[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 17137-17138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 H.R. 5759, THE ``PREVENTING EXECUTIVE OVERREACH ON IMMIGRATION ACT,'' 
   AND H.R. 3979, THE ``NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015''

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 4, 2014

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:


    H.R. 5759, the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act

  Today I voted against H.R. 5759, the ``Preventing Executive Overreach 
on Immigration Act.'' This year, House Republicans have stonewalled on 
immigration reform and refused to work with Democrats. Instead of 
allowing a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed 
the Senate nearly a year and a half ago, the House voted on a 
resolution that is as unproductive as it is insulting to those harmed 
by our broken immigration system. Today's actions are another example 
of

[[Page 17138]]

the loudest voices on Capitol Hill turning their backs on our 
businesses, our faith leaders, law enforcement, and hard-working 
immigrant families.
  The President's bold action is the right path forward, bringing 
millions out of the shadows, strengthening families, and growing our 
economy. The executive order is no substitute for comprehensive 
immigration reform, but, until then, this is a critical step in the 
right direction.
  The President's action is not without precedent. Over the years, 
there have been dozens of executive actions taken on immigration 
matters, including from five Republican presidents. We cannot afford to 
lose billions in economic growth, totaling $1 trillion over the next 20 
years, that economists estimate the federal budget will lose as a 
result of our failed immigration policies.
  We must build on the President's action--and the advocacy that 
inspired it--to enact comprehensive immigration reform. There is no 
other solution.


       H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015

  Today I voted against H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2015. This is a critical time for the U.S. military, yet at the 
exact moment Congress should be having an in-depth debate over these 
difficult issues, we will be voting on a bill that's nearly 2,000 pages 
long and asked to take it or leave it, without amendment.
  Support for this bill sidesteps critical issues. Those include 
dealing with a far-reaching interpretation of the 2001 Authorization 
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) currently used to justify U.S. air 
strikes in Syria; the recent doubling of U.S. troops in Iraq and their 
role; and, the recent authorization of an expanded role for U.S. troops 
in Afghanistan next year, instead of ending that war this year, as 
planned.
  This Defense Authorization would also extend for a period of nearly 
two years the President's authority to train and equip highly vetted 
Syrian opposition fighters focused on combating ISIS and Syria's 
dictator, Bashar al-Assad. While not an authorization for U.S. boots on 
the ground in Syria, it does commit us to a long-term engagement in 
Syria. Congress should have taken this opportunity to debate the 
implications. But we did not.
  There are some bright spots in this bill that I worked very hard to 
secure and am pleased to see them included. One is a critical two-year 
extension and expansion of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) 
program. Without action in the NDAA, the U.S. would have left our 
Afghan allies in the lurch, without any path to safety in the U.S., as 
promised to them in exchange for their service to protect our men and 
women in uniform.
  Also included is an amendment I offered to the NDAA in March that 
will require the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to issue a 
report, on a regular basis, that forecasts the long-term estimated cost 
of the United States' nuclear weapons arsenal. The initial report that 
my amendment codified found that the Pentagon underestimated projected 
costs by $150 billion. The United States is scheduled to spend at least 
one-half to two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years on 
our nuclear forces and related programs. This spending, adjusting for 
inflation, is higher than at the height of the Cold War. Transparency 
and nonpartisan oversight strengthens our democracy and promotes 
greater efficiency and effectiveness in government, especially in 
monitoring government spending.
  It is unfortunate that this Defense Authorization is another missed 
opportunity to have the debate the American public deserves, and to set 
our military on a sustainable path.

                          ____________________