Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act

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. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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).

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. 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.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

May I inquire how many additional speakers the gentleman has?

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.

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

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 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.

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 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.

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, 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; 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.

14 John 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-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion- memo.pdf. [hereinafter Morton Memo].

15 See 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).

16 See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct.

2492, 2499 (2012).

17 525 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.

18 For 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.

19 See 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.

20 See 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.

21 See 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.

22 DED 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).

23 Legomsky & 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).

24 For 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.

25 U.S. Const. art. II, 3.

26 U.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.

27 For 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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

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.

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.

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. Speaker, we have one additional speaker that just showed up, and so I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to oppose H.R. 687. At a time when the majority in this Congress has brought our Nation to the brink of potential shutdown, a looming hardship and economic crisis with regard to the debt ceiling, no progress on the jobs plan, no progress on immigration reform, here we are today, debating a sweetheart piece of legislation that hurts taxpayers and comforts, yes, foreign multinational mining corporations. One has to wonder about what the priorities for this Congress really are.

We have seen at least five different versions of this legislation over the past 10 years. Originally filed in the 109th Congress as H.R. 2681, sponsored by our former colleague from Arizona, Congressman Renzi, that version begat H.R. 3301 in the 110th Congress by our colleague, Congressman Pastor. That begat H.R. 2509 in the 111th Congress by Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. And then that begat the version in the 112th Congress, H.R. 1904, by my friend from Arizona, Congressman Gosar, which begat this present version, H.R. 687 in the 113th, again sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Gosar.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, we all might need to spend some time getting our heads examined.

H.R. 687 facilitates a land exchange so that a subsidiary of two foreign-owned mining companies can build a massive block cave copper mine on Federal land set aside by President Eisenhower for recreation in 1955. The town of Superior has been torn apart by this legislation. The city attorney issued a legal opinion that section 9 of this bill, which was stripped during the markup process, was not something legally the town could approve. The opinion raised grave concerns about the financial obligations the town would be under if they accepted the arrangement with Resolution Copper as written.

The town was willing to negotiate with Resolution Copper, but the company demanded support for the legislation as a precondition to any further talks. They also stated rather flatly that there would be no additional money coming to Superior from Resolution Copper from these negotiations.

Resolution Copper continues to oppose any requirement of filing a mining plan of operation before this legislation is passed. It's been 10 years since this project was proposed--and we still have no mining plan. This community

has been driven by boom-and-bust promises of mining companies for decades. Retired miners have become accustomed to losing the pensions that they earned in contract negotiations from mining corporations, especially when dealing with foreign entities.

This is not an economic miracle waiting to happen. Even if the town were to reverse its position, the legal and political issues that have already been raised cannot be ignored. The town, climbing and environmental organizations and Native American nations will be severely impacted by this trade, particularly when the mine is built. Resolution Copper, after 10 years of pushing and pushing, has yet to acknowledge those impacts.

There are just too many unanswered questions and shortcuts. Opposition to this bill from the community that it will impact the most is a clear indication that the process needs to start over, but Superior's withdrawal of support is just one of many red flags.

All Native American nations in Arizona overwhelmingly oppose the bill. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the National Congress of American Indians have both passed resolutions in opposition. Their strong opposition stems from the outright violation of the consultation protocol that mandates advanced, informed, and appropriate government- to-government consultation with Indian tribes, nations, and communities.

H.R. 687 trades away Federal lands that contain significant cultural resources without complying with NEPA. This means that there will be no environmental review or formal consultation with affiliated tribal governments before the land becomes private property.

The sponsor's insistence to postpone environmental review until after the land exchange is one of the main reasons local support for this bill has eroded. Once the land is exchanged, as mandated by the bill, there is no guarantee a full EIS under NEPA will occur. That means no independent hydrology study to assess the impacts to local water resources. That means no mining plan of operation and independent jobs and economics report. That means no objective appraisal of the lands to be exchanged. We're stuck relying on the company's numbers to guesstimate the value added for the American taxpayer. That doesn't seem like a good deal to me, no matter what way you look at it.

I was astounded that the majority decided to shield the company from testifying at the hearing held on this bill. We all would have benefited greatly from the ability to hear from Resolution Copper on the record about their support for the bill, the validity of their economic study, the lack of a mining plan of operations, the lack of an independent hydrology study associated with a real mining plan of operations, and the negligent disregard for NEPA standards and Native American tribal consultation processes.

