Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the legislation before us, H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries.

The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the positive economic impact it is expected to have on the economy.

Let me just take one state's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston area, providing $48 million in state and local tax revenues, and increasing the gross domestic product of the state by $1.9 billion.

I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and voted accordingly less than a month and a half ago, on November 14, which was H.R. 5682. Yet the legislation contains several provisions that are of great concern to me which I feel inclined to address.

First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements.

To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest.

Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The bill, however, declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska even

though the project crosses an international border. This is unprecedented.

Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.

As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.

Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and requires claims regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of the action that gives rise to the claim.

It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to Washington, DC to vindicate their legal rights.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe the bill before could have been improved had amendments been made in order.

For example, two proposed amendments, one from a Democrats and one Republican, making oil sands petroleum eligible to pay an excise tax into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and another splitting revenue generated by the pipeline's construction between DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy research and deficit reduction, were not made-in-order.

Had the bill been subject to amendment and the amendments offered in the Rules Committee been made in order and approved, the bill before us would be improved markedly.

And Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of this body, you are well-aware that when amendments are made-in-order, the rank-and-file can at least feel that they had a say in the process but when a Closed Rule is put forth--it does not stoke optimism about the legislative process for the 114th Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the

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

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

been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set

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

principal feature of the removal system is the broad

discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal

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

sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings

commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary

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

leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations

omitted).

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

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces

immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to

support their families, for example, likely pose less danger

than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.

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

including whether the alien has children born in the United

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

distinguished military service.

Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that

bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an

alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even

where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet

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

civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring

conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his

family will be harmed upon return.

The dynamic nature of relations with other countries

requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement

policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy

with respect to these and other realities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does nothing to make America safer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I started out this week to remind Americans of the difficult times in which we live. Sadly, today, rather than passing a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill upon which Americans are depending to secure this land, we had a political fight.

I want to remind those around the world that America still stands strong and committed to fighting the war on terror. In joining with our friends in Africa against the horrific actions of Boko Haram and the suicide bombings that they are forcing 10-year-old children to do, we stand with our friends in Europe and around the world.

Most of all, what we must do is find a way to steer the young lives that are being captured by the Internet and online brutality away from these kinds of dastardly acts.

I think it is important that we find a way to educate the young boys and girls in Nigeria and in countries around the world and to be able to say to them that there is a greater and better life of opportunity and humanity.

I am committed, as we move in this legislative process, to focus on removing the dastardly acts of these terrorists and on saving our boys and girls.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act, which will help stem the epidemic of veteran suicide.

Tragically, an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide each day--more than 8,000 each year.

Of the more than 2 million Americans who have served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is estimated that one-third, roughly 600,000 men and women, have traumatic brain injury, PTSD or Depression.

Mr. Speaker, combatting the epidemic of veteran suicide must be one of the nation's highest priorities.

The bill before us is important to our nation and critically important to my home state of Texas, which has one of the highest rates of veteran suicide in the country.

According to an analysis conducted by the Houston Chronicle, suicides among Texans under the age of 35 who had served in the military ``jumped from 47 in 2006 to 66 in 2009--an increase of 40 percent.''

According to that same analysis, ``last year, suicides made up nearly 25 percent of the deaths of Texans younger than 35 who served in the military. That percentage is more than twice the rate of suicide in the comparable civilian population.''

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 203 expands access to mental health services for our nation's veterans and increases the capacity and efficiency of VA care to deal with the more than one million veterans returning from war.

Our veterans deserve to have our support. These individuals put their lives on the line for our country to stay safe.

Specifically, H.R. 203, which enjoys broad and deep bipartisan support:

1. Establishes a peer support and community outreach pilot program to assist transitioning service members with accessing VA mental health care services.

2. Requires the VA to create a one-stop, interactive website to serve as a centralized information source regarding all mental health services for veterans.

3. Takes steps to address the shortage of mental health care professionals by authorizing the VA to conduct a student loan repayment pilot program aimed at recruiting and retaining psychiatrists.

4. Requires yearly evaluations--with interim reports due in the first two years and a final report due the third year and every year after-- conducted by a third party, of all mental health care and suicide prevention practices and programs at the VA to find out what is working and what's not working and to make recommendations to improve care.

