Puerto Rico Hospital Medicare Reimbursement Equity Act of 2015

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Aderholt- Mulvaney-Barletta Amendment to H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

I oppose the amendment because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system.

The President will veto the underlying bill if the Aderholt Amendment is adopted so I urge my colleagues to defeat this irresponsible amendment which has the potential to put the security of our homeland at risk.

House Republicans are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland by recklessly adding this ``poison pill'' to legislation needed to fund the agencies and programs charged with securing the border and protecting the homeland.

Mr. Chair, the Aderholt Amendment seeks to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status.

The amendment bill seeks to make January 9, 2015 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken President Obama to address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

Mr. Chair, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, who is the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''

In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley V. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.

Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals.

Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the

United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be

removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have

been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set

by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A

principal feature of the removal system is the broad

discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal

officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes

sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings

commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary

relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to

leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations

omitted).

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

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces

immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to

support their families, for example, likely pose less danger

than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.

The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors,

including whether the alien has children born in the United

States, long ties to the community, or a record of

distinguished military service.

Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that

bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an

alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even

where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet

the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in

civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring

conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his

family will be harmed upon return.

The dynamic nature of relations with other countries

requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement

policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy

with respect to these and other realities.

Mr. Chair, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not.

In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented.

Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years:

1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981.

2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization.

3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States.

4. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador.

5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995.

6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.

Mr. Chair, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action.

If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years.

Mr. Chair, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration laws. Only Congress can do that.

America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense.

And as shown by the success in the last Congress of H.R. 1417, the bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation.

This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles announced professed last year by House Republicans.

As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.

It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream.

These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for far too long for their chance.

We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform.

President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws in an effective and humane manner.

If congressional Republicans, who refused to debate comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the President for signature.

The President has shown responsible leadership. The next move is for congressional Republicans to stop playing Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland and bring to the floor a clean Homeland Security spending bill that the President can sign into law.

I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

I oppose the amendment because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system.

The President will veto the underlying bill if the Blackburn Amendment is adopted so I urge my colleagues to defeat this irresponsible amendment which has the potential to put the security of our homeland at risk.

The Blackburn Amendment would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using federal funds to implement enforcement guidance governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that scarce resources are targeted toward aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety and not wasted on Dream Act children who pose no threat to our nation.

I oppose the Blackburn Amendment because it is hypocritical, irresponsible, and mean-spirited.

It is hypocritical because supporters of the amendment regularly claim that their refusal to compromise on budget issues and their support for sequestration is motivated by their belief in the importance of setting spending priorities.

Yet, the Blackburn Amendment would deny ICE the ability to use its limited resources in the most efficient manner to achieve its highest priorities which are apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety.

The Blackburn Amendment is irresponsible because it seeks to prevent trained, experienced, and professional agents and prosecutors from exercising their discretion and acting on the basis of what everyone knows to be true: that there is a vast difference between a terrorist bent on harming America and DREAM Act kid studying hard in school so he or she can graduate and join the Armed Services and willingly risk his or her life to defend the country.

This inefficient use of resources wastes taxpayer dollars and does nothing to keep America safe.

Third, the Blackburn Amendment is mean-spirited because it would have ICE target its limited resources on innocent, law abiding, young people who were brought to this country as children and would have them deported to a foreign land even though America is the country they know as home and the only to which they have ever pledged allegiance.

As Member of Congress, I have traveled many times to Iraq and Afghanistan and always the highlight of my visit was meeting the young men and women who are willingly risking their lives to defend the country they love more than life.

Right now, at this very moment, there are thousands of soldiers fighting for us in Afghanistan and elsewhere who are not yet American citizens but who dream that one day they will become citizens of the nation they gladly risk their lives to defend.

The Blackburn Amendment, however, would have ICE agents and prosecutors pretend to see no difference between someone like these veterans who came to this country as an undocumented immigrant and an alien engaged in or suspected of espionage or terrorism.

The Blackburn Amendment wastes the money of hard-working taxpayers.

It does nothing to make America safer.

And, just as bad, it is inconsistent with American values of justice and fair play.

