Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to continue her leadership in the 114th Congress. As the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2002, Leader Pelosi has led our caucus with exceptional resolve and integrity. Her commitment to Democratic values is evident in her focus on expanding the middle class, growing the economy, expanding affordable access to education, and empowering America's women and families.

From 2007 to 2011 Leader Pelosi served as Speaker of the House and under her leadership the 111th Congress was hailed as ``one of the most productive Congresses in history.''

Among her many accomplishments, Leader Pelosi shepherded passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create and save millions of American jobs; historic health care reform to expand coverage and lower health care costs for millions of Americans; and strong Wall Street reforms to protect consumers and rein in the big banks. She has also fought discrimination in the workplace and passed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and stands for progressive policies that support child nutrition, energy efficiency, transparency in government, affordable housing and veterans.

Leader Pelosi is an extraordinary public servant and tested leader. I am proud to support her as leader of the Democratic Caucus and look forward to serving the American people alongside her in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the 114th Congress of the United States convened for the first time. This new Congress represents a new opportunity to get to work on the priorities of the American people.

We have a responsibility over the next 2 years to work together in a bipartisan way to create jobs, grow the economy, expand access to affordable education, and keep our communities safe.

Last night, Democrats offered a new legislative package to grow the economy by creating better infrastructure and bigger paychecks for hardworking Americans. Unfortunately, House Republicans voted to block action on this important legislation.

I am hopeful that this year we can cast aside partisan differences and work together to expand opportunities for hardworking Americans and their families.

This month, I will be meeting with Rhode Islanders all across my home State to hear about their priorities as I develop my legislative work plan for the 114th Congress.

By working together, I believe we can find common ground to make this Congress more productive than the last, accomplish the work that we were sent here to do, and create a brighter future for the people we serve.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the House Rules Committee filed the 2015 government funding bill.

My top priority is keeping the government open, and this bill will prevent the kind of widespread economic damage that would be caused by a government shutdown, but funding the government is more than just about dollars and cents. It is a statement about our national values. We must make difficult choices with limited resources and fight for what we stand for.

This so-called CR/Omnibus provides $1.1 trillion to fund the government through 2015. It provides funding to combat ISIL and support our troops, fight Ebola in West Africa, and it invests in critical science and research programs.

However, I am deeply disappointed that it responds to the President's executive action on immigration by providing only short-term funding for the Department of Homeland Security. I strongly oppose several controversial policy riders that impact women's health and the environment.

As we begin a meaningful debate on this bill and as the new Congress approaches, we must ensure actions and decisions reflect our values and our ideals to ensure that we protect our country, grow the economy, and provide every American a fair shot at success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for various provisions of the Senate's Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. While the underlying bill will strengthen our national defense and benefit my home state of Rhode Island, ultimately I was unable to support it because it contained a provision to extend for two years the training and arming of Syrian rebels, a program that shows little evidence it will be successful and may well be the first step toward direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Without this provision, I would have been proud to cast my vote in favor of this legislation. However, after voting only two months ago against a temporary authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels, I could not, in good conscience, vote for a bill to commit more U.S. resources and increased military involvement in an unwise program that presents the danger of deepening our involvement in a sectarian civil war.

The agreement that passed today included the designation of the Blackstone River Valley in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution, as a National Park. As the lead sponsor of the House bill creating the Blackstone National Park, it is an issue for which I have fought throughout my time in Congress. In addition, this agreement authorizes robust funding for the continued construction of the Virginia Class Submarine, which employs more than 3,400 jobs in my home state. It includes a one percent pay increase for members of our Armed Forces, provides additional funding for psychological and behavioral health for servicemembers, strengthens our nation's cybersecurity capabilities, and strengthens our relationship with Israel through significant funding for the Iron Dome missile defense program. Finally, this agreement makes great strides in combatting sexual assault in our Armed Forces by eliminating the ``good soldier defense'', and assessing a commanding officer's handling of sexual assault cases as part of his or her performance evaluation. I strongly support all of these provisions.

