Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on June 27, we will mark 1 year since our friends on the other side of the Hill in the United States Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill.

Four Senators from each party worked together to get a bill introduced on April 16 of last year. By May, the Judiciary Committee was debating and marking it up, and by June, it was headed to the Senate floor. Then after debate and many, many, many amendments, it was voted on by the full Senate. Sixty-eight out of 100 Senators voted to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration, legalize millions of people who live and work in the U.S., and secure our immigration system in the workplace and, yes, at the border.

Madam Speaker, almost a year with no serious movement forward on immigration reform in the House, I am beginning to wonder whether Republicans will get serious about immigration before they run out of time. Well, I want to be helpful, so I have done a little calculating. Including today, we have 34 legislative days before the July 4 recess.

Madam Speaker, let's be honest. If Republicans have not gotten an immigration bill seriously rolling down the tracks by the time we break for Independence Day, Republicans might as well just fold up the tent they are always talking about. One thing is for sure: Republicans won't be pitching a tent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue any time soon.

I talk to Republicans, and they know the truth: if Republicans don't work with Democrats and bring an immigration bill to the floor, they are giving up on a chance to stand for justice, a sense of peace, and fairness for immigrants until after the 2016 Presidential election. That means Republicans will have to head into the 2016 Presidential election as the party that blocked immigration reform that would have finally brought justice to immigrant communities across our Nation. You will have said ``no'' to the dreams of DREAMers and ``no'' to millions of families and ``no'' to communities in every city across our country.

Oh, and, Madam Speaker, if you think the Republican Party alone controls the future of 11 million undocumented immigrants, you will be sadly disappointed. If you don't act in the next 34 days, if you refuse to give the President a bill he can sign because you say you don't trust him to enforce immigration law even though he has spent more money and deported more people than any President before him, I believe he will act without you.

He has alternatives under existing law. There are concrete ways within existing laws to help keep families together and spare U.S. citizens from losing their wives, their husbands, and their children to deportation in spite of your lack of action, and I believe the President is going to use those tools. I saw it in his eyes when I met with him. He didn't run for office so that he could deport 2 million people and put thousands of American children in foster care. He is heartbroken by the pain deportation has caused.

Do you think he will simply sit by and do nothing because you refuse to act? The Republicans threaten lawsuits and even impeachment if the President acts to spare American families being broken apart by deportation; but this President will act if you refuse to, and the country will rally behind him because that is what Americans do in the face of humanitarian crisis.

The Republicans threaten to impeach the President? What is new, Madam Speaker? Look, you have got to remember, for the first 3 or 4 years he was President, leaders in the Republican Party--I mean Presidential candidates and entire cable TV networks--questioned the President's own immigration status. We had ``birthers'' denying the President was born in America. They questioned whether he was an undocumented immigrant himself. They demanded to see his papers. Now we have ``deportation deniers'' falsely suggesting President Obama is not enforcing the law. Oh, he is really not deporting people, they say. That is all fake, something Obama, Univision, and Telemundo cooked up.

The President knows the kind of pain that congressional inaction has caused for families and children.

The President wants to be an emancipator, not a deporter, and he will act if he has to. If you give him no choice, this President is going to take charge himself, as well he should.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we offer a lifeline to the Republicans. Let's work together to pass a bill before the President, faced with no other choice, takes action himself. You have 34 legislative days left until July 4, and you had better make good use of them. The American people are waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 148.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, March 10, 2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 115, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 116, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 117.

Due to a last minute meeting at the White House with President Obama on Thursday, March 13, 2014, to discuss the devastating impact of deportations on the immigrant community, I was absent for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 131, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 132, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 133.

Madam Speaker, the young lady in the white dress in this picture is a role model for all young people. Her whole family are role models. They are the family you want living on your street.

They always shovel and salt their driveway. Their house is always spotlessly clean, and all of the children are on the honor roll. They make me proud to live in Chicago.

Liz and her three older siblings are all U.S. citizens. When Republicans say to me that President Obama is not enforcing the immigration laws, I think of Liz's face.