Passing H.R. 203 is an essential first step in ensuring that our veterans are receiving the help and care they need.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 203.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 33, the ``Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act,'' which clarifies that volunteer firefighters and first responders are not to be counted towards an employer's calculation of its full-time employees for the purposes of determining if the employer falls under the ACA's employer responsibility requirement.

I support this bill because it protects fire departments from being required to pay for the insurance of their volunteers.

If they were required to pay, it is likely that many fire companies would be forced out of business.

This bill is identical to H.R. 3979, reported in the 113th Congress by the Ways and Means Committee by a 37-0 vote, and passed on the House floor by a bipartisan 410-0 vote.

The only reason this bill was never delivered to the President's desk was that the Senate ran out of time in their effort to pass the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, preventing the Federal government from shutting down.

Within the state of Texas, nearly 85% of fire departments are operated entirely on a volunteer or mostly basis.

Failure to pass this bill would mean dire consequences for the future of these volunteer fire departments.

As this bill was passed unanimously in the previous House, I see no reason why it should not do the same in this one.

I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting our nation's fire departments by voting for the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the new year has come with many blessings, but it has also come with a major wake-up call. I rise again to express my deepest sympathy to the people of France, the loss of lives, including our Jewish brothers and sisters targeted simply because of their faith and other innocents.

I stand as well to recognize my friends in the Muslim community who have all come together, to thank them for standing against violent and reckless terrorism. Their voices were loud and present and noted.

I recognize the heads of state, the work of the United States in standing alongside France, our early and longstanding partner in democracy and liberty. Yesterday, some of us had the privilege, hosted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, to greet the French Ambassador and to offer to the people of France our personal regrets and sympathy.

As we look to the incidents that are coming to our attention around the world, let me bring up again the girls in Nigeria, who were taken almost a year ago, 300 innocent school girls. The only thing that they wanted to do was to take their exams.

In the spring of 2014, I led a delegation of Members of Congress to the northern state of Borno. I met the pleading and crying and broken families. I met some of the girls who gave a harrowing story of how they escaped, sliding through the wooded forests, escaping for their lives with just the clothes on their back. Only through a light from a house along the road were they able to get some refuge, and then three of them escaped on a motorcycle with a hero whose name probably will never be noted.

But these girls have no more identity. We are saying bring the girls back, but maybe they are married and impregnated and indoctrinated in this instance with doctrines that were not their life. They were Christian.

The focus on Africa must be enhanced. I thank my good friend Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been working tirelessly as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee and had a brilliant meeting this morning.

I come now to announce that we cannot stand by as Boko Haram pillages violently, recklessly, with inhumanity, kills with reckless abandonment, with no one stopping them, 2,000 people along Lake Chad, bodies that people are tripping over and finding under bushes and trees. This is a cry for mercy; this is an outrage. The world cannot stand by idly and not look to this.

Nigeria cannot fight this alone, and just as we have announced a concerted global effort against ISIL and al Qaeda, we must do this against Boko Haram. They are not simply a group of thugs. They have connected to this vile institution of terrorism, and they are going up against ill-prepared military forces.

We could point the finger, and I am asking for the Government of Nigeria to stand and ask for help. There is no shame in asking for help. I am asking the United Nations to do more than it is doing. I am asking the African Union to collaborate with the forces that they have at their side with the collaboration of African countries to go to the rescue of the innocent persons in northern Nigeria.

How can we stand by when a 10-year-old girl who needs to be playing with dolls and going to school and looking into the sunshine for an aspirational light of things that she can do in 2014, probably a brilliant little girl, unbeknownst to her, strapped with a horrible bomb and now in death, with her little body splintered by a bomb--a suicide bomber--how can she even understand what they had told her she was doing?

Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that I am calling upon the world to join in a global effort to fight the terrorist dastardly behavior of an uncaring Boko Haram, and I close by saying that we must reach out to young Muslim boys in northern Nigeria for an alternative to that life.

