[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H331-H341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairwoman, I want to make it clear that I support the original 
bipartisan Homeland Security bill and oppose the majority's radical 
anti-immigrant amendments. These amendments pollute the bipartisan bill 
both Republicans and Democrats have carefully crafted to protect the 
American people.
  Our clean Homeland Security bill provides the funds needed to protect 
our country. It invests in border security and prioritizes the 
detention and deportation of dangerous criminals.
  The clean, bipartisan Homeland Security bill provides funds for new 
grants to State and local first responders, who are our first line of 
defense against homegrown terrorism. It invests in the Coast Guard's 
eighth National Security Cutter and additional Fast Response Cutters to 
help protect our ports. The bill also provides critical funds to hire 
new Secret Service agents to make essential security improvements at 
the White House.
  These are just a few examples of why this bill is so important. 
Unfortunately, instead of bringing the clean, bipartisan bill for a 
vote, the majority is proposing several poison pill amendments that 
will jeopardize the bill's ability to become law. It is unconscionable 
to put our Nation's security at risk simply for the purpose of 
appeasing those who want to undermine President Obama's reasonable and 
lawful executive action to fix our broken immigration system in light 
of the fact that this House has not acted.
  Current funding for DHS is set to run out at the end of February. The 
recent horrors in Paris are the latest reminder of why America needs 
Congress to pass the negotiated bipartisan Homeland Security bill that 
can become law and defeat the anti-immigrant poison pill amendments 
being proposed by the majority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendments and to vote 
``yes'' on the original bill to protect the homeland, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), a member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 2015 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Our subcommittee 
has worked diligently on this legislation, and I want to thank Chairman 
Carter and the entire staff for countless hours they have put in 
crafting the bill before us today. This legislation prioritizes our 
national security and strengthens border security, while addressing 
numerous issues that have arisen in the past year.
  Last year, tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children entered 
the United States illegally while the administration sat on its hands. 
Rather than deal with the crisis, the President further exacerbated the 
problem and encouraged more people to try to bypass the legal 
immigration process when he granted executive amnesty to millions of 
illegal immigrants.
  Today, the House has the opportunity to correct these mistakes by 
passing this legislation. In addition to the responsible and deliberate 
funding levels laid out in the bill, House Republicans are offering key 
amendments to completely defund the President's executive actions and 
restore order to the legal administration process by ensuring that 
those who came here illegally will not be allowed to bypass those who 
sought to come here through the right and legal way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for these provisions and the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chairwoman, I rise to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee. I am a ranking member also. I know what type of work it 
takes to put together a $39.7 billion expenditure to protect all of the 
entities of domestic homeland security. It is a good bill. It was 
worked out last year. For all the new Members coming, I am shocked that 
they have to go through this learning process about how we take a good 
thing and screw it up.
  This bill has bipartisan support. I think if we voted on it tonight, 
the underlying bill would pass overwhelmingly. I don't even know if 
there would be a negative vote. But tomorrow morning on this floor 
amendments are going to be made to this bill. I understand the other 
side already has them, and I wish the people who are thinking about 
voting for those amendments and those that are proposing them had 
listened to the people that we are funding in Homeland Security, 
because the last thing they would tell you is that America is going to 
be less secure with those amendments.
  There isn't going to be a college campus or university that isn't 
going to be in revolt when you try to deport the students who are 
there. Your wives, your families are going to be upset when you try to 
deport your gardener or somebody taking care of your house. Our faith-
based communities are going to be hiding these people from deportation.
  You are coming in and creating this ugly government that is going to 
go around and round up people who have not committed a crime and deport 
them.

                              {time}  1915

  That doesn't make America more secure. In fact, it makes us ugly all 
over the world. So, I can't, for the life of me--when we go to such 
hard work to get such a great, balanced bill, to spend $39.7 billion on 
the Department of Homeland Security, then want to make sure that it 
doesn't work.
  The President has said he is going to veto it. He is going to veto it 
because you are mad at him for providing leadership.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for providing that leadership. The House 
should have joined with the Senate and adopted a comprehensive 
immigration bill, but we didn't. We sat on that for 2 years, did 
absolutely nothing, and now we are attacking you.
  Shame, shame on the House. Defeat those amendments.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of our committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as well as the 
amendments that will be offered to put the brakes on President Obama's 
executive overreach on illegal immigration.
  My constituents are depending on the House and the Senate to send a 
strong message to the White House that their attempt to grant amnesty 
through executive action is an affront to the democratic process that 
has served our Nation well for more than 200 years.
  The reason people are fleeing from south to north is that this side 
of the border, we have the rule of law, not men.
  I want to thank Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman John Carter, 
Chairman Hal Rogers, and the rest of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for putting together a responsible bill that 
provides the funds for our Homeland Security personnel and the need to 
carry out their mission.
  Specifically, the bill provides significant funding for our Border 
Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure both agencies 
have the ability to stem large flows of illegal immigration like we 
witnessed last summer in Texas.
  Another important tool in tackling illegal immigration is the 
increased use of E-Verify, which remains the only and best way for 
employers to confirm that the employees that they hire are in this 
country legally. The underlying bill contains full funding

[[Page H332]]