When the President says there is nothing more he can do to keep immigrant families together, I think of her face, too. When citizens say to me that it really doesn't matter whether they vote or not, I want them to think of Liz.

Liz has a father who is facing deportation. He has lived in the United States for more than 20 years and raised a beautiful, healthy, upstanding American family.

But Luis--I hear my Republican colleagues say to me--all of this deportation nonsense is in your head. The administration is fudging the numbers to make it look like they are enforcing the law, the Republicans say.

But hundreds of thousands of American families are being split up. Over a 2-year period, according to Applied Research Center, 200,000 parents of American citizens, like Liz's parents, were deported.

And I hear my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee talk about Latinos--especially immigrant Latinos--that they are all criminals and drug cartel kingpins; and, therefore, we have to arrange our entire immigration system as if they are all violent felons.

But what about Liz and her family? Liz is not a drug kingpin in her fourth grade class. Her parents and her siblings are not meth heads and meth chemists, but the random deportation wheel landed on them; and according to Republicans, they are willing to sue the President in Federal court if he takes action to spare this father of four American citizen children from deportation.

But Luis--I hear my Democratic colleagues say--for several years, President Obama has instituted programs at Homeland Security to help families, removing noncriminals and parents and DREAMers from the deportation queue.

And, indeed, the President and Homeland Security constantly talk about how many gangbangers and hardened criminals they are removing from the country; but that doesn't change the reality for Liz or her family. That doesn't change the fear that families, like Liz's, face every day.

People who have lived here peacefully and raised a proud American family are just a broken taillight or an unlucky encounter away from losing everything, losing their children.

And what about going out and coming back in ``the right way,'' as the Republicans always suggest? Despite 20 years in the U.S., despite four U.S. citizen children in his family who are willing to petition for their dad, Congress, two decades ago, made it impossible for this family to ever live together in the U.S. legally, unless we change the law again.

But Republicans refuse to allow a vote on immigration reform when they know a majority of Members of the House of Representatives would vote to allow families, like Liz's, to continue living together and prosper.

Sorry, Liz. Politics is more important than an American family or two or 200 American families or even 200,000; and the President has said he cannot do more to alleviate the fear that American kids, like Liz, face.

The political price of helping Americans, like Liz, is too high. It is shameful that the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States are putting politics and election calculations ahead of Liz's family.

To Liz, the solution is clear. If you will not act, she will. She said recently:

No child should ever have to be separated from their

parents. When I grow up, I want to be a U.S. Senator because

I want to be in a position to help people when they need it

and pass laws that are good for people.

I wish my colleagues felt the same way this young lady, Liz, feels. I don't

know if she will ever be a U.S. Senator when she is eligible to run in 20 or 30 years, but I will tell you one thing I am pretty sure of: in less than 10 years, she will be old enough to vote, and her older siblings, even sooner than that.

Madam Speaker, do you think she will remember which party prevented reform or threatened to sue the President if he spared her dad from deportation?

Take a look at the picture. Republicans, they are hoping the dad gets deported and the mom never becomes a citizen; but the poor children are Americans already and will someday have a vote and, from the looks of it, will be voting for decades to come. I suggest, Madam Speaker, you do the math.

Mr. Chairman, the goal of the ENFORCE Act is to ensure that this do-nothing Congress forces President Obama to be a do-nothing President as well. It is not enough for the Republican majority to be setting records for how little they are doing. They expect the same do- nothingness from the President, especially on immigration.

What the Republicans have failed to do is to work with their Democratic colleagues to bring serious, realistic, and achievable immigration reform legislation to the floor, reform that is overwhelmingly popular with the American people. They worked with us for months. Then they decided they would rather deploy their sound bite strategy that the President can't be trusted to enforce the law--and walked away from negotiations. The Republicans put forward broad, vague but sensible principles they said would guide their reform efforts. Then, just as quickly, they decided they would deploy their sound bite strategy that the President can't be trusted to enforce the law--and walked away from the legislation.