May God rest in peace those who have died at the hands of terrorists, and we ask for a unified global response.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today again to join my colleagues whom you will hear from to challenge this dastardly act of our 300 girls that remain captured, abused, violated, impregnated, and maybe even married into the horrors of Boko Haram. These women and these voices that you see are the very women that we met when we went to Borno State just last year as they pleaded to be able to bring the girls back, but now their voices were turned toward the 2,000 who have been killed by the horrors of Boko Haram.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I join my colleagues today, I ask for a global response in the war on Boko Haram, a global response from the African Union, a global response from the United Nations, and a global response from the world to fight against Boko Haram and, at the same time, to save the boys that are being recruited by this violent and horrible leader. This leader is turning these young boys into violent killers. 2,000 dead bodies are all over the ground, and our girls now are still suffering.

So to these beautiful women who are now still in the midst saying bring the girls back, I want to tell them that we are coming to the rescue. We will not allow the world to stand by while Boko Haram kills.

Mr. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have articulated, an executive order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the

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

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

been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set

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

principal feature of the removal system is the broad

discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal

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

sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings

commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary

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

leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations

omitted).

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

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces

immediate human concerns.

Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for

example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or

aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an

individual case may turn on many factors, including whether

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

to the community, or a record of distinguished military

service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I would almost attempt to bring back ``Swanee River,'' or some old song that reflects ``here we go again.''

This is a bill that has been recycled. It has been recycled and it has been recycled. I believe the underlying premise of the bill is contrary to the values of the American people. This is proposed as a Regulatory Accountability Act to generate jobs and opportunity. I rise in opposition to a bill that stymies progress, hinders clean water and clean air, and provides mountainous obstacles to the national security of America.

What is the underlying premise of H.R. 185? The underlying premise of this bill is to require 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act, and it requires Federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all indirect costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost.

Mr. Chairman, is there logic to saying that you are streamlining the APA process when you are adding a mountainous, tall, multifloor skyscraper of requirements? Is it accurate to suggest that you are making the process better when you are causing agencies of varying sizes already suffering from the restraints of the budget-cutting process of my friends on the other side of the aisle, are you suggesting that they can then analyze indirect costs and actually save money?

We live in a climate and an era of difficult times. As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, as our Secretary of Homeland Security has said, these are dangerous times. We have already indicated our sympathy for the people of France and viewed it as a wake-up call. Do you realize that some of the agencies facing this crisis will be Homeland Security, Health and Human Services? Does anyone recall the tragedy of Ebola and how quickly action was needed?

This undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for Federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. In fact, this is not helpful when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question: What are we saving here?

What money are we saving? Why are we undermining the very protection of this Nation?

Again, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and, again, homeland security, all of these very important elements of safety for the American people will be undermined by H.R. 185. Today, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to stand on the side of the American people and vigorously oppose H.R. 185.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015.

This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives.

In essence though--this H.R. 185 only adds to the procedural burdens of federal agencies--making it harder for them to effectively carry out their missions.

The Regulatory Accountability Act:

Creates confusion and delay by adding over 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all the ``indirect'' costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost.

Mr. Chair, the tragedy last week in France was a wake-up call--and we simply cannot delay, obfuscate, and slow down the regulatory process.

Slows down the rulemaking process by significantly increasing the demands on already constrained agency resources to produce the analysis and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule.

Undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. Mr. Chair, this is not helpful legislation when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far such as franchise terrorism, keep our water clean, and our food safe.

Allows any interested person has the ability to petition the agency to hold a public hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or factual conclusions underlying the proposed rule.

hinders the production of guidance documents

``Super-mandates'' cost-benefit analysis measures for major guidance documents. In addition it makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to increased regulatory uncertainty.

Provides regulated industries and companies multiple opportunities to challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch out the already lengthy rulemaking process--again--undermining the process.

makes the least costly rule the default choice

Requires that an agency default to the ``least costly'' rule unless it can demonstrate--out of all the possible alternative rules--that additional benefits justify any additional costs and offer a public health, safety, environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn from the authorizing statute including such critical measures as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

expands judicial review of agency judgments

This bill discourages agencies from rulemaking and from being able to do their jobs because judges are emboldened to substitute their own opinions for the findings of agencies.

Expands the scope of judicial review.

The Regulatory Accountability Act is designed to further obstruct and hinder rulemaking rather than improve the regulatory process.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to VOTE AGAINST the Regulatory Accountability Act and ensure that progress is not thwarted and government operations not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairman and rise to support the Jackson Lee amendment with a little journey down memory lane of just a few days ago.

