[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16661-16677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3979, 
PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014; 
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5759, PREVENTING EXECUTIVE 
 OVERREACH ON IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
     OF H.R. 5781, CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 2014

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 770

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
     that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account 
     as employees under the shared responsibility requirements 
     contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 
     with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
     with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
     Print 113-58 modified by the amendments printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5759) to 
     establish a rule of construction clarifying the limitations 
     on executive authority to provide certain forms of 
     immigration relief. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5781) to 
     provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken 
     California. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 4.  The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may 
     insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the 
     remainder of the second session of the 113th Congress such 
     material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization 
     measures for the fiscal year 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 770 provides for the 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2015. It also allows for the consideration of the Executive Amnesty 
Prevention Act and for the California Emergency Drought Relief Act, a 
bill that would provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken 
California. This combined rule is necessary because Congress is coming 
to a close, and we need to get our work done.
  One of the outstanding items that is most important to me is the 2015 
NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to stand on the House floor in May when 
the House passed its version of the 2015 NDAA. I was happy to highlight 
the inclusive and transparent process that the Armed Services Committee 
and the House, as a whole, took in crafting this year's National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  We held countless hearings and heard hours of testimony from our 
combatant commanders. We worked a lot of late nights within the House 
Armed Services Committee. In the committee alone, the NDAA was amended 
155 times. When the bill moved to the House floor, it was again 
amended, and another 160 amendments were considered.
  It was careful. It was deliberate. It was an open process. It is 
precisely how the House and this Congress should work. When the NDAA 
passed this body, I was proud of what we produced, and I was really 
proud of the process that we took to get there.

[[Page 16662]]

  The Senate, though, is absolutely different. As is so often the case, 
they didn't act. They either couldn't pass a bill, or they just chose 
not to; either way, it is a shame. They left us with a mess now that we 
have to resolve. Eventually, a final product was crafted at the last 
minute between House and Senate staffers.
  It was not done in conference because the Senate never passed a bill. 
It was not done in conference because the Senate just ignored the fact 
that the NDAA was a priority for this country in order to make sure 
that we funded and equipped those soldiers and airmen and sailors and 
marines who fight the fight for this country. They ignored it.
  When you don't get to conference, which is where you have Members 
argue the points of either piece of legislation--whether it is a Senate 
bill or a House bill--it really does a disservice to our men and women 
who fight for this country because they don't get to hear the arguments 
and they don't get to see the arguments. That is unfortunate.
  We go through all of the motions. In the House, we get it right, in 
the House, through the appropriations process, but then again, through 
the process of the NDAA, we get it right. We have those hearings. We 
take the testimony, and we listen to those who are most affected. The 
Senate, I don't know what they do, but they honestly, in my estimation, 
didn't care enough to get it done for whatever reason.
  As a member of HASC, we did an awful lot of work just to get a 
product to the floor, and when it left HASC, it was unanimous. When it 
came to the floor, there were 160 times that people had the opportunity 
to amend it and change it and prove it and add things that they thought 
were necessary for the defense of their country. Once again, the Senate 
just ignored that process, and that is unfortunate.
  Congress, as a whole, is harmed by this process. More importantly, it 
is the troops who are harmed by a process that is broken. It is the 
troops. We are not out there in harm's way, but they are. We owe them 
better. I think the House has done that. I think the House has actually 
done everything in its power to make it right with the troops whom we 
put in harm's way, but the Senate doesn't seem to care, and that is 
troubling to me.
  I am concerned about our warfighters. We are their voice. As Members 
of Congress, we are their voice. We are the elected Representatives of 
the people, but they are citizens, too, so we are representing them. We 
are their voice, and they need to be heard on every issue.
  Unfortunately, the NDAA is not everything that everybody wants, and I 
get it. It is always a compromise, and I get that, but we need to show 
more solidarity with our warfighters, so they know that their voice is 
being heard here in the Capitol. I fear that, because the Senate 
botched the process, their voice didn't come through as loudly as it 
should have.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule also allows the House to consider the Executive 
Amnesty Prevention Act. This legislation, if enacted, would nullify the 
President's recent executive action.
  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy goal of 
the President's, every Member of Congress ought to be concerned about 
what it means when he takes that type of action, of unilaterally 
ignoring Congress. If you look at our article I powers, we are elected 
to pass laws. We are elected to do that.
  The President is elected to faithfully execute the laws that are 
passed by Congress. It doesn't matter if the House did or did not do 
what the President requested. It doesn't give him the unilateral action 
to go ahead and say, ``Do you know what? I can just do it on my own.'' 
That is what this bill addresses.
  This Nation has benefited by this delicate balance that we have in 
our government. It benefits every day when we do things the right way. 
The Constitution is our guiding principle. It is our guiding document.
  You just can't say, ``Do you know what? I want to do it differently 
because I disagree with what the legislative branch is or is not 
doing.'' That is not appropriate. It is not the way the Founding 
Fathers crafted it.
  The Executive does not have the power to write law; we do. We need to 
reestablish our rights as elected Representatives of the people to 
craft laws that affect the people of the United States of America.
  It is really just beyond frustrating as all of us, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, should be jealously guarding our article I powers 
because it matters not whether it is a Republican President or a 
Democratic President. This institution matters. Otherwise, what are we 
doing here? Otherwise, why are the American people voting every 2 years 
to send Representatives to this body to ensure that the Constitution is 
upheld and followed?
  It is not meaningless. It is important. As I said before, the 
legislative versus the Executive issue shouldn't be a Democrat versus a 
Republican issue. It should be the fact that we should guard the rights 
and privileges that have been extended to us because of our being 
elected to this body.
  I support the rule because it is important that we have a healthy 
debate on all of the issues that have been outlined, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this convoluted closed 
rule, which includes a huge defense bill, a partisan anti-immigrant 
bill, a California water bill, and, from out of nowhere, an Arizona 
land exchange bill all in one.
  The gentleman from Florida is praising this Congress as somehow being 
open. The fact of the matter is this is the most closed Congress in the 
history of the United States of America. This is appalling the way this 
House of Representatives has been run. Routinely, important, vital 
issues are shut out from debate on the House floor, and what we are 
talking about here today is no exception.
  The rule includes the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act. I am 
pleased that the NDAA establishes the Blackstone River Valley National 
Historical Park, but this version of the NDAA also authorizes over $500 
billion for the Pentagon's base budget and, on top of that, includes an 
additional $63.7 billion for the Pentagon slush fund to finance the 
continuing war in Afghanistan and the new war in Iraq and Syria against 
the Islamic State.
  Once again, Congress is failing to do its job because, once again, 
this bill continues to fund two wars for years to come without Congress 
authorizing either one.
  First, Afghanistan. We are ostensibly pulling out of Afghanistan in 
just 3 weeks, but, in fact, we are leaving about 10,000 troops behind 
for the next several years. Congress has the responsibility to 
authorize this new mission. We just can't continue the same-old, same-
old.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert, for the Record, a Reuters article, 
entitled, ``Obama Widens Post-2014 Combat Role for U.S. Forces in 
Afghanistan.''
  It doesn't sound like we are winding down anything.

                   [From reuters.com, Nov. 23, 2014]

   Obama Widens Post-2014 Combat Role for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

                 (By Steve Holland and Mirwais Harooni)

       President Barack Obama has approved plans to give U.S. 
     military commanders a wider role to fight the Taliban 
     alongside Afghan forces after the current mission ends next 
     month, a senior administration official said.
       The decision made in recent weeks extends previous plans by 
     authorizing U.S. troops to carry out combat operations 
     against the Taliban to protect Americans and support 
     Afghanistan's security forces as part of the new ISAF 
     Resolute Support mission next year.
       Obama had announced in May that U.S. troop levels would be 
     cut to 9,800 by the end of the year, by half again in 2015 
     and to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance 
     office in Kabul by the end of 2016.
       Under that plan, only a small contingent of 1,800 U.S. 
     troops was limited to counter terrorism operations against 
     remnants of al

[[Page 16663]]