Unfortunately, with the inclusion of language authorizing military involvement in Syria, I believe that this legislation places the United States on a dangerous path that could lead to the engagement of our troops in yet another endless war in the region, an act that the American people have made very clear they oppose. I remain concerned that this program will be difficult to carry out, impossible to effectively evaluate and monitor, and that there is a lack of a clear end-game. In November of this year, the Washington Post reported that U.S. trained Syrian rebels were routed by the al Qaeda affiliated rebel fighters. Reports indicated mass surrenders and defections by U.S. trained rebels, as well as significant amounts of U.S. supplied weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It should be noted that earlier this year, the CIA expressed doubts about the effectiveness of training and equipping rebel forces, citing unsuccessful attempts to do so in the past in countries such as Nicaragua and Somalia.

Additionally, there is no explicit limit to the amount of money authorized for this program, rather, this bill allows the Administration to tap into the nearly $64 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations Funds authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are not only exempt from statutory budget caps, but the bill provides no limit for the amount of funds that may be reprogrammed for these operations. This would be in addition to the $500 million spent on this program since September. These are federal dollars that we should invest in our priorities we face here at home, such as rebuilding our roads and bridges, improving our education system, and investing in the creation of jobs.

When this policy was authorized for three months in September of this year, it received rigorous debate on the House floor before it was included in the Continuing Resolution. However, this two year reauthorization is

being included in essential legislation, which totals more than 1,600 pages, without any debate under a closed rule. I believe that we are moving forward with this policy without a clear understanding of with whom we are partnering, and without a clearly defined goal or an articulated strategy for achieving these goals. Without this understanding, I remain gravely concerned that this two year extension could be the first step into wider, more entrenched involvement in yet another war in the Middle East.

Instead, we should be placing our focus on building a stable government in Iraq, a policy that must include ensuring they have the support they need to prevent the spread of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Iraqis have made great strides in stabilizing their government and unifying fractious segments of their population. This week, the Iraqi government signed an historic agreement with its autonomous Kurdish region in which the two sides agreed to share oil revenues, and will allow for greater cooperation in equipping Kurdish pesh merga forces in combatting the Islamic State. We should continue to press the new Iraqi government to fulfill its responsibility to defeat the Islamic State and maintain a viable and inclusive government.

We have been and will continue to be a leader in the world's fight against terrorism and those who wish to harm this country. But we should not allow our responsibility to defeat terrorism draw us into an unwise, expensive, and risky military engagement in the Middle East. Because of my grave concerns about moving forward with a hasty and in my view incomplete program to arm rebels in Syria, despite the other favorable provisions included in this legislation, I could not vote in favor of its passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Congress and most people in this country understand that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked a bipartisan Senate bill from coming to the floor, and President Obama has taken action that he is legally permitted and morally obligated to take.

Executive orders are not unusual. Every President since President Eisenhower has used this authority to take action on immigration issues, including six Republican Presidents.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Florida said voting against his bill is like voting against the Constitution, I suggest it is just the opposite. The contours for the executive authority of the President are defined in the Constitution and by precedent of the courts. There is no question that the President has the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in this regard. So, in fact, voting for this bill undermines the Constitution because the executive authority of the President is set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

We all recognize there are 11 million undocumented residents of this country. We don't allocate resources to deport all 11 million. We allocate resources to deport about 400,000, which means, by definition, we are asking the department to set priorities in deciding whom to deport. Setting those priorities ensures that they deport the most serious offenders, people who pose threats to our communities.

That act of prosecutorial discretion is what is reflected in the President's executive order.

It is very important to understand that there is practically very little question from legal scholars.

I insert in the Record a letter which has the signature of 136 law professors who support the constitutionality of this provision, as well as a separate letter from additional titans in the legal community, beginning with President Lee Bollinger from Columbia University, Adam Cox from New York University, Walter Dellinger, and several other legal scholars.

25 November 2014.

We write as scholars and teachers of immigration law who

have reviewed the executive actions announced by the

President on November 20, 2014. It is our considered view

that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for

Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are within the legal

authority of the executive branch of the government of the

United States. To explain, we cite federal statutes,

regulations, and historical precedents. We do not express any

views on the policy aspects of these two executive actions.