Madam Chair, as a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.

It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream.

Instead of passing irresponsible measures like the Blackburn Amendment, we should instead seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our

borders while at the same preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from the passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

I urge all Members to join me in opposing the Blackburn Amendment.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and the ranking member for his leadership.

Madam Chair, this is a full force assault on immigrants. It is an assault on the integrity of this Nation which was built upon the investment and the love of this country by immigrants from all over the world.

As I look to the landscape of what we now confront--2,000 dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram, little girls dressed with suicide bombs, and Homeland Security being held hostage by an assault on immigration--let me say to you that the Constitution has given the President the authority under the ``take care'' provision, so this assault of amendments that is trying to chip away at these executive actions is a false premise in order to attack the ideas and the values of this Nation.

In my own State, if the actions of the President's are in place, we will gain $8.2 billion in gross domestic product and $19.2 billion over 10 years, a decade. Do you think we need the underlying amendment or amendments? Pastors and religious leaders--the Episcopal bishops--have indicated that they support the executive actions. The Catholic bishops support the executive actions.

The Aderholt amendment wants to attack those young DREAMers who want to invest and young soldiers. The Blackburn amendment wants to take away, if you will, the childhood arrivals.

Mr. DeSantis wants to misrepresent to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. Mr. Salmon, in his amendment, wants to suggest that workers are being hired over American workers; then Mr. Schock wants to ignore the investment of this particular language into this Nation.

Let me end by saying this is an attack on immigrants. Let's oppose all of these.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

First of all, when we have spending bills that make it here to the floor of the House, we traditionally have had an open amendment process for those appropriations bills. That allows Members on both sides of the aisle to offer cuts to move things around.

At the time of bloated budget deficits, why aren't the Republicans allowing any cuts to be made from this bill? They are not allowing Democrats or Republicans under a closed rule to offer savings to the Federal Government from bloated budgets.

They are limiting amendments on two other bills, a completely unrelated anti-regulatory bill and also a bill with regard to Financial Services that I offered an amendment along with Mr. Issa to improve are not allowed under this rule as well.

It is a very bad precedent for congressional procedure here in our second week to shut down ideas from both sides of the aisle to make either of these bills better beyond a select few ideas that have apparently been blessed by the Republican majority.

I heard in the Rules Committee last night--and my friend, the chair, did as well--a number of very good amendments that were offered, some that I didn't agree with, but I still thought we ought to be able to discuss and debate--I offered a few myself--but hardly any of these are actually allowed to be debated or voted on by the Members of this body.

Instead, what the Republicans have done is effectively hijack the discussion of homeland security and safety to instead have a discussion about our broken immigration system. Well, I was ready to go for that.

I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on an immigration reform bill as part of the rule, one that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds support last session, one that I believe would still carry the support of more than 60 Senators--I think it would likely pass the House if it had been made in order--but I was shut down.

Instead of allowing a discussion about a solution to our broken immigration crisis, the Republicans seek to keep it alive, conflict for the sake of conflict, and to somehow lump families and children in with criminals for the same enforcement priority, which makes no sense to any law enforcement professional or any of our communities, which is why we have a broad coalition of the business community, the faith- based community, the law enforcement community, all outraged over the most recent Republican actions, which seem to cater to the far rightwing of their party, rather than seek pragmatic practical solutions to replace our broken immigration system with one that works.

With regard to the Financial Services bill, I offered a bipartisan amendment along with my colleagues, Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, to improve transparency, to modernize our financial reporting standards, to ensure that digital data was available and searchable by investors everywhere, to increase transparency with regard to public companies. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to be debated or voted on here on the floor of the House to improve this bill.

This is truly an obstructive and undemocratic approach to governing. Instead of the Members of this body--Democrat and Republican--being able to work together and propose ideas to improve bills, we are presented with bills that are ``our way or the highway,'' bills that will never become law, bills that have the threat of veto from

the President of the United States, and are presumably only being done to appease the rightwing Republican base.

Well, we should have started off this Congress with a fresh sensibility. We could have brought forward a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill, allowed Members to improve it, to make cuts, to balance our budget deficit, to move things from programs that didn't work to programs that did. We could have brought forth a real jobs bill addressing the needs of working families.