for the E-Verify funding and will allow employers to continue to use 
this program in a free and efficient manner.
  When it comes to patrolling our land, air, and sea, Homeland Security 
officials consistently rely on the awareness and insights that are 
provided by assets operated by the Air and Marine Operations Center, or 
AMOC. In fact, AMOC, which is located in Riverside County, California, 
is the Nation's only Federal law enforcement center tasked to 
coordinate interdiction operations in the Western Hemisphere.
  The FY15 bill fully funds the operations of AMOC and ensures that our 
law enforcement agencies will continue to benefit from their 
contributions.
  Again, I want to thank Judge Carter for his leadership, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the FY15 Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to 
the FY 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act because House 
Republicans are littering the bill with provisions that have nothing to 
do with homeland security but have everything to do with harming 
families and keeping our immigration system dysfunctional, risking our 
national security in the process.
  I too serve as a ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and 
craft a bill and work in a bipartisan spirit, and I had an opportunity 
to work in a bipartisan spirit on this bill as well. So it is truly 
unfortunate that this bill is being poisoned by amendments that are 
really going to jeopardize our national security.
  I reluctantly stand in opposition because the overall bill is ``must-
pass'' legislation, and it includes very important measures to bolster 
our national security, including additional funding that I fought for 
and secured to protect children from online predators.
  Many of my colleagues are in a similar situation; too many poison 
pills are set to be slipped in that make this legislation's passage 
unacceptable.
  House Republicans are willfully driving us toward a partial 
government shutdown that jeopardizes our security at home, all just for 
the chance to further destabilize our immigration system, make it 
harder to secure the border, punish young people who have known no 
other country other than this one, and separate families in the 
process.
  Now, how did we get here?
  Because the extreme elements of the GOP became apoplectic when the 
President announced that he would move ahead with his legal executive 
actions to fix our broken immigration system. And everyone will recall, 
of course, that he did so due to this body's repeated unwillingness to 
pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
  Now, as we debated the so-called CR/Omnibus legislation last year, 
House Republicans put their cards on the table with temporary DHS 
funding. And with this bill being debated today, they are ready to 
gamble on our Nation's security and America's safety to satisfy their 
rightwing base.
  This is not governing in good faith at the outset of a new Congress, 
with the opportunity we have to set aside differences and work together 
for the betterment of the country.
  And this isn't just politics as usual from the other side of the 
aisle. Some of it is alarmingly personal and targeted.
  Part of the President's executive action is intended to keep families 
together and support the educational and employment aspirations of 
millions of undocumented individuals.
  Some of the amendments attached to this bill would, in fact, tear 
families apart, deporting thousands of so-called DREAMers and even 
revictimizing women already subjected to domestic violence by targeting 
them for removal.
  The point of these games is to satisfy the anti-immigrant, extremist 
elements within the Republican party. But to what end?
  Where is the sense of reality?
  Though he has flip-flopped several times on the issue, even former 
Governor Jeb Bush, from my home State of Florida, has said as far back 
as 10 years ago that a policy that ignores that they are here is a 
policy of denial.
  So where is the thoughtful policymaking our constituents sent us to 
Washington to engage in?
  And quite frankly, where is the compassion?
  I have held numerous meetings and events in south Florida recently, 
and to say that we are past due for comprehensive immigration reform is 
a gross understatement.
  I have met so many workers and students who have made meaningful 
contributions to our community but who live in a constant state of 
uncertainty about their future, ranging from questions about their 
schooling and jobs to fearing deportation and separation from their 
loved ones.
  Leoni, a high school valedictorian; Maria, a mother of DREAMers who 
has formed a support group for people in similar situations; and 
Cosmin, a father only seeking a permanent work permit to be able to 
better provide for his young daughter who is a citizen--these are real 
people with real stories, and our actions and inactions in Washington 
have real consequences for them.
  Madam Chair, it is not too late to engage in bipartisan and 
comprehensive immigration reform. We can reintroduce and debate the 
legislation that was passed by a strong bipartisan majority in the 
Senate in 2013 and supported by diverse business, faith, legal, and 
community groups across the Nation.
  That is the most effective way to legally and morally respond to the 
needs of immigration reform. It is practical. It is wide-ranging, and 
it speaks to our values as a Nation.
  Or we could even sit down together and come up with a new 
comprehensive bill. But this is immoral and wrong, and we should reject 
it so that we can come together and do something that is reflective of 
the values of this country.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a 
colleague not only of this House but of the judiciary prior to that 
time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, ``America is a Nation of laws, which means, I, as the 
President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about 
that. That is part of my job.
  ``With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations 
through executive order, that is just not the case, because there are 
laws on the books that Congress has passed.
  ``There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear 
in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me 
to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional 
mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as President.''
  Those are the words of the former constitutional law professor, and 
now President, on March 28, 2011. Those very words condemn executive 
amnesty.
  The United States is ruled by law, not by one person. The United 
States is not a monarchy. If it were, we would have kept King George 
III.
  The executive amnesty is not only unconstitutional, Madam Chair, it 
is at cross-purposes to security. The Department of Homeland Security 
cannot secure the U.S. border, no matter how many programs and how much 
money we spend on homeland security, as long as the Executive 
undermines law and security by unilaterally ignoring those very 
security laws.
  We can give all the money we want to the Department of Homeland 
Security, but that doesn't do any good if we do not make sure the law 
is enforced.
  Madam Chairman, we will use this example that has already been used 
by my friend, Mr. Culberson. We have tax laws in this country. God 
knows we have too many tax laws in this country.
  But if the Executive makes a decision, I am just going to ignore 
these tax laws for a certain group of people, none of us would like 
that. The Executive doesn't have that authority to just ignore law for 
whatever reason, even if it is a good reason, because that does not 
establish the constitutional power of who the Executive is.
  Madam Chair, those of us in Texas have a vested interest in homeland 
security. The United States border with

[[Page H333]]

Mexico is almost 2,000 miles. Sixty percent of the border is in Texas. 
Forty-five percent of the entire border is in one Member's district, 
Mr. Will Hurd.
  The Texas border with Mexico is the distance from New Orleans to 
Washington, D.C. We have got a vested interest in border security and 
the rule of law, because failure to enforce the rule of law affects 
people on the border. It affects American citizens. It affects legal 
immigrants.
  Now, there is a lot that has been said about immigration. I am for 
immigration. We do need some changes in immigration. The United States 
allows a million people to legally come into the United States. But 
when laws are enforced, there is order. When law is not enforced, there 
is chaos.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  When laws are not enforced, there is chaos, especially if the 
security laws are not enforced.
  So Madam Chair, as the President said, I am obligated to enforce the 
law because, Madam Chairman, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion, 
whether the other side likes it or not.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Chair, this is one of those moments where the best thing you 
can do is kind of scratch your head and say, What the heck are they 
thinking?
  We have a bipartisan bill, a Homeland Security bill that, as was said 
before by Mr. Farr, if it was put up for a vote, would pass almost 
unanimously, if not unanimously.
  But no, they couldn't help themselves. They had to take one more shot 
at the President and a bigger shot at immigrants. And so the bill is 
weighted down with attacks on immigrants. Mostly Latino immigrants, I 
would say, would be affected, and that is personal to me.
  So what this bill now would say if it gets all these amendments on 
it--and, by the way, I want to say that I am opposed to the bill with 
the amendments and not opposed to the bill in its clean fashion, and I 
think that is the way most Members think.
  What this bill now says is that, for instance, if you are in the 
military, serving our country, your spouse can be deported while you 
are away. That is really sad and insulting.
  We are going to have now new bumper stickers on the other side on 
their cars that will say, ``Support our troops and deport the 
spouses.'' It will be sad, and it will be horrible what we are doing.
  Now, our opportunity here is to defeat these amendments. Our 
opportunity here is to understand that if we have a gripe with the 
President using his constitutional power, deal with that. But don't 
take it out on every immigrant in the Nation.
  Incidentally, nothing that the President did is outside the law. We 
have a Constitution, and what he did is constitutional. It is within 
his powers as our Chief Executive in this Nation.
  This President waited and waited and waited for the majority party to 
do something about immigration. It refused to do something. You are 
upset that he took action on immigration. His action was due to your 
inaction on immigration. That is why we have this situation.
  So these 2 days will probably go down in history as two of the 
saddest days in this House, and I have been here 25 years, starting 
this January, because we will go after a group of people, and we will 
say to the DREAMers, you can't dream anymore, and we will say to the 
spouses, you are in danger of being deported.
  We will say to those who serve our country, we don't respect you 
anymore. And we will say to the whole world, we are not the Nation of 
immigrants; we are the Nation that doesn't want any more immigrants.
  This is sad. This is it not the way to go, and we should really 
rethink this before we take a final vote.