How is the House expected to make an informed decision on this deeply controversial bill when the committee of jurisdiction didn't even bother to question the owners and proponents, Resolution Copper? This doesn't make sense to me and to a great deal of people.

All we know about the proposed mine is purely speculative and comes from data and reports produced by Resolution Copper, itself. And the common refrain from supporters to trust without validation--don't worry, it will all work out--those are not the due diligence requirements that this Congress has on a major land exchange as we are facing today.

The number of jobs they claim the project will create is a moving target. The number is always changing. At one point, the company claimed the mine would create 5,000 jobs. The last estimate on their Web site project the mine will support 1,400 direct jobs through the life of the mine.

Again, these numbers come from a study conducted by Resolution Copper and are not supported by a mining plan of operation. Until we have a plan, there is really no way to know. The numbers tossed around by the majority come from a study that assume the mine would produce the same amount of copper and support the same amount of jobs year after year for its entire 50-year life span. We know this won't be the case. Mining operations react to market demand.

One number not tossed around by the proponents of H.R. 687 is royalties for the extraction of this very valuable mineral on Federal land, royalties to deal with remediation, to deal with any mitigation likely to occur after the fact, and to deal with some level of return to the American taxpayer.

The boom and bust cycles of mining's history can't be washed away with a public relations document masquerading as an economic study that assumes the very best and brushes aside any reality.

Construction of this mine will benefit two large foreign corporations. It will not diversify the local economy or even guarantee any real jobs for the local people in the area. It will, on the other hand, diminish the recreation value of the area, jeopardize the availability of water, and threaten a sacred site, all for cents on the dollar.

H.R. 687 is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, expedited land exchange. A wolf in sheep's clothing, regardless, is still a wolf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I think the great Senator Moynihan once said that ``people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.''

Allowing the immediate exploration on and under Oak Flat prior to NEPA review contemplated in section 4(j) of the act will constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources. That is part of what has already been the legislation.

What's also in the legislation is section 4(c) of H.R. 687 that requires consultation only after enactment of the act, making any consultation with Native communities a mere formality.

Secretary Vilsack said it in prior written comments:

It is important that this bill engage in a process of

formal tribal consultation to ensure both tribal

participation and the protection of the sacred sites.

This is his principal concern with regard to H.R. 687, and that's why it did not receive the support of the Department.

I mention those things because they're part of the legislation. This legislation was written for the convenience of the company and to facilitate a trade that at the end of the day doesn't offer not only any benefit but circumvents any protections we have to deal with intended and unintended consequences.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Utah, it should be noted that 1/14th of 1 percent is the impact copper has on the Arizona economy. It used to be 4 percent about 10 or 15 years ago.

Conversely, $421 million annually is spent in Pinal County and the surrounding area around Oak Flat and Apache Leap in terms of ecotourism and visitorship revenue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me, if I may, talk a little bit about the proponent's claim that H.R. 687 will boost the U.S. economy.

The copper will likely benefit China more than the United States. Nine percent of the parent company of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, is owned by the state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China. Rio Tinto has a long-established partnership to supply copper to China--they repeatedly stated--and at a hearing refused to say what percentage of the copper generated from Federal lands would be retained and processed in the United States.

They will continue to market and supply their mine copper and other ores to meet the greatest needs. At this point, Rio Tinto's own international copper study group forecast a 377-ton global shortage this year alone, driven not by U.S. demand but by that of China. The bill does not even require that the ore extracted from this mine be processed in the United States, much less marketed or sold here.

Our time and our focus should be on supporting U.S. industries maintaining jobs. We should not trade away billions and billions of dollars and tonnage of copper to supply China's ever-growing need.

I also would like to point out another issue that my friend, Congressman Kildee, pointed out. At one point, we continued a very important inquiry that has not been finalized or formalized, and that is the parent company is in violation of the resolution by this Congress and by previous Congresses on sanctions against Iran because of their development of potential weapons, nuclear weapons. Any company doing business with Iran was not to be able to do business with the United States.