Instead, what the Republicans have chosen to do is to play politics and jeopardize the safety of our country and our homeland security over a debate that they want to have with regard to immigration without offering any solutions.

One of the things that I took away from the meeting in the Rules Committee last night, in the testimony from Members on both sides of the aisle, is that nobody thought--Democrats or Republicans--that this Republican bill that defunded DACA and undid the executive action would actually solve our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats acknowledged it wouldn't.

So rather than playing politics with our defense of our homeland, why don't we roll up our sleeves and get to work to actually fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works?

Now, look, the bill provides for consideration of the Homeland Security bill, but everybody knows it is not a serious attempt at funding the Department of Homeland Security. There is a manufactured crisis, the first step in a sure-to-fail legislative process that the President himself has said he would veto.

Why is anybody in this body--reasonable lawmakers, all of them-- placing the funding of Homeland Security at a time of increased national threat--we saw the events in France this last week--putting our defense of our homeland at risk?

Yes, our President took action. Some agree with it; some disagree with it. He used the authority that he has been given by this body to establish enforcement priorities with regard to the 10, 11, 12 million people who are here illegally.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker, if we don't solve our broken immigration system, there is only going to be more people here illegally; instead of 10 or 11 million, there could be 12 million, 14 million, 15 million, until we get serious about border security, about enforcement, about restoring the rule of law.

This bill doesn't do it. This bill says let's support children rather than criminals; let's prevent people that have registered, gotten right by the law, paid a fee, had a background check, had their fingerprints taken, let's prevent them from legally working or going to school; let's hang the threat of tearing them apart from their American kids over their heads.

Both sides acknowledge that is not the answer to fixing our broken immigration system. So let's move past this discussion, let's secure our homeland, and let's get to the discussion of how to fix our broken immigration system, which both sides agree this debate is not about.

This bill also provides for consideration of the Regulatory Accountability Act, another recycled bill from the last Congress. It is not an immigration reform bill; it is not a jobs bill. It is actually a bill that makes government function even less efficiently than it currently does.

It adds 84 new bureaucratic hurdles to make sure our food is toxin- free and safe to eat. It would bury agency rulemaking under a bureaucratic blizzard of hurdles and documentation requirements. This is a paperwork creation bill, this is a government inefficiency bill, the opposite of the direction we should be moving with regard to making government streamlined and more efficient.

Finally, this rule provides for consideration of the Financial Services bills, which this body considered last week, but again, when something doesn't pass under suspension, a procedure that requires two- thirds, the rule should hopefully enable Members on both sides of the aisle to improve upon the bill. I offered just such an improvement, as did some of my colleagues.

If the goal was to get to two-thirds rather than just pass this bill with a Republican majority, why don't we begin the difficult work of making this bill better, of improving on it, of taking ideas from Democrats and Republicans, to get this bill to the point where two- thirds of this body support it? Unfortunately, that did not occur, and this bill is being brought under a very restrictive rule.

We can do better. We can do better than closing down the traditional open process we have around amending appropriations bills. We can restore regular order and allow bills to actually be considered through the committee process here in this Congress, instead of appearing with 48 hours to read for Members of Congress, without even giving the opportunity to amend them. Unfortunately, in the second week here, the Republican majority is already making good governance a farce.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to show that Congress can and will do better if you give the Democrats and Republicans who serve in this body the ability to legislate, to offer their ideas, to work with Members on their side of the aisle and the opposite side of the aisle, and to get to a point where we can present a bill that the President of the United States will sign and will become the law of the land.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean version of the Homeland Security bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

We do not need to start this new Congress going down a path of legislative brinkmanship and crises of our own making. We shouldn't be treating funding for our national security like a political pawn.

There are differences of opinion about how to solve immigration. There are differences of opinion about the President's actions. The venue for taking out those disagreements is not to put the homeland security of our country at risk. We don't have to attach these controversial amendments to a must-pass bill to keep our borders secure. We have no shortage of other things we should be focusing on.