                              {time}  1930

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, before I proceed, may I ask how much 
time is left on both sides, please?
  The Acting CHAIR. There are 21 minutes remaining for the gentleman 
from Texas, and there are 25 minutes remaining for the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Babin), one of our new Members of the 114th Congress.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, the United States is a nation of immigrants. 
It is also a nation of laws, and our Nation's leaders have a sworn duty 
to abide by those laws. On countless occasions, President Obama said 
that he lacked the authority to grant broad amnesty; however, in 
November, he reversed his course and unilaterally declared amnesty.
  I rise in strong opposition to his executive amnesty and in strong 
support of legislation to defund his unlawful and unconstitutional 
actions.
  Changes in immigration law--or in any law for that matter--rest with 
the legislative branch of the government, the United States Congress. 
Granting amnesty through unilateral executive action makes a mockery of 
our laws, and Congress must rein it in.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 191, the Repeal Executive Amnesty Act. Key 
provisions of this bill will be offered as amendments to this 
appropriations bill. We will deny the administration funding to 
implement his amnesty.
  As a past mayor, a hospital staff member for many years, and a local 
school board member, I know firsthand how this administration's plan is 
taxing the budgets of our local governments, including our schools, our 
hospitals, and our jails. This massive unfunded mandate must be 
repealed.
  Amnesty also undermines our national security by perpetuating open 
borders, making Americans less safe. Finally, it leaves behind millions 
of American citizens who are unemployed at this time, making it even 
harder for them to find good-paying jobs.
  To make the United States stronger, we must rein in this President. 
We must repeal unilateral amnesty, and we must return to the rule of 
law. I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 240 and the Aderholt 
amendment and to pass the underlying legislation.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a clean Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill.
  We are just a week into the new Congress, and the Republicans are 
already back to their old games, but this time, they are playing 
politics with the security and safety of the Nation.
  We get it. They are frustrated with the President's executive order 
which attempts to reunite families and bring a rational, priority-based 
approach to our immigration system. Given the Constitution, the laws, 
and the legal precedents, the President's actions are clearly well 
within his executive powers.
  If they don't like it, they can pass an immigration bill, which would 
clearly supercede the actions of the President, but they wouldn't even 
try. That is what this is all about. It is about making false 
statements about the President, demonizing immigrants and their 
families, and trying to score political points back home. That is a 
disgrace, but it gets even worse.
  Not only are the Republicans stalling on immigration reform and 
leaving millions of families in limbo, but they are holding up funding 
for the entire Homeland Security Department. They are threatening the 
safety of Americans at our airports. They are making our borders less 
secure and are potentially leaving us more vulnerable to attack. This 
is particularly shocking, given the tragic events in Paris last week.
  Holding the security of the American people hostage to the demands of 
the anti-immigration fringe of their party is totally irresponsible. 
This is not the time for political games. We live in a dangerous world, 
and the security of the Nation is serious business. Reject this 
political stunt.

[[Page H334]]