     Qaeda. The new orders will also allow operations against the 
     Taliban.
       ``To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the 
     United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide 
     direct support to al Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures 
     to keep Americans safe,'' the official said.
       A report by the New York Times late on Friday said the new 
     authorization also allows the deployment of American jets, 
     bombers and drones.
       The announcement was welcomed by Afghan police and army 
     commanders after heavy losses against the Taliban this 
     summer.
       ``This is the decision that we needed to hear . . . We 
     could lose battles against the Taliban without direct support 
     from American forces,'' said Khalil Andarabi, police chief 
     for Wardak province, about an hour's drive from the capital 
     and partly controlled by the Taliban.
       Afghan government forces remain in control of all 34 
     provincial capitals but are suffering a high rate of 
     casualties, recently described as unsustainable by a U.S. 
     commander in Afghanistan.
       More than 4,600 Afghan force members have been killed since 
     the start of the year, 6.5 percent more than a year ago. 
     Despite being funded with more than $4 billion in aid this 
     year, police and soldiers frequently complain they lack the 
     resources to fight the Taliban on their own.
       ``Right now we don't have heavy weapons, artillery and air 
     support. If Americans launch their own operations and help 
     us, too, then we will be able to tackle Taliban,'' said 
     senior police detective Asadullah Insafi in eastern Ghazni 
     province.
       The Taliban said it is undeterred by the U.S. announcement.
       ``They will continue their killings, night raids and 
     dishonor to the people of Afghanistan in 2015. It will only 
     make us continue our jihad,'' Taliban spokesman Zabihullah 
     Mujajhid said.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Twice now, Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman 
Walter Jones, and I have tried to offer an amendment requiring a vote 
next March to authorize any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan, and twice, the leadership of this House has refused to 
allow our amendments to come to the floor.
  What is the leadership afraid of? Why do they refuse to allow a 
debate and a vote on authorizing America's post-2014 mission in 
Afghanistan? Don't we owe it to the troops who are going to be there? 
Don't we owe it to their families?
  The gentleman from Florida talks about that we need to be the voice 
of our troops. Well, we are not the voice of our troops. We are ducking 
these important debates. It is shameful. We are letting our troops 
down. We are better than this, and we ought to be debating and voting 
on these important issues.
  We are also at war against the Islamic State. On July 25, this House 
overwhelmingly passed a resolution that I offered that if the U.S. were 
involved in sustained combat operations in Iraq, Congress should vote 
and enact an authorization. Mr. Speaker, 370 Members of this House 
voted for that resolution.
  Two weeks after that vote, we began bombing Iraq. We have been 
bombing Iraq nearly every day for the past 4\1/2\ months. We have 
increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to around 3,000. On 
September 22, we started bombing Syria. We have flown scores of bombing 
missions over Syria over the last 2 months.
  We bomb Iraq and Syria as part of our coordinated military operations 
with the Iraqi military and Kurdish military forces. We bomb to protect 
infrastructure, and we bomb to target towns and camps harboring Islamic 
State forces. If that is not being involved in sustained combat 
operations, I don't know what is.
  The war against ISIL began under this Congress. It has escalated 
under this Congress. It has expanded from Iraq to Syria and now, maybe, 
to Turkey under this Congress. It is the responsibility, the 
constitutional responsibility of this Congress, the 113th Congress, to 
authorize it. And yet while the bill authorizes the money to carry out 
this war, it does not allow us a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on actually 
authorizing the war.
  Now, last night in the Rules Committee, I offered amendments to limit 
funding for the Iraq/Syria war until Congress enacted an authorization 
to ensure that U.S. ground troops in Iraq would not engage in combat 
operations. Both were rejected. Both were rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is the institutional and 
constitutional duty of the Congress of the United States to decide 
matters of war and peace. It is time for the leadership of this House 
to step up to the plate and bring an authorization to the floor. It is 
time to debate it and vote on it before the 113th Congress adjourns. No 
more excuses. No more whining. Just do it.
  The rule also includes H.R. 5759, the Preventing Executive Overreach 
on Immigration Act. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Give me a break. For 
over a year and a half, a Senate-passed bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration reform bill has been awaiting House action. All it needs is 
a House Republican leadership with the political backbone to take it up 
because we all know that the votes are there. We could pass it today or 
tomorrow or next week. We could put an end to all this rancor, all the 
nasty sound bites by simply doing what we are paid to do: debating and 
voting on major pieces of legislation.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you 
don't want the Executive to take administrative action, then start 
acting like a real Congress. There is still time before we leave town 
for the holidays. Stop this farce. Take up the Senate bill, pass it, 
and send it to the President for signature.
  Mr. Speaker, whether it comes to issues of war and peace or whether 
it comes to major issues like comprehensive immigration reform, the 
answer is simple: all we need to do is our job.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this ridiculous triple-closed rule, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
  I want to talk a little bit about the legislation and then the rule 
itself.
  It is not unusual that we are at a difficult moment near the end of 
the session and have must-pass legislation. And the main portion of 
this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, is actually 
very good and very bipartisan. Frankly, it was passed out of committee 
with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. We all know that 
the chairman and the ranking member, who are two of our most 
distinguished Members, work very well together. Like anything in a $500 
billion bill, I could quibble with this or that, but the reality is I 
favor the legislation. I have no problem supporting it and the rule 
that moves it forward.
  I also want to agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern). I have the same concerns he does about the authorization for 
military action. I jointly signed a letter with him to that effect. I 
look forward to continuing to work with him to that effect because he 
is precisely right that we need to address this. I think the 
appropriate way is a full authorization debate, not an amendment, but 
my friend certainly states his case eloquently.
  We also have a major lands bill appropriated with this. Most of that 
bill is really pretty noncontroversial. Most of it went through 
committee or a lot of it across the floor. There are a lot of good 
things in there and things that I find very easy to support.
  There is a particular portion, however, that I do oppose, and that is 
section 3003, as I recall. But it is basically a copper mining issue in 
southeast Arizona, where we have two Indian tribes that have sacred 
sites in this area, on what is now Federal land, and they have opposed 
this legislation.
  Now, this legislation was debated on this floor in stand-alone 
legislation and was then pulled because the votes were not here to pass 
the legislation. So we are passing, by rule, a bill that the majority 
in this House did not support.
  Fortunately, the bill is somewhat different. There are a couple of 
things that have been added: a consultation with the tribes in 
question, a stronger environmental review. Whether this is window 
dressing or sincere is hard to know. But I am going to urge the tribes 
in question to use the consultation fully and aggressively, and I am 
going to urge the Federal agencies that are responsible for the 
environmental

[[Page 16664]]

considerations here to be extraordinarily aggressive in their 
oversight. We do have a trust responsibility when it comes to sacred 
sites on Federal lands--or non-Federal lands, for that matter. We have 
a governmental responsibility.
  This is a bill, remember, that did not make it across this floor, and 
it has never been considered by the United States Senate on the floor. 
Frankly, if that bill couldn't make it across this House, I very 
seriously doubt it would have made it across the floor in the Senate. 
So we really have the rules in the sense, I think, thwarting the 
majority opinion inside the Congress, and that is unfortunate.
  However, speaking personally, when you serve as a member of the 
majority on the Rules Committee--and I was given extraordinary latitude 
last night to try to change this rule in a way that would have stripped 
this particular provision and did vote against the rule in committee--
when you are given that responsibility, once the committee makes its 
decision, you also have a responsibility to accept the decision that 
has been made.
  I also have the great privilege, on my side of the aisle, of serving 
as a deputy whip, and that usually requires that you support the rule, 
that you support your party, which is pretty routine on procedural 
matters on both sides of the aisle. In 12 years, I have never voted 
against a rule that my own party put on the floor, even if I had 
disagreements with it. And I do have disagreements; but in the end, I 
will support the rule, with reservations.
  I hope that the provisions that are in the law--to be fair to the 
authors that have been added since that legislation--will give us some 
avenues, but I think we ought to reflect long and hard over using this 
kind of procedural mechanism in this way.
  On our side of the aisle, we would like to think we are going to be a 
different kind of Congress and have been a different kind of Congress, 
and we can always play the back-and-forth. We have got plenty of 
gotchas for the other side in terms of how they used rules when they 
were in the majority. But if we are going to do things differently, it 
needs to start someplace. So I wanted to come down here and highlight 
this as, I think, a mistake but make it clear, at the end of the day, I 
support the rule that the committee arrived at.
  I will be looking forward to working with my friend from 
Massachusetts on his particular concerns about authorization. I will be 
looking forward and really watching this issue in Arizona with a great 
deal of concern, and I will continue to push aggressively that we 
change the manner in which we operate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American people would be better served 
if we addressed our broken immigration system. And if we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
H.R. 15, the immigration reform bill.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the motion that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will make might be our last opportunity in 
this Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. We have a 
bipartisan bill right here in the House of Representatives. It is 
called H.R. 15. It is almost identical to the Senate bill that passed 
with more than two-thirds Republicans and Democrats supporting 
immigration reform.
  What does that mean? This is a bill that secures our border. This is 
a bill that creates over 200,000 jobs for American citizens. This is a 
bill that restores the rule of law. This is a bill that has support 
from the faith community, from the business community, from the labor 
community, from the law enforcement community. This is a bill that 
provides a pathway to citizenship for de facto Americans who have lived 
here, in some cases, for decades, for all of their adult lives. By 
defeating the previous question, we will have the opportunity to pass 
that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there is sufficient support here in this body among 
Democrats and Republicans to pass this bill now for immigration reform, 
H.R. 15, and actually solve this issue. Because, you know what? There 
is one thing that I think Democrats and Republicans can agree on: what 
the President has done with his executive actions doesn't solve the 
entire immigration issue. Yes, people are discussing whether they think 
it helps or hurts, whether they think it is illegal or legal--even 
though it is clearly contemplated in statute with regard to the 
authority given to the Secretary with regard to prioritization--but it 
doesn't solve it.
  The President alone can't establish border security. We need an 
appropriation and a plan from the United States Congress--that we have 
in the bill that will pass if we can defeat the previous question, per 
the Mr. McGovern's motion.
  Mr. Speaker, immigration is a challenging issue for our country and 
is challenging for a lot of reasons. We are a nation of laws. We are 
also a nation of immigrants. We need to reconcile those two. We need to 
ensure that we have an immigration system that reflects our values as 
Americans, and that is good for our economy and for job creation and 
restores the rule of law. We can accomplish that right here, right now; 
send the bill back to the Senate, where I believe they will ratify it, 
and on to the President to address this issue once and for all, rather 
than have a sideshow of a discussion about just fixing a little bit 
around the edges.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2014, the House of 
Representatives passed a historic amendment to the fiscal year 2015 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment was offered by 
myself and Ms. Lofgren, along with several of our House colleagues.
  Our amendment blocks government bureaucrats from performing backdoor 
warrantless searches of the private email content and telephone calls 
of U.S. citizens. The amendment also prohibits the NSA and CIA from 
requiring technology companies to place backdoors in their products.
  Our amendment passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan and 
veto-proof majority of 293-123. Now, some of those who did not vote for 
the amendment told me that they thought the proper place for this 
amendment was in the NDAA, not in an appropriations act, and I tend to 
agree with them. I would like to see that in the NDAA, but our only 
opportunity was to put it into the appropriations bill.
  There has been some discussion, unfortunately, of recent talk, if you 
will, that this amendment will be stripped from the omnibus. If that is 
the case, I think it does belong in the NDAA this year because this is 
the bill that authorizes these programs that we have heard so much 
about.
  Americans were horrified to learn that the government was spying on 
them without even bothering to get a warrant, and the overwhelming 
number of Members who voted in favor of the Massie-Lofgren amendment 
did so because they listened to their constituents. I would hope we 
would listen to our constituents today, include provisions to reform 
the NSA, particularly the provision to stop the backdoor warrantless 
spying on Americans in this NDAA.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I urge you 
to include this in the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight one provision of this National 
Defense Authorization Act that hasn't gotten much attention but that 
will make an important difference in the lives of many new moms who 
happen to be in the military.
  Over the years I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to make 
our military and veterans' health care programs more responsive to the

[[Page 16665]]

unique needs of women. Far too many barriers to optimal health care 
remain, and that is why I am so pleased that my TRICARE Moms 
Improvement Act was incorporated into this bill.
  Health care providers overwhelmingly recommend that new moms 
exclusively breast-feed their infants. But we know that despite their 
good intentions, far too many women who want to breast-feed their 
babies find the cost of lactation supplies and the lack of support to 
be a barrier to that choice. And while most women covered by private 
insurance do have access to these services, women with TRICARE do not.
  My TRICARE Moms Improvement Act included in this year's defense 
authorization bill would end that disparity and that discrepancy. We 
must do all we can to support our servicemembers and their families, 
and this is one small but meaningful way to do just that.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding and the 
privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the underlying bill that we refer to 
around this Hill now as the Yoho bill, H.R. 5759. I appreciate the 
gentleman from Florida for drafting this bill. He and I are consistent 
in our philosophy, our constitutional understanding, and our approach.
  I would say, though, that the bill moved a little bit from the time 
that it was first presented. It had the word ``amnesty'' in the title. 
It said, ``Preventing Executive Amnesty on Immigration Act.'' Now it 
says, ``Preventing Executive Overreach.'' This tones it down a little 
for me.
  It also addresses the subject called prosecutorial discretion. And it 
says in the bill it ``ought to be applied on a case-by-case basis and 
not to whole categories of persons.'' Mr. Speaker, prosecutorial 
discretion can only be applied on a case-by-case basis. It cannot 
create whole classes or categories of persons and exempt them from the 
application of the law.
  So I want to make sure this Congressional Record is clear that this 
bill doesn't endorse the idea that we are suggesting prosecutorial 
discretion is anything other than what it actually is, and that is on a 
case-by-case basis.
  It says also:

       No provision shall be interpreted or applied to authorize 
     the executive branch to exempt categories of persons 
     unlawfully present.