Rio Tinto co-manages in partnership a mine--a uranium mine of all things--in Namibia in Africa. I think that merits we look into it before we are in violation of our own resolution and, more importantly, that we are not violating a resolution that we passed. It is an issue of asking Commerce and Treasury, who are responsible for that sanction enforcement, to do so. I think it would satisfy many of us to know the results of that, and it would satisfy the American people to know that their resource, a shared taxpayer resource, copper on Federal land, is not in violation of a sanctions resolution by this Congress against Iran.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, I don't have any further speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me summarize three important points from this debate.

H.R. 687 reflects all five of the previous variations of this legislation. You are doing a post-NEPA with no enforcement. You are turning the regulatory process and the oversight process to the State of Arizona, which has weak mining laws and which is also not in a position to meet the requirements that have to be part of this prior to any land exchange: that would be hydrology; that would be sacred-site consultation; that would be a NEPA review as to water issues that could occur and subsurface damage. To the area around Apache Leap and Oak Flat, those become important issues.

The sanctions issue is important to resolve against Iran--that we are not in violation by creating a partnership in an exchange with a foreign corporation that is doing business with Iran.

I think the most important issue is the taxpayer issue. We here in this Congress--certainly many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle as well--talk so much about the taxpayer; talk so much about budget cuts and how to relieve the taxpayer; talk so much about deficits and how we need to reduce those deficits to the benefit of the taxpayer. We have no jobs bill, but we talk about helping the taxpayer.

Then here we have before us our trading away of Federal land in an exchange, not knowing what the real value is, because that's proprietary, not knowing what the real production is going to be by the company because that's proprietary, not requiring the same regulatory NEPA process required of any other land exchange because this is a special deal.

At the end of the day, as to exported copper that is processed outside the United States--one, no gain to the taxpayer; no royalty requirement--lost to the taxpayer; no real understanding of the full value of what's underneath that ground and what protections and mitigations would have to be put in place in order to make sure that those areas are taken care of--not a problem; violation of the government-to-government consultation on sacred sites and cultural sites--we ignore that, too.

I think this is a rush to judgment, and it has been 10 years of a rush to judgment. If the company 10 years ago would have agreed to do a post-NEPA, we would have had all the information this Congress needed in order to make an informed, due diligence decision. If 10 years ago they would have sat down with the tribes and honestly and forthrightly and equally done a government-to-government consultation, we could have been on our way. If 10 years ago they would have made the guarantees about a fair return to the taxpayer--how much ore is going to be domestically marketed and remain in the United States and how much is going to be processed--we could have been on our way. That was 10 years ago.

This is the same piece of legislation, the same insistence on the company. I think it is a bad deal for the taxpayers, and it is a bad deal for the State of Arizona. We would be the poster child for one of the worst expedited, sweetheart deals at the expense of the American taxpayer and at the expense of the people of Arizona, of the tribes of Arizona, and of the revenue that that County of Pinal enjoys.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, with this, I will close.

At some point, we as Members of this august body have to really define what ``bipartisanship'' is. The last time that this bill was before us and passed the House, seven Members from this side of the aisle--Democrats--voted for it, and eight Members on the other side of the aisle voted against it.

I mention that because this bill is about precedence. It is about the kind of precedence that we are going to set as Members of this body-- ignoring our due diligence, ignoring the fact that we have before us a piece of legislation that has failed to get out of the Senate and, more importantly, that on two occasions the administration has strongly indicated it does not support it. So we will go on with this exercise of futility at the expense of real business that this Congress should be doing for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, repeatedly we have heard this bill is about jobs. We've heard it a lot, and we continue to hear it. We have to pass this bill, so goes the refrain, because it's about jobs in a part of Arizona that really needs jobs.

I understand how important it is to help rural parts of the State. I understand how important it is to help rural

communities across the country. I talk about this all the time--trying to work to advance a policy agenda that translates into real, meaningful opportunities for all Americans and for those sectors of our State, as was previously pointed out by my colleague, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, in which unemployment is very, very severe. That's why I think it's important to make sure this bill translates into real and meaningful jobs for the communities that will bear the biggest burden of the proposed mine.

My amendment would require that the Remote Operations Center for the mine be located in the town of Superior, Arizona, or adjacent to another mining community within the Copper Triangle. Modern blockade mines use a range of automation technology, and most of the human labor is done off site at the Remote Operations Center. Like other mines operated by Rio Tinto, which is Resolution Copper's parent company, the Remote Operations Center will likely be in a metro area. Rio Tinto is presently operating its Pilbara, Australia, mine from 800 miles away in a large metro center. Our amendment will ensure that this is not the case in Superior.

