puerto Rico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, 
     University of Pennsylvania Law School; Sunita Patel, American 
     University, Washington College of Law; Huyen Pham, Texas A&M 
     University School of Law; Michele R. Pistone, Villanova 
     University School of Law; Luis F.B. Plascencia, Arizona State 
     University; Polly J. Price, Emory University School of Law; 
     Doris Marie Provine, Arizona State University; Nina Rabin, 
     James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona;
       Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Temple University, Beasley School of 
     Law; Renee C. Redman, University of Connecticut School of 
     Law; Ediberto Roman, Florida International University; Victor 
     C. Romero, Penn State Law; Joseph H. Rosen, Atlanta's John 
     Marshall Law School; Carrie Rosenbaum, Golden Gate University 
     School of Law; Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Northeastern University 
     School of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, University of California, 
     Irvine; Ted Ruthizer, Columbia Law School; Leticia M. 
     Saucedo, UC Davis School of Law; Heather Scavone, Elon 
     University School of Law; Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Georgetown 
     Law; Philip Schrag, Georgetown University Law Center; Bijal 
     Shah, NYU School of Law; Ragini Shah, Suffolk University Law 
     School; Careen Shannon, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. 
     Cardozo School of Law; Anna Williams Shavers, University of 
     Nebraska College of Law; Bryn Siegel, Pacific Coast 
     University School of Law;
       Anita Sinha, American University, Washington College of 
     Law; Dan R. Smulian, Brooklyn Law School; Gemma Solimene, 
     Fordham University School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah, 
     Stanford Law School; Juliet Stumpf, Lewis & Clark Law School; 
     Maureen A. Sweeney, University of Maryland Carey School of 
     Law; Barbara Szweda, Lincoln Memorial University Duncan 
     School of Law; Margaret H. Taylor, Wake Forest University 
     School of Law; David Thronson, Michigan State University 
     College of Law; Allison Brownell Tirres, DePaul University 
     College of Law; Scott Titshaw, Mercer University School of 
     Law; Phil Torrey, Harvard Law School; Enid Trucios-Haynes, 
     Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville;
       Diane Uchimiya, University of La Verne College of Law; 
     Gloria Valencia-Weber, University of New Mexico School of 
     Law; Sheila I. Velez Martinez, University of Pittsburgh 
     School of Law; Alex Vernon, Ave Maria School of Law; Rose 
     Cuison Villazor, University of California at Davis School of 
     Law; Leti Volpp, University of California, Berkeley; Jonathan 
     Weinberg, Wayne State University; Deborah M. Weissman, 
     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lisa Weissman-
     Ward, Stanford Law School; Anna R. Welch, University of Maine 
     School of Law; Virgil O. Wiebe, University of St. Thomas 
     School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael J. Wishnie, Yale Law 
     School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Cornell University Law School; 
     Elizabeth Lee Young, University of Arkansas School of Law.
                                  ____

                                                November 20, 2014.
       We are law professors and lawyers who teach, study, and 
     practice constitutional law and related subjects. We have 
     reviewed the executive actions taken by the President on 
     November 20, 2014, to establish priorities for removing 
     undocumented noncitizens from the United States and to make 
     deferred action available to certain noncitizens. While we 
     differ among ourselves on many issues relating to 
     Presidential power and immigration policy, we are all of the 
     view that these actions are lawful. They are exercises of 
     prosecutorial discretion that are consistent with governing 
     law and with the policies that Congress has expressed in the 
     statutes that it has enacted.
       1. Prosecutorial discretion--the power of the executive to 
     determine when to enforce the law--is one of the most well-
     established traditions in American law. Prosecutorial 
     discretion is, in particular, central to the enforcement of 
     immigration law against removable noncitizens. As the Supreme 
     Court has said, ``the broad discretion exercised by 
     immigration officials'' is ``[a] principal feature of the 
     removal system.'' Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 
     2499 (2012).
       Even apart from this established legal tradition, 
     prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of immigration 
     law is unavoidable. According to most current estimates, 
     there are approximately 11 million undocumented noncitizens 
     in the United States. The resources that Congress has 
     appropriated for immigration enforcement permit the removal 
     of approximately 400,000 individuals each year. In these 
     circumstances, some officials will necessarily exercise their 
     discretion in deciding which among many potentially removable 
     individuals is to be removed.
       The effect of the November 20 executive actions is to 
     secure greater transparency by having enforcement policies 
     articulated explicitly by high-level officials, including the 
     President. Immigration officials and officers in the field 
     are provided with clear guidance while also being allowed a 
     degree of flexibility. This kind of transparency promotes the 
     values underlying the rule of law.
       2. There are, of course, limits on the prosecutorial 
     discretion that may be exercised by the executive branch. We 
     would not endorse an executive action that constituted an 
     abdication of the President's responsibility to enforce the 
     law or that was inconsistent with the purposes underlying a 
     statutory scheme. But these limits on the lawful exercise of 
     prosecutorial discretion are not breached here.
       Both the setting of removal priorities and the use of 
     deferred action are well-established ways in which the 
     executive has exercised discretion in using its removal 
     authority. These means of exercising discretion in the 
     immigration context have been used many times by the 
     executive branch under Presidents of both parties, and 
     Congress has explicitly and implicitly endorsed their use.