  I agree with that. But:

       Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of 
     circumventing the objectives of the preceding sentence shall 
     be null and void and without legal effect.

  That is nice. This bill amounts to a resolution, a resolution of 
disagreement with the President. I don't think it makes it clear enough 
that the President has clearly violated the Constitution of the United 
States. I don't want this to be in the Record as something that is 
ambiguous.
  I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, the President knows the law. He 
taught the Constitution for 10 years. For 22 times he said--at least 
that we know of--into the public record, into the videotape, that he 
didn't have the authority to do what he did. And so if the President 
has so little respect for his own opinions, my point would be, how 
would he have a lot of respect for this bill? And so I encourage the 
gentleman. I thank him for offering it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just be clear about one thing. The President 
did not create this problem. The cowardice of the House Republican 
leadership created this crisis. Over 1\1/2\ years after the Senate 
passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill, 
this House, Mr. Speaker, has failed to bring it up and debate it. If 
there is a crisis of leadership, then it is here in this House.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight a significant provision in the 
defense authorization bill, and this is language that is based on H.R. 
2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Lands and Tule Springs Fossil Beds 
National Monument.
  This important legislation will enact a number of land conveyances 
across southern Nevada, including over 400 acres for the Nellis Air 
Force Base used for critical training missions. In addition, the 
legislation will protect nearby lands that contain fossil beds dating 
back thousands of years to the Ice Age.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of the 
entire Nevada delegation as well as the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of 
Commerce, county and local officials, education institutions, local 
tribal governments, and area environmentalists.
  For years we have been working with leadership in the House and 
Senate to advance this legislation, which will strengthen our national 
security mission at Nellis, promote economic development for southern 
Nevada, and preserve our national history for generations to come.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the defense 
authorization bill, is now 1,648 pages, and we are being told on the 
floor of the House that we either vote for the whole thing or nothing 
because we are not given a chance for any amendments in between. There 
are some hugely consequential decisions being made for our national 
defense in this bill on issues of war and peace.
  It was just last September the President increased the number of 
American troops in Iraq to help train and equip the Iraqi and Kurdish 
forces there. Mr. McGovern, Mr. Jones, and I have a bipartisan 
amendment saying that U.S. ground forces in Iraq should not be engaged 
in combat operations going forward. The President has asserted 
authority under the AUMF. That is a blank check. We don't think there 
should be a blank check for the executive. This body should vote to 
make it clear that U.S. forces can't be involved in another ground war 
in Iraq.
  There is also a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Dent from 
Pennsylvania, myself, and others that says we should vote on the 
question of whether we should now arm the so-called moderate Syrian 
rebels for 2 years at a price of $500 million or up. Now, whether you 
are for or against it, we should have a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to think it is a bad idea. We are not going to 
be able to successfully micromanage the Syrian civil war. The target of 
those forces is not ISIS. So in the process, we are actually going to 
be inadvertently strengthening ISIS. But whether you agree with me on 
that or not, for goodness' sake, we should have an amendment that has 
this body make a choice. That is what we are here for, I thought, 
making important policy decisions for the country on questions of war 
and peace. We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the American 
people to actually debate and vote on these consequential decisions 
instead of a 1,600-plus page bill that comes to the floor and doesn't 
give us that opportunity.
  So since we don't have that opportunity, I am going to vote ``no'' on 
the defense authorization bill. I don't like to do that, but it is 
irresponsible and reckless for this House not to vote on these 
important issues separately.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida--who, by the way, Mr. Speaker, has three sons who serve or who 
have served in the United States military--who yesterday so adequately 
expressed really the concerns of not only a Member of Congress, a 
father, a proud American, but of a man who wants and needs America to 
lead in this world rather than follow.
  Yesterday--or it turned into last night--in the Rules Committee, we 
spent a good bit of time that I think, Mr. Speaker, was very 
thoughtful, and on a bipartisan basis. Members of this

[[Page 16666]]

body expressed deep and dear reservations about actually where we are 
as a country, where our men and women are in harm's way, the mission 
and the purpose of what we are attempting to accomplish overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, America has adversaries and also enemies. We have people 
who would do terrible things not just to their own people in foreign 
countries, but who want to engage the United States to draw us into 
further conflict. The United States is without, in my opinion, and I 
think others', a strategic and tactical plan that would effectively be 
understood by Congress and the American people.
  Yesterday--that turned into last night--we had Members of this body 
on a bipartisan basis who showed up at the Rules Committee to politely 
and professionally express their reservations about our funding through 
the National Defense Authorization Act what is considered to be a year 
or 2-year long process of funding without a clear mark, a clear 
understanding, about what we are agreeing to.
  Mr. Speaker, I found myself not just agreeing with the likes of Mr. 
McGovern and others who spoke about a need for us to know what we are 
doing, but I found great confidence when we had the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mike Coffman, who showed up and spoke about the unrelenting 
and unending fraud on behalf of other countries taking American tax 
dollars.
  The problem is that we are debating this without any real discussion 
because our friends on the other side of this building are not willing 
to engage us on the issue. So we are viewing this in a difficult way 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of the 
Rules Committee.
  I want to show up and to say to you, Mr. Speaker, the American 
people, and Members--as they are trying to prepare for what we are 
attempting to do today with this document--that in January there is 
going to be a reorganization and discussion around this exact same 
issue where we will have a partner in the United States Senate with 
thoughtful content.
  Mr. Speaker, I will end here. If the Chinese, the Russians, and the 
Iranians can establish a policy of where they are in these dangerous 
areas, the United States should also. We need leadership, and it will 
happen starting January 5.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee. And he is correct. We were in a meeting yesterday 
for quite some time--over 6 hours--in the Rules Committee discussing 
multiple amendments on the defense bill, on the immigration bill, and 
on other things as well.

                              {time}  1000

  My problem with what happened yesterday is that, after all that talk, 
we got nothing; not a single amendment is being made in order here. We 
have yet another closed process.
  I appreciate the fact that the Senate can be difficult, but the 
Senate is not the problem when it comes to the House of Representatives 
debating and voting up or down on an AUMF on Iraq or Syria--or any 
other war for that matter. We can do that ourselves. We don't need 
anybody to tell us we can do it. We don't need the White House to tell 
us we can do it. It is our constitutional responsibility.
  Yes, we had a long meeting. We had a lot of discussion. It was a 
spirited discussion, but at the end of it all, we got nothing. I regret 
that very much because the issues that we talked about last night are 
very, very serious, and we owe it to the American people, we owe it to 
the men and women who we put in harm's way to have these serious 
discussions, and we are not having that on the floor today.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern. I would like the 
Record to reflect my strong agreement with the views expressed by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) earlier about not having 
amendments in which we can fully discuss as the House the 2-year 
funding for the Syrian rebel army and also to make sure that we do not 
have combat troops actively engaged in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I am rising right now to strongly state my deep 
disappointment in a version of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange Act 
that was included in the National Defense Authorization.
  Here is the National Defense Authorization bill, and in here are some 
land bills. Now, one of the land bills in particular that has been 
included in here is extremely controversial. It is nongermane, and it 
will lead to the destruction of sacred sites for two major tribal 
nations in our country. When it does that, when it destroys these 
sacred sites, it benefits a foreign-owned mining company with troubling 
ties to the Government of Iran.
  I would like to submit for the Record a long list of tribal 
organizations and other groups who oppose this proposal because of its 
direct disregard for Native American sacred and cultural sites, Mr. 
Speaker.

    Tribes and Tribal Orgs Opposed to H.R. 687, SE AZ Land Exchange


                          Tribal Organizations

       National Congress of American Indians--the oldest and 
     largest organization representing tribes across the country
       National Indian Gaming Association--represents 184 tribes 
     across the country
       Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona--represents 20 tribes in 
     Arizona
       Apache Coalition--represents Apache tribes in Arizona, New 
     Mexico, Oklahoma
       Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada--represents 27 tribes in 
     Nevada
       United South and Eastern Tribes--represents 26 tribes in 
     Maine, New York Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
     North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, 
     Louisiana, Florida, and Texas and based in Tennessee
       California Association of Tribal Governments--represents 
     tribal governments in California
       Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes--represents 35 tribes 
     in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa
       Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians--represents 57 
     tribes located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Southeast 
     Alaska, Northern California, and Western Montana
       All Indian Pueblo Council--represents 20 pueblos located in 
     New Mexico and Texas
       Eight Northern Indian Pueblos of New Mexico
       Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association--represents 16 
     tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska
       Coalition of Large Tribes--represents 14 tribes in North 
     Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, 
     Utah, Washington
       Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
       Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission


                                Alabama

       Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Alabama


                                Arizona

       San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona
       Hopi Tribe, Arizona
       Ak-Chin Indian Community, Arizona
       Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona
       White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
       Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona
       Cocopah Indian Tribe, Arizona
       Hopi Tribe, Arizona
       Hualapai Tribe, Arizona
       Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Arizona
       Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona
       Quechan Indian Tribe, Arizona
       Tonto Apache Tribe, Arizona
       Yavapai-Apache Nation, Arizona
       Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe, Arizona
       Havasupai Tribe, Arizona
       Ft. Mojave Indian Tribe, Arizona, California, and Nevada
       Navajo Nation Council, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah


                               California

       Susanville Indian Rancheria, California
       Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, California
       Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California
       Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California
       Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California
       California Valley Miwok Tribe, California
       Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California
       San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California


                              Connecticut

       Mohegan Tribe, Connecticut


                                Florida

       Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida


                                 Idaho

       Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Idaho
       Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho


                                 Kansas

       Kickapoo Indian Nation, Kansas

[[Page 16667]]




                               Louisiana

       Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Louisiana
       Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, Louisiana


                                 Maine

       Penobscot Indian Nation, Maine


                             Massachusetts

       Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Massachusetts
       Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, Massachusetts


                                Michigan

       Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Michigan
       Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Michigan


                               Minnesota

       Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Minnesota
       Prairie Island Indian Community, Minnesota
       Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community, Minnesota


                              Mississippi

       Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi


                                Nebraska

       Santee Sioux Tribe, Nebraska


                                 Nevada

       Moapa Band of Paiutes, Nevada
       Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Nevada and Idaho
       Walker River Paiute Tribe, Nevada


                               New Mexico

       Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico
       Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico


                                New York

       Seneca Nation, New York


                             North Carolina

       Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina


                                Oklahoma

       Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma
       Ft. Sill Apache Tribe, Oklahoma and New Mexico
       Osage Nation, Oklahoma


                                 Oregon

       Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
       Coquille Indian Tribe, Oregon


                              Rhode Island

       Narragansett Tribe, Rhode Island


                             South Carolina

       Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina


                              South Dakota

       Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota


                               Washington

       Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington
       Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Washington
       Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Washington
       Quinault Indian Nation, Washington
       Hoh Indian Nation, Washington
       Samish Indian Nation, Washington
       Suquamish Indian Tribe, Washington
       Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Washington


                               Wisconsin

       Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 
     Wisconsin
       Ho-Chunk Nation, Wisconsin
       Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 
     Wisconsin
       Oneida Nation, Wisconsin
       Sokaogan Chippewa Community, Wisconsin
       Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians, 
     Wisconsin

       Other Groups Opposing H.R. 687/S. 339, SE AZ Land Exchange

       Town of Superior
       Queen Valley Golf Association, Queen Valley, Arizona
       Queen Valley Homeowners Association, Queen Valley, Arizona
       Peridot Strategic Tribal Empowerment Prevention Plan
       Arizona Mining Reform Coalition
       American Lands
       Access Fund
       Arizona Mountaineering Club
       Arizona Native Plant Society
       Arizona Wildlife Federation
       The American Alpine Club--Golden, CO
       Center for Biological Diversity
       Chiricahua-Dragoon Conservation Alliance
       Comstock Residents Association--Virginia City, NV
       Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition--Superior, 
     AZ
       Concerned Climbers of Arizona, LLC
       Earthworks
       Endangered Species Coalition
       Environment America
       Environment Arizona
       Friends Committee on National Legislation
       Friends of Ironwood Forest--Tucson, AZ
       Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
       Friends of The Cloquet Valley State Forest
       Friends of the Kalmiopsis--Grants Pass, OR
       Friends of Queen Creek
       Gila Resources Information Project
       Grand Canyon Chapter--Sierra Club
       Great Basin Mine Watch
       Groundwater Awareness League--Green Valley, AZ
       High Country Citizens' Alliance--Crested Butte, CO
       Information Network for Responsible Mining--Telluride, CO
       Keepers of the Water--Manistee, MI
       League of Conservation Voters
       Maricopa Audubon Society--Phoenix, AZ
       Ministers' Conference of Winston-Salem, North Carolina & 
     Vicinity
       The Morning Star Institute--Washington, D.C.
       Mount Graham Coalition--Arizona
       Natural Resources Defense Council
       National Wildlife Federation
       Progressive National Baptist Convention
       Religion and Human Rights Forum for the Preservation of 
     Native American Sacred Sites and Rights
       Rock Creek Alliance--Sandpoint, ID
       San Juan Citizens Alliance--Durango, CO
       Save Our Cabinets--Heron, MT
       Save Our Sky Blue Waters--Minnesota
       Save the Scenic Santa Ritas
       Sierra Club
       Sky Island Alliance
       The Lands Council--Spokane, WA
       Tucson Audubon Society
       Water More Precious Than Gold
       Western Lands Exchange Project--Seattle, WA
       Wilderness Workshop
       Wisconsin Resources Protection Council--Tomahawk, WI
       Yuma Audubon Society

 Tribes and Tribal Orgs with Resolutions/Letters Opposing H.R. 1904 in 
               the 112th Congress--Same Bill as H.R. 687

       National Congress of American Indians
       Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona
       Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada
       United South and Eastern Tribes
       Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes
       Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association--represents 16 
     tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska
       All Indian Pueblo Council
       Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Inc.
       Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians
       Association on American Indian Affairs, Maryland


                                Arizona

       San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona
       White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
       Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Arizona
       Yavapai-Apache Nation, Arizona
       Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Arizona
       Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona
       Cocopah Indian Tribe, Arizona
       Hopi Tribe, Arizona
       Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona
       Navajo Nation Council, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
       Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission
       Dine (Navajo) Medicine Men's Association
       Ft. Mojave Indian Tribe, Arizona, California, and Nevada


                                Alabama

       Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Alabama


                                 Alaska

       Sealaska Heritage Institute, Alaska


                               California

       Susanville Indian Rancheria, California
       Ramona Band of Cahuilla, California
       Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, California
       Karuk Tribe, California


                                Colorado

       Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Colorado
       Idaho Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho


                                Michigan

       Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Michigan


                                 Nevada

       Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Nevada
       Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Nevada
       Wells Band Council, Te-Moak Tribe, Nevada


                               New Mexico

       Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico
       Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico
       Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico and Arizona


                               Washington

       Confederated Tribes and Band of the Yakama Nation, 
     Washington
       Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington
       Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Washington
       Skokomish Indian Tribe, Washington
       Muckleshoot Tribe, Washington
       Hoh Indian Nation, Washington


                                Wyoming

       Shoshone & Arapaho Tribes, Wyoming

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Unfortunately, the amendment to strike this provision 
from the bill offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is 
the cochair of the Native American Caucus along with me--a bipartisan 
amendment--was totally rejected by the Rules Committee; so, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  The National Defense Authorization Act should not be used as a 
vehicle to undermine our commitment to protecting religious liberties 
for tribal nations where so many of those men and women have proudly 
fought to serve their country, the United States of America.

[[Page 16668]]


  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Cole really addressed the issue. 
In regards as to how it went down in the Rules Committee, he clearly 
addressed the issue on this floor in regards to his support of the 
rule, even though he didn't get everything that he wanted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership and for really trying at least to allow 
many of us with different points of view to have some input into this 
rule and this bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen at the Rules 
Committee, so of course, I rise in strong opposition to this rule to 
provide consideration for the National Defense Authorization Act.
  While I certainly support several elements of this bill, I have grave 
concerns about the more than $63 billion in funding for the overseas 
contingency operations fund. The OCO account remains a slush fund that 
allows the Pentagon to circumvent the Budget Control Act, and we still 
haven't received an audit from the Pentagon.
  Every agency has to go through an audit process. What happened at the 
Pentagon--we still have not received the audit for a lot of reasons 
that they state, but in a bipartisan way, many of us are urging the 
Defense Department to come up and show us the numbers, show us what 
their audit will provide, so the American people know what their 
taxpayer dollars are paying for.
  I also have grave concerns about authorizing any funding for the 
current war in Iraq and Syria--and, yes, that is a war that is taking 
place. Congress has not yet debated or authorized this new war. We see 
more and more troops being sent to the region; and, of course, 
unintended consequences could put these troops in harm's way and lead 
to combat operations. I don't believe the American people want to see 
our brave young men and women in that role.
  That is why many of us have called and will call on Congress to live 
up to its constitutional responsibility and have a full debate on any 
authorization for any use of military force. We are in a war, Mr. 
Speaker, and each and every day we see more and more danger. We see 
more and more warfare take place. Enough is enough.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, committing the United States to 
yet another long-term war in the Middle East, it should never be an 
afterthought. What we continue to do is authorize, in a variety of 
bills, the continuation of a war that has not been authorized nor 
declared.
  I know that the American people worry about the world and what is 
taking place. They know how dangerous the world is. We know that also, 
and we know that the Pentagon deserves a budget and authorizations that 
ensure our national security, but we also know that we have a 
constitutional responsibility to debate the use of force, and in fact, 
if we believe that that is the course of action that our country should 
take, then let's have an up-or-down vote.
  This really should be the moment that we are debating that because, 
once we leave here, come January, we don't know what will happen. We 
don't know how far this war will have expanded, and it will continue to 
be an unauthorized war.
  Congress and the American people deserve to understand the costs and 
consequences to our national security and to our domestic priorities in 
fighting this war.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire how many additional speakers the 
gentleman has?
  Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We have a couple, but they are not here yet. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that this Congress is kind of ending the 
way it began, under a very closed and restrictive process. As I said 
earlier, this is the most-closed Congress in the history of the United 
States of America.
  Routinely important issues, issues that impact not just the American 
people, but that impact the entire world, are denied a debate on the 
House floor. We are bringing up multiple bills here today all under a 
very closed process; yet there are some very important issues that need 
to be debated and to be discussed and to be voted on.
  I have crumbling bridges and sewer and water systems in my district 
that need repair, and I can't get a penny to repair or replace them. We 
are told that we don't have any money, but we seem to have billions and 
billions of dollars to throw at these endless wars in Afghanistan and 
the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the November 2 New York Times 
editorial, ``The New War's Rising Cost.''

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 2, 2014]

                       The New War's Rising Cost

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       The Pentagon disclosed last week that America's ever-
     shifting new war in the Middle East has cost taxpayers more 
     than half a billion dollars since it began in August. Yet 
     Congress has not bothered to hold a vote to authorize the 
     Obama administration's decision to get into another war.
       As the price tag of the military campaign in Iraq and Syria 
     rises, it might seem reasonable to expect that Congress would 
     have to consider the state of the effort and appropriate 
     funding for it. Thanks to the dysfunctional politics of 
     defense budgeting, it turns out Congress won't have to--at 
     least not anytime soon.
       As of Oct. 16, the air campaign against the Islamic State, 
     also known as ISIS, had cost $580 million, according to the 
     Pentagon. The military is paying for the bombing sorties 
     using the Overseas Contingency Operations budget, a flexible 
     fund established for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With 
     the Afghan war drawing to a close this year, the Obama 
     administration had sought to cut that fund from the nearly 
     $85 billion appropriated for 2014 to $59 billion for 2015. 
     But because lawmakers were not able to pass a budget in time, 
     the fund will continue at last year's level under a 
     continuing resolution that ends in December and is likely to 
     be extended until the spring.
       Authorizing a new defense budget would force lawmakers to 
     take stock of the military action that was initially billed 
     as a limited defensive measure before the White House said 
     that it was likely to last for years. It would also serve as 
     an opportunity to revisit the dubious legal authority the 
     White House is relying on.
       American officials continue to be alarmingly vague about a 
     central unanswered question about the military campaign 
     against the Islamic State: whether it formally or implicitly 
     represents a shift in American policy toward the government 
     of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Washington has called 
     for Mr. Assad's ouster and has provided limited support to 
     rebel factions fighting the state. But the United States must 
     clarify what its goals are concerning Mr. Assad, some senior 
     administration officials believe, including Defense Secretary 
     Chuck Hagel, as Mark Landler of The Times reported recently.
       The Pentagon says the bombing campaign has dealt the 
     Islamic State setbacks in the battlefield. But the group 
     remains strong and continues to make inroads in key parts of 
     Syria and Iraq. Military officials have said curiously little 
     in recent weeks about Khorasan, a militant group they 
     described during the early stages of the airstrikes in Syria 
     as posing an imminent threat to the United States. The vague 
     and at times contradictory information the government has 
     provided about that group, and the broader strategy, shows a 
     distressing level of improvisation.
       The past few weeks have also presented reminders of the 
     risks of the military mission. Officials at the Pentagon are 
     worried about reports that Islamic State fighters have 
     acquired shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, which could 
     be used to bring down American aircraft. Those fighters 
     recently took credit for shooting down an Iraqi military 
     helicopter; the group posted online a manual instructing 
     fighters how to use one of the missiles to bring down Apache 
     helicopters, one of the attack aircraft the Pentagon has been 
     using.
       Congress has a responsibility to take a hard look at the 
     long-term goal of the military mission and its projected 
     cost. It has skirted that duty for too long.