This letter updates a letter transmitted by 136 law

professors to the White House on

September 3, 2014, on the role of executive action in

immigration law. We focus on the legal basis for granting

certain noncitizens in the United States ``deferred action''

status as a temporary reprieve from deportation. One of these

programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was

established by executive action in June 2012. On November 20,

the President announced the expansion of eligibility criteria

for DACA and the creation of a new program, Deferred Action

for Parental Accountability (DAPA).

Prosecutorial discretion in immigration law enforcement

Both November 20 executive actions relating to deferred

action are exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the

Department of Homeland Security to decide how the immigration

laws should be applied. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-

accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement

context, unavoidable whenever the appropriated resources do

not permit 100 percent enforcement. In immigration

enforcement, prosecutorial discretion covers both agency

decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement like

cancelling or not serving or filing a charging document to

Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as

decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a

stay of removal, parole, or deferred action.

Prosecutorial discretion provides a temporary reprieve from

deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like

deferred action, confer ``lawful presence'' and the ability

to apply for work authorization. However, the benefits of the

deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not

unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other

exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an

independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United

States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility

to apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As the

President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the

qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship.

Statutory authority and long-standing agency practice

Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, 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 . . . .'' INA Sec. 242(g) recognizes

the executive branch's legal authority to exercise

prosecutorial discretion, specifically by barring judicial

review of three particular types of prosecutorial discretion

decisions: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate

cases, and to execute removal orders. In other sections of

the Act, Congress has explicitly recognized deferred action

by name, as a tool that the executive branch may use, in the

exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain

victims of abuse, crime or trafficking. Another statutory

provision, INA Sec. 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch

authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not

otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their

particular immigration status. This provision (and the formal

regulations noted below) confer the work authorization

eligibility that is part of both the DACA and DAPA programs.

Based on this statutory foundation, the application of

prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups has been

part of the immigration system for many years. Longstanding

provisions of the formal regulations promulgated under the

Act (which have the force of law) reflect the prominence of

prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. Deferred action

is expressly defined in one regulation as ``an act of

administrative convenience to the government which gives some

cases lower priority'' and goes on to authorize work permits

for those who receive deferred action. Agency memoranda

further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in

immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Sam Bernsen

stated in a legal opinion, ``The reasons for the exercise of

prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian.

There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the

rules and regulations presently on the books.' In 2000, a

memorandum on prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters

issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner provided that

[s]ervice officers are not only authorized by law but

expected to exercise discretion in a judicious manner at all

stages of the enforcement process,'' and spelled out the

factors that should guide those decisions. In 2011,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of

Homeland Security published guidance known as the ``Morton

Memo,'' outlining more than one dozen factors, including

humanitarian factors, for employees to consider in deciding

whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. These

factors--now updated by the November 20 executive actions--

include tender or elderly age, long-time lawful permanent

residence, and serious health conditions.

Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in

immigration cases

Federal courts have also explicitly recognized

prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in

particular: Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its

Arizona v. United States decision in 2012: ``A principal

feature of the removal system is the broad discretion

exercised by immigration officials . . . Federal officials,

as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to

pursue removal at all . . .'' In its 1999 decision in Reno v.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme

Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. This

affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with

congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement,

which are at an annual level that would allow for the arrest,

detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the

noncitizens in the United States who lack lawful immigration

status.

Based on statutory authority, U.S. immigration agencies

have a long history of exercising prosecutorial discretion

for a range of reasons that include economic or humanitarian

considerations, especially--albeit not only--when the

noncitizens involved have strong family ties or long-term

residence in the United States. Prosecutorial discretion,

including deferred action, has been made available on both a

case-by-case basis and a group basis, as are true under DACA

and DAPA. But even when a program like deferred action has

been aimed at a particular group of people, individuals must

apply, and the agency must exercise its discretion based on

the facts of each individual case. Both DACA and DAPA

explicitly incorporate that requirement.