I want to take a moment to show you this, and I want to point it over to my Republican colleagues in case they forgot. It is signed by Lamar Smith and Henry Hyde.

Here is what it says:

There has been widespread agreement that some deportations

were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardships. If the

facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to

us, we must ask why the INS pursued removal in such cases

when so many other, more serious cases existed.

You wrote the President of the United States, and asked then- President Clinton to use his discretionary power.

You said further in your letter:

It is well-grounded the prosecutorial discretion of the

initiation and termination of removal proceedings. See

attached referendum. Optimally, removal proceedings should be

initiated--that is deportations--or terminated only upon

specific instructions from authorized INS officials and

issued in accordance with agency guidelines. However, the

INS, apparently, has not yet promulgated such guidelines.

That is what the President of the United States did. He promulgated guidelines which you said that then-President Clinton would not promulgate. What were they? It was DACA. That is what he promulgated. He promulgated guidelines, and please don't tell me it was a group of people and that they had to do it individually. Tell the thousands of DREAMers who have been denied DACA that they didn't apply individually. Each and every case was applied individually. Each of them came before the authorities and said: I want to apply for this program under these guidelines promulgated by President Obama.

When he does it, I guess you don't care. I guess then we can't trust them. No, you can't trust them, because you do not want to act, and you want to use it as an excuse.

Moreover, I want to read to you from the Republican principles on immigration. This is what your caucus put forward:

One of the greatest founding principles of our country was

that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their

parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal

residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this

country as children through no fault of their own and have no

other place.

Yet, today, you want to take that very ability from the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 91 in support of passage of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 92 in support of H. Res. 488 supporting the people of Venezuela. The Venezuelan people have the right to protest peacefully without fear of violence or intimidation.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor to discuss a very serious illness afflicting Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post diagnosed it as ``Obama derangement syndrome.''

Milbank defined the syndrome as an affliction in which: ``The President's opponents are so determined to thwart him that they will reverse long-held views if they believe it will weaken his stature.''

I would define it as a broader and more serious condition, the irrational fear that the 44th President of the United States of America is something he is not.

From a public health standpoint, the news is pretty bad. Those of us concerned with the long-term health of the

body politic have identified an aggressive fact-resistant strain of Obama derangement syndrome that affects how the Republican Caucus views immigration enforcement.

Remember, the Republicans are currently sitting on their hands when it comes to immigration reform because they say they cannot trust the President of the United States to enforce immigration laws.

Well, I thought it would be a good time to offer a quiz to determine just how fact-resistant the current epidemic of Obama derangement syndrome really is.

Here we have the last three Presidents of the United States: Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama. Mr. Speaker, let's test our knowledge of how much or how little they have enforced the immigration laws of the United States during their terms.

Question one: Which President deported a population slightly larger than the population of the entire State of Nebraska, with almost 2 million deported so far?

Barack Obama has deported more people than the number living in the entire State of Nebraska. No one has deported more people. A star for first place goes to Barack Obama.

Question two: Who expanded immigration enforcement by local law enforcement a hundredfold? One of these Presidents expanded the Secure Communities program for deporting immigrants who are booked into local jails from 31 jurisdictions in this Nation to over 3,000.

And who was that? Yes, President Barack Obama, another dubious star.

Question number three: Let's go to ``boots on the ground,'' where the immigration issue seems to begin and end for many Republicans. Who spent more money on immigration enforcement than all other Federal law enforcement combined? Well, if you guessed Barack Obama, you would be right.

Yes, the $18 billion he spends is $3.5 billion more every year than we spend on the FBI, ATF, DEA, and Secret Service--all of them combined--in order to achieve what? Unprecedented deportations, so he gets another star.

Question four: What crimes are the most prosecuted crimes in Federal court? Do you think kidnapping, murder, counterfeiting, political corruption?

No. Under Barack Obama, the number one crime prosecuted as a misdemeanor is being illegally in this country. And the number one crime prosecuted as a felony in Federal courts is what? Illegal reentry to the United States. He gets another star.