[[Page H8644]]

       The specific enforcement priorities set by the November 20 
     order give the highest priority to removing noncitizens who 
     present threats to national security, public safety, or 
     border security. These common-sense priorities are consistent 
     with long-standing congressional policies and are reflected 
     in Acts of Congress.
       Similarly, allowing parents of citizens and permanent 
     lawful residents to apply for deferred action will enable 
     families to remain together in the United States for a longer 
     period of time until they are eligible to exercise the 
     option, already given to them by Congress, to seek to 
     regularize the parents' status. Many provisions of the 
     immigration laws reflect Congress's determination that, when 
     possible, individuals entitled to live in the United States 
     should not be separated from their families; the November 20 
     executive action reflects the same policy. The authority for 
     deferred action, which is temporary and revocable, does not 
     change the status of any noncitizen or give any noncitizen a 
     path to citizenship.
       In view of the practical and legal centrality of discretion 
     to the removal system, Congress's decision to grant these 
     families a means of regularizing their status, and the 
     general congressional policy of keeping families intact, we 
     believe that the deferred action criteria established in the 
     November 20 executive order are comfortably within the 
     discretion allowed to the executive branch.
       As a group, we express no view on the merits of these 
     executive actions as a matter of policy. We do believe, 
     however, that they are within the power of the Executive 
     Branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of the 
     President's authority.
         Lee C. Bollinger, President, Columbia University; Adam B. 
           Cox, Professor of Law, New York University School of 
           Law; Walter E. Dellinger III, Douglas B. Maggs 
           Professor of Law, Duke University and O'Melveny & 
           Myers, Washington, D.C.; Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling 
           Professor of International Law, Yale Law School; 
           Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, 
           Columbia Law School; Eric Posner, Kirkland and Ellis 
           Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of 
           Chicago Law School; Cristina Rodriguez, Leighton Homer 
           Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Geoffrey R. 
           Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor 
           of Law, The University of Chicago; David A. Strauss, 
           Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, 
           University of Chicago Law School; Laurence H. Tribe, 
           Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of 
           Constitutional Law Harvard Law School.

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order will 
ensure that we have a safer country, that we will grow our economy, and 
that we will keep families together. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reject this Republican proposal and to allow the President's executive 
order to remain.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5759. This bill 
simply says that the President cannot issue blanket amnesty. This 
legislation also contains language that is similar to my own bill, the 
Defense of Legal Workers Act, H.R. 5761. It states clearly that illegal 
immigrants who are granted executive amnesty are not authorized to work 
in the United States.
  When we talk about illegal immigration, we always hear about what we 
should do to help the illegal immigrants. Well, what about the American 
workers? Who is going to stand up for them? There is a toxic 
intersection of this executive amnesty and the Affordable Care Act. 
Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more workers will have to provide 
health insurance or pay a $3,000 fine. But under the President's 
amnesty, illegal immigrants are exempt from the ACA. That means with 
their new work permits, illegal immigrants will be $3,000 cheaper to 
hire. That will drive companies to hire illegal immigrants instead of 
legal American workers--or worse yet, get rid of American workers in 
exchange for cheaper replacements.
  This bill is a small step, but I will vote for any bill that stops 
executive amnesty and that includes stopping the funding and supporting 
my own bill that protects American workers.
  Let's remember that we have been put in this position by a President 
who campaigned on a slogan of ``yes we can'' but governs under the 
philosophy of ``because I want to.''
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this misguided and politically motivated legislation. In fact it 
would be dangerous and irresponsible for this body to prohibit the 
Department of Homeland Security from exercising prosecutorial 
discretion. DHS and ICE must be able to prioritize the detention and 
the deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and 
national security, as opposed to deporting, for example, college 
students who were brought to this country by their parents. Or, 
perhaps, spouses of U.S. citizens serving in the military. It is not 
even a close question.
  The reality is discretion is and always has been exercised by every 
prosecutor in this country. To my knowledge, Republicans have never 
questioned this, never challenged it, until the current President began 
prioritizing dangerous criminals for immigration enforcement.
  As former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger recently wrote:

       In light of how legally conservative the Justice Department 
     opinion really is, it is a wonder that this issue has become 
     the subject of such heated, occasionally apocalyptic 
     commentary. Those who object to the President's efforts to 
     unite families should stop hiding behind unfounded legal 
     alarums and debate the President's actions on the merits.