  Pass a clean Homeland Security bill that we all agree on. Then, if 
you want to, pass an immigration bill that would supersede what the 
President has done; but don't give us all of this nonsense about 
blackmailing the country by threatening our safety and saying, ``Unless 
we get the immigration provisions we want,'' which we know the 
President won't sign, ``there will be no Homeland Security bill, 
potentially no Homeland Security Department funding, and no guards at 
our borders.'' That is absurd.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hurd), another Member of the 114th Congress, a man who 
probably has more of the southern border of the United States than any 
other Member of Congress.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have taken an oath of office to 
uphold our Constitution twice: the first time as an undercover officer 
in the CIA and, just last week, I took that oath again as I was sworn 
in as a Member of this body.
  This bill is about upholding our Constitution and protecting it from 
executive overreach, but we can't forget that immigration and legal 
immigrants are an asset to our Nation, not a liability.
  Everyone knows that our immigration system is broken and that 
executive action that incentivizes illegal immigration just makes it 
worse. We need a long-term solution that protects American workers and 
fosters economic growth.
  Our Nation has, for many decades, benefited from the ``brain drain'' 
from other countries, and we need to make sure that continues. I also 
want our Nation to benefit from a ``hardworking drain,'' too. If you 
are going to be a productive member of our society, let's keep you here 
or get you here, but we must do it legally.
  There is a long-term solution to our immigration problems. I am ready 
to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the 
President to find it.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us to focus on what we 
are discussing here today: Paris, 17 dead; Canada; Australia; Boko 
Haram, 2,000 dead, a 10-year-old suicide bomber; and, of course, 9/11.
  This is the Homeland Security Appropriations. I have had the 
privilege of serving on the authorizing committee since its creation, 
and every day we go to that committee, we know that the commitment is 
to secure the American people.
  This is not a forum to battle one's agreements or disagreements with 
the Constitution and with the President's executive authority or to 
battle your disagreements with the idea of deporting felons over 
families--that debate can be had--but, tonight, we are wrongly 
jeopardizing the national security of the American people.
  We do it on the basis, our Republican friends, of failing to even 
read the Constitution, for it is clear, as it is stated in the 
Constitution under article II, section 3, that the President can have 
the authority, ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed.''
  In essence, he has the right to make sure that we are treating 
persons fairly and that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a fair 
manner.
  Nothing that is in the executive actions of the President violates 
any law; but what it does do, as we are debating today with the poison 
pill amendments, is to take the inhumanity of some viewpoints and to 
throw it against people who have come to this country by no fault of 
their own, who have come to this country to do us not harm but good, 
who have come to this country to work hard and to help build this great 
Nation.
  I am saddened by the fact that, because of this debate, the Coast 
Guard will suffer, that the Secret Service will suffer, that the 
airport and aviation security will suffer. Why? Because we will not 
have a bill.
  I believe that this challenge for all of us is to raise the question 
of whether our Republican friends have come here to govern. The only 
thing I see is that they are using this Homeland Security bill for 
extreme positions that they want to foster over security.
  Why would they want to defund DACA? Why would they want to capture 
the basic infrastructure of the funding of Homeland Security? It has 
worked over the years, the fees that have supported the Border Patrol 
agents, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation and Security; yet 
they want to capture these dollars and cripple Homeland Security. They 
want to make sure we don't have enough Secret Service agents as we move 
forward into the election year.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Department has been entrusted by 
the United States Congress and the American people to give guidance to 
the security and the protection of their families. It is not families 
who, by chance, are considered undocumented; it is all families.
  What the President did in his executive action is to define for 
America who is here in this country; not only that, he gave an economic 
engine by providing for fines and fees in order to get in regular 
order.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, these individuals are not getting in front 
of those who have been standing in line through the legal immigration 
process. They have a separate process that simply gives them status, 
not immigration status. He is not bestowing upon them immigration 
status.
  As I close, I ask: Is there any heart and warmth to those who are 
debating these questions? First, do we understand family, and do we 
understand we are a nation of immigrants?
  What has been established is an infrastructure of law to help them be 
established in regular order. What we are doing is undermining the 
national security of this Nation to cast against those who are 
innocent. I ask my colleagues to defeat these amendments and to vote 
for a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's support the national security 
of Americans.
  Mr. Chair, while it is not perfect, I would support H.R. 240, the 
Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as originally 
introduced because it provides adequate funding of the Department of 
Homeland Security, including support for important federal 
cybersecurity initiatives, disaster relief and recovery programs, and 
essential law enforcement activities that are critical for ensuring the 
Department can help keep our Nation safe from harm.
  But I cannot support the bill on final passage if it contains any of 
the ``poison pill'' amendments made in order by the Rules Committee.
  Those amendments are simply the latest attempt by House Republicans 
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.
  I oppose all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee 
because their inclusion will spell certain doom for the bill and 
needlessly put the security of the homeland at risk at a time when 
things are so perilous in the world.
  The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram in Nigeria 
given heightened urgency to the words of Appropriations Committee 
Chairman Rogers that we need to get a clean Homeland Security spending 
bill ``to the president's desk so we can get a signature funding 
Homeland Security at a very tedious time in the world.''
  Sending this bill to the president with the Republican poison pill 
amendments will result in a presidential veto rather the signature 
needed for the bill to become law.
  In addition, were the bill to become law with the poison pill 
amendments intact, it would inflict tremendous damage to the nation's 
economy and the economy of my home state of Texas.
  According to an analysis conducted by the Council of Economic 
Advisors, the executive actions taken by the President to mitigate the 
damage caused by our broken immigration system would grow the U.S. 
economy by $90 billion to $210 billion over the next ten years.
  And they would grow the GDP of my home state of Texas by $8.2 billion 
to $19.2 billion over that same period and increase Texas state 
revenues by $770 million to $1.8 billion.
  I cannot and will not support a bill that would do such harm to our 
efforts to protect the homeland and expand the economy so that it 
creates jobs for all who seek employment at wages that will enable 
workers to provide for their families and their retirement, buy

[[Page H335]]

and keep their homes, and send their children to college.
  I urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments made in order by 
the Rules Committee and pass the bill as originally introduced by 
Chairman Rogers.
  There are many good things in that bill that are worthy of support, 
including the following:
  1. $39.7 billion in regular discretionary appropriations for 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2015;
  2. $12.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); DHS would 
be required to accelerate the hiring of CBP officers;
  3. $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plus 
an additional $345 million from the agency's fee funded accounts, 
bringing the total to $6.3 billion;
  4. $553.6 million in funding to manage the influx of unaccompanied 
alien children, or ``UAC,'' entering the U.S.; the funding would be 
used to interdict migrants, care for and transport approximately 58,000 
undocumented children to the custody of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), and facilitate the movement of undocumented families through 
removal proceedings after crossing the U.S. border;
  5. $1.9 billion for both domestic and international investigations, 
including increases to combat human trafficking, child exploitation, 
cyber-crime, and drug smuggling, and to expand visa vetting 
capabilities;
  6. $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA);
  7. $10 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard;
  8. $753.2 million for cybersecurity operations in the National 
Programs and Protection Directorate to fund and sustain improvements to 
the Federal Network Security and Network Security Deployment programs;
  9. $1.7 billion for the U.S. Secret Service--an increase of $80.5 
million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level--to begin preparation 
and training for candidate protection for the 2016 presidential 
election and to address critical failures in communications and 
training at the White House Complex;
  10. $7 billion for disaster relief--fully funding FEMA's stated 
requirement; and
  11. $1.1 billion for Science and Technology, $32.1 million above the 
President's request.
  The White House has announced that the President will sign H.R. 240 
as originally introduced but he will veto the bill if it contains any 
of the irresponsible and reckless amendments made in order by the Rules 
Committee.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting against all of the 
amendments and sending a clean Homeland Security funding bill that will 
receive the presidential signature needed to become and law provide the 
resources needed to keep our homeland safe.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Davis, 
Jr. You may have heard of him. He was gunned down on October 24 of last 
year in one of the most shocking murder rampages in the history of that 
county. He was murdered on the 26th anniversary of the day that he lost 
his father, a Riverside County sheriff's deputy, in the line of duty.
  The suspect, who also killed a Sacramento sheriff's deputy and 
wounded an innocent bystander, should never have been here. He was a 
convicted felon who had entered our country illegally from Mexico. He 
had been twice deported for his crimes, only to reenter time and again 
over our unsecured border.
  I met with Michael Davis' grieving family this weekend, including his 
remarkable mother, Debbie, and his sole surviving brother, Jason, who 
also serves as a Placer County sheriff's deputy. The message they asked 
me to convey today is that this is not about immigration--in fact, 
Jason spends his free time working with at-risk Latino children, many 
from immigrant families--rather, this is about the rule of law, 
including respect for our immigration laws for which this family has 
sacrificed so much.
  We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws and not of men. That 
means the President is sworn to enforce the laws, not to make them. He 
doesn't get to change or to repeal laws by decree or decide who must 
obey the law and who gets to live above it; yet that is precisely what 
he has done.
  In so doing, he has placed the public safety and the Nation's 
security at great risk. This measure begins to walk back these 
unconstitutional orders, secure our borders, repair our Nation's 
sovereignty, and recover the rule of law.
  Michael Davis died for these principles. The least we can do is to 
vote to restore them.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, some claim the President's actions are 
unconstitutional. That is not true.
  I submit for the Record a letter signed by 135 law professors and 
confirmed by four former chief counsels for Immigration about why his 
action was lawful.