Finally, for question five, we get to detention. Which of these Presidents put more than 420,000 people in detention in just one single year of his presidency? Yes, arrested and put them in jail.

President Barack Obama has detained more immigrants in jails, prisons, and detention facilities than any other President of the United States of America.

That is five for five, and it goes to the deporter-in-chief, Barack Obama; but because Obama derangement syndrome is so fact-resistant, I am not optimistic I have convinced anybody this morning, but tell that to the more than 5,000 American citizen children who today sit in foster care because their moms or dads have been deported.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The immigrant community is organized and will continue to pressure Republicans and the President until this unprecedented wave of deportation ends.

Republicans can either be participants in how this country advances more sensible immigration policies, or they can just simply sit on the sidelines while the President does it with his phone and his pen.

And secondly, if we pass immigration reform in this body today, most of the new reforms won't take place for about 2 years. Obama won't even be President of the United States of America.

In fact, if Republicans continue to insist on making immigration reform a football in their game against the current President, they are all but guaranteeing that the President in 2 years will not be a member of your party--not a member of the Republican Party--and could very well be the wife of one of these three gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to enter into the Record this article written by Reverends Eason, Goodroe, and Castillo, all three of Spartanburg, South Carolina, who wrote an article that appeared Tuesday in the Greenville, South Carolina, News entitled, ``God Often Reminds Us to Welcome the Stranger.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I participated in another do-nothing Judiciary Committee hearing in this do-nothing Congress. This do-nothing hearing was unique. The goal was to make sure that the President was a do- nothing President as well.

It is not enough for the Republican majority to be setting records for how little they are doing. No. Ignoring immigration reform is bad enough--let alone the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and the environment.

So the do-nothing Congress held a hearing yesterday entitled, ``Enforcing the President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.'' The intent was clear: attack the President. It was held in the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration, so there was lots of discussion about deferred action for DREAMers. This is where the President has exercised his power of prosecutorial discretion to temporarily suspend the deportation of people who came here to the U.S. as children.

Apparently, when the President stood just over there last month and delivered his State of the Union address, saying he would use his pen and phone to take executive action where the Congress was taking no action--well, that didn't go over well with this do-nothing Congress.

Look, I know it is easier for Republicans to blame Democrats and blame Obama and make excuses for why they can't do immigration reform this year. You have to keep it connected to reality. You put your principles for immigration reform on the table. You call them ``standards.'' And there were some things I liked and some things I didn't. But what I said was: Good. Thank you. It's a nice start. Let's sit down and talk some more.

Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic rank and file in the House said: Good. Great starting point. Let's talk some more.

And the President you don't trust said: Good. It's a great starting point. Let's negotiate.

How did the Republicans respond? When Democrats said: Yes, let's talk; the Republicans said: No, just kidding. Immigration reform is hard. We would rather just talk about how awful it is that people are getting health care through ObamaCare.

You put something on the table, we say let's talk, and you say no, and then blame Democrats for blocking immigration. It makes no sense.

Questioning whether the President has the power to stop the deportation of immigrants who came here as children and have lived here practically their whole lives in the U.S., what are you thinking? The President not only has the power to suspend those deportations, he has the duty to suspend those deportations.

So here we are, with the entire country demanding reform of our immigration system, demanding we change our law. We see the parents of U.S. citizen children being deported and their children put in foster care. And we say there's got to be a better way to handle this situation that is good for the taxpayer, good for the immigrant family, good for our economy, and national security.

House Republicans see the situation and apparently say: No, we refuse to change the law because it is hard and we don't trust the President. And because the law is the law, we must deport them all.

When I and anyone else with a conscience looks at that American child being put in foster care because we have deported his parents and he looks at you doing nothing, we say something has to be done because it is the right thing to do from a moral perspective.