If this legislation is really about jobs and lifting up the local economy, it is important to guarantee that local residents will have access to the jobs that were promised and the jobs that were created. My amendment guarantees that the jobs this mine does create will benefit the local community. This amendment, at the very minimum, will realize some real jobs if this legislation is to ever be implemented.

When one reads and hears Rio Tinto brag about automation and technology and the progress in mining, where less labor is needed, and when one listens to the wild variations about jobs from 3,700 to 5,000 to 1,200 to 1,400--and the recent one from the company's own Web site is 1,400--one asks: What is the real number?

Since no mining plan of operation has been submitted, it's impossible to analyze or estimate. So how do we know?

There is nothing in H.R. 687 that guarantees jobs for Superior, Arizona, or any other nearby mining community. With my amendment, we can at least make sure the remote operating center isn't in Utah, where Resolution Copper is headquartered, or some other far-flung place. As part of this legislation, my amendment would require that that center be located in Superior and that the opportunities promised and the jobs created would go into that area.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Interestingly enough, H.R. 687 does mandate that the Federal Government decide when and how NEPA is applied, that the Federal Government mandate what the valuation of the exchange is--independent of a process driven by the company--and it mandates that we deal with water issues after the fact, who gets water protection and who doesn't. Whether it is 10 jobs or 1,000 jobs, all my bill does is hold the company's feet to the fire. You have talked about jobs; you have talked about providing them, saving that community, and rebounding the Arizona economy. Here's an opportunity by guaranteeing that that claim will indeed be a reality if this bill is implemented. I think my amendment actually improves it because it takes some of the rhetoric of promoting the mine and makes it language and legislation that makes the company back it up.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 687.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. As our Nation continues to suffer from high unemployment, a rising national debt, and annual deficits, Congress's top priority should be advancing solutions that put Americans back to work and help to strengthen and grow the economy. The bill before us does just that.

Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, sponsored by our colleague and Natural Resources Committee member, Mr. Gosar from Arizona, is a bipartisan measure that will create thousands of new American jobs and boost our economy through increased U.S. mineral production.

The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution Copper and the Federal Government that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires that the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer-- Copper Resolution, in this case--ensuring that there will be fair treatment for taxpayers.

This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States and the State of Arizona in the form of job creation, economic growth, and for increased national security for the United States. The mining project is estimated to support 3,700 new jobs. These are good-paying, family-wage American jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages.

At a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-needed boost through private investment. This mining activity will have over a $60 billion economic impact and will generate an estimated $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue through the life of the project. This bill is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harnessing our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track.

The importance of increased U.S. copper production cannot be overstated. Our Nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources--placing our economic competitiveness and national security at risk. The U.S. currently imports 30 percent of the copper we need, and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources here at home.

The copper produced from this single project is estimated to meet 25 percent of the United States' entire copper demand. This copper could be used for a variety of items, ranging from medical devices, plumbing, computers, and even, Mr. Chairman, hybrid cars. It's also essential for our national defense equipment and technology, including satellites, space and aviation, and weapons guidance and communications systems.

The benefits and reasons to pass this bill are plentiful. However, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those who are opposed to mining in the United States. I would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning.

First, this bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process procedures issued by the Department of Justice, which has been in use for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for both the land and the minerals located within the land. If, by chance, there is copper production beyond the appraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay the United States the difference. This, Mr. Chairman, would be assessed annually. This is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for these copper resources.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests at home, as some have charged. Opposing this mine and not producing copper in the U.S. is what truly benefits foreign nations, by sending American jobs overseas and making us increasingly reliant on foreign sources of critical minerals.

Finally, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. This bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive, riparian, and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. This bill does not, Mr. Chairman, waive any existing laws or protections for sacred sites under Federal law. It upholds the Native American Graves Preservation and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. It will not allow the desecration of any sacred area. It does, Mr. Chairman, specifically and permanently protect a site called Apache Leap that is well known and special to Arizonans and the area tribes.

H.R. 687 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill has broad support from over 50 local and national organizations and government entities, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturing, and the National Mining Association.