                                                 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 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 or 
     Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as 
     decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a 
     stay of remova1, 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, 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

[[Page H336]]

     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 
     particulary. 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 lawfill 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 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.
       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 
     Cuauhtimoc 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

[[Page H337]]

     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.
       * all institutional affiliations are for identification 
     purposes only


                               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.

                                                November 29, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
       We are writing as former General Counsels of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or former Chief 
     Counsels of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As you 
     know, the President on November 20 announced a package of 
     measures designed to deploy his limited immigration 
     enforcement resources in the most effective way. These 
     measures included an expansion of Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the creation of Deferred Action 
     for Parental Accountability (DAPA). We take no positions on 
     the policy judgments that those actions reflect, but we have 
     all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express 
     our collective view that the President's actions are well 
     within his legal authority.
       Some 135 law professors who currently teach or write in the 
     area of immigration law signed a November 25, 2014 letter to 
     the same effect. Rather than repeat the points made in that 
     letter, we simply attach it here and go on record as stating 
     that we agree wholeheartedly with its legal analysis and its 
     conclusions.
           Respectfully,
     Stephen Legomsky,
       The John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington 
     University School of Law, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services.
     Roxana Bacon,
       Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services.
     Paul W. Virtue,
       Partner, Mayer Brown LLP, Former General Counsel, 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service.
     Bo Cooper,
       Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loew, Former General 
     Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  Ms. LOFGREN. I note also that a lawsuit is currently pending to 
challenge the constitutionality.
  Why don't Republicans just wait and see what the judicial branch has 
to say, what they decide?
  The amendments being offered are poison pills and should be defeated. 
The first amendment is meant to block all but one of the President's 
actions on immigration. This includes the temporary protection from 
deportation for parents of U.S. citizens and the expansion of temporary 
relief for people brought to the country as kids.
  This would break apart families, hurt more communities, deport the 
parents of U.S. citizens, and send thousands of American children into 
foster care.

                              {time}  1945

  But the amendment does more damage. In the interest of time, I will 
touch on just a few examples. It prevents improving the provisional 
waiver of the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars created by 
Congress in 1996 to prevent U.S. citizens from experiencing ``extreme 
hardship.'' Ironically, the changes the administration intends would 
actually make the waiver align more closely to what Congress enacted.
  It would stop actions to help capitalize on the innovation of job-
creating entrepreneurs and increase job opportunities. It would block 
initiatives designed to promote the integration of immigrants and to 
promote citizenship. The only action not blocked is a pay raise for ICE 
agents.
  The second amendment would block further implementation of the 2012 
DACA memo and any additional efforts to save DREAM Act kids from 
deportation. In the past, there was confusion about what amendments 
did. But this one is very clear. It is a straight up-or-down vote on 
whether to deport hundreds of thousands of young people who came 
forward, passed background checks, received DACA, and followed the 
rule. It would deport the DREAMers.
  The third amendment looks reasonable at first, as it requires that 
those convicted of sex offenses and domestic violence be the highest 
priority for enforcement. But the point is, the President's actions 
already make those criminals a priority for deportation, and they are 
prohibited from getting any deportation relief.
  The amendment is not only unnecessary, but it also endangers victims 
of domestic violence. How? It overturns the DHS policy of inquiry into 
whether a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence was 
actually the victim, not the perpetrators of the crime. This amendment 
is opposed by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 
Violence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American 
Immigration Lawyers Association, and law enforcement.
  I will now place into the Record a letter from 14 sheriffs and police 
chiefs asking that we oppose the DeSantis amendment.
                                                 January 13, 2015.
     Re H.R. 240, The Department of Homeland Security 
         Appropriations Act, 2015.

       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned law enforcement 
     officers, write to express our opposition to various 
     proposals under consideration in the House of Representatives 
     that seek to override aspects of the Obama Administration's 
     immigration policies.
       While acknowledging that there is good-faith disagreement 
     over certain aspects of the administration's immigration 
     policies, several of the proposals under consideration by the 
     House of Representatives would represent a step backward, 
     lead to uncertainty in our immigration enforcement system, 
     and make it harder for state and local law enforcement to 
     police our communities.
       The 114th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our 
     broken immigration system, advancing reforms that will help 
     the economy and secure our borders. While we are encouraged 
     by proposals that would secure our borders and reform 
     outdated visa programs, we are concerned by reports of

[[Page H338]]

     various proposals in the House that do not appear to have 
     bipartisan support and could unnecessarily threaten a partial 
     governmental shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS). As law enforcement officers, we regularly 
     work with DHS and its component agencies and fear that an 
     unfunded DHS will sow confusion and uncertainty.
       We are also concerned about proposed substantive changes 
     that would undercut existing protections for victims of 
     domestic violence, undermine law enforcement's ability to 
     focus on catching and deporting dangerous criminals, compel 
     state and local law enforcement to hold low-level offenders 
     without probable cause, and threaten long-established and 
     necessary federal programs and funding that have long aided 
     state and local law enforcement. We oppose proposals that (1) 
     make law-abiding immigrants feel less safe in our 
     communities, (2) focus federal law enforcement away from 
     catching serious criminals and security threats, (3) increase 
     the state and local role in immigration enforcement, and (4) 
     threaten needed federal resources and funding used by state 
     and local law enforcement.