  That is very good advice, Mr. Speaker, and I urge defeat of this 
cynical and unwarranted legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I thank not only the 
chairman but I thank the gentleman from Florida for his hard work on 
this important measure because my dad used to say that at times in life 
it is important to call an ace an ace. And I think fundamentally what 
this bill does is call an ace an ace with regard to cutting off and 
ending unilateral actions by Presidents, whether they are Republicans 
or Democrats.
  This is fundamentally about the balance of power in our Federal 
system. It is also important because it fits with what I am hearing 
from a lot of folks back home when they say, well, this issue of 
immigration reform has less to do with immigration than it has to do 
with the rule of law in this country and the way in which it should be 
applied to all folks equally. They say that it is fundamentally unfair 
for States to be burdened with new costs based on the unilateral action 
by a President. They say it is fundamentally unfair for our Federal 
entitlement system to be that much more wobbly based on a unilateral 
action by a President. And they say it is fundamentally 
unconstitutional for the President to take action in the pattern that 
he has, whether it is with the Affordable Care Act, whether it is with 
the Federal contracts, whether it is with war in the Middle East, or 
now immigration.
  So is this enough ultimately? No. I think we ultimately need to 
defund the President's ability to move forward. But it is an important 
first step in that basic notion that my dad prescribed of calling an 
ace an ace.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Al Green.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this 
legislation, and I hope nobody expects me to.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the beneficiary of the greatest executive order 
ever written, the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1863, when Lincoln 
signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the country was at war, it was 
being torn apart, and yet he signed that proclamation. While it did not 
liberate the slaves, it did lead to the passage of the 13th Amendment 
in 1865.
  I can't agree with this legislation because Truman in 1948 signed an 
executive order integrating the military, and it went on to integrate 
the broader society because it was a part of the avant-garde effort. 
And I would note that at the time he did it, the Dixiecrats were 
formed. They split from the Democratic Party.
  We have always had times of strife in this country, but great 
Presidents have always stepped forward, and they have done the right 
thing.
  Now let me address something quickly that has to be addressed: the 
question of this is a magnet, that it attracts a lot of people to the 
country. You can't be serious about this. If you

[[Page H8645]]