Furthermore, the Arizona Republic Editorial Board has endorsed this bill. They highlighted the bipartisan support from the Arizona congressional delegation and noted that ``it has the potential to be an economic bonanza for our State and a national security boon to our country.''

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill to put Americans back to work and end our dependency on foreign minerals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman from Arizona an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee that deals with this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on general debate and would ask my friend from Arizona if he is prepared to yield back his time on general debate, as I am prepared to close?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments here in response to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying regarding this legislation. Certainly, there is a great deal of hyperbole going on that, I think, simply doesn't meet the ``straight face'' test in many respects.

First of all, it has been implied--and maybe said specifically--by one of my colleagues that this legislation waives environmental laws. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically that this does not waive any environmental laws. Let me walk back to how this works, because my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about the NEPA review. NEPA is a pretty important environmental law--I certainly understand that--but let's put this in context.

This legislation is a land exchange legislation--you exchange this piece of land for this piece of land. Now, that is a policy decision that we are debating and making here on the floor of the House. We are making a policy decision on exchanging this piece of land for another piece of land. If that exchange is done and if this becomes law, then, yes, there will be a copper mine on that land that's exchanged--we acknowledge that--but my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that we should have a NEPA review before we make a law.

How absurd is that? Are we going to have a NEPA review on every law? Mr. Chairman, don't we make the policy here in this country? Their criticism is that we are not allowing a NEPA review before we make a law. I did not know that the NEPA policy said that, before there is a land exchange or before Congress passes a statute, you have to have a NEPA review. Yet, that's what their argument is in this case. After the land exchange, the process starts of developing a mine, and then you go through all of those environmental hoops that you normally go through in this sort of activity.

So I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't suggesting by their argument of a NEPA review that we should have a NEPA review on Congress' action. A NEPA review on a statute? That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It has been worked on very hard, on a bipartisan basis, by Mr. Gosar and others from the Arizona delegation. Obviously, Arizonans broadly support this, at least by the evidence that we see in the media and so forth. I think it's a good bill. We have several amendments. We will debate those, and we will address those issues during that debate; but I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The fundamental purpose of H.R. 687 is to facilitate a land exchange; then after that land exchange was done, there would be a production and mining of copper, which of course would create thousands of American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the way this amendment is written, it would make it impossible by creating mandates that just simply couldn't be achieved.

I have to give my friend from Arizona credit. He has made no bones about the fact that he does not like this bill. He said that very well. I don't agree with him, but he has said it very well.

Generally, when you offer an amendment to a bill, however, you offer an amendment to improve the bill. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this will not improve the bill. In all likelihood, if adopted, it would probably kill the bill because it dictates a precise town where the mine operations should be.

I suspect that the company will have some offices in those areas. That stands to reason if you're going to invest some money. But the Federal Government should not be dictating specifically what town somebody should set up an enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to go to the absurd, if the idea is to help a distressed area by dictating where you should locate some facility or manufacturing or some company, one could say, Gee, whiz, what city in the United States is really hurting? The first city that comes to mind, of course, is Detroit, Michigan. Are we going to suggest, for example, that the Federal Government dictate that Apple from Cupertino, California, should be relocated to Detroit? Of course that's absurd. Yet, when you start this precedent here that is suggested in this amendment, one could lead to that conclusion in the future.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, pass the underlying bill, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of the bill.

I inform my friend from New Mexico that I am prepared to close on this amendment if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is critical that the Congress listen to and show respect to Indian tribes and their elected leaders. And, Mr. Chairman, it's for that reason that when I had the privilege of becoming chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a new Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was established. That hadn't been the case prior to my assuming the chairmanship of that committee. And the purpose was to ensure a special forum for issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and to native people.

It's important that Indian tribes have a role and are consulted on decisions that affect their land and their reservation lands.

But I just want to make a couple of points: this bill does not waive any existing laws dealing with Native Americans, none whatsoever.

If I have time, I will be more than happy to yield.

But probably more specific on this, this area that we're talking about in Arizona known as the Copper Triangle has been mined for--well, a long time. And this particular land exchange is right kind of in the middle of this Copper Triangle. And the closest Indian reservation is some 20 miles away.