Just a few days ago in northern Nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by the name of Boko Haram killed 2,000 people. Pillaging and killing has been their mantra, their definition.

A few days before that, we watched in horror as three terrorists killed 17 people in the nation state of France, our ally for many, many, many years--our partner, if you will, in the virtues of liberty and democracy.

My amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present legislation would have on the security of our Nation. My amendment simply asks that those issues dealing with Homeland Security be exempted from this rule.

The rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to be met when rulemaking begins. Can you imagine subjecting national security to that kind of criteria?

As indicated, this bill modifies a Federal regulatory or rulemaking process by codifying many requirements included in Presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule. We mentioned that in my earlier discussion.

My amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, having served previously as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am concerned about legislation that throws a monkey wrench in the footsteps of Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and many others.

I am concerned when our Secretary of Homeland Security indicates that we live in dangerous times and, therefore, calling upon America not just to see something and say something, but to be conscious of these dangerous times.

Can you imagine the necessity of a rulemaking that then must be burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defining the budget analysis or cost benefit?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do think we have oversight responsibilities, and I do think that we should be responsible in those oversight responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible, but I do not think that this legislation that has come to us time and time again and obviously failed is any answer to what we are trying to do.

Let me, first of all, say that this bill does not do as the Constitution has asked, and that is the ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union'' in the beginning of our Constitution.

This does not adhere to that, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.

Sally Katzen, formerly of the Obama and Clinton administration, mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the American people.

This is an impediment. I don't want to impede a regulatory scheme to help with cybersecurity; I don't want to impede the Coast Guard if it has intelligence about an attack on the Houston port with some regulatory scheme that doesn't allow it to move forward or to be able to address that question.

What we are suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of national security. I ask that you support this amendment by exempting the Department of Homeland Security that is entrusted with the security, domestic security of the United States of America.

I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

What Does the Regulatory Accountability Act Do?

This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives.

In addition, the measure creates statutory thresholds for regulations to be deemed ``major'' rules and ``high impact'' rules--i.e., rules likely to cost more than $100 million or $1 billion a year--and requires that these rules proposals be subject to additional criteria and procedural steps.

What Does the Amendment Do?

My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval requirement any rule

promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to emergencies.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Professor Sally Katzen, a former Obama and Clinton Administration official, discussed the benefits of regulation which an agency like the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, and that is brought home by the tragic events in Nigeria and France, where terrorists struck with horrible efficiency last week. Professor Katzen stated:

Moreover, while we hear a lot about the costs of

regulation, we rarely hear about the benefits of regulation--

for example, improving our health or the air we breathe or

the water we drink protecting our safety in our homes, our

automobiles, or our workplaces; or increasing the efficiency

of our markets.

Those who embrace cost/benefit analysis should speak to the

benefits as well as the costs of regulation. Here, there are

data--incomplete as they may be--which clearly show that the

benefits of rules issued during the Obama Administration have

been substantially greater than the costs of those rules. For

example, the 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and

Costs of Federal Regulations showed that for FY2011 (the most

recent fiscal year for which data are available), the rules

``were estimated to result in a total of $34.3 billion to

$89.5 billion in annual benefits and $5.0 billion to $10.1

billion in annual costs.

And make no mistake about Mr. Chair, the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security, an issue that should be at the forefront of everyone's legislative agenda in this new Congress.

In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.

We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, manageable, and cause the least possible damage.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to USCERT has increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 400% increase).

The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to do its job?

The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from these threats.

Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2011, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

Simply put, if Coast Guard Intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector.

We cannot hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people. No mission is more sacrosanct--and by bottling up the process with bureaucratic red tape.

As Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said recently:

Recent world events call for increased vigilance in

homeland security.