Historical precedents for deferred action and similar programs for

individuals and groups

As examples of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,

numerous administrations have issued directives providing

deferred action or functionally similar forms of

prosecutorial discretion to groups of noncitizens, often to

large groups. The administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan

and George H.W. Bush deferred the deportations of a then-

predicted (though ultimately much lower) 1.5 million

noncitizen spouses and children of immigrants who qualified

for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act

(IRCA) of 1986, authorizing work permits for the spouses.

Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though

Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA. Among the

many other examples of significant deferred action or similar

programs are two during the George W. Bush administration: a

deferred action program in 2005 for foreign academic students

affected by Hurricane Katrina, and ``Deferred Enforcement

Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007.'' Several decades

earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of

prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary

Departure'' in 1981 to thousands of Polish nationals. The

legal sources and historical examples of immigration

prosecutorial discretion described above are by no means

exhaustive, but they underscore the legal authority for an

administration to apply prosecutorial discretion to both

individuals and groups.

Some have suggested that the size of the group who may

``benefit'' from an act of prosecutorial discretion is

relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal

authority for such an assumption. Notably, the Reagan-Bush

programs of the late 1980s and early 1990s were based on an

initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population

(about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial

estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions.

The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of

people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the

conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but

this would be a policy choice, not a legal issue. For all of

these reasons, the President is not ``re-writing'' the

immigration laws, as some of his critics have suggested. He

is doing precisely the opposite--exercising a discretion

conferred by the immigration laws and settled general

principles of enforcement discretion.

The Constitution and immigration enforcement discretion

Critics have also suggested that the deferred action

programs announced on November 20 violate the President's

constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be

faithfully executed.'' A serious legal question would

therefore arise if the executive branch were to halt all

immigration enforcement, or even if the Administration were

to refuse to substantially spend the resources appropriated

by Congress. In either of those scenarios, the justification

based on resource limitations would not apply. But the Obama

administration has fully utilized all the enforcement

resources Congress has appropriated. It has enforced the

immigration law at record levels through apprehensions,

investigations, and detentions that have resulted in over two

million removals. At the same time that the President

announced the November 20 executive actions that we discuss

here, he also announced revised enforcement priorities to

focus on removing the most serious criminal offenders and

further shoring up the southern border. Nothing in the

President's actions will prevent him from continuing to

remove as many violators as the resources Congress has given

him permit.

Moreover, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised,

particularly when the numbers are large, there is no legal

barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound

procedures that include a formal application and

dissemination of the relevant criteria to the

officers charged with implementing the program and to the

public. As DACA has shown, those kinds of procedures assure

that important policy decisions are made at the leadership

level, help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and

consistently, and offer the public the transparency that

government priority decisions require in a democracy.

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, University of

California, Los Angeles, School of Law*; Shoba Sivaprasad

Wadhia, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of

Law; Stephen H. Legomsky, Washington University School of

Law; David Abraham, University of Miami School of Law; Raquel

Aldana, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law;

Farrin R. Anello, Seton Hall University School of Law;

Deborah Anker, Harvard Law School; Sabrineh Ardalan, Harvard

Law School; David C. Baluarte, Washington and Lee University

School of Law; Melynda Barnhart, New York Law School; Jon

Bauer, University of Connecticut School of Law; Lenni B.

Benson, New York Law School; Jacqueline Bhabha, Harvard Law

School;

Linda Bosniak, Rutgers University School of Law-Camden;

Richard A. Boswell, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Jason

A. Cade, University of Georgia Law School; Janet Calvo, CUNY

School of Law, New York; Kristina M. Campbell, University of

the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law; Stacy

Caplow, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin Casper, University of

Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, University of Minnesota;

Howard F. Chang, University of Pennsylvania Law School;

Michael J. Churgin, University of Texas at Austin; Marisa

Cianciarulo, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law;

Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State University; Ingrid Eagly, UCLA

School of Law; Philip Eichorn, Cleveland State--Cleveland

Marshall School of Law;

Bram T. Elias, University of Iowa College of Law; Stella

Burch Elias, University of Iowa College of Law; Jill E.