were serious about the magnetic approach, you would have done something 
about wet-foot, dry-foot. Wet-foot, dry-foot allows any person who is 
from Cuba who gets one foot on American soil to come right on in and 
get into a pathway to legalization, just by getting one foot on. Have 
the other foot in the water, one on land? Come on in. And that is the 
policy of the United States Government. You would end that if you were 
serious. That is a magnet. But you don't see magnets until it comes to 
certain people, it seems.
  Mr. President, I salute you for what you have done. I commend you, I 
stand with you on this issue, but more importantly, I stand with 
bringing people out of the shadows of life into the sunshine of a new 
life.
  God bless you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would once again remind Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing again to come down to this House floor to 
discuss issues and to be a part of this debate. I think one of the 
issues that really has to come to light here is when it is being said 
that what we are doing is trivial, what we are doing doesn't matter, 
then, frankly, what does matter? Does the Constitution matter? Does the 
rule of law matter? What is amazing to me, and I sat through a whole 
5\1/2\-hour hearing the other day in dealing with this, we used letters 
that were not probably used for the right context, we used other 
examinations, and it always came back to, well, in the end, if it just 
helps somebody, it is okay.
  The problem I am having here with this is this problem: the ones who 
are coming into our country, many of them whom I have spoken with in my 
time as a pastor and other times dealing with missionary work, they are 
coming from places where rule of law is not followed and where rule of 
law is broken. So now what do we do? They come to a country in which 
rule of law is being put aside and is being expanded just to help just 
a little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Florida. I applaud everyone 
from here who is saying it doesn't matter if it is a Democrat or a 
Republican, what is right is what is right, and that is what matters on 
the floor of this House. When we understand that, then we can get back 
to what really matters, and that is saying that it is a time for 
debate. It is not a time for exercising further outside the lines. It 
is a time in which we, as a group, come together and say, let's solve 
problems, let's not poison the well so we cannot have conversations, 
and we don't have the dignity which we have for those who truly want to 
come to our country, who have done it legally and have done it right. 
Why would we do that?
  That is what is wrong with this debate. The problem that we are 
having right now is we are just simply saying, Mr. President, there are 
three branches of government, and you can do whatever you want to 
within your side, but the Congress has to do it on its side, and it 
listens to the people as well. I think they spoke pretty loud and clear 
3 weeks ago.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I have spent the past year speaking every 
year in this Chamber about the damaging effects of our broken 
immigration system on our security, our economy, our families, and 
communities. We started with such great hope at the beginning of this 
Congress. But here we are in the final hours of the 113th Congress, and 
instead of moving a piece of legislation that the majority would put 
forward to address the underlying problems with our immigration system, 
we have before us another symbolic, superficial vote that will fix 
absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will not strengthen security at our borders, 
including the most important gateways that are rarely mentioned, at 
LAX, Chicago O'Hare, or JFK. This bill will not address the labor needs 
of our agricultural industry or tech industry. This bill will not 
protect American workers by implementing E-Verify across the board to 
make sure there is one legal labor force in America, paying their fair 
share of taxes and fully protected by American labor laws. This bill 
does not do that.
  This bill will not answer the pleas of U.S. American citizens who 
have a parent or a spouse who wants to get right with the law, is 
willing to submit to a thorough background check at their own expense 
and prove to the American people that they are not a threat and able to 
work, pay taxes, and contribute to the success of this country.
  Instead of moving forward, instead of legislating actual solutions to 
difficult public policy issues, instead of putting the emphasis on 
doing what needs to be done to improve the economy, the security, and 
the basic human decency of our laws, we are left with a tired and 
unfortunate partisan battle. It is a partisan fight based on pure 
fantasy, not just the fantasy that the U.S. Congress will ever 
appropriate enough money to jail, expel, and deport 11 million people 
and their families, but also the fantasy that what your side votes on 
today will ever become law. You know it. I know it. Apparently the 
majority prefers to take symbolic votes instead of legislating real and 
lasting solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, they didn't call Ronald Reagan a tyrant. They didn't 
call him lawless. Yet he said, ``I will protect 1\1/2\ million 
undocumented people that you call illegal.'' He protected them. When 
the Congress expressly said they would not be included for any benefit 
under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, he protected them. 
He used his Presidential power to do that. And he wasn't called a 
tyrant, and he wasn't called lawless. He was doing the right thing: 
protecting the siblings and spouses of those that would be granted 
legalization under that law that Congress expressly excluded.
  And do you want to know something? I am happy that President Barack 
Obama is following in that great and proud tradition set forth by 
President Ronald Reagan that he would rather put family first, the 
demagoguery and any anti-immigrant policy always last.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to me to see former President 
Ronald Reagan, especially here in the House Chamber. I, in fact, voted 
for President Reagan twice and was proud to support him.
  One of the things that I remember most about President Reagan was 
that great debate with his opponent in one of the Presidential debates 
in which he said, ``There he goes again,'' pointing out when his 
opponent said something inaccurate about him.
  Well, there they go again because what we have today is something 
that is very, very different than what President Reagan did. President 
Reagan signed a law--a bill passed by the Congress and signed it into 
law, and then he found some things that he didn't think were correct, 
so he then took action.
  In today's Washington Post, which I would cite for the gentleman from 
Illinois, its headline, The Washington Post editorial today, ``An 
action without precedent,'' so when he cites President Reagan as a 
precedent here, The Washington Post clearly refutes that by pointing 
out how small that was and how it was done in response to a specific, 
identifiable concern about legislation that had been passed. Guess 
what? The Congress then subsequently fixed it as well.
  That is not what is occurring here today, and as The Washington Post 
notes, it is plain that the White House's numbers--the 1.5 million 
claim--are indefensible, and it is similarly plain that the scale of 
Mr. Obama's move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted 
and without legislation that had been passed to found it upon.
  No, this is power grab of enormous proportion. It is 
unconstitutional. It is clearly what he said he was going to do when he 
came to this body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

[[Page H8646]]

  When he came to this body almost 3 years ago with his list of things 
that he wanted done, he said, ``If you don't do it, I will.'' On that 
occasion, some Members on that side of the aisle stood up and 
applauded.
  Guess what? Since then, in health care reform, in the environment, in 
enforcement of our drug laws and in a whole host of other things, that 
is exactly what he has done, and he said he was going to do it. He 
said, ``I have my pen and my phone, and I will do it myself.''
  Well, in this case, he has, on more than 20 occasions, said he did 
not have the authority to do it. Now, the folks on the other side of 
the aisle are saying, ``Oh, he didn't change the law.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  He didn't have the authority to change the law, but guess what? When 
he signed the order, here is what he said:

       What you are not paying attention to is that I just took 
     action to change the law.