     
                                  ____
                   [From Reuters.com, Nov. 23, 2014]

   Obama Widens Post-2014 Combat Role for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

                 (By Steve Holland and Mirwais Harooni)

       President Barack Obama has approved plans to give U.S. 
     military commanders a wider role to fight the Taliban 
     alongside Afghan forces after the current mission ends next 
     month, a senior administration official said.

[[Page 16669]]

       The decision made in recent weeks extends previous plans by 
     authorizing U.S. troops to carry out combat operations 
     against the Taliban to protect Americans and support 
     Afghanistan's security forces as part of the new ISAF 
     Resolute Support mission next year.
       Obama had announced in May that U.S. troop levels would be 
     cut to 9,800 by the end of the year, by half again in 2015 
     and to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance 
     office in Kabul by the end of 2016.
       Under that plan, only a small contingent of 1,800 U.S. 
     troops was limited to counter terrorism operations against 
     remnants of al Qaeda. The new orders will also allow 
     operations against the Taliban.
       ``To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the 
     United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide 
     direct support to al Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures 
     to keep Americans safe,'' the official said.
       A report by the New York Times late on Friday said the new 
     authorization also allows the deployment of American jets, 
     bombers and drones.
       The announcement was welcomed by Afghan police and army 
     commanders after heavy losses against the Taliban this 
     summer.
       ``This is the decision that we needed to hear . . . We 
     could lose battles against the Taliban without direct support 
     from American forces,'' said Khalil Andarabi, police chief 
     for Wardak province, about an hour's drive from the capital 
     and partly controlled by the Taliban.
       Afghan government forces remain in control of all 34 
     provincial capitals but are suffering a high rate of 
     casualties, recently described as unsustainable by a U.S. 
     commander in Afghanistan.
       More than 4,600 Afghan force members have been killed since 
     the start of the year, 6.5 percent more than a year ago. 
     Despite being funded with more than $4 billion in aid this 
     year, police and soldiers frequently complain they lack the 
     resources to fight the Taliban on their own.
       ``Right now we don't have heavy weapons, artillery and air 
     support. If Americans launch their own operations and help 
     us, too, then we will be able to tackle Taliban,'' said 
     senior police detective Asadullah Insafi in eastern Ghazni 
     province.
       The Taliban said it is undeterred by the U.S. announcement.
       ``They will continue their killings, night raids and 
     dishonor to the people of Afghanistan in 2015. It will only 
     make us continue our jihad,'' Taliban spokesman Zabihullah 
     Mujajhid said.

  Mr. McGOVERN. We seem to have money for these other things. We heard 
earlier today about the fact that there are 50,000 ghost soldiers in 
Iraq that we are funding with our taxpayer dollars; they don't exist. 
Somebody is stealing that money, and where is the outrage in this 
Congress? Where is the outrage?
  Mr. Speaker, these wars deserve a debate. They deserve our oversight. 
We are supposed to be a deliberative body. We should be talking about 
these things, and we are getting more deeply involved in another war in 
Iraq and in Syria. We have 3,000 troops in Iraq right now. God knows 
how many are going to be there when we come back in January.
  By the way, there is nothing in this bill that prevents the President 
from adjusting the mission of those troops, so that they are engaged in 
direct on-the-ground combat. It is something that we ought to be 
concerned about; yet we are not. We are leaving town without even 
talking about this stuff.
  You don't need an NDAA bill to be able to debate and vote on an 
authorization. All we need is a Republican leadership with the backbone 
to bring it to the floor. This is our responsibility. This is our job. 
This is our constitutional responsibility; yet we are not doing 
anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to enter into the Record an article by 
FOX News political analyst Juan Williams entitled, ``Congress ducks its 
duty on ISIS vote.''

                    [From TheHill.com, Oct. 6, 2014]

          Juan Williams: Congress Ducks Its Duty on ISIS Vote

                           (By Juan Williams)

       Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said recently he would not 
     even ask his colleagues to vote on an authorization to use 
     military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria 
     (ISIS) until next year, when the new Congress is seated.
       Boehner told the New York Times, ``Doing this with a whole 
     group of members who are on their way out the door, I don't 
     think that is the right way to handle this.''
       Then last week he changed his position, telling ABC News he 
     is willing to call the House into session to debate the U.S. 
     military action to destroy the terrorists. But the Speaker 
     said it is up to President Obama to request a Congressional 
     vote authorizing military action.
       Meanwhile, the Speaker said it was wrong of President Obama 
     to try to beat the terrorists without putting American 
     military combat ``boots on the ground'' to win the current 
     fight.
       Huh? That makes no sense. When did House Republicans start 
     taking orders from President Obama?
       The hard fact is the GOP House is responsible for its own 
     failure to act on the central question of authorizing the 
     U.S. military to put combat boots on the ground.
       ``Since when do we sit around waiting, using the excuse `He 
     didn't ask'?'' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) 
     asked reporters last week. ``No, if you want to have an 
     authorization that has any constraints on the president, you 
     don't wait for him to write it.''
       Instead, some Republican House members are busy campaigning 
     for reelection by appealing to voters' fears about the ISIS 
     threat.
       Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, told his 
     constituents that his fellow House Republicans are sharing 
     political complaints about the president with commanders in 
     charge of the military.
       ``A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the 
     scenes, saying, `Hey, if you disagree with the policy that 
     the White House has given you, let's have a resignation,''' 
     Rep. Lamborn said. He added that any Generals who resigned in 
     protest would ``go out in a blaze of glory.''
       That is an overt effort to undermine civilian control of 
     the U.S. military, which is required by the Constitution. It 
     is outrageous. It is a purely partisan effort to win votes by 
     playing to extremist hatred of the president.
       These right-wing attacks are coming from some of the same 
     people who condemned anyone in disagreement with any part of 
     the Bush administration's foreign policy as ``soft on 
     terrorism,'' ``unpatriotic'' or worse.
       Is it any wonder that Congress now has an 80 percent 
     disapproval rating and a 12.6 approval rating, according to 
     the latest Real Clear Politics average?
       Is it any wonder that, according to a recent ABC News/
     Washington Post poll, 51 percent of Americans would not vote 
     to reelect their own representative, the highest figure 
     recorded on that question in the 25-year history of the poll?
       Article I of the Constitution gives Congress, not the 
     president, the power to declare war. However, Congress has 
     not made a formal declaration of war since World War II.
       Since then, Authorizations for Use of Military Force or 
     ``AUMFs'' have become politically expedient substitutes.
       Now, the current Congress is too cowardly to even vote on 
     that kind of nominal approval. Some say the 2001 and 2002 
     AUMFs that gave President Bush the authority to use the 
     military against the perpetrators of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, 
     respectively, are still in effect.
       As my friend and Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge 
     Andrew Napolitano has noted, this is ridiculous because ISIS 
     did not exist in 2001 and 2002, so Congress could not have 
     intended the AUMFs to apply to the group by any stretch of 
     the imagination.
       Last week, one major Western democracy did call its 
     legislature back from a weeks-long recess to vote on the 
     critical, time-sensitive issue of military strikes against 
     ISIS.
       That legislative body was Britain's Parliament--not the 
     U.S. Congress.
       Congress is not absolved of responsibility just because we 
     are in the middle of a political campaign season--especially 
     when its members are telling us that ISIS is on the march 
     and, in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), ``we need 
     to stop them before we all get killed here at home.''
       Members have a job to do right now and they are not doing 
     it.
       There are increasing signs that many Republican members in 
     Speaker Boehner's own caucus can no longer stomach this 
     hypocrisy and abdication of Congress' duty.
       ``The president should have come to Congress and still 
     should come to Congress for authorization,'' Rep. Ileana Ros-
     Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who used to chair the House 
     Foreign Affairs Committee, told BuzzFeed.
       ``Everybody can come back at a moment's notice. Everyone is 
     in the districts . . . We can all go back [to D.C. for a 
     vote] and I hope we do,'' she added.
       ``If you can't make the argument for or against an AUMF, 
     and actually justify your vote for or against an AUMF, you 
     have absolutely no business being in Congress,'' Rep. Raul 
     Labrador, an Idaho Republican and Tea Party favorite, told 
     the Washington Post.
       ``This is why we come to Congress . . . It's shameful if 
     anyone here in Congress decides that they would rather leave 
     it up to the president by himself to determine if we should 
     actually be doing something in that region of the world.'' 
     Labrador said.
       Principled Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen and Labrador are 
     in the minority within their party.
       Their ranks may be growing, but they are still a minority.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk a little bit about the 
immigration bill. As I said before, the President didn't create this 
problem. Quite frankly, the House Republican

[[Page 16670]]

leadership created this problem. We had the Senate that acted in a good 
faith bipartisan manner and passed a comprehensive immigration reform 
bill. That was a year and a half ago.
  In a year and a half, this House of Representatives has done nothing 
except come to the floor and demagogue the immigration issue. The 
debate on the other side of the aisle, quite frankly, has gotten so 
ugly that it is, I think, beneath the level of dignity of this House of 
Representatives.
  We should expect better in terms of the debate on the issue of 
immigration. I enter into the Record the November 20 editorial from The 
New York Times, which concludes by saying:

       The right will falsely label Mr. Obama's actions lawless. 
     They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common 
     sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status 
     quo.