  1. When immigrants feel safe in their communities, we are all safer

       When immigrants feel safe in their communities, including 
     immigrant victims of domestic violence, we are all safer. We 
     oppose amendments that remove key protections from domestic 
     violence victims and undermine the executive branch's ability 
     to prioritize criminals over otherwise law abiding 
     immigrants.
       One proposal under consideration by the House would scrap 
     DHS's entire existing enforcement framework, because it does 
     not treat ``any alien convicted of any offense involving 
     domestic, violence, sexual abuse, child molestation, or child 
     exploitation as within the categories of aliens subject to 
     the Department of Homeland Security's highest civil 
     immigration enforcement priorities.''
       While the amendment is intuitively appealing and directed 
     toward protecting domestic violence victims, it actually has 
     the opposite effect in many cases. By guaranteeing 
     ``highest'' priority treatment of all domestic violence 
     cases, the amendment raises the stakes for any report of 
     domestic violence--a single report of domestic violence could 
     lead to removal proceedings and deportation.
       Immigrant victims are particularly vulnerable to being 
     arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence, even when they 
     are not the primary perpetrator of violence in the 
     relationship, due to language and cultural barriers. Once in 
     custody and/or facing trial, and desperate to be released and 
     reunited with their children, these same factors--combined 
     with poor legal counsel, may lead to deportation of wrongly 
     accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly 
     convicted of domestic violence charges. Currently, federal 
     authorities have flexibility in separating victims from 
     perpetrators in dual arrest situations. The proposed 
     amendment would remove this flexibly, leading to the 
     deportation of victims of domestic violence.


   2. Law enforcement should refocus its priorities toward catching 
                 serious criminals and security threats

       Federal immigration agencies, including Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement (ICE), do not have the capacity or 
     resources to remove all undocumented immigrants. Existing 
     federal policies prioritize the removal of immigrants with 
     criminal records over those who pose no threat to the 
     community. We believe that law enforcement agencies should 
     spend their limited time and resources focusing on pursuing 
     truly dangerous criminals, not otherwise law-abiding members 
     of the community.
       Various amendments would seek to override these 
     longstanding priorities. We oppose such amendments.


         3. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility

       We believe that immigration enforcement on the state and 
     local levels diverts limited resources away from public 
     safety and undermines trust within immigrant communities. 
     State and local law enforcement agencies face tight budgets 
     and often do not have the capacity or resources to duplicate 
     the federal government's work in enforcing federal 
     immigration laws. Rather than apprehending and removing 
     immigrants who have no criminal background or affiliation and 
     are merely seeking to work or reunite with family, it is more 
     important for state and local law enforcement to focus 
     limited resources and funding on true threats to public 
     safety and security.
       Various amendments would seek to foist additional 
     enforcement responsibilities onto state and local law 
     enforcement, including amendments that would reinstitute and 
     codify the Secure Communities program. Some proposals also 
     would impose a federal mandate on state and local law 
     enforcement agencies to hold suspects even in the absence of 
     probable cause, an action that raises serious constitutional 
     and legal questions and would risk creating legal liability 
     for state and local law enforcement agencies. We oppose such 
     amendments.


       4. State and local law enforcement need adequate resources

       To the extent that state and local law enforcement play a 
     role in immigration enforcement, the federal government must 
     provide adequate funding in line with these responsibilities.
       Some proposals under consideration by the House would place 
     needed federal funding to state and local law enforcement at 
     risk. These proposals, including proposed amendments that 
     would condition significant federal funding on holding 
     suspects in the absence of probable cause, raise serious 
     concerns. We oppose such amendments.
       Additionally, as referenced above, we call on Congress to 
     fund DHS, including valuable DHS programs that provide needed 
     funding to state and local law enforcement. We support 
     legislation to fully fund this crucial agency for the entire 
     2015 fiscal year.


                               Conclusion

       As law enforcement officers, we believe that the 114th 
     Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our broken 
     immigration system, advance reforms that will help the 
     economy and secure our borders. Any executive actions taken 
     by the executive branch are temporary and limited--by 
     themselves they will not fix a broken system, nor will their 
     repeal fix a broken system.
       We continue to recognize that what our broken system truly 
     needs is a permanent legislative solution. It is our hope 
     that DHS funding legislation passes promptly and without any 
     of the shortcomings we flagged above. Passing such 
     legislation opens the door for this Congress to work 
     constructively towards necessary immigration reform 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Chief Richard Biehl, Dayton Police Department, Dayton, 
           Ohio;
         Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff's Office, 
           Pima County, Arizona;
         Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office, 
           Santa Cruz County, Arizona;
         Chief Randy Gaber, Madison Police Department, Madison, 
           Wisconsin;
         Chief Ronald Haddad, Dearborn Police Department, 
           Dearborn, Michigan;
         Chief James Hawkins, Garden City Police Department, 
           Garden City, Kansas;
         Chief Mike Koval, City of Madison Police Department, 
           Madison, Wisconsin;
         Chief Jose Lopez, Durham Police Department, Durham, North 
           Carolina;
         Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland County Sheriff's, Department 
           Richland County, South Carolina;
         Chief Thomas Manger, Montgomery County Police Department, 
           Montgomery County, Maryland;
         Sheriff William McCarthy, Polk County Sheriff's Office, 
           Polk County, Iowa;
         Lt. Andy Norris, Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office, 
           Tuscaloosa County, Alabama;
         Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown Police Department, 
           Marshalltown, Iowa;
         Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff's Office, 
           Dallas County, Texas.

  Ms. LOFGREN. The final amendment also creates problems. It says that 
USCIS should adjudicate petitions of individuals in lawful status 
before adjudicating petitions of individuals in unlawful status. But 
that is too broad. There are many petitions filed by people in unlawful 
status that we would not want to delay: green cards for the wives and 
husbands of American citizens; requests for U visas and T visas from 
crime victims or sex-trafficking victims; immigrant visa petitions 
filed by domestic violence victims. These are all people who would be 
harmed by the amendment.
  I would note that the fourth amendment is based on the falsehood that 
the President's immigration actions created an incentive for employers 
to hire deferred action recipients instead of American workers. This is 
simply not true.
  Now, we need to have a serious conversation about immigration policy 
in the House, but threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland 
Security is not the way to do that. These amendments are foolish and a 
step backwards, and not funding DHS is dumb and dangerous.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chair, this important legislation fulfills our promise to the 
American people to responsibly fund our Homeland Security Department 
while also stopping President Obama's unconstitutional actions. This is 
the clear will of the American people, which was expressed this past 
November.
  Sadly, the President is ignoring the results of that election, with 
administration officials saying he will veto any bill we pass out of 
Congress that would end his illegal amnesty order and hold him 
accountable.
  Consider that threat: a President would shut down the Department of 
Homeland Security, whose mission is to protect the American people, 
just to continue implementing a policy that he admitted on more than 20 
occasions