  To change the law. Article I of the Constitution says the law is only 
changed by the United States Congress. Article III says the President 
shall faithfully execute the law. His actions are unconstitutional and 
they are unprecedented.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I, in my opening remarks, did note the 
uncanny similarity between the action that President Reagan and the 
first President Bush took and the action that President Obama has now 
taken.
  I would note that I used the official record as a source of 
information instead of chat and articles, and I submitted for the 
record the internal decision memorandum in the INS, dated February 8, 
1990, indicating that 1.5 million, 40 percent of the undocumented 
population, in contravention to the orders of Congress, were going to 
be given deferred action.
  The Commissioner of the INS testified that 40 percent of the 
undocumented population were going to be given, in contradiction to the 
Congress' explicit decision, were going to be given deferred action. I 
also have the draft processing plan that says millions of people would 
be given, in contravention to the act of Congress, deferred action. 
They even have the amount of money that they were going to make off the 
estimated filing fees.
  I would recommend that people take a look at the documents, and they 
will see that what President Reagan did is almost exactly the same as 
what President Obama did--40 percent of the population.
  I don't think that President Reagan could get the Republican 
nomination today, but that does not diminish the validity of his action 
at that time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of feigned outrage 
from the other side, but I want to point out a few things.
  Number one, it was the President himself who said, over 20 times, why 
this action is illegal. I would invite the Democrats to read his 
remarks. There are over 20 different instances of it.
  Number two, they talk about prosecutorial discretion, and this is 
okay, but as I understand it, you have that discretion when you run out 
of money and maybe you can't implement a finer point of a law, 
something that you are prosecuting. It doesn't mean you change the law.
  I would invite the Democrats who think that we disproportionately 
pick on this President, I would invite them to look at the 1950s case 
during the Truman administration in which President Truman nationalized 
the steel business by executive order in order to avoid a strike.
  It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found on a 6-3 vote 
that you could not change the law of such magnitude by executive order, 
and that was not a case of picking on poor little old Harry Truman. It 
was a case of standing up for the United States Constitution.
  I would also like to invite the Democrats to look at the lawsuit that 
17 States have now joined in saying that the President has violated 
article II, section 3, the part of the Constitution that talks about 
taking care to execute the laws, which this President seems to think is 
a pick-and-choose operation run out of his political office.
  I would also invite the Democrats to go to Central America and talk 
to so many of the immigrants that I have. I have been to Honduras. I 
have been to El Salvador. I have been to Guatemala. I have talked to 
people, and one of our earlier speakers said that, ``You think there is 
some sort of magnet, that they come here because we changed the law, 
you are out of your mind.''
  I would say go to Central America and talk to the folks. That is 
exactly why they come: because they get the word that it is easier to 
come here under those circumstances.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. For those who think that relaxing our laws does not 
create a magnet, they need to go to Central America and talk to the 
people who would be taking advantage of this.
  Finally, let me say this about leadership: in split government with 
three branches, equal branches, you don't get what you want. Leadership 
is pulling together the coalitions to talk to people and ask: ``What 
part of this law can we agree on? And what can we do about it?''
  That is what leadership is about. The President has that opportunity 
to show leadership now that he is going to have a new Congress and a 
new Senate to work with. The way to get things done is to reach out and 
work with people and not to be in your face against them.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  I don't hear anyone disagreeing that our immigration system is 
broken. It is broken for our commerce as businesses try to figure out 
how to do the best business across the border, as they try to figure 
out who they can employ and not employ. It is broken. I don't think 
anyone contests that.
  We need to have as much security here at home as we can because we 
know, abroad, there are folks who would like to hurt us. If we don't 
have a Department of Homeland Security with laws that work well, our 
security is broken.
  Certainly, the whole discussion here makes it very clear that 
American families--American families--are being disrupted, separated 
day after day. No one wants to see that done to an American family, 
certainly not to a whole bunch of American citizens who want to have 
opportunities in the future. Our immigration system is broken. Let's 
just all agree on that.
  So what do we do? Well, we can fix the broken immigration system, or 
we can put message bills on the floor of the House that are never going 
to get signed and become law and leave in 5 more days and end the year 
2014 without having done anything and watch as we have gone more than 
two to three decades without fixing a broken immigration system.
  Or we could finally take the bill that has been sitting here in the 
House for 525 days that passed in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, 68 
out of 100 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, voted to fix the broken 
immigration system. That has been sitting here waiting for a vote for 
525 days.
  We have 5 days left in this session. Within 5 days, we could fix the 
broken immigration system for our economy, for our families, and for 
our national security; or we could do a message bill as we have on the 
floor, which will not pass the Senate, which will not be signed by the 
President, which means that we leave 2014 having done nothing.
  The President said in January, during his State of the Union, 
``Congress, let's get this done together, but if you can't do 
something, then I will do what I can under my executive authority.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. BECERRA. The President said in his State of the Union, ``If you 
can't do