Family, Widener University School of Law; Niels Frenzen,

University of Southern California; Maryellen Fullerton,

Brooklyn Law School; Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez,

University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Lauren Gilbert,

St. Thomas University School of Law; Denise L. Gilman,

University of Texas School of Law; John F. Gossart, Jr.,

University of Maryland School of Law; P. Gulasekaram, Santa

Clara University; Anju Gupta, Rutgers School of Law--Newark;

Susan R. Gzesh, University of Chicago; Jonathan Hafetz, Seton

Hall University; Dina Francesca Haynes, New England Law,

Boston; Susan Hazeldean, Cornell Law School;

Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Chapman University; Laura A.

Hernandez, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, John Marshall

Law School; Barbara Hines, University of Texas School of Law;

Laila L. Hlass, Boston University School of Law; Geoffrey

Hoffman, University of Houston Law Center; Mary Holper,

Boston College Law School; Alan Hyde, Rutgers University

School of Law--Newark; Kate Jastram, University of

California, Berkeley, School of Law; Kit Johnson, University

of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Drexel University

Kline School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, Boston College Law

School; Elizabeth Keyes, University of Baltimore School of

Law; Kathleen Kim, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; David C.

Koelsch, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer

Lee Koh, Western State College of Law;

Kevin Lapp, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Christopher

Lasch, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Jennifer J.

Lee, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Stephen Lee,

University of California, Irvine; Christine Lin, University

of California, Hastings College of the Law; Beth Lyon,

Villanova University School of Law; Stephen Manning, Lewis &

Clark College; Lynn Marcus, University of Arizona James E.

Rogers College of Law; Miriam H. Marton, University of Tulsa

College of Law; Elizabeth McCormick, University of Tulsa

College of Law; M. Isabel Medina, Loyola University New

Orleans College of Law; Stephen Meili, University of

Minnesota Law School; Vanessa Merton, Pace University School

of Law; Andrew Moore, University of Detroit Mercy School of

Law; Jennifer Moore, University of New Mexico School of Law;

Daniel I. Morales, DePaul University College of Law; Nancy

Morawetz, NYU School of Law; Karen Musalo, U.C. Hastings

College of the Law; Alizabeth Newman, CUNY School of Law;

Noah Novogrodsky, University of Wyoming College of Law;

Fernando A. Nunez, Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares,

Howard University School of Law; Michael A. Olivas,

University of Houston Law Center; Patrick D. O'Neill, Esq.,

University of Puerto Rico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti,

University of Pennsylvania Law School; Sunita Patel, American

University, Washington College of Law; Huyen Pham, Texas A&M

University School of Law; Michele R. Pistone, Villanova

University School of Law; Luis F.B. Plascencia, Arizona State

University; Polly J. Price, Emory University School of Law;

Doris Marie Provine, Arizona State University; Nina Rabin,

James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona;

Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Temple University, Beasley School of

Law; Renee C. Redman, University of Connecticut School of

Law; Ediberto Roman, Florida International University; Victor

C. Romero, Penn State Law; Joseph H. Rosen, Atlanta's John

Marshall Law School; Carrie Rosenbaum, Golden Gate University

School of Law; Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Northeastern University

School of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, University of California,

Irvine; Ted Ruthizer, Columbia Law School; Leticia M.

Saucedo, UC Davis School of Law; Heather Scavone, Elon

University School of Law; Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Georgetown

Law; Philip Schrag, Georgetown University Law Center; Bijal

Shah, NYU School of Law; Ragini Shah, Suffolk University Law

School; Careen Shannon, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N.