[[Page H339]]

he did not have the legal authority to do.
  I seriously hope he will not.
  Continuing to defend his unauthorized and unconstitutional order by 
vetoing this bill would be more than reckless. It would confirm beyond 
any reasonable doubt that President Obama believes he is above the law.
  I hope the Senate will join this House and not abdicate on the shared 
responsibility we have to preserve Congress' prerogatives to defend the 
Constitution and to stop the abuse of power happening under this 
President.
  Let's get this amended bill to the President's desk immediately and 
see whether he is capable of putting the will of the American people 
and the Constitution ahead of his own self-serving agenda.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  Mr. RUIZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, House Republican leadership has chosen to play 
political games with the security and safety of our Nation by including 
extreme partisan poison pill amendments to this Homeland Security 
funding bill. Rather than putting country before party, House 
Republican leaders have chosen to advance an extreme agenda instead of 
doing what needs to be done to protect Americans.
  This bill is a farce that puts scoring political points above 
safeguarding our communities. This is precisely the type of political 
gimmick people in the Coachella Valley and across the country are sick 
of.
  The terrorist attacks in Paris last week demonstrate how critical it 
is that the men and women of our law enforcement agencies have the 
funding necessary to do their jobs and keep us safe.
  That is why I urge House Republican leadership to allow a vote on a 
clean, bipartisan Homeland Security bill that ensures law enforcement, 
the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service have the resources they need to 
protect our communities.
  It is time to end the political bickering and work toward sensible, 
pragmatic solutions to keep our homeland secure.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Carter, for 
his tremendous leadership, this important legislation, and for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson, who once 
said: ``Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of 
government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow 
operations, perverted it.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly from our leader, our 
President, that he has said he is not king, he is not emperor, and that 
his powers, as President, are restricted. But his actions speak louder 
than words. Republicans are committed to holding the President 
accountable for his overreaching executive actions.
  We have achieved remarkable success in this country because we are a 
Nation governed by the rule of law, not by the decrees of monarchs.
  As recent events around the world have tragically reminded us, there 
are those who are still committed to destroying our way of life.
  The Homeland Security Appropriations bill we are debating tonight 
supports the needs of the brave men and women who protect us each day 
and meets the requirements to keep us safe.
  The amendments accompanying this legislation ensure we continue to be 
a Nation governed by laws and prevents any funds from being used to 
implement the President's unconstitutional decrees of amnesty while it 
prevents further implementation of DACA, which led to the crisis at the 
border last summer.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation 
to protect our great Nation and supporting the amendments to protect 
the rule of law.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the amendments 
that go with it.
  Now let's get to the facts. My colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle conveniently leave these facts out.
  First of all, this has nothing to do with shutting down Homeland 
Security. Second of all, the total budget for Homeland Security is 
$39.7 billion. That is $1.3 billion over the President's request. That 
is $400 million over last year.
  Our amendments prevent the President from using any moneys--no matter 
from where--on amnesty.
  There is no reason to shut down Homeland Security. If Homeland 
Security is shut down, it is due to the Democrats and President Barack 
Obama because he has more money for Homeland Security than he asked 
for.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 240 and the 
amendments.
  President Obama released amnesty plans in November that include 
changes to border security, status of persons currently living in the 
United States unlawfully, and future legal immigration policy changes--
all of which are directly under the purview of the legislative branch, 
not the executive branch.
  In addition this President's executive order included several other 
changes that directly result in amnesty.
  To be clear, democracy in this country was built on the foundation of 
a three branch federal government.
  Our founding fathers saw the importance of checks and balances to 
prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful and exceeding its 
constitutional authority.
  Furthermore, our Constitution specifically grants all lawmaking 
authority to Congress, and instead gives the executive branch the role 
of executing the laws passed.
  The President's overreach in granting amnesty has left Congress with 
no choice but to exercise the power of the purse today to restore the 
Federal Government to one of balance, within the confines of the 
Constitution.
  Last week I introduced the Defund Amnesty Act to ensure this type of 
change, and I applaud the leadership for bringing legislation to the 
floor to boldly put an end to the President's executive order on 
amnesty.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to be very clear: this debate is not about 
immigration. This debate is about something much more, much more 
important than that. This is a generational conflict over something 
that is very clear. It is not about Presidential prerogative or 
Presidential arrogance.
  As a military officer for 14 years, I had the honor of serving my 
country. Prior to doing that, I took a sacred oath of office, which is 
very similar to the oath that all of us took last week, to defend the 
Constitution of the United States. That is what this legislation is 
about. That is why this piece of legislation is so important.
  This legislation seeks to restore the balance of powers. It seeks to 
conform that vision that our Founding Fathers had, that miracle that 
was created in Philadelphia that summer. It seeks to conform and to 
preserve the principles that so many people have died for.
  The President is not a king. Congress is tasked to create the law. 
That is what this legislation is about. That is why it is so important 
that we support it.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 240, providing 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
remainder of this fiscal year. This legislation provides the funding 
necessary to ensure that all of the Department's critical missions have 
the resources necessary to be dutifully executed.
  But I also rise in support of the amendments to this legislation. And 
when considering the amendments that were made in order, I am reminded 
of

[[Page H340]]

the feelings of pride and patriotism that I witness when I attend 
naturalization ceremonies in my home district. When new citizens raise 
their right hand and recite the Oath of Allegiance, the aura of 
achievement and opportunity is palpable. These immigrants-turned-
citizens have come to the country the right way. They have followed the 
rules, and they have earned that feeling of achievement.
  But it is America that benefits. These immigrants embody and have 
displayed the values we hold most dear: hard work, integrity, 
perseverance, and a commitment to be a contributing member of the 
American society.
  I strongly support these amendments because we are expressing the 
sense of Congress in these amendments that we respect naturalized 
citizens; we honor their hard work and dedication to the legal 
immigration and naturalization process. We should hold these new 
citizens up as models for how to immigrate to this country the right 
way. We should not punish them by using their very processing fees that 
they paid to accommodate illegal immigrants hiding from the rule of 
law. And that is why the President's unilateral executive action is so 
destructive.
  So I proudly join my colleagues not only in voting to defund the 
President's unconstitutional executive action but also to call upon his 
administration and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to 
stop putting the interests of unlawful immigrants ahead of legal 
immigrants. Let's reward those who come to this country the right way, 
not those who have broken the law.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I again thank the Appropriations Committee 
and the chairman for this important work vindicating legal immigration.