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 20, 2014]

                    At Long Last, Immigration Action

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       President Obama says he will speak to the nation on 
     Thursday night about making major changes to immigration 
     policy, including shielding several million unauthorized 
     immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under 
     executive authority, because he has given up waiting for 
     Congress to act.
       The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action 
     on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create 
     an immigration system that rescues workers and families from 
     unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The 
     best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by 
     Congress's failures--temporary permission to live and work 
     without fear.
       But respite for as many as four million to five million 
     people, according to some estimates, should be cause for 
     relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and 
     his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive 
     branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people 
     living here without authorization. It should focus on 
     expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money 
     and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who 
     contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep 
     and permanent.
       Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. 
     Obama's plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal 
     permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people 
     called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. 
     Other, smaller groups may qualify as well.
       Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as 
     possible--up to the eight million or so who might have 
     qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the 
     Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his 
     actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include 
     parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens 
     of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this 
     exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings--the 
     plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under 
     the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy 
     groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and 
     too small.
       The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with 
     Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical 
     usurpation of congressional authority by ``Emperor'' Obama. 
     They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put 
     the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious 
     criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be 
     the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they 
     ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive 
     authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 
     400,000 a year.
       It has been the immigration system's retreat from sanity, 
     of course, that made Mr. Obama's new plan necessary. Years 
     were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama 
     clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a 
     legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy--over the 
     years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates 
     that he could not change the system on his own. This may have 
     suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true.
       It's good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He 
     plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school 
     where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. 
     Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when 
     the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are.
       This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of 
     support from those who accept the need for progress on 
     immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant 
     advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have 
     pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of 
     their cause--and to do something about it. The only proper 
     motion now is forward.
       The right will falsely label Mr. Obama's actions lawless. 
     They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common 
     sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status 
     quo.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also enter into the Record a November 25 letter from 
130 legal scholars on why President Obama's action is lawful and has 
historical precedent.
                                                 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.\1\ 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.\2\ Prosecutorial discretion is a 
     long-accepted legal practice in practically every law 
     enforcement context,\3\ 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 removal,\4\ parole,\5\ or deferred action.\6\
       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.\7\ However, the benefits of 
     the deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not 
     unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an 
     independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United 
     States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility 
     to apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As the 
     President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the 
     qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship.


         Statutory authority and long-standing agency practice

       Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, Sec. 103(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the 
     ``Act''), clearly empowers the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) to make choices about immigration enforcement. 
     That section provides: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of 
     this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and 
     naturalization of aliens . . . .''\8\ 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.\9\ 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.\10\ 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.\11\ Agency memoranda 
     further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in 
     immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Sam Bernsen 
     stated in

[[Page 16671]]

     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.''\12\ 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.\13\ 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.\14\


 Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in 
                           immigration cases

       Federal courts have also explicitly recognized 
     prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in 
     particular.\15\ 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 . . . .''\16\ In its 1999 decision in 
     Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the 
     Supreme Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. 
     This affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with 
     congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement, 
     which are at an annual level that would allow for the arrest, 
     detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the 
     noncitizens in the United States who lack lawful immigration 
     status.\17\
       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.\18\ 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.\19\ 
     Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though 
     Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA.\20\ 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,\21\ and ``Deferred Enforcement 
     Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007.\22\ Several 
     decades earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of 
     prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary 
     Departure'' in 1981 to thousands of Polish nationals.\23\ 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.\24\ 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.''\25\ 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.\26\ 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.\27\


                               conclusion

       Our conclusion is that the expansion of the DACA program 
     and the establishment of Deferred Action for Parental 
     Accountability are legal exercises of prosecutorial 
     discretion. Both executive actions are well within the legal 
     authority of the executive branch of the government of the 
     United States.

       Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law, 
     University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law*; Shoba 
     Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical 
     Professor of Law, Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson 
     School of Law*; Stephen H. Legomsky, The John S. Lehmann 
     University Professor, Washington University School of Law*.
       David Abraham, Professor of Law, University of Miami School 
     of Law*; Raquel Aldana, Associate Dean for Faculty 
     Scholarship, Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, 
     McGeorge School of Law; Farrin R. Anello, Visiting Assistant 
     Clinical Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law; 
     Deborah Anker, Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Harvard 
     Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Harvard Law School.
       Sabrineh Ardalan, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, 
     Assistant Director, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical 
     Program; David C. Baluarte, Assistant Clinical Professor of 
     Law, Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, Washington and Lee 
     University School of Law; Melynda Barnhart, Professor of Law, 
     New York Law School; Jon Bauer, Clinical Professor of Law and 
     Richard D. Tulisano '69 Scholar in Human Rights, Director, 
     Asylum and Human Rights Clinic, University of Connecticut 
     School of Law.
       Lenni B. Benson, Professor of Law, Director, Safe Passage 
     Project, New York Law School; Jacqueline Bhabha, Professor of 
     the Practice of Health and Human Rights, Harvard School of 
     Public Health, Lecturer in Law, Harvard Law School; Linda 
     Bosniak, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University School 
     of Law-Camden; Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law & 
     Associate Dean for Global Programs, U.C. Hastings College of 
     the Law; Jason A. Cade, Assistant Professor of Law, 
     University of Georgia Law School; Janet Calvo, Professor of 
     Law, CUNY School of Law, New York.
       Kristina M. Campbell, Associate Professor of Law, Director, 
     Immigration and Human Rights Clinic, University of the 
     District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law;
       Stacy Caplow, Professor of Law and Associate Dean of 
     Professional Legal Education, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin 
     Casper, Visiting Associate Clinical Professor, University of 
     Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, Visiting Associate 
     Professor of Clinical Law, University of Minnesota; Howard F. 
     Chang, Earle Hepburn Professor of Law, University of 
     Pennsylvania Law School; Michael J. Churgin, Raybourne 
     Thompson Centennial Professor in Law, University of Texas at 
     Austin.
       Marisa Cianciarulo, Professor of Law, Director, Bette & 
     Wylie Aitken Family Violence Clinic, Chapman University Dale 
     E. Fowler School of Law; Evelyn Cruz, Clinical Professor of 
     Law, Director, Immigration Law & Policy Clinic, Arizona State 
     University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Ingrid Eagly, 
     Assistant Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Philip 
     Eichorn, Adjunct Professor--Immigration Law, Cleveland 
     State--Cleveland Marshall School of Law; Bram T. Elias, 
     Clinical Visiting Associate Professor,

[[Page 16672]]

     University of Iowa College of Law; Stella Burch Elias, 
     Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of 
     Law.
       Jill E. Family, Professor of Law, Director, Law & 
     Government Institute, Widener University School of Law; Niels 
     Frenzen, Clinical Professor of Law, Gould School of Law, 
     University of Southern California; Maryellen Fullerton, 
     Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Cesar Cuauhtemoc 
     Garcia Hernandez, Visiting Professor, University of Denver 
     Sturm College of Law; Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. 
     Thomas University School of Law; Denise L. Gilman, Clinical 
     Professor, Co-Director, Immigration Clinic, University of 
     Texas School of Law
       John F. Gossart, Jr., Adjunct Professor of Law, University 
     of Baltimore School of Law, University of Maryland School of 
     Law, United States Immigration Judge 1982-2013, retired; P. 
     Gulasekaram, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara 
     University; Anju Gupta, Associate Professor of Law, Director, 
     Immigrant Rights Clinic, Rutgers School of Law--Newark; Susan 
     R. Gzesh, Senior Lecturer & Executive Director, Pozen Family 
     Center for Human Rights, University of Chicago; Jonathan 
     Hafetz, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University; 
     Dina Francesca Haynes, Professor of Law and Director of Human 
     Rights and Immigration Law Project, New England Law, Boston.
       Susan Hazeldean, Associate Clinical Professor, Cornell Law 
     School; Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Professor of Law, Fowler 
     School of Law, Chapman University; Laura A. Hernandez, 
     Professor, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, Professor of 
     Law, John Marshall Law School; Barbara Hines, Clinical 
     Professor of Law, Co-Director, Immigration Clinic, University 
     of Texas School of Law; Laila L. Hlass, Clinical Associate 
     Professor, Boston University School of Law; Geoffrey Hoffman, 
     Clinical Assoc. Professor, Director, Immigration Clinic, 
     University of Houston Law Center.
       Mary Holper, Associate Clinical Professor, Boston College 
     Law School; Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor and Sidney 
     Reitman Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law--Newark; 
     Kate Jastram, Lecturer in Residence, Executive Director, The 
     Honorable G. William & Ariadna Miller Institute for Global 
     Challenges and the Law, University of California, Berkeley, 
     School of Law; Kit Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, 
     University of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Associate 
     Professor of Law, Drexel University Kline School of Law; 
     Daniel Kanstroom, Professor of Law, Dean's Research Scholar, 
     and Director, International Human Rights Program, Boston 
     College Law School.
       Elizabeth Keyes, Assistant Professor, University of 
     Baltimore School of Law; Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, 
     Loyola Law School Los Angeles; David C. Koelsch; Associate 
     Professor, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Detroit 
     Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Lee Koh, Associate Professor of 
     Law and Director, Immigration Clinic, Western State College 
     of Law; Kevin Lapp, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law 
     School, Los Angeles; Christopher Lasch, Associate Professor 
     of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
       Jennifer J. Lee, Clinical Assistant Professor, Legal 
     Director, Sheller Center for Social Justice, Temple 
     University Beasley School of Law; Stephen Lee, Professor of 
     Law, University of California, Irvine; Christine Lin, 
     Clinical Instructor/Staff Attorney, Center for Gender & 
     Refugee Studies, Refugee & Human Rights Clinic, University of 
     California, Hastings College of the Law; Beth Lyon, Professor 
     of Law, Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic, Co-Director, 
     Community Interpreter Internship Program, Acting Director of 
     Clinical Programs, Villanova University School of Law; 
     Stephen Manning, Adjunct Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark 
     College.
       Lynn Marcus, Professor of the Practice, Co-Director, 
     Immigration Law Clinic, University of Arizona James E. Rogers 
     College of Law; Miriam H. Marton, Director, Tulsa Immigrant 
     Resource Network, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of 
     Law, University of Tulsa College of Law; Elizabeth McCormick, 
     Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigrant 
     Rights Project, Director, Clinical Education Programs, 
     University of Tulsa College of Law; M. Isabel Medina, Ferris 
     Family Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New 
     Orleans College of Law; Stephen Meili, Vaughan G. Papke 
     Clinical Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law 
     School; Vanessa Merton, Professor of Law, Pace University 
     School of Law.
       Andrew Moore, Associate Professor of Law, University of 
     Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of 
     Law, Weihofen Professorship, University of New Mexico School 
     of Law; Daniel I. Morales, Assistant Professor of Law, DePaul 
     University College of Law; Nancy Morawetz, Professor of 
     Clinical Law, Co-Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, NYU 
     School of Law; Karen Musalo, Bank of America Foundation Chair 
     in International Law, Professor & Director, Center for Gender 
     & Refugee Studies, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; 
     Alizabeth Newman, Clinic Law Professor, Immigrant & 
     NonCitizens Rights Clinic, CUNY School of Law.
       Noah Novogrodsky, Professor of Law, University of Wyoming 
     College of Law; Fernando A. Nunez, Visiting Assistant 
     Professor of Law, Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares, 
     Associate Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; 
     Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in 
     Law and Director, Institute for Higher Education Law and 
     Governance, University of Houston Law Center; Patrick D. 
     O'Neill, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law, 
     University of Puerto Rico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, 
     Practice Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law 
     School.
       Sunita Patel, Practitioner-in-Residence, Civil Advocacy 
     Clinic, American University, Washington College of Law; Huyen 
     Pham, Associate Dean for Faculty Research & Development, 
     Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law; Michele 
     R. Pistone, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of 
     Law, Luis F.B. Plascencia, Assistant Professor, School of 
     Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University; 
     Polly J. Price, Professor of Law, Emory University School of 
     Law; Doris Marie Provine, Professor Emerita, Justice & Social 
     Inquiry, School of Social Transformation, Arizona State 
     University.
       Nina Rabin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Director, 
     Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers 
     College of Law, University of Arizona; Jaya Ramji-Nogales, 
     Professor of Law, Co-Director, Institute for International 
     Law and Public Policy, Temple University, Beasley School of 
     Law; Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of 
     Connecticut School of Law; Ediberto Roman, Professor of Law & 
     Director of Citizenship and Immigration Initiatives, Florida 
     International University; Victor C. Romero, Maureen B. 
     Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law, 
     Penn State Law; Joseph H. Rosen, Adjunct Professor, Atlanta's 
     John Marshall Law School; Carrie Rosenbaum, Professor of 
     Immigration Law, Golden Gate University School of Law.
       Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Associate Professor, Northeastern 
     University School of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, Professor of 
     Sociology, Criminology, Law and Society, University of 
     California, Irvine; Ted Ruthizer, Lecturer in Law, Columbia 
     Law School; Leticia M. Saucedo, Professor of Law and Director 
     of Clinical Legal Education, UC Davis School of Law; Heather 
     Scavone, Assistant Professor of Law, Director of the 
     Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic, Elon University School 
     of Law; Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Professor from Practice, 
     Georgetown Law.
       Philip Schrag, Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest 
     Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Bijal Shah, Acting 
     Assistant Professor, NYU School of Law; Ragini Shah, Clinical 
     Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Careen 
     Shannon, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Immigration 
     Law Field Clinic, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo 
     School of Law; Anna Williams Shavers, Cline Williams 
     Professor of Citizenship Law, University of Nebraska College 
     of Law; Bryn Siegel, Professor, Immigration Law, Pacific 
     Coast University School of Law; Anita Sinha, Practitioner-in-
     Residence, American University, Washington College of Law.
       Dan R. Smulian, Associate Professor of Clinical Law, Co-
     Director, Safe Harbor Project, Brooklyn Law School; Gemma 
     Solimene, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Fordham 
     University School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah, Professor of 
     Law and Director, Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Stanford Law 
     School; Juliet Stumpf, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law 
     School; Maureen A. Sweeney, Law School Associate Professor, 
     University of Maryland Carey School of Law; Barbara Szweda, 
     Associate Professor, Lincoln Memorial University Duncan 
     School of Law.
       Margaret H. Taylor, Professor of Law, Wake Forest 
     University School of Law; David Thronson, Associate Dean for 
     Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Michigan State 
     University College of Law; Allison Brownell Tirres, Associate 
     Professor & Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, DePaul 
     University College of Law; Scott Titshaw, Associate 
     Professor, Mercer University School of Law; Phil Torrey, 
     Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, Clinical Instructor, 
     Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law 
     School; Enid Trucios-Haynes, Interim Director, Muhammad Ali 
     Institute for Peace and Justice, Professor of Law, Louis D. 
     Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville;
       Diane Uchimiya, Professor of Law, Director of Experiential 
     Learning, Director of the Justice and Immigration Clinic, 
     University of La Verne College of Law; Gloria Valencia-Weber, 
     Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico School of Law; 
     Sheila I. Velez Martinez, Assistant Clinical Professor of 
     Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Alex Vernon, 
     Acting Director of Asylum and Immigrant Rights Law Clinic, 
     Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law; 
     Rose Cuison Villazor, Professor of Law & Martin Luther King 
     Jr. Hall Research Scholar, University of California at Davis 
     School of Law.
       Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of 
     Law, University of California, Berkeley; Jonathan Weinberg, 
     Professor of Law, Wayne State University;