Cardozo School of Law; Anna Williams Shavers, University of

Nebraska College of Law; Bryn Siegel, Pacific Coast

University School of Law;

Anita Sinha, American University, Washington College of

Law; Dan R. Smulian, Brooklyn Law School; Gemma Solimene,

Fordham University School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah,

Stanford Law School; Juliet Stumpf, Lewis & Clark Law School;

Maureen A. Sweeney, University of Maryland Carey School of

Law; Barbara Szweda, Lincoln Memorial University Duncan

School of Law; Margaret H. Taylor, Wake Forest University

School of Law; David Thronson, Michigan State University

College of Law; Allison Brownell Tirres, DePaul University

College of Law; Scott Titshaw, Mercer University School of

Law; Phil Torrey, Harvard Law School; Enid Trucios-Haynes,

Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville;

Diane Uchimiya, University of La Verne College of Law;

Gloria Valencia-Weber, University of New Mexico School of

Law; Sheila I. Velez Martinez, University of Pittsburgh

School of Law; Alex Vernon, Ave Maria School of Law; Rose

Cuison Villazor, University of California at Davis School of

Law; Leti Volpp, University of California, Berkeley; Jonathan

Weinberg, Wayne State University; Deborah M. Weissman,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lisa Weissman-

Ward, Stanford Law School; Anna R. Welch, University of Maine

School of Law; Virgil O. Wiebe, University of St. Thomas

School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael J. Wishnie, Yale Law

School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Cornell University Law School;

Elizabeth Lee Young, University of Arkansas School of Law.

Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order will ensure that we have a safer country, that we will grow our economy, and that we will keep families together. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this Republican proposal and to allow the President's executive order to remain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the work of Amos House and its mission to end hunger and homelessness in my home State of Rhode Island. Having just celebrated Thanksgiving, it is a good reminder of how important it is to remember those who are less fortunate and to give back to the communities we live in.

Led by Eileen Hayes, Amos House and its dedicated staff give back to Rhode Island every single day and provide life-giving services to those most in need. Since its founding in 1976, Amos House has grown from a small soup kitchen to a vibrant and essential multiservice center. This week I was proud to help break ground on a new project that will give Amos House a new home and help this wonderful organization further its important work.

Amos House serves hundreds of meals daily to the hungry, provides shelter for homeless men and women, substance abuse counseling, job training, and money management classes. I salute Amos House, Eileen, and her hardworking staff for the important contributions they make to those most in need in my home State of Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3572, which includes a provision I introduced as H.R. 277, to revise the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System units in Rhode Island. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with me to bring this important fix to the floor today.

I want to extend a personal thank you to Chairman Hastings for his ongoing cooperation in helping to advance legislation to make the Blackstone River Valley, the birthplace of America's industrial revolution, a national park.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the culmination of several years of evaluation, research, study, public input, and review regarding the existing map of the Coastal Barrier Resources System in my State.

All four units in Rhode Island that would be replaced with a modernized, revised map under this legislation were included within the CBRS, according to the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. It has been discovered that various private lands were inappropriately included in otherwise protected areas within the CBRS and that there were other technical inaccuracies.

The proposed revisions in my bill were approved by local cities and towns and other stakeholders, including the Norman Bird Sanctuary and the Audubon Society, who would be impacted; furthermore, including identified wetland and upland areas of both Almy Pond and Lily Pond is essential for protecting local habitat.

Importantly, the revisions would also remove eight privately-owned structures that were inappropriately included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The changes in this bill will positively impact my district and my constituents, particularly the ones whose private property was inadvertently included in the original map. The passage of this legislation will also benefit the surrounding communities that have long anticipated a more coherent, comprehensive system that protects critical aquatic habitat and coastal lands while protecting access to areas used for recreational purposes.

I want to highlight the case of one constituent in particular. Philip Howell cannot obtain Federal flood insurance for his property that was incorrectly included in the CBRA map. As a result, his coastal property has gone without flood insurance during serious weather events like Superstorm Sandy.

An inability to purchase flood insurance has also caused Mr. Howell to take on serious financial risks related to damages that he would potentially be unable to cover out of his own pocket; moreover, without flood insurance coverage, he has found it difficult to purchase regular homeowner's insurance from competing brokers at affordable rates.

While Mr. Howell and most of my constituents support the intent of the Coastal Barrier Resources System to protect neighboring habitat and recreation, they also have been overly burdened by innocent mapping mistakes that were made more than two decades ago.

As such, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3572 to ensure that coastal barrier mapping irregularities are rectified and the system works as it was intended.