[[Page H8647]]

something, I will do what I can under my executive authority under the 
Constitution.'' And so he did.
  Now, it is a matter of trying to make things work better and smarter, 
given that we have a broken immigration system. Now is not the time to 
double down with these social agenda matters that go nowhere. We could 
get this done, but we all have to be accountable. Just as we demand 
those immigrant families to be accountable, Congress has to be 
accountable.
  Let's get this done. The American people have been telling us that 
for years. Get this done. You know the solution. Let's act. There are 5 
days to go. Let's get this done. Put the Senate bipartisan bill on the 
floor, and we will get this done.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and so I 
reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member on the 
Judiciary Committee, to close out our side.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is not changing the law, he is exercising 
Presidential prosecutorial choice. The very fact that only 400,000 
people a year can be deported when there are admittedly 11 million 
undocumented people in this country says you have to make choices.
  I didn't see anyone on that side of the aisle demand that President 
Bush--or President Obama, for that matter--deport all 11 million people 
and propose the appropriation to enable that to be done. Failing that, 
there must be choices. The President must choose.
  I will not repeat all of the legal arguments that we have heard over 
the last hour that the President has it well within his power to make 
these choices. Discretion happens--400,000 against 11 million--
discretion happens.
  Making that discretion systematic and sensible, prioritizing it, 
doesn't change the law. The Republicans admit the law is broken, but 
they haven't brought any bills to this floor in 4 years, and they have 
ignored the bipartisan Senate bill, so the President must act and that 
he acts within his power is good.
  Finally, I must comment on the remarks of Mr. Barletta who says--and 
I have heard other people say it--that the undocumented aliens--or the 
documented aliens, for that matter--pose a threat to American jobs.
  The fact is they do jobs that other people don't want, and more to 
the point, what poses a threat to American living standards is the fact 
that they can't enforce standards. The fact that an undocumented alien 
can't complain to an enforcement agency when he is paid below minimum 
wage or when he is exploited, that reduces wage levels for everyone.
  If you want to help wage levels for American workers, let the 
undocumented people who are here and who are going to stay here, let 
them come out of the shadows, pass a comprehensive bill, let them work 
legally, and enforce the minimum wage law. It will benefit all American 
workers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said repeatedly that we need to do 
immigration reform, and I certainly don't disagree with that, but the 
United States Constitution says that immigration reform must be done by 
the United States Congress, and the President doesn't say, nor does the 
Constitution say, ``Hey, if the Congress doesn't do it or doesn't do it 
the way I like it, then I get the opportunity to do it myself.'' That 
is not what the Constitution says. It says the President shall 
faithfully execute the laws.
  Now, the gentleman from New York, in talking about the impact of the 
President's executive action here says, ``Oh, the people who are here 
illegally and are taking jobs, they are taking jobs that Americans 
don't want.''
  Well, maybe there is some truth to that, maybe some of them are not, 
but the fact of the matter is the President has unilaterally taken an 
executive order that would give every single one of the 4 million to 5 
million undocumented people in the United States who take jobs, to take 
any job in the country they want to, as good a job, as high-paying a 
job as they want.

                              {time}  1345

  So, yes, we need to do immigration reform. The American people want 
us to do immigration reform, but they want us to start with enforcement 
first.
  Instead, what the President has done, he has taken the law into his 
own hands. That is the real issue in this case and the real matter 
before the Congress and the real import of this legislation. It is not 
about where you are on immigration reform; it is about where you are on 
protecting the United States Constitution. Because this President's 
actions are unprecedented; this President's actions are beyond the 
pale; this President's actions are unconstitutional.
  This legislation offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) 
stops that. That is why every Member of the House should support this 
good legislation and make sure that we preserve what we are sworn under 
an oath to preserve, and that is the Constitution of the United States.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
5759.
  Almost three quarters of all undocumented immigrants in America are 
women and children.
  Before President Obama took action to adjust the status of certain 
long-term U.S. residents, these women were trapped in the shadows.
  They lived in fear of being deported and permanently separated from 
their kids.
  Many remained in violent relationships because their abusers 
threatened to expose their immigration status.
  Others were forced to work in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, 
unable to report their exploitative employers.
  What message is this dangerous bill sending to these women and their 
families?
  Go back to the shadows.
  Stay at your dangerous job.
  Continue to live in fear of losing your children.
  Mr. Speaker, these women deserve better and so does our country.
  The messages issued by this body should always be rooted in hope and 
empowerment, not fear.
  Instead of playing political games with the lives of vulnerable 
immigrants, we should be working together to build on the President's 
actions by passing comprehensive immigration reform.
  H.R. 5759 would have devastating consequences for millions of 
families with deep ties to their communities. As the Republican 
Leadership is well aware, this bill has no chance of being signed into 
law. Let's reject this callous political gimmick and finally get to 
work fixing our broken immigration system.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 5759, the so-called Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014.
  Let me start by saying that I applaud our President for taking bold 
action to keep families together.
  He acted where this Congress has failed to act.
  A bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill was passed in the 
Senate more than 500 days ago. Yet Republican leadership in the House 
failed to bring the bill up for a vote in the House.
  And so as a result, our President took responsibility to stop the 
suffering of millions of mixed-status families who have lived for years 
in fear and uncertainty. He did so with full legal authority, just as 
every President--Democrat and Republican--has done since Dwight D. 
Eisenhower.
  Of course, the Executive Order is not perfect, and does not relieve 
uncertainty for every deserving family.
  But I am pleased that some 5 million people will be able to step out 
of the shadows, contribute to our economy, and pursue the American 
dream. This Congress still needs to pass a comprehensive bill to truly 
fix our broken immigration system.
  Instead of voting on this misguided and cruel bill, we should be 
having a vote on the comprehensive plan that we know would pass this 
House.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
governing debate of H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive 
Overreach On Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill.