[[Page 16673]]

     Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor 
     of Law, School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel 
     Hill; Lisa Weissman-Ward, Clinical Supervising Attorney & 
     Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School; Anna R. Welch, 
     Associate Clinical Professor, University of Maine School of 
     Law.
       Virgil O. Wiebe, Professor of Law, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & 
     Ciresi Director of Clinical Education, Co-Director, 
     Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, 
     University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael 
     J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law and 
     Deputy Dean for Experiential Education, Yale Law School; 
     Stephen Yale-Loehr, Adjunct Professor, Cornell University Law 
     School; Elizabeth Lee Young, Associate Professor of Law, 
     University of Arkansas School of Law.


                                Endnotes

       \1\See Letter to the President of the United States, 
     Executive authority to protect individuals or groups from 
     deportation (Sep. 3, 2014), https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/
_file/Law-Professor-Letter.pdf
       \2\See Thomas Aleinikoff, David Martin, Hiroshi Motomura & 
     Maryellen Fullerton, Immigration and Citizenship: Process and 
     Policy 778-88 (7th ed. 2012); Stephen H. Legomsky & Cristina 
     Rodriguez, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy 629-32 (5th 
     ed. 2009); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial 
     Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 243 
     (2010), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
     id=1476341.
       \3\Notably, in criminal law, prosecutorial discretion has 
     existed for hundreds of years. It was a common reference 
     point for the immigration agency in early policy documents 
     describing prosecutorial discretion. See Doris Meissner, 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner, 
     Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion 1 (Nov. 17, 2000) 
     [hereinafter Meissner Memo], http://
www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/
Meissner-2000-memo.pdf; Sam Bernsen, INS General Counsel, 
     Legal Opinion Regarding Service Exercise of Prosecutorial 
     Discretion (July 15, 1976), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/
prosecutorial-discretion/service-exercise-pd.pdf. See also, 
     e.g., Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice (2007); Hiroshi 
     Motomura, Prosecutorial Discretion in Context: How Discretion 
     is Exercised Throughout our Immigration System, American 
     Immigration Council 2-3 (April 2012), http://
www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/motomura_-
_discretion_in_
     context_04112.pdf; Stephen H. Legomsky, Legal Authorities for 
     DACA and Similar Programs (Aug. 24, 2014), http://
www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/11/17/
Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/executive%20action%20legal%
     20points.pdf.
       \4\8 C.F.R. Sec. 241.6.
       \5\INA Sec. 212(d)(5).
       \6\8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(c)(14).
       \7\Under INA Sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), a person will not be 
     deemed unlawfully present during any ``period of stay 
     authorized by the Attorney General'' (now the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security). The Department of Homeland Security has 
     authorized such a period of stay for recipients of deferred 
     action. See Donald Neufeld, Lori Scialabba, & Pearl Chang, 
     U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 
     Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for 
     Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) 
     of the Act (May 6, 2009), http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/
files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/
revision_
     redesign_AFM.PDF; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     Frequently Asked Questions (updated June 5, 2014), http://
www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-
childhood-arrivals-process/frequently-asked-questions.
       \8\INA Sec. 103(a).
       \9\INA Sec. 242(g); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-
     Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999).
       \10\INA Sec. 237(d)(2); 204(a)(1)(D)(i)(II,IV).
       \11\8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(c)(14).
       \12\Bernsen, supra note 3.
       \13\Meissner Memo, supra note 3. Notably, the Meissner 
     memorandum was a key reference point for related memoranda 
     issued during the Bush administration, among them a 2005 
     memorandum from Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal 
     head William Howard and a 2007 memorandum from ICE head Julie 
     Myers on the use of prosecutorial discretion when making 
     decisions about undocumented immigrants who are nursing 
     mothers.
       14John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration & 
     Customs Enforcement, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion 
     Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities 
     of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of 
     Aliens (June 17, 2011), available at http://www.ice.gov/
doclib/secure-commu
     nities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf. [hereinafter 
     Morton Memo].
       15See e.g., Lennon v. Immigration & 
     Naturalization Service, 527 F.2d 187, 191 n.5 (2d Cir. 1975); 
     Soon Bok Yoon v. INS, 538 F.2d 1211, 1213 (5th Cir. 197 6); 
     Vergel v. INS, 536 F.2d 755 (8th Cir. 1976); David v. INS, 
     548 F.2d 219 (8th Cir. 1977); Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802 
     (9th Cir. 1979).
       16See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 
     2499 (2012).
       17525 U.S. 471 (1999). One source suggests that 
     DHS has resources to remove about 400,000 or less than 4% of 
     the total removable population. See Morton memo, supra note 
     14.
       18For example, of the 698 deferred action cases 
     processed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement between 
     October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, the most common 
     humanitarian reasons for a grant were: Presence of a USC 
     dependent; Presence in the United States since childhood; 
     Primary caregiver of an individual who suffers from a serious 
     mental or physical illness; Length of presence in the United 
     States; and Suffering from a serious mental or medical care 
     condition. See Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, My Great FOIA 
     Adventure and Discoveries of Deferred Action Cases at ICE, 27 
     Geo. Immigr. L.J. 345, 356-69 (2013), http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2195758. See 
     also, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Relics of Deferred Action, The 
     Hill (2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-
rights/224744-relics-of-deferred-action.
       19See Marvine Howe, New Policy Aids Families of 
     Aliens, N.Y. Times (March 5, 1990), http://www.nytimes.com/
1990/03/05/nyregion/new-policy-aids-families-of-aliens.html.
       20See 67 Interpreter Releases 204 (Feb. 26, 
     1990); 67 Interpreter Releases 153 (Feb. 5, 1990). Bush's 
     policy followed a narrower 1987 executive order by President 
     Reagan's immigration commissioner that applied only to 
     children. 64 Interpreter Releases 1191 (Oct. 26, 1987). 
     Congress later in 1990 legislatively provided some of them a 
     path to legalization. Immigration and Nationality Act of 
     1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 301, 104 Stat. 4978, http://
www.justice.gov/eoir/IMMACT1990.pdf.
       21See Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Response, In 
     Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Act, 91 Tex. 
     L. Rev. See Also 59, n.46 (2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2195735, citing Press Release, U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Announces Interim 
     Relief for Foreign Students Adversely Impacted by Hurricane 
     Katrina (Nov. 25, 2005), http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/
files/files/pressrelease/F1Student_11_25_05_PR.pdf.
       22DED Granted Country-Liberia, U.S. Citizenship 
     and Immigration, http://www.uscis.
gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-
status-deferred-enforced-departure/ded-
granted-country-liberia/ded-granted-country-liberia (last 
     visited Nov. 22, 2014).
       23Legomsky & Rodriguez, Immigration and Refugee 
     Law and Policy, supra note 2, at 1115-17; See also David 
     Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to 
     America 202 (1986).
       24For a broader discussion about the 
     relationship between class size and constitutionality, see 
     Wadhia, Response, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and 
     the DREAM Act, supra note 20.
       25U.S. Const. art. II, 3.
       26U.S. ICE, FY 2013 ICE Immigration
     Removals, http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/ (last 
     visited Nov. 22, 2014); Marc R. Rosenblum & Doris Meissner, 
     The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane 
     Enforcement, Migration Policy Institute (April 2014), http://
www.migrationpolicy.
org/research/deportation-dilemma-
reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement.
       27For a broader discussion of the administrative 
     law values associated with prosecutorial discretion, see 
     Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration Outside the Law 19-55, 185-92 
     (2014); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Sharing Secrets: Examining 
     Deferred Action and Transparency in Immigration Law, 10 U. N. 
     H. L. Rev. 1 (2012) (also providing a proposal for designing 
     deferred action procedures), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1879443.
       * all institutional affiliations are for identification 
     purposes only

  Mr. McGOVERN. I enter into the Record a November 29 letter to Senate 
and House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Leahy and Goodlatte and the 
ranking members, Grassley and Conyers, from four former INS general 
counsels from the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations on the 
President's authority to take lawful executive action on immigration.