Now I understand that, as in my area in central Washington, I know that Native Americans moved around, and that's certainly the case in Arizona. I understand that. But the effect of this amendment, the effect of this amendment would undermine our responsibility in Congress by giving total authority, total authority to the Secretary of the Interior to make determinations on whether sacred sites or other things important to Native Americans are violated. I think that's contrary to what our role is here.

And again, this law does not waive any--any--existing laws. None at all. In fact, we specifically, notwithstanding the fact that the nearest reservation is 20 miles away, we specifically say there should be consultation before this project goes forward. So I think this amendment is unnecessary.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, just to make the point that the gentleman's amendment, the intent is to address Native American issues. That's what we should be debating.

And I am just simply saying, if you affect Native American issues by implication, you would be waiving them. We are not waiving anything. We are respecting the laws that are in place right now.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because this amendment in no way risks water supply or safety. In fact, it upholds existing laws that protect water quality and availability. And probably the best way to illustrate that is to simply look at the support for this bill, especially from those that reside in the State of Arizona and represent people in the State of Arizona.

We all know that Arizona is a very diverse State. I have a very diverse State in Washington. And certainly California is diverse geographically. But there are certain areas in that State that are very dry. Water is very, very important.

Now, I daresay that no Member from Arizona would support a bill that would jeopardize water in Arizona. Yet we have heard on the floor here the bipartisan support of those from Arizona, representing Arizonans that support this bill. So I think that that issue, frankly, is simply not valid at all.

This amendment may sound like it's well intended. But what it really will do, there would be red tape involved with this because of the vagueness of the language in this amendment. And I think really what this amendment is, in deference to my good friend from California, it's an open invitation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you might call it an ambulance siren for lawyers to start filing lawsuits in this issue. One more area. Goodness knows, there are going to be lawsuits anyway. This would be one more, in my view, if this amendment is passed.

And finally, I would just say this: 100 percent of the water needs of this mine will be secured before production commences.

So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

If I could inquire, I thought the gentleman was closing.

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. 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 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. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I appreciate the House spending time to consider this important jobs legislation this week.

My home State of Arizona is known for its five Cs: cattle, citrus, climate, cotton, and, ultimately, copper. People have been digging in Arizona for precious metals like copper for centuries. In the 1850s, nearly one in every four people in Arizona were miners. Without a doubt, miners fueled the growth that makes Arizona the State it is today.

Today, the Arizona mining industry is alive, but it's not what it used to be. Nevertheless, a wide array of other minerals, such as copper, coal, uranium, lime, and potash, are mined throughout my district. These projects employ hundreds of my constituents with high- paying jobs, jobs that pay over $50,000 to $60,000 a year, plus benefits. In rural Arizona, those types of jobs are few and far between.

Rural Arizonans recognize the major benefits this project will bring to our region and our State, which is why it was one of the first initiatives brought to my attention when I came to Congress. The Southwest Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act is a bill that protects important, environmentally sensitive lands in the State and opens up over 3,700 jobs at Resolution Copper Mine.

My legislation is the result of years of negotiation and compromise that achieves a careful balance between conservation and resource utilizations, and Arizonans just want Congress to get it done. That is why my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, and I came together at the beginning of this Congress and jointly introduced this legislation.

In fact, just last week, the largest paper in the State of Arizona, The Arizona Republic, issued an op-ed on House consideration of our bill. In the column, entitled, ``Stop Dawdling on Resolution Copper,'' the editorial board stated:

Congress needs to get this done. A copper mine proposed

near Superior is a winner. It has bipartisan support from

Arizona's congressional delegation. (How often does that

happen?) It also has the potential to be an economic bonanza

for our State and a national security boon to our country.

The proposal has been around so long it has old-timer status

in Arizona. Congressional approval is overdue for the land

swap necessary to make this happen.

I guess that says it all. Our bill is a win-win for Arizona. That is why it has strong bipartisan support in Arizona and across the Nation. That support includes Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, four-fifths of the highly polarized Arizona Legislature, nearly every municipal government in central and southern Arizona, national business interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the general contractors, the truckers and the manufacturers, and conservation organizations like the Sonoran Institute and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

Why so much buzz about this project, you ask? It's called jobs, jobs, and jobs.

Upon passage of the bill, Resolution Copper estimates it will be able to employ nearly 3,000 workers during a 6-year construction period, and that's just the start. The mine, given the company's mine plan of operation when it complies with all environmental laws, will directly employ around 1,400 people. These are high-paying jobs ranging from $40,000 to $120,000 salaries per year in a region that is struggling economically.