[[Page H8648]]

  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it is nothing more 
than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President 
and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed 
by the nation's broken immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily 
introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the 
ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction 
clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain 
forms of immigration relief.''
  As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided:

       No provision of the United States Constitution, the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall 
     be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch 
     of the Government to exempt, by Executive order, regulation, 
     or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present 
     in the United States from removal under the immigration laws 
     (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act).
       Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of 
     circumventing the objectives of this statute shall be null 
     and void and without legal effect.

  Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no 
hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows.
  The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and 
considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the 
federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No 
provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted 
or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .''
  Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when 
the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that 
the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters 
when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief 
Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury:

       It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial 
     department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule 
     to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret 
     that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts 
     must decide on the operation of each.

  Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been 
subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been 
revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet 
death.
  Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, 
it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill 
to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules 
Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in remedying the 
many deficiencies of the original bill.
  As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 seeks to 
prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from 
deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the 
United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the 
administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully 
present or had lawful immigration status.
  The amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition:

       1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;''
       2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in 
     the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses 
     at trial''; and
       3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at 
     imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.''

  The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date 
of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive 
actions taken on that date by President Obama to address our broken 
immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, 
prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain 
undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and 
lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to 
temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken 
by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his 
constitutional authority.
  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the 
nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
executed.''
  In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the 
law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care 
Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and 
enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the 
laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. 
Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.
  Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce 
immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide 
whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
  Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are 
charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems 
they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission 
critical enforcement goals.
  Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed 
the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the 
Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona V. United States, 132 
S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined 
by Chief Justice Roberts:

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

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

       Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces 
     immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to 
     support their families, for example, likely pose less danger 
     than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. 
     The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, 
     including whether the alien has children born in the United 
     States, long ties to the community, or a record of 
     distinguished military service.
       Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that 
     bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an 
     alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even 
     where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet 
     the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in 
     civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring 
     conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his 
     family will be harmed upon return.
       The dynamic nature of relations with other countries 
     requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement 
     policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy 
     with respect to these and other realities.

  Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of 
removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and 
reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to 
pursue removal and when it does not.
  In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama has not done 
anything that is novel or unprecedented.
  Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several 
presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting 
immigrants over the past 35 years:
  1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to 
allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' 
were paroled into the U.S. by 1981.
  2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to 
allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from 
expulsion and work authorization.
  3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that 
granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the 
People's Republic of China who were in the United States.
  4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals 
of El Salvador.
  5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting 
DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before 
Dec. 31, 1995.
  6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole 
to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted 
executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of 
Texas are eligible for deferred action.
  If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and 
receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million 
increase in tax revenues, over five years.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome 
development but

[[Page H8649]]