H.R. 185 makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and undue delay-- something that the American people can ill-afford. We cannot hamstring the Department when it is trying to cope with threats such as franchise terrorism. My amendment frees up Homeland Security to do its critical mission of protecting the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to ensure that lifesaving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

This GOP Bill Is Opposed by A Long List of National Organizations. National organizations opposing the bill include such organizations as the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which itself is a coalition of more than 70 consumer, environmental, health and public interest groups:

Consumer Federation of America;

Consumers Union;

Americans for Financial Reform;

Better Markets

Center for Responsible Lending

American Association for Justice

Center for Effective Government;

Public Citizen

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us to focus on what we are discussing here today: Paris, 17 dead; Canada; Australia; Boko Haram, 2,000 dead, a 10-year-old suicide bomber; and, of course, 9/11.

This is the Homeland Security Appropriations. I have had the privilege of serving on the authorizing committee since its creation, and every day we go to that committee, we know that the commitment is to secure the American people.

This is not a forum to battle one's agreements or disagreements with the Constitution and with the President's executive authority or to battle your disagreements with the idea of deporting felons over families--that debate can be had--but, tonight, we are wrongly jeopardizing the national security of the American people.

We do it on the basis, our Republican friends, of failing to even read the Constitution, for it is clear, as it is stated in the Constitution under article II, section 3, that the President can have the authority, ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

In essence, he has the right to make sure that we are treating persons fairly and that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a fair manner.

Nothing that is in the executive actions of the President violates any law; but what it does do, as we are debating today with the poison pill amendments, is to take the inhumanity of some viewpoints and to throw it against people who have come to this country by no fault of their own, who have come to this country to do us not harm but good, who have come to this country to work hard and to help build this great Nation.

I am saddened by the fact that, because of this debate, the Coast Guard will suffer, that the Secret Service will suffer, that the airport and aviation security will suffer. Why? Because we will not have a bill.

I believe that this challenge for all of us is to raise the question of whether our Republican friends have come here to govern. The only thing I see is that they are using this Homeland Security bill for extreme positions that they want to foster over security.

Why would they want to defund DACA? Why would they want to capture the basic infrastructure of the funding of Homeland Security? It has worked over the years, the fees that have supported the Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation and Security; yet they want to capture these dollars and cripple Homeland Security. They want to make sure we don't have enough Secret Service agents as we move forward into the election year.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Department has been entrusted by the United States Congress and the American people to give guidance to the security and the protection of their families. It is not families who, by chance, are considered undocumented; it is all families.

What the President did in his executive action is to define for America who is here in this country; not only that, he gave an economic engine by providing for fines and fees in order to get in regular order.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, these individuals are not getting in front of those who have been standing in line through the legal immigration process. They have a separate process that simply gives them status, not immigration status. He is not bestowing upon them immigration status.

As I close, I ask: Is there any heart and warmth to those who are debating these questions? First, do we understand family, and do we understand we are a nation of immigrants?

What has been established is an infrastructure of law to help them be established in regular order. What we are doing is undermining the national security of this Nation to cast against those who are innocent. I ask my colleagues to defeat these amendments and to vote for a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's support the national security of Americans.

Mr. Chair, while it is not perfect, I would support H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as originally introduced because it provides adequate funding of the Department of Homeland Security, including support for important federal cybersecurity initiatives, disaster relief and recovery programs, and essential law enforcement activities that are critical for ensuring the Department can help keep our Nation safe from harm.

But I cannot support the bill on final passage if it contains any of the ``poison pill'' amendments made in order by the Rules Committee.

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

I oppose all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee because their inclusion will spell certain doom for the bill and needlessly put the security of the homeland at risk at a time when things are so perilous in the world.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram in Nigeria given heightened urgency to the words of Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers that we need to get a clean Homeland Security spending bill ``to the president's desk so we can get a signature funding Homeland Security at a very tedious time in the world.''

Sending this bill to the president with the Republican poison pill amendments will result in a presidential veto rather the signature needed for the bill to become law.

In addition, were the bill to become law with the poison pill amendments intact, it would inflict tremendous damage to the nation's economy and the economy of my home state of Texas.

According to an analysis conducted by the Council of Economic Advisors, the executive actions taken by the President to mitigate the damage caused by our broken immigration system would grow the U.S. economy by $90 billion to $210 billion over the next ten years.

And they would grow the GDP of my home state of Texas by $8.2 billion to $19.2 billion over that same period and increase Texas state revenues by $770 million to $1.8 billion.