There seems to be pent-up frustration about our broken immigration system. I share that. Let's address our broken immigration system and fix it and pass immigration reform. I tried to do that in the Rules Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, that discussion is not allowed under this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule.

Instead, we are spending our time here in Congress with yet another crisis of our own making. Instead of solving pressing issues, instead of creating jobs, instead of protecting our homeland, we are putting a bipartisan, important appropriations bill right smack in the middle of an unrelated political fight.

The American people can no longer afford an immigration enforcement system that spends extraordinary sums of money every year detaining and deporting individuals with strong ties to their community and who pose no meaningful threat to anyone. We should focus on criminals rather than children. That is exactly what the President's actions do.

If the Republicans don't like it, we are happy to work with them to address the underlying issues of immigration and why we have 11 million people living here illegally in the first place. Until we do, this bill doesn't solve a thing. But let's not get hung up over the side issue and make sure that we continue to protect our homeland against a terrorist threat.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and 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. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have articulated, an executive order.

And it says in the ``take care clause'' that he has the ability to manage this government, as Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower did.

What I would offer to say is, there is nothing in what the President has done but to exercise executive action. But I will say to them that Secretary Johnson of Homeland Security has said that we are placing ourselves in a dangerous position, not because of the President's actions, not because of the appropriations bill, but because of these enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the President's right to executive action.

I oppose all of the bills that are presently in this rule, including the regulatory bill, the Financial Services--all of them have poison pills. The regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any agency can pass a regulation.

Yes, to my Republican friends, we are in a moment, a historic moment. France was more than a wake-up call. But what I will say to you is that we can pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and we can end this dangerous condition that we are in.

I would ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pills of pulling back on the President's constitutional authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

I oppose the rule because, if passed, the five Republican amendments made in order by the Rules Committee guarantee the bill will be vetoed by the President at a time when ensuring that the agencies charged with securing our border and protecting the homeland have the resources needed to keep us safe should be our highest priority.

House Republicans are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland by recklessly adding this ``poison pill'' to legislation needed to fund the agencies and programs charged with securing the border and protecting the homeland.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to H.R. 240 made in order by the Rules Committee are simply the latest attempt by House Republicans to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status.

The rule we are being asked to accept makes in order amendment that seek to block the executive actions taken President Obama to address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

Mr. Speaker, the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, who is the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''

In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.

Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals.

Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the

United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be

removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have

been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set

by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A

principal feature of the removal system is the broad

discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal

officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes

sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings

commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary

relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to

leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations

omitted).

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

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces

immediate human concerns.

Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for

example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or

aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an

individual case may turn on many factors, including whether

the alien has children born in the United States, long ties

to the community, or a record of distinguished military

service.

Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not.

In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented.

Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years:

1. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization.

2. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States.

3. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador.

Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action.

If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years.

America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense.

And as shown by the success in the last Congress of H.R. 1417, the bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation.

This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles announced professed last year by House Republicans.

As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together.

We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform.

President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately.

If congressional Republicans, who refused to debate comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the President for signature.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against the rule so we can put an end to the dangerous game of playing Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland.

Let us defeat this rule and bring to the floor a clean Homeland Security spending bill that the President can sign into law.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

I will enter in the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women opposing the DeSantis- Roby amendment.

National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

January 12, 2015.

Dear Representative: As the Steering Committee of the

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

(``NTF''), comprised of national leadership organizations

advocating on behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims

and women's rights, we write in opposition to the Aderholt

and DeSantis amendments to the Department of Homeland

Security appropriations bill. These amendments are overly

broad, sweep large numbers of victims into their scope and

ignore the best interests of victims and their children.

We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the

bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA''), which has,

since it was first enacted, included critical protections for

immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. The

proposed amendments serve to undermine protections from

removal for victims of domestic and sexual violence and

undercut the spirit of VAWA.

We strongly urge you to vote NO on the following

amendments:

DeSantis Amendment

What it does:

This amendment prevents ICE from implementing the new

detention and deportation priorities set in the November 20,

2014 Executive Action memo regarding Policies for the

Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented

Immigrants by preventing its implementation.