Four Former INS/USCIS General Counsels on President's Authority To Act 
                             on Immigration

                                                     Nov 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. Citzenship and Immigration Services. As you 
     know, the President on November 20 anounced 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 Accountabilty (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.

[[Page 16674]]

       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. Lehman University Professor, Washington 
     University School of Law, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. 
     Citzenship and Immigration Services.
     Roxana Bacon,
       Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citzenship 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.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Garcia).
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I am a very fortunate man. I am the son of 
immigrants. My parents came here at the ages of 17 and 18, 
respectively. Through the great fortune that we had, they were 
adjusted, and they were part of this great Nation, but since then, many 
more have come after.
  In particular, I represent a community that is almost 69 percent 
Hispanic, the majority of which were born in a foreign land. The 
reality is that our immigration system for years has worked and has 
worked efficiently to make what we do better than any other nation in 
the world: we make Americans.
  In the last decade and a half, this system has ground to a halt. In 
the last few years, our President has moved steadily to use his 
executive power to try to make the system work a little bit better. I 
believe that is an important step.
  But we had an opportunity. We had an opportunity in this House to 
pass the Senate version that received 68 votes, something that would 
have made the system function better, brought more investment into 
America, more dollars into Federal revenue; yet the House punted. I am 
appreciative of the President's action because he is well within 
executive power.
  If the other side does not like the President's action, they can 
bring up the Senate bill. There are enough votes in this House to pass 
it. We will have an orderly process. It is not a perfect bill, but it 
does do the right thing, which fixes a broken immigration system.
  I want to beg the other side to understand the implications that 
fighting on this issue has. This is a nation of laws, there is no 
question on that, but the executive has plenary authority in this area. 
The time has come to move, since this House would not move.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of the amendment along with extraneous material that I will offer in 
the Record if we defeat the previous question immediately prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. That basically will be the text of H.R. 15, the Senate-
passed comprehensive immigration reform bill. We could bring this issue 
to a close right now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. NUGENT. If I could inquire, I thought the gentleman was closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion here that the 
gentleman may be offering to amend the rule. I am just trying to get a 
sense for what is going on over there before I yield back all of my 
time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to 
the rule, which is necessary to alleviate the budgetary point of order 
that currently lies against the defense bill. In addition to clearing a 
point of order, we hope it will expedite the consideration in the 
Senate of this critically important bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker that just 
showed up, and so I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his leadership, and the manager.
  Many of us, Mr. Speaker, have come to the floor of the House time and 
time again and supported our troops, supported their families, wanted 
them to have increased dollars in their compensation; but today I come 
with a heavy heart that issues of war and peace are in this bill, the 
authorization bill, and we have not had the time to debate this in 
front of the American people. Sending young men and women in the midst 
of a storm in war where they may lose their life, and yet this majority 
refuses to give us hours of time to show the American people what the 
commitment is, I raise a question.
  And then, of course, a bill that attacks the constitutional authority 
of the President of the United States in an immigration bill that is 
closed in falsehoods because the President is not going beyond the law; 
he is not changing the law. He has the authority to use his executive 
power for humanitarian relief, and he is saving the parents of children 
who are citizens.
  This is a wrong rule, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 8\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by again asking my colleagues 
to vote against this closed rule--triple closed rule. It unfortunately 
has become a pattern in this Congress, the most closed Congress in the 
history of the United States of America.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' as well because we are 
talking about a defense bill, but we are not allowed to have a debate 
or a vote on any of these wars that we are involved in. If we truly 
care about our troops, if we are truly living up to our constitutional 
responsibilities, we ought to have a debate and a vote. We ought not to 
duck it. We ought not to leave town without talking about these serious 
issues.
  On the issue of immigration, rather than this silly, petty, ugly, 
symbolic bill that is being brought to the floor, if my colleagues 
don't approve of the President's executive action, then help me defeat 
the previous question and we will bring up H.R. 15, the comprehensive 
immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in a bipartisan way, and 
we can get that job done and end all this nonsense and end all this 
rancor that we have seen unfold here in the House.
  We could do better than what is on display today. I regret very much 
that the Republican leadership continues to insist on this closed 
process which stifles debate and prevents us from debating and voting 
on important issues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think I have made my frustrations readily clear in regards to how 
we got to the current NDAA. It is troubling to see how the Senate's 
failure to act is going to end up costing our troops. To me, it is just 
not right to the men and women, the 1 percent of America that put their 
lives on the line for this country the Senate has turned a blind eye 
to.
  I am optimistic, though, that with the changing of the guard in 
January, that we are actually going to get things done. We are actually 
going to pass legislation to address the issues that are so confronting 
this Nation

[[Page 16675]]

that deserve to have discussions in both Houses. It is important that 
the Senate act. It is important that the Senate has debate. So I think 
that at the end of the day, in January with the changing of the guard, 
we are going to see a different set of facts as Congress moves forward.
  I am really hopeful that Congress takes the steps, and Mr. McGovern 
talks about it, but we need to talk about the AUMF. We need to talk 
about those guiding principles that set up where we are today, things 
that were passed long before I came to Congress, authorizations that go 
back 12 to 13 years ago.
  The landscape has changed, and we need to absolutely have a strong 
and long, hard debate in regards to how we authorize the use of force 
in the future in specific instances, as the Constitution requires.
  When we talk about the Constitution, we talk about the President just 
ignoring it, the administration sidestepping Congress whenever it sees 
fit, the use of force is one of those areas, I think. And the same with 
what this administration has done in the underlying bills that this 
bill allows us to address in the President's recent executive order. 
The bill reaffirms that Congress--Congress--has the power to write the 
immigration laws. It reaffirms that the President must enforce the laws 
that are currently on the books, not something that he wishes, but what 
is currently law of the land.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's actions have gotten so out of hand that 
we now must pass bills to remind him of what the Constitution sets, and 
that is a shame. We even have to remind the President of what he, 
himself, has said in the past about what is the appropriate role of the 
office of President.
  Speaking in 2011 in a Univision town hall, the President stated:

       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.

  He also said that Congress passes the laws, and it is the executive 
branch's job to enforce and implement those laws, and then it is up to 
the judiciary to interpret those laws if there is a question.
  The President even said that 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, is simple enough. And the President 
said that: through executive order, to ignore those congressional 
mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. I 
didn't say that; he said that. I am not a lawyer; he is a lawyer, a 
constitutional lawyer.
  What he hasn't said to us, the American people, is in those 22 
utterances where he said those things, why hasn't he justified to the 
American people that maybe he was wrong when he said that, he didn't 
get it right, he didn't understand. He never said anything like that. 
What he has done is come back and to say: Do you know what--and he said 
it before that--I have a pen and a phone. And he can do what he 
pleases.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate time when we have to call the 
President out for not following the Constitution. This is not something 
that I look forward to. It is not something that I want to do. But it 
is so important, as I have said before, that we respect the article I 
power that this body has in the Constitution, that our Founding Fathers 
thought it was so important that there be a separation of powers so 
that there was no monarchy, so there was no one person that can call 
all the shots. They sought it because they needed to because of what 
the impression is that they left that they were under.
  We are merely standing up for our rights as citizens of the United 
States, as I believe we should be enforcing the constitutional 
requirements, that founding document. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't 
think so. I have been wrong in the past, but on this particular issue, 
the Constitution is the document that we should live by. The 
Constitution sets forth the operation of this government, not by whim 
and not by decree, but by law. We are a nation of laws.
  You have heard me talk about the NDAA, and I will say this to Mr. 
McGovern as it relates to authorization of military force. I agree 
wholeheartedly that we need to have a separate debate. We need to have 
it when we have a partner across the other side of the Capitol that 
will join in that debate about what we should be doing with the use of 
force and what we do as it relates to our men and women that serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the checks and balances our Founders so thoughtfully crafted.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 14, insert before the period ``and the 
     amendment specified in section 5 of this resolution''.
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows: Strike section 3096 and insert 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 3096. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.

       ``For payments in lieu of taxes under chapter 69 of title 
     31, United States Code, which shall be available without 
     further appropriation to the Secretary of the Interior--
       ``(1) $33,000,000 for fiscal year 2015; and
       ``(2) $37,000,000 to be available for obligation and 
     payment beginning on October 1, 2015.

     Funds available for obligation and payment under paragraph 
     (2) shall be paid in October 2015.''.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An Amendment to H. Res. 770 Offered By Mr. McGovern From Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5.  Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 15 as specified in section 5 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a

[[Page 16676]]

     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or 
     policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they 
     have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual 
     on the Legislative Process in the United States House of 
     Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the 
     Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own 
     manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the 
     rule because the majority Member controlling the time will 
     not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Report 113-646, the report to 
accompany H. Res. 770, the special rule that governed consideration of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979, as well as H.R. 5759 and H.R. 5781, 
contained an error in the description of the motion that was the 
subject of Rules Committee record vote No. 198.
  The description of the motion should have read as follows:
  Motion by Ms. Slaughter to amend the rule for the Senate Amendment to 
H.R. 3979 to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for 
amendment #5 to Rules Committee Print 113-58, offered by Rep. Coffman 
(CO), which prohibits U.S. funds from being used to pay the salaries of 
the Iraqi security forces or to provide weapons or equipment to the 
Iraqi security forces. Defeated: 3-7.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adopting the amendment, if ordered, adopting the resolution, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 758.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 191, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 546]

                               YEAS--227

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

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Aderholt
     Bishop (UT)
     Capuano
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Gallego
     Hall
     Johnson (GA)
     McAllister
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Negrete McLeod
     Rush
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1052

  Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. HOYER, Ms. KUSTER, and Mr. WALZ 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STEWART changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 16677]]




                             Recorded Vote.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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

                              {time}  1101

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________