So, let me be clear, Mr. President, if you act to suspend the deportation of a person whose American child will be put in foster care, I will applaud you and so will most everyone on this side of the aisle. It will not only be us applauding. The three evangelical leaders

who wrote the essay I entered into the Record, all three important religious leaders from Spartanburg, South Carolina, this is how they put it:

Immigration reform is an urgent need--inaction carries a

profound human cost and we consistently see this in our

ministries.

Hardworking, contributing members of our society live in

constant fear of deportation. The victimization of

individuals and families goes unreported, and families are

torn apart as American-citizen children lose one or both of

their parents to deportation proceedings.

They add:

We stand at a critical crossroads. Our broken and

antiquated immigration system has precipitated an economic

and moral crisis that we can ignore no longer.

Listen to your church elders. While you do nothing, the number on the board behind me continues to increase and the deportation machine continues.

If you don't, I and millions of others across this land will continue insisting that the President exercise his authority to stop deportation and separation of American families. We will force the President to act, and I assure you we will win that fight.

[From the Greenville News, Feb. 22, 2014]

God Often Reminds Us to Welcome Immigrants

(By Ricky Eason, Jim Goodroe, and Greg Castillo)

Late last month, House Republicans released standards that

will guide their efforts as they move forward on immigration

reform. As evangelical leaders, we join voices from the

business and law enforcement communities to strongly support

this step.

We applaud any progress toward a solution for one of our

nation's most complex and critical issues. With President

Barack Obama's comments in the State of the Union address,

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers' mention in her

Republican response, and now the release of these standards,

bipartisan support for immigration reform is clear.

In a time of bitter division and partisan politics, we call

on our nation's leaders to transcend their differences and

pass commonsense, broad reform that will strengthen our

economy, make our nation safer, and give our undocumented

neighbors an opportunity to come out of the shadows and earn

legal status.

As faith leaders who call ourselves ``The Three Amigos,''

we represent the three largest ethnic groups in South

Carolina. Although we come from communities with different

cultural and political perspectives, we stand united in our

Christian commitment to share the Gospel with all peoples

(Matthew: 28:19), welcome and love the strangers in our midst

(Leviticus 19:34, Matthew 25:31-46), and seek justice in our

communities (Isaiah 1:17).

Throughout Scripture, God continually reminds His people to

love and welcome the immigrants in their midst. As people who

arrive to a strange place with no land, family or

connections, immigrants are some of the most vulnerable

people in any given community. For this reason, they

consistently join widows and orphans in the Biblical ``triad

of the vulnerable'' that God desires to protect (Exodus

22:21-22).

In our combined 60 years of ministry in the Upstate of

South Carolina, we have served and ministered to immigrants

from all over the world, documented and undocumented. While

undocumented immigrants are often mischaracterized or used

abstractly in political arguments, we know these people

personally as our neighbors, friends, and brothers and

sisters. Immigration reform is an urgent need--inaction

carries a profound human cost that we consistently see in our

ministries.

Hardworking and contributing members of our society live in

constant fear of deportation, the victimization of

individuals and families goes unreported, and families are

torn apart as American-citizen children lose one or both

parents to deportation proceedings. Striking a middle ground

between the extreme positions of mass deportation and open

borders, we join with House Republicans in advocating for a

middle ground where those without documentation can come out

of the shadows, make restitution, and get right with the law.

Such an approach is very different from amnesty, which is

the absence of legal consequences. Instead, this realistic

approach would allow undocumented immigrants to admit

culpability and pay their debt to society without separating

or harming families or causing undue harm to our nation's

economy.

We stand at a critical crossroads. Our broken and

antiquated immigration system has precipitated an economic

and moral crisis that we can ignore no longer. The Republican

standards moved us one step closer to a solution that will

protect the border, help grow our economy, and provide an

opportunity for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status

and fully participate in our communities.

The time for further action is now. Congress needs to

overcome its doubts, and keep moving toward the legislation

that is so desperately needed.

We join other evangelical leaders from across the country

in reaffirming our commitment to earnestly pray for Congress

and for immigration reform in 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, February 25, 2014.