This amendment disallows funding to support implementation,

administration, enforcement, or carrying out of any policy

that does not prioritize enforcement against those with

domestic violence, and sexual abuse, and child abuse

convictions. In particular, the November 20th guidance

recognizes that immigrant victims of domestic violence may be

convicted of violence themselves, and the amendment removes

DHS discretion to consider the facts underlying the

conviction.

How it affects victims of domestic and sexual violence:

Victims of domestic violence often do not seek help when

they know that the consequences to the perpetrator (for

example, a spouse or parent, or perhaps other family member)

may result in the perpetrator's deportation. This often takes

place due to their financial dependence, and even close

relationship to the perpetrator. As a result, this amendment

will discourage victims from seeking help, reducing reporting

and prosecution of crimes, creating communities that are less

safe and in which victims are more likely to endure abuse.

Immigrant victims are vulnerable to being arrested and

prosecuted for domestic violence, even when they are not the

primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship. This

frequently happens due to language and cultural barriers.

Often, victims are desperate to be released and reunited with

their children upon arrest and/or during trial. These

factors--combined with poor legal counsel, particularly about

the immigration consequences of criminal pleas and

convictions--have in the past and will likely continue to

lead to deportation of wrongly accused victims who may have

pled to or been unfairly convicted of domestic violence

charges.

The vast majority of sexual abuse, child exploitation and

domestic violence convictions already fall within the highest

priorities for enforcement; this amendment removes DHS

discretion to consider the needs of victims.

Aderholt Amendment

What it does:

Among other things, the amendment prevents the use of funds

or fees for all of the November 20, 2014 Executive Action

mandates by the president, including the renewal and

continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

(DACA) program for young people who arrived in the United

States as children, and hinders the ability to implement the

Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program,

which provides protection for parents of U.S. citizen and

Legal Permanent Resident children. These programs grant

immigrants who are not priorities for removal some protection

from removal.

The amendment also prevents the use of ``funds or fees'' to

carry out prior DHS guidance, including ICE Director Morton's

prosecutorial discretion memos (2011), USCIS referrals of

Notices To Appear (2011), ICE response to Secure Communities

Task Force (Apr. 2012), detainers (Dec. 2012), and adjustment

of status under visa waiver program (Nov. 2013).

The amendment prohibits any ``substantially similar''

policy changes to these memos in the future.

The amendment also prohibits the use of funds or fees to

``grant any Federal benefit'' to any noncitizen pursuant to

any of the policy changes in these memos.

The amendment reinstates the Secure Communities Program.

Impact on victims of domestic and sexual violence:

This amendment increases the vulnerability to abuse for

immigrants by increasing: (1) fear of deportation and (2)

financial dependence on abusers.

Eliminates DHS prosecutorial discretion to consider the

needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence, including

the trauma they have experienced, in prioritizing enforcement

activities.

Increases victims fear of deportation as a consequence of

reporting crimes committed against them as a result of local

law enforcement entanglement with ICE in implementing the

Secure Communities Program. As a result, many violent crimes

will go unreported.

We strongly urge members to prioritize the needs of

immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence, and reject

these amendments. These recommendations are endorsed by the

Immigration subcommittee and the steering committee of the

National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,

including The Asian Institute on Gender Based Violence,

ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Casa de Esperanza: National

Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities, Futures

Without Violence, National Immigrant Justice Center, the

National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the Washington

State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

If you have any questions, please contact us for further

information through Grace Huang, Washington State Coalition

Against Domestic Violence or Andrea Carcamo, Casa de

Esperanza.

As the founder and former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, I join the network of every State domestic violence coalition and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women in opposing this amendment.

The issue really is very simple. Often--too often--in cases of domestic violence, law enforcement show up at a home, they can't figure out what happened, both parties are arrested, and down the line both plead to misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. This happens all the time all around the country. For the victim, it may be because she just wants to get it out of the way to get back to her children or she has been threatened with further violence by her abuser or with her immigration status held over her head.

Whatever the reason, it turns out that in too many of these circumstances, no one--not law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, or even her attorney, if she is fortunate to have one--tells her that by pleading to the misdemeanor, her immigration status is threatened and she faces deportation.