As many people familiar with mining communities know, an influx of over 1,000 mining jobs will spur additional economic growth in a community. These mine workers need restaurants to eat at, convenience stores to shop at, and homes to live in. A recent economic study estimates an additional 2,300 jobs could be created due to these demands. That brings the estimated total number of permanent jobs resulting from this legislation to about 3,700.

Overall, independent analysis estimates that the total economic impact of the project will be around $61 billion. That is over $1 billion per year over the life of the mine, which equates to over $19 billion in Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue--$19 billion in tax revenue. In these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree that local governments, and certainly the U.S. Treasury, could use those funds.

This legislation also has national security implications. The U.S. currently imports 30 percent of its copper, and its demand is skyrocketing. This critical mineral is used in virtually all modern-day technology, ranging from renewable energy and hybrid cars to your everyday electronics like cell phones and iPods. Our country must use domestic resources to meet this growing demand, and this project, as was said earlier, could yield enough cooper to yield 25 percent of our current demand.

This legislation is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill. The lands the Federal Government acquires in the exchange are highly coveted recreational and conservation lands. It protects one of the few remaining undammed rivers in Arizona, the San Pedro River. The Dripping Springs property is a superb hiking and climbing location. The Cave Creek property will protect a riparian corridor, as well as numerous archaeological sites.

And nearly 100 acres of private land adjacent to the culturally important Apache Leap is being placed into Federal stewardship.

This proposal truly has bipartisan support on the ground in our State and across the country. We can preserve lands that advance the public interests and objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural and historical resources, while enabling development of a project that will generate significant economic and employment opportunities for State and local residents. I hope it will garner your support.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that this isn't a new mine. This mine of operations exists currently there today.

The modern-day practices Resolution Copper plans to implement at the Pinal County site are not new. Many mines across the world implement them. In fact, there is a similar project, albeit half the size of our proposed project, that uses the same strategy and technology and employs nearly 1,000 people. That is real-life proof that humans will work at this mine at the site in Arizona.

I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

I thank the chairman for allowing me to briefly address this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Lujan amendment is well-intentioned but misguided. It would put forth a policy that would undermine existing law that ensures tribal consultation and protection of sacred sites. By giving the Secretary of the Interior unilateral discretion to determine what a sacred site is, Congress would unwittingly undermine a variety of public laws Congress put in place to protect verified sacred sites.

Let me be clear that this land exchange is crafted in such a way as to protect relevant Native American historical and cultural sites. Section 4(i) and 4(j) explicitly require compliance with Federal environmental laws and regulations pertaining to conveyances of Federal land and approval of mine plan of operation. That includes the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and executive orders pertaining to wetlands, floodplains, and hazardous material surveys.

I see my colleague may have a picture of Apache Leap. My bill explicitly protects Apache Leap. The bill protects Apache Leap by the following:

It conveys 110 acres of Apache Leap currently owned by Resolution Copper to the U.S. Forest Service, section 5(a)(e); it explicitly prohibits any type of extraction activity at Apache Leap, section 5(c); withdrawing Apache Leap and any land acquired by the U.S. under this act, section 7; requiring the Secretary to develop a management plan for Apache Leap that preserves the natural character of the site and protects agricultural and cultural resources, section 8.

Before I conclude, I want to underscore, H.R. 687 does not exchange any reservation lands. The next Federal parcel is located over 20 miles from the boundaries of the San Carlos Apache Tribe's reservation. While well-intentioned, the Lujan amendment actually undermines that very mission.

Please join me in opposing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that's well- intentioned but misguided. An amendment to include a savings clause assumes that my legislation circumvents existing laws protecting water quality and availability. That is simply not the case.

The NEPA process on the mine plan of operation required by my legislation will be managed by the United States Forest Service, where they oversee an independent third-party consultant to assess all environmental impacts of the proposed resolution project, including impacts to groundwater and surface water.

The NEPA process allows for considerable public as well as other Federal EPA, State, county, and local input all along the way. Any issues pertaining to water will be addressed once Resolution Copper files a mine plan of operation and the subsequent State and Federal and environmental analysis is conducted, in accordance with existing law. This is like government overseeing government. That's ludicrous.

And I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.