I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 63, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 64.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes on Monday, February 10, 2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 55, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 56, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 57.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday morning, I tweeted out a message to the 30,000 people who follow me on Twitter. The tweet said:

The GOP doesn't determine when the fight for immigration

reform ends. We will continue to fight for a bill in 2014

because that is what is right, what is fair, and what is best

for the USA.

I sent this because many in the pro-immigration reform community thought they heard Speaker John Boehner giving up on immigration reform in 2014. That is not what I heard, but many in the community and in the press heard it that way.

I wanted to make it clear that the immigrant community and the huge movement behind immigration reform--business, clergy, and everyone else--are just not going away. We are not taking ``wait,'' ``maybe,'' and ``no'' for an answer.

By now, every time Speaker Boehner says anything about immigration reform, the press and the pundits go crazy. Even if it isn't clear what exactly the Speaker said, a good percentage of the press runs out and writes obituary number 247 for immigration reform.

What I heard the Speaker say last week was that getting immigration reform passed in the House would be hard.

Tell me about it.

I also heard the Speaker say at his news conference that the House ``needs'' to get immigration reform done this year, and he is right.

Then I heard the Speaker say that the GOP doesn't trust the President of the United States. Really? Despite 2 million deportations and the lowest rate of illegal immigration in recent decades, the House GOP doesn't believe President Barack Obama will enforce immigration laws.

Well, I have been working on this for a while, and, first of all, you are right. It is hard. For more than a decade, I had to work on my own party to get them behind substantial immigration reform, but the Democrats are ready now--and ready to help you, Mr. Speaker, pass a bill. The movement will help supporters of immigration reform in the House GOP Conference work to convince their members that moving forward to actual legislation is not only the right thing to do from a justice perspective, from a law and order perspective, and from an economic perspective, but the right thing to do from a political perspective.

Mr. Speaker, when you said the House needs to pass a bill, boy, are you right.

Nobody believes the Republican Party can elect anyone for President unless you find some way to neutralize the damage you have done to yourselves with your deportation-only approach to immigration. The immigration issue doesn't just hurt you with Latino voters. It has hurt you with Asian and younger voters, too.

There is simply no math that adds up to 270 electoral votes unless the Republican Party stops getting slaughtered by 30, 40, or 50 points among the largest-, fastest-growing groups of voters in this country. It gets only worse with each passing day, with another 2,000 Latino citizens turning 18 every day and becoming eligible to vote.

Speaker Boehner knows this is the best chance his party has of getting the immigration issue off the table before 2016, and I believe he plans to come back to immigration reform. The cost to the GOP politically is just too high if the GOP-controlled House blocks legislation this year.

You thought the Super Bowl was a blowout last month? Wait until November 2016 if immigration reform is still hanging out there undone. You can tell the babysitter you will be home by 10:30 on election night. The contest will be over early. It will be Democrats in the White House by a landslide.

This notion, Mr. Speaker, that President Obama cannot be trusted to enforce immigration laws just doesn't make any sense to anyone who follows the issue. Every day, day after day, week after week, and year after year, people are being ``disappeared'' by our immigration enforcement machine. Another 1,100 today--and tomorrow.

Where is the generosity of spirit in that? This lax, liberal, soft- heartedness you seem to imagine, I wish you could tell that to the estimated 5,000 children currently in foster care because their parents are in detention or have already been deported. Tell them how soft Obama is.

I am going out to suburban Washington this evening to talk with immigrants and advocates at Casa de Maryland. I don't expect I will hear very much praise for President Obama's enlightened approach to deportation and detention tonight.

They are not waiting patiently for Speaker Boehner or anyone in the Republican Conference to make up their minds about whether or when to start legislating on this matter. I know they are not taking ``maybe'' or ``not now'' or ``no'' for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, you are not going to be spared. Kids will keep showing up to interrupt your breakfast as long as their parents are facing deportation and their communities are being ripped apart.

Mr. Speaker, you can't deport your way out of this. You can't ignore your way out of this. You can't blame Obama for your way out of this. You must act for the good of the country.