I, again, thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their assistance.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with my constituents in senior centers, farmers' markets, small businesses, and on factory floors to hear directly from them about their priorities.

They are worried about the enormous challenges facing our country, such as ISIS and the spread of Ebola, but most of all, they are worried about the future and the future of their families.

They spoke about the need to raise the minimum wage, invest in public safety, enact comprehensive immigration reform, strengthen public education, make college more affordable, and, most importantly, getting them back to work.

Now that the elections are over, we shouldn't waste a single day without getting to work on their priorities. Like me, I am sure many of my colleagues heard the same message about creating jobs, growing the economy, and rebuilding the middle class.

The American people want a Congress that gets things done and works for them instead of a Congress looking to score political points. While our economy has recovered, too many Americans feel left out of that recovery. So as we bring this Congress to an end and begin to prepare for the next Congress, we should all renew our commitment to the American people and remember whom we were sent here to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep sympathy to commemorate the life of Mr. Joseph Nadeau. Mr. Nadeau was a dedicated husband, father, and tireless advocate for Rhode Island veterans, who himself honorably served his country as a Senior Master Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. Like many Rhode Islanders, I am deeply saddened by Mr. Nadeau's passing and send my condolences to his five children, entire family and friends.

During his military service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Joseph Nadeau earned the Air Force Commendation Medal for outstanding service, the Meritorious Service Medal, Missile Maintenance awards with the 4751st in 1967 and 1968, the National Defense Service medal, the Good Conduct medal, and the United Nations Service medal. Despite traveling the world with his loving wife Dorothy as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, Mr. Nadeau returned to Rhode Island to raise his five children. At home, in Woonsocket, Mr. Nadeau was also recognized for his outstanding service to the local veterans' community and named the 2002 Veteran of the Year by the United Veterans Council of Woonsocket.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to the Nadeau family and express my gratitude for Mr. Nadeau's service to our country and local community. He truly enriched the lives of those around him and made the world a better place to live. Rhode Island will miss him.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014.

Rhode Island, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, with a very strong and long manufacturing history, is seeing the benefits of investing in rebuilding manufacturing, and this bill will create exciting opportunities to do more.

This important legislation will establish the Network for Manufacturing Innovation program and a grant program to support domestic production, drive innovation, and leverage private funding and commercialization to develop sustainable business strategies.

Across the United States, industry experts and economists are increasingly optimistic about a resurgence in American manufacturing. This is a critical time for Congress to help Federal, State, and local entities leverage existing resources, spur regional collaboration, and support economic recovery and job creation in high-growth advanced manufacturing sectors.

In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the entire committee for the inclusion of a provision to reauthorize the Regional Innovation program for 5 years. I particularly want to compliment both of my colleagues Mr. Reed and Mr. Kennedy for their work on this bill and for approaching this important issue with a spirit of real bipartisanship and genuine collaboration.

In an effort to promote innovation and regional collaboration, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 established a Regional Innovation program within the Economic Development Administration. The program is designed to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, including regional innovation clusters and science and research parks. Funding for the Regional Innovation program supports the EDA's interagency effort to build regional innovation clusters such as the Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge and the Make it in America Challenge.

Through the Regional Innovation program local leaders are empowered to maximize existing assets and are provided resources to ensure that historically underrepresented communities, including those hardest hit by employment and economic decline, are able to participate and benefit from growth in a regional cluster.

To close, this bill recognizes that manufacturing and innovation are critically important to America's ability to compete in a 21st century global economy. To compete in the 21st century and win, America must invest in scaling up promising technology and innovative ideas. Supporting the development of regional innovation clusters strengthens our capacity to sustain and grow our economic recovery. This legislation will help do just that.

Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I compliment my friends Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reed for their great work.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is back in Washington, and it is time to get to work on the priorities of the American people, but I rise today with serious concerns about the Republican agenda, which has failed to tackle important issues that would grow the economy and strengthen the middle class, such as raising the minimum wage, making education more affordable, and guaranteeing women equal pay for equal work.

Instead of ignoring the challenges facing hardworking Americans, we should be investing in their future and, in so doing, in the future of our great country.