So this is not about fault. It just means that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to domestic violence. It is why we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress.

Here is the harm. This amendment would prevent immigration authorities from looking beneath the surface in circumstances only of domestic violence offenses to make absolutely certain that we are not victimizing the victim twice by subjecting her to deportation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous amendment that could result in additional violence and undoing what successive Congresses and Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, have done for 20 years--afford fairness and protection for vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence.

And so let's get the facts straight. This is not about shielding perpetrators. It is about protecting victims.

Our immigration authorities deserve to take a second look when it comes to domestic violence, and I urge my colleagues to do no harm and vote ``no'' on the DeSantis-Roby amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 27 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman (Mr. Polis), my friend from Colorado, 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, we are here today because of failed liberal policies of the President of the United States. Through his unilateral executive actions taken in November and through policies pursued throughout his administration for a number of years, the President's policies have harmed the American taxpayer.

Specifically, that is why we are here today as part of this funding bill, to make sure that we address those problems that we see. Today, the House of Representatives will fight the President's failed liberal Democratic dogma and provide for a Homeland Security bill that actually protects the homeland and the American taxpayer.

This past summer, the American people saw what happens when the executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interests of the American people. Over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from South and Central America entered our country illegally. They did this because they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the United States--and, by the way, it looks like it worked.

This influx was a costly mistake for the taxpayer and for communities all across this country. Federal taxpayers paid $553 million. We put local schools at risk and stretched the resources of communities all across this country to a tipping point.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here engaged in this fight. This bill represents conservative Republican solutions on how to protect the homeland and the rule of law. Within this rule is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as well as five amendments that represent a united fight against the President's executive amnesty plan.

Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the President's actions on executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional, and they must be stopped. This package provides this body with the opportunity to effectively block and reverse the President's unilateral amnesty, reassert the rule of law, and uphold our Constitution.

America became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt with this issue, and it lands directly at the feet of the President of the United States. That is why we are here today and are issuing this bill to the United States Senate, to have them take the appropriate action that is necessary, so that we may work together so that America is safe and that we do not have actions that America should not undertake.

We have a number of Republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. I look forward to hearing their thoughts, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Lou Barletta, who came to the Rules Committee last night to speak about the importance of this bill, the former mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Burgess, from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ranger, Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), one of our brand new freshmen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the First District of Georgia, Pooler, Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Monroe, Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, that is a very sad way to explain what we are doing here today. The gentleman knows that these 11 bills have all been heard, most of them voted on the floor, overwhelming majorities, if not----

No, sir. We covered this yesterday in the Rules Committee, and we intend to move forward. And they are great bills that will help the economy and jobs in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield----

Mr. Speaker, I have the time and I appreciate that.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Cassville, Georgia, Congressman Loudermilk, a freshman Member of this delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Seventh Congressional District of Texas, Congressman Culberson, the gentleman from the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North Carolina, Congressman Holding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, Wisconsin, Reid Ribble.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia, Congressman Collins, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because the law requires that the House of Representatives pass funding bills. Today we are here because we are going to fund Homeland Security, and that we are. We are going to fund Homeland Security because every single member of this Republican Conference, and I believe every single Member of this House, understands how important Homeland Security funding is to protect this country and our citizens.

But we also need to understand that the President of the United States last year, and perhaps the year before, took actions which we disagreed with, which I believe embarrassed this country, which I believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities, and that is directly related to issues of executive orders and ideas that he had about illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we feel passionately about the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. It is the President of the United States who we believe has gone well past not only his constitutional authority, but the authority that I believe is vested in him: well and faithfully executing the laws of the country, which is his oath of office.

So we have gathered together, united in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. We are also going to follow the Constitution and pass it here today and tomorrow with the bill and send it to the United States Senate and let them deal with it.

Thank goodness we have Republican control in the Senate; otherwise, it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation that the former head of the Senate decided not to take up in that body to debate or to have a vote on.

So we stand today prepared to fight the President's unwise and unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. It is time for this House to fight, I believe, for what is a constitutional issue, and we are going to politely do this. There was no screaming and yelling on our side. We have great resolve. We have an understanding about what is in the best interest of the United States.

So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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