Mr. Speaker, there is no area of foreign policy that produces greater concern amongst American citizens than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Whether Democrat, Independent, or Republican, there is remarkable unity across the ideological spectrum that we must do everything in our power to prevent that outcome.

We have heard the steady drumbeat over the years that Iran is moving closer and closer to achieving nuclear capability. We have seen the regime engage in dangerous provocations and offer support to Hezbollah and other militant groups that have threatened the stability of the region and caused significant concerns for our allies and friends.

The Obama administration worked with our international partners to impose crippling sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions covered Iran's banking, energy, shipping, shipbuilding, insurance, and broadcasting sectors, and even gold and precious metals.

Now, after decades of tension between the United States and Iran and the escalating international pressure of sanctions and isolation, we have seen positive steps in relatively quick succession. After the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, I joined over 130 of my colleagues calling on President Obama to ``utilize all diplomatic tools to reinvigorate ongoing nuclear talks,'' including the potential that ``bilateral and multilateral sanctions be calibrated in a way that they induce significant and verifiable concessions.''

Those diplomatic overtures, coupled with the debilitating sanctions on Iran's energy and banking sectors, yielded the historic phone call between President Obama and President Rouhani, the first direct contact between leaders of our two nations in 34 years, and, ultimately, the signing of the Joint Plan of Action representing real progress towards a nuclear agreement.

There remain ample reasons to question the prospects of a long-term agreement with Iran. We have heard the President 1 week ago in this very room speak of the challenges for negotiators, cautioning ``they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies, and the mistrust between our nations cannot be simply wished away.''

Now, Members of Congress in both Chambers are discussing legislation for new and expanded sanctions. Our constituents, deeply concerned with the Middle East and strongly in favor of peace, are asking us what we think, how we would vote, and what we should do as a Congress and as a nation.

I have had the honor of serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as a Member have regular access to the classified assessments of the professionals in our intelligence community, who provide a much fuller and clearer picture

of the situation in Iran. I cannot tell you what the information is here or anywhere else because it is appropriately classified, but based on the classified briefings I have received on the situation in Iran and the Joint Plan of Action, I am very reluctant to support any additional sanctions at this time.

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this issue to all Members and the stakes involved in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, I think many of my colleagues would be in a much better position to evaluate the options before us if they also had access to the very classified briefing from which I regularly benefit. That is why I wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi last week asking them to convene a classified briefing for Members of the House of Representatives.

All of us could have had access to classified materials or request a briefing if we wanted one on a case-by-case basis, but the point is that we are facing a crossroads as a nation, and we are facing a crossroads as a Congress, and I want us to be as informed as possible.

I understand the mistrust between the United States and Iran, and the desire of some in this body to seek additional sanctions, even as we are implementing the terms of the 6-month agreement.

We need clear-eyed, apolitical, informed decisionmaking so we can make the best possible choices on behalf of our constituents and the Nation.

I believe my colleagues would find great value in the classified briefing and come away with greater confidence in the work of the administration and our international partners.

I have been convinced that now is not the time to consider additional sanctions, but I want my colleagues to make up their own minds and to do so with as much information as possible, so I renew my request for classified briefings as soon as they can be arranged.

I have every confidence that if talks falter or we have evidence that Iran is not abiding by the terms of the Joint Plan of Action, the Congress will not hesitate to take appropriate actions, including imposing new sanctions on Iran. But with Iran at the negotiating table, taking steps to halt enrichment and submit to enhanced inspections and monitoring, it is worth giving diplomacy the chance to succeed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend, Victor Portugues Garcia, who passed away this weekend in Puerto Rico. Victor Portugues served as under secretary of Housing for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from 1972 to 1976 and was an excellent engineer. His wife, Carmen Santa, has been a math teacher for many years, and they raised five children, all of whom graduated from prestigious universities.