not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration laws. Only 
Congress can do that.
  America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security 
challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows 
actors to use pragmatism and common sense.
  And as shown by the success of H.R. 17, the bipartisan ``Border 
Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with 
the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do 
this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national 
heritage as a welcoming and generous nation.
  This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan 
``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles 
announced earlier this year by House Republicans.
  As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for 
the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse 
backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.
  It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp 
to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in 
the American Dream.
  These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for 
far too long for their chance.
  We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to 
ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure 
our borders while at the same time preserving America's character as 
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to 
reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that 
will result from comprehensive immigration reform.
  President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in 
exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws 
in an effective and humane manner.
  If congressional Republicans, who have refused to debate 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, 
disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative 
course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it 
to the President for signature.
  The President has shown responsible leadership. The next step is up 
to congressional Republicans.
  I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 770, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I am opposed in its current form.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Murphy of Florida moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     5759, to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Subsection (b) of section 3 of the bill is amended in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``Subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``In accordance with this subsection and 
     subsection (e), subsection (a)''.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
       (e) Protecting Military Families, Victims of Human 
     Trafficking, and Cuban Nationals.--The provisions of this Act 
     shall not apply to exemptions, deferrals, or other actions 
     that--
       (1) provide relief to parents, spouses and children of U.S. 
     citizens who are current members or veterans of the U.S. 
     Armed Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, or 
     who seek to enlist in the Armed Forces;
       (2) protect victims of domestic violence who have 
     successfully petitioned for relief under the Violence Against 
     Women Act; and victims of crimes and serious forms of human 
     trafficking from further abuse; and
       (3) protect Cuban nationals in the United States, or that 
     arrive at or between a port of entry into the United States, 
     or any persons of other nationality deserving of similar 
     protections.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the amended bill will immediately proceed to final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment would shield the unintentional victims of 
the bill before us, namely, military families, survivors of domestic 
violence and exploitation, and the Cuban people fleeing the brutal 
communist regime of the Castros.
  First, the amendment would preserve the government's policy of 
protecting undocumented parents, spouses, and children of military 
personnel from deportation. After the Pentagon heard from many 
servicemembers who feared for the safety of their families back home, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services instituted a parole in place 
policy for respecting military families, supporting military readiness, 
and honoring our commitment to those who serve our Nation so bravely.
  Mr. Speaker, is parole in place for military families such an abuse 
of power?
  Surely, the majority of this House wants our brave men and women 
serving on the battlefield to be able to focus on the mission and not 
fear that their families will be taken from them. The slogan ``support 
our troops'' must at least mean that.
  Next, my amendment would protect the victims of domestic violence, 
abuse, and severe human trafficking. We know a willingness to come 
forward and cooperate with law enforcement can break the cycle of 
violence and make justice possible for the real criminals. USCIS 
developed a program to give victims of incredible violence temporary U 
visas for abuse and T visas for trafficking. In 2010 alone, nearly 
12,000 of these visas were given out so victims can come out of the 
shadows.
  What is it about visas for abuse victims that so enrage some in this 
Chamber?
  American women deserve better than a policy that threatens to deport 
the victim while their abuser simply walks free. That is why the 
National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women 
wrote that this bill ``broadly sweeps large numbers of victims into its 
scope and ignores the best interests of victims and their children.''
  Finally, this motion would preserve our country's longstanding 
practice of granting parole and, ultimately, green cards to Cuban 
nationals. Those who escape the clutches of the nearly 56-year-old 
communist dictatorship yearn for the freedom they are so brutally 
denied just 90 miles from our shore.
  To this day, Cuban democracy activists, including Las Damas de 
Blanco, remain subject to arbitrary arrest, beatings, and imprisonment. 
Without the protection spelled out in my amendment, fleeing survivors 
of the Castro regime are denied a chance at freedom and deported.
  Is that what we want?
  Growing up in south Florida, I can tell you that the cultural 
richness of the great State of Florida does not exist without Cuban 
American immigrants, many of whom escaped with nothing more than their 
lives.
  To my friends across the aisle who call this a ``process'' argument, 
let me say, if this House had done its job, we wouldn't face a process 
question in the first place. You want a better process? Pass a bill. 
Dispense of this measure before us and bring up H.R. 15, a real 
immigration bill from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia). It will 
reform our broken system, secure the border, create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs, and reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion. It has 
got the votes. We can make it the law by Christmas.
  The American people asked for immigration reform, and this body voted 
to half secure the border and deport DREAMers. Now we are looking at 
ripping apart military families, prosecuting the victims of domestic 
violence and human trafficking, and sending Cuban refugees back to the 
brutal hands of the Castros.
  I urge my colleagues, don't let this be the story of the 113th 
Congress. Pass this motion to recommit and defeat this mean-spirited 
bill before us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order, and I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

[[Page H8650]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Yoho), also the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) for 
the contribution he made to the language that is in this important bill 
to stop the President's unilateral action that is unconstitutional.
  The gentleman offering the motion to recommit should note that the 
bill takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014. It nullifies the 
President's unlawful, unconstitutional executive order. It does not 
change all immigration law that provides already considerable statutory 
protection for our members of the Armed Forces of the United States and 
their families. It protects victims of domestic violence who 
successfully petition for relief; and Cuban nationals, as has been 
noted during the debate here, are already protected under the law, and 
this bill in no way, shape, or form harms any of those protections 
under the law.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and 
support the underlying legislation, which is needed to stop the 
unconstitutional actions of the President of the United States in 
writing an executive order that is unprecedented in its scope.
  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.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX and the 
order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the motion to 
recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if 
ordered, and the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979 
with an amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 225, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               YEAS--194

     Adams
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--225

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Capuano
     Coble
     Collins (NY)
     Crawford
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Gallego
     Hall
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Negrete McLeod

                              {time}  1419

  Messrs. FORBES, HURT, ROGERS of Alabama, ROTHFUS, POSEY, and STIVERS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, ENGEL, KEATING, CARDENAS, 
RUSH, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 549, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  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.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 197, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 550]

                               YEAS--219

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes

[[Page H8651]]


     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--197

     Adams
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gohmert
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Gosar
     King (IA)
     Labrador

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bishop (UT)
     Capuano
     Coble
     Crawford
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Hall
     Johnson, E. B.
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meeks
     Miller, Gary
     Negrete McLeod

                              {time}  1428

  Mr. GARAMENDI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________