We have a plan that will get the middle class back to work called the Middle Class Jumpstart. This legislative action plan will raise the minimum wage, guarantee women equal pay for equal work, make education more affordable, and invest in rebuilding our country and reinvigorating American manufacturing.

In order to move our country forward and build ladders of opportunity, we have to invest in our greatest asset, hardworking middle class families, and we have to take action now.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, and had I been present would have voted against the legislation offered by Mr. Southerland.

I am concerned that this legislation would prevent both the current and future Administrations from undergoing a rulemaking process to clarify enforcement of Clean Water Act protections of streams and tributaries around the country. This rulemaking process is necessary to clarify what is now an unclear and confusing set of guidelines as to which waterways fall under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

The small streams, wetlands, headwaters, and tributaries that are affected by this ruling flow into the drinking water of over 117 million Americans, support businesses and recreation, and are crucial habitats for wildlife, including in my home state of Rhode Island. The Administration has undergone an open and transparent process, including a lengthy public commentary period that is still underway, to come up with a rule that more clearly defines which waterways are under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, in order to protect our country's drinking water supply and waterways from pollution, actions that benefit every American. Preventing the Executive Branch from clarifying this issue jeopardizes the safety of waterways across the country.

Additionally, I strongly oppose H. Res. 644, condemning the President for the prisoner exchange of five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, and had I been present I would have voted against it. As Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, the President has a constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of U.S. servicemembers, as well as the lives of U.S. citizens abroad. While Members of Congress may not agree with the President's decision, a resolution calling his actions illegal is hardly helpful or useful at this time. And the fact remains, an American soldier is home safely because the President took seriously his constitutional responsibilities to protect American lives.

The decision made by the President was made in close consultation with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Sergeant Bergdahl had been held prisoner by Taliban forces since 2009. It was determined that there was a very narrow window of opportunity to ensure his safe return. General Dempsey has said that the opportunity to make a prisoner exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl represented the best and last chance to ensure his freedom. When confronted with the decision to either ensure Sergeant Bergdahl's safety, or allow him to die in enemy captivity, the President decided to act in order to save his life.

When we send our brave men and women in the Armed Services onto the field of battle, we send them with the assurance that we will never forget their sacrifice, and that we will leave no man behind. The President has demonstrated true leadership by honoring this pledge. I do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to undermine that leadership, or that pledge.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is: Is it not a fact that we are here because the Republicans opposed this legislation in the Senate and there were not sufficient votes to move the bill and that is why we are here?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike from the Congressional Record the words of the gentlewoman from Minnesota who described placing a handcuff on one hand of the President's----

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Excuse me. May I finish my unanimous consent request? Thank you.

She in one moment described putting one handcuff on one hand of the President's and a second handcuff on the second hand of the President's and handcuffing the lawless President of the United States.

Those are words which are not appropriate in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be stricken. Impugning the character and integrity of the President of the United States is a clear violation of the rules of this House.

A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment.

There is no requirement that a unanimous consent request be timely. The House can consent unanimously to any course of action. I am asking the House to consent unanimously to striking these particular words from the Congressional Record. There is no requirement under the House rules that it be done contemporaneously, that is, of taking down the words of today.

And I have heard no objection.

Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families deserve a

Congress that is working hard for them. Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, the 113th Congress is set to be the least productive Congress in history. Let me say that again. Speaker Boehner is presiding over what will be the least productive Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, leadership comes with responsibility. Rather than working with Democrats to enact legislation that will strengthen the middle class and expand economic opportunity for all Americans, my friends on the other side of the aisle are obstructing progress and suing the President.

Democrats have a different plan. Instead of blocking legislation that will grow the economy, we have a plan that will jump-start the middle class. It has concrete proposals that will bring jobs back to America, provide women equal pay for equal work, raise the minimum wage, provide emergency unemployment benefits, and help millions of students afford college.

Mr. Speaker, we have serious challenges facing our Nation. Let's put aside partisan differences and get to work to jump-start the middle class and create jobs. Let's not adjourn. Let's cancel the recess and stay here and do the work the American people expect us to do.