I cannot and will not support a bill that would do such harm to our efforts to protect the homeland and expand the economy so that it creates jobs for all who seek employment at wages that will enable workers to provide for their families and their retirement, buy

and keep their homes, and send their children to college.

I urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee and pass the bill as originally introduced by Chairman Rogers.

There are many good things in that bill that are worthy of support, including the following:

1. $39.7 billion in regular discretionary appropriations for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2015;

2. $12.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); DHS would be required to accelerate the hiring of CBP officers;

3. $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plus an additional $345 million from the agency's fee funded accounts, bringing the total to $6.3 billion;

4. $553.6 million in funding to manage the influx of unaccompanied alien children, or ``UAC,'' entering the U.S.; the funding would be used to interdict migrants, care for and transport approximately 58,000 undocumented children to the custody of Health and Human Services (HHS), and facilitate the movement of undocumented families through removal proceedings after crossing the U.S. border;

5. $1.9 billion for both domestic and international investigations, including increases to combat human trafficking, child exploitation, cyber-crime, and drug smuggling, and to expand visa vetting capabilities;

6. $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA);

7. $10 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard;

8. $753.2 million for cybersecurity operations in the National Programs and Protection Directorate to fund and sustain improvements to the Federal Network Security and Network Security Deployment programs;

9. $1.7 billion for the U.S. Secret Service--an increase of $80.5 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level--to begin preparation and training for candidate protection for the 2016 presidential election and to address critical failures in communications and training at the White House Complex;

10. $7 billion for disaster relief--fully funding FEMA's stated requirement; and

11. $1.1 billion for Science and Technology, $32.1 million above the President's request.

The White House has announced that the President will sign H.R. 240 as originally introduced but he will veto the bill if it contains any of the irresponsible and reckless amendments made in order by the Rules Committee.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting against all of the amendments and sending a clean Homeland Security funding bill that will receive the presidential signature needed to become and law provide the resources needed to keep our homeland safe.

Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate and wonderful statement of two distinguished Members of Congress, the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I associate myself with their words on how crucial this legislation is, and what an important statement the Veterans' Affairs Committee is making: that there is no party affiliation when it comes to saving the lives of our men and women who put on the uniform.

To the author of this bill, Mr. Walz, as I chatted with him on the floor, I indicated to him that just this weekend I met for hours with two wounded warriors, both of them having experience with PTSD, both of them being challenged about the transition into civilian life, both of them knowing of this legislation, feeling left out and deprived that it did not, despite the valiant effort of this House, pass in the last Congress.

So let me congratulate all of you for recognizing that this is a crucial, lifesaving element of the men and women that we stand and admire and love. Every day, 22 veterans take their lives, but it is 8,000 a year.

And if I might say, Texas walks alongside of Florida and other States in having the highest number of returning vets. Two million served in Iraq and Afghanistan across the Nation. Now, one-third, 600,000, have experienced traumatic brain injury and PTSD.

From the early years of working with then-Chairman and Ranking Member Murtha, I was privileged to bring $1 million to my district for PTSD, but that is not the heart of it.

The bleeding and the sorrow of these men and women is not befitting of the service and the uniform that they put on. Not one moment should they wait at a veterans hospital for treatment for PTSD that should keep them grounded. Not one moment should they be alone contemplating suicide, without treatment and friends and family having assistance.

This bill makes that statement, H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt SAV Act. It says that you are not alone and that we have put our actions where our words are. We have walked the walk.

So I want to say to those wounded warriors who shared their heart with me, proudly come back and say: This bill is moving, and as it moves to the United States Senate, this bill is moving. And as we look to the President's desk, a signature will allow this bill to be in place.

To those who missed the deadline, this law will allow you to still be able to receive that treatment because it allows an extended time for those who have missed the deadline.

I know as I go back home to Texas and meet families that they are looking for action when it comes to our beloved veterans and those who have put on the uniform to serve this Nation as they watched their comrades die. This is a bill that says, God bless America.

This is a bill that reflects the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and our wonderful Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

I want to say to my friends at Ellington Field, which is just down the road

from my congressional district, and to the many bases across the State of Texas that have amongst their ranks veterans who have served in Active Duty and who are still pressing forward in spite of conditions that they face, this is the bill that provides the answer and the love and affection for the veterans and military personnel who have put on the uniform every day and who have never--never once--shied away from their duty and decided that their lives and their ills were greater than their commitment to this Nation.