                              {time}  2000

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the security of the United States 
and the American people must be our top priority. I urge the majority 
to defeat the poison pill amendments that will prevent this bill from 
becoming law and to support a clean Homeland Security bill that will 
provide the resources that are needed to provide our great Nation with 
the protections that they need.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no further 
speakers, so at this time, I am prepared to close.
  I would just like to clarify a few things. Nobody is going to lose a 
paycheck, no agency is going to go broke, as we have this 
constitutional discussion and this constitutional debate that has taken 
place today and will probably take place tomorrow, when the amendments 
will actually be before this august body for a determination of whether 
they will be included or not included in this bill.
  There has been some confusion, I think, that some may think these 
things are already here, but we will follow the regular process 
tomorrow on the amendments that have been made in order.
  No one is trying to put the security of the United States at risk in 
this bill, and we will have a normal debate, as we do here. What better 
body to address constitutional issues than the Congress of the United 
States?
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today the Majority has chosen to hold the 
Department of Homeland Security hostage with their extreme anti-
immigrant policies. Rather than pass a bipartisan bill that would fund 
the agency tasked with securing our border and protecting our citizens 
from terrorism and violence--the Majority will consider poison pill 
amendments to appease an extreme faction of their party.
  Playing politics with our national security is not responsible 
governance.
  First, the Republican party is playing politics with the lives, 
safety and security of the American people. In the wake of the recent 
Paris tragedy, it is all too apparent that we need smart enforcement 
policies that protect the American people and root out any terror 
threats. The Department of Homeland Security plays a central role in 
our fight against terror, both in the United States and around the 
world and we should fully fund their efforts as soon as possible. We 
should not be debating ``poison pill'' amendments that have no chance 
of becoming law and will only further delay the funding of DHS.
  Second, the Republican party is showing the American people that they 
only immigration policy they believe in is ``mass deportation.'' They 
have attached several policy riders to this appropriations bill that 
would further separate families, including the families of military 
service members and U.S. citizens.
  Third, the amendments that we will later consider will prevent DHS 
from implementing smart enforcement policies, including ones that 
prioritize deporting felons before families. These smart policies allow 
DHS to focus valuable resources on individuals with criminal 
convictions and not immigrants with U.S. citizen and legal permanent 
resident family members.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing 
politics with our national security and start governing.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, this legislation funds the Department of 
Homeland Security for the remainder of the current fiscal year at $39.7 
billion, an increase of $400 million compared to the FY2014 enacted 
level.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 240, the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act.
  This legislation is critically important to keeping our nation safe:
  It provides vital funding for the Department of Homeland Security for 
the remainder of the current fiscal year
  It also prioritizes frontline security efforts, while reducing 
unnecessary spending on overhead costs
  While there are many important programs that will receive funding 
through this legislation, I'd like to address just a few critically 
important areas:
  Last November, President Obama through executive fiat granted amnesty 
to as many as five million illegal immigrants. His decision to 
circumvent the proper legislative process was not the right way to 
handle this important issue. The President himself even admitted that 
he did not have the legal authority to issue an executive notice of 
this nature. We made a promise to our constituents that one of the 
first things we would do this Congress would be to prevent the 
President's unconstitutional executive action from becoming our 
nation's de facto immigration policy. This legislation does just that.
  Next, this bill increases funding for Customs and Border Protection 
in order to make our border more secure. This increase will support a 
greater number of Border Patrol agents and officers, and provides them 
with the technologies they need to ensure around-the-clock surveillance 
of air, land and sea approaches to our nation.
  And finally, this legislation includes important provisions that will 
allow the Coast Guard to continue operations without the cuts proposed 
by the President that would have greatly harmed the Coast Guard's 
operational abilities.
  This bill prioritizes spending in a way that will better protect our 
country.
  It is imperative that we pass this legislation to prevent the 
President's unconstitutional actions and to support the men and women 
who protect our borders.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, we need to be clear about what is happening 
here today. The Republican Majority in the House is putting our 
national security at risk by threatening to shut down the Department of 
Homeland in order to advance their mean-spirited, anti-immigrant 
agenda.
  House Republicans don't like President Obama. We get it. The Majority 
also disagrees with the actions the President has taken on immigration.
  Look, if you disagree with the President on immigration, let's hear 
your plan to fix our nation's broken immigration system. Bring your 
bill to the Floor and let's debate it. But we shouldn't let down our 
guard on national security by playing games with the bill that funds 
border security, immigrations and customs enforcement, FEMA, and the 
Coast Guard.
  We have a bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill that could easily 
pass the House and Senate. We could pass that bill today and the 
President would sign it into law. Instead, the Republican Majority is 
preparing to load up the bill with a number of divisive, poison pill 
amendments that the President will never agree to. Unless House 
Republicans change course, funding for the entire Department of 
Homeland Security will cut off on February 27.
  So the message to my Republican colleagues is clear. Stop playing 
politics with our national security and send the President a clean 
Homeland Security funding bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I thank the Gentlewoman from 
New York, Ms. Lowey, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to voice my opposition to the anti-immigration 
amendments that will be considered later this afternoon.
  These poison-pill amendments were not drafted with an eye toward 
making our nation safer, but rather scoring political points against 
the President.
  As Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am 
disturbed that some of my colleagues are willing to play partisan 
politics with national security.

[[Page H341]]

  Over the past month, we have seen major cyber-attacks at American 
companies and radicalized terrorists wreak havoc on the streets of 
Sydney and Paris.
  Yet the amendments the Majority insists on attaching to DHS' funding 
bill have nothing to do with cybersecurity.
  And they have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe from lone-
wolf terrorists or other radicalized individuals.
  Rather, the amendments are being considered to satisfy the far-right 
fringe contingency of the Republican Party who have amassed 
disproportionate influence over the past few years.
  The Amendments we are considering today could force DHS to use its 
limited resources to remove law-abiding children brought to the country 
through no fault of their own before deporting those who pose a threat 
to our safety or security.
  Similarly, the Blackburn Amendment would end the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals program, setting in motion the deportation of those 
who have already come forward, paid the relevant fees and submitted to 
background checks, from America--the only home most of them have ever 
known.
  In light of global terrorist events that occurred in recent months, 
the notion that we would remove individuals--who are known to, and have 
been vetted by, DHS--before focusing on those who may do us harm runs 
counter to common-sense and contradicts our risk-based approach to 
homeland security.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the anti-immigration amendments that 
will be considered later this afternoon.
  Instead, we should be voting on a clean DHS funding bill.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barr) having assumed the chair, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 240) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________