I want to say to his family and to all of those who are going to miss him dearly that we are saddened by his passing and his death. To the Portugues family, we know that many people talk about infectious smiles. Victor's was truly an infectious smile. He always had something positive to say, always contributed to helping everyone else, and never asked for anything for himself. I don't know what more you can say about a human being. I know he is resting in peace, and I know that I look forward to being with him when I, too, leave this world.

Thank you, Victor, for all you have done.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber for votes on Monday, December 2, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 612 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 613.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is news to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that you don't win every battle around here. The place is tough, and occasionally you get knocked down. The measure of a man or woman in Congress, or anyplace for that matter, is what do you after.

We all witnessed a political showdown over the past several weeks, and now it is time to put it behind us. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up and show the country what you are made of, and let us actually legislate on behalf of the American people.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say things like, We don't trust that President; we can't work with this President.

So, Mr. Speaker, does this apply to everything?

Will there be no legislation until there is a different President in 2017?

Well, that doesn't sound very realistic.

On my side of the aisle, they are already saying, oh, those Republicans, they are hard-liners; they will not compromise on anything. And when someone does reach across the aisle to say, hey, let's work on an issue together, what do we get?

Hey, why are you helping them?

I have heard it. When I stood with David Valadao in California, or Paul Ryan in Chicago to say immigration reform is an objective we can reach in a bipartisan manner, I heard from the Democrats: stop working with them, we're trying to defeat them. We want to take the House back.

Look, I get it. There are millions of dollars to be raised by partisan bickering. Your side raised a ton of money off the past battle, and my side has too.

The fact is that if two of us get into a shouting match, it is news; and if it gets bad, it will be shown on every channel. But if two of us reach an agreement on something, it's not news.

You know, bipartisanship is something that is much lauded here, but it is infrequently applauded and rarely rewarded.

But here is the thing. The only way we actually get anything done is to put aside the shouting matches and work together. I want immigration reform to pass; and even though I think almost every single Democrat agrees with me, it is still not enough because there are only 201 of us.

We don't run the Rules Committee or set the agenda. The Republicans are the majority in the House, so I know I have to work with the other side.

On your side, you say you don't like what the Senate passed. Let's not just respond with nothing. Let's craft a House response and put our own proposal on the table.

Those on the other side of the aisle say they don't trust the President and can't work with him. Well, okay. Fine. Then work with your colleagues on this side of the aisle.

You know, there are 435 of us. We need 218 votes to pass a bill, and the President doesn't get a vote.

The truth is that even during the shutdown, many on your side of the aisle have been drafting proposals that many of us on this side of the aisle are willing to work with you on. The question is whether the work on a bipartisan basis will be allowed to flourish.

I want to spend the rest of this Congress working with whoever wants to join, in either party, to get immigration reform done.

Your side needs a little time to recover from the last fight? I get that. But with 1,100 deportations every day, we can't wait forever. The kids who are losing their moms are not going to wait for you or for me. The husbands and the fathers who die in the desert because their wives and kids live here don't have any more time to give.

But you probably ask, Luis, after the battle over health care and budget, how can two parties ever work together?

But, you know, that is exactly what I thought in 1996: How can we work together?

I was here 17 years ago. In 1996, it was Speaker Gingrich who shut down the government. But after that, let's remember what happened. We passed a series of major bipartisan bills on difficult policy issues.

Welfare reform was crafted, in part, by a very conservative House, and signed by a very liberal President Clinton. He had vetoed the bill twice before but, after the shutdown, reached an agreement with the Republican majority.

The Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill was historic, bipartisan legislation on health care, and we passed it after the shutdown. We can do the same if politicians in both parties are committed to accomplishments over campaign talking points. We can pass immigration reform this year.

We all know that immigration reform is immensely popular with voters in both parties who want a political solution to fixing our broken immigration system. Diverse constituencies back immigration reform, like labor unions and business owners and evangelical leaders and Catholic bishops and leaders across the political spectrum.

Don't think of it as working with President Obama if it makes it easier for you. Think of it as doing your job. Think of it as working on behalf of the American people, not for an Obama solution, not for a Tea Party solution, but for an American solution.