We owe them this. This is a ``God bless America'' bill. I thank the proponents of it.

Amendment III:

``No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.''

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we started by reading the Constitution, and I did not want to leave this week without reminding us of Amendment One of the Bill of Rights:

``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

Today, we stand with the people of France who, in the early years of our beginnings, certainly gave to America many of the democratic principles by way of their own values. Today, we acknowledge that violence will not undermine democratic values around the Nation or around the world.

We mourn those who have lost their lives, and we want to stop the terrorist violence, but what we most want to do is to be able to acknowledge the individual dignity of all people and that we will not stigmatize religions or ethnicities or race in this country, but we will recognize that we are great because we are able to welcome all from all places and to be able to accept their human dignity.

We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, and I am grateful for the greatness of this Nation, but I stand with the people of France and mourn their loss this week.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that are confronting this Congress as it returns to serve the American people here in the United States Capital. What a wonderful place of democracy and freedom. It gives me a sense of ownership on these values on behalf of my constituents in celebration that we live in a nation that admires and respects and finds a way to disagree without being disagreeable but, more importantly, that we understand that violence against one another is not the solution.

Tragically, I stand to mourn with the people of France as they have experienced a heinous terrorist act, the first, I believe, in a decade that follows the tragedies in Canada and Australia. So we have to define ourselves in somewhat of a different way. The commentary indicated, How would we know?

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I challenge all of us to say we have to know. We must find a way to balance our civil liberties and the respect for our Constitution with protecting the American people, and in a two-road process, try to hinder those who would come to do this violent harm on our soil. But more importantly, we have to begin in a societal confrontation through diplomacy on stopping the radicalization of young people using sources such as the Internet. It is real and we must address it. I look forward as a member of the Homeland Security Committee to begin looking legislatively and pointedly at how we address this question to protect the American people.

I want to step aside for a moment and just speak on two local issues.

Riverside Hospital, Houston

Mr. Speaker, Riverside Hospital, Houston, quite different from my earlier comments, is a local hospital in my community founded by the family of a deceased World War I veteran. It has a special place in the hearts of African Americans because it was the only hospital where Negroes could go in the 20th century. It has fallen on difficult challenges.

And so my question and my inquiry is to the new, incoming Governor for the State of Texas, Governor Abbott, to find value in this medical facility because of its historic relationship. It once housed the only outside posttraumatic stress disorder center in Houston outside of the veterans hospital system. It was well attended by veterans who loved the idea of a center that was away from the massive hospital system. It serves people who are poor in the neighborhood and seniors. It has helped those who suffer from substance abuse, and I believe that it needs and desires and deserves a new start.

I will be working with a variety of agencies to do that, and will not be ashamed that unfortunately tragic or, let me say, misbehavior of some caused this unfortunate turn in this hospital. Its history is worth saving. I thank the Cullinan family, whose son died in World War II, for providing the initial funds for us to be able to have this Negro hospital.

Saluting Wheatley High School

Mr. Speaker, then I want to salute Wheatley High School and those who have attended it. It was named after Phillis Wheatley. It was an African American high school in the great city of Houston in the fifth ward. Two of its many graduates were the late Congressman Mickey Leland and late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and obviously many other great Americans who went to that high school.

Unfortunately, the original Wheatley High School--over the valiant efforts of Wheatley graduates because ``everything new'' seems to be the direction we want to go--was torn down. But I believe there is a way to find common ground, and I am going to encourage HISD to meet with these valiant former alumni to find a common path of preserving that history in the new school and bringing the community together.

We look forward to meetings forthcoming, for HISD to lend a hand out to people who want to preserve history, to tell the story of a school that was built in 1927 out of a material that in fact actually lasted. And when African Americans could not go to any other school, when those who went off to World War II and Vietnam couldn't go elsewhere, they had the Wheatley High School that sits proudly in the fifth ward. There is a Wheatley High School that was modernized, but the original building of terra-cotta material--so beautiful if you had seen it-- could have been restored.

I would like to stand here and say don't condemn those who wanted to hold that piece of history alongside of educating children today and give them the kind of technology they needed. We can do this together. I want to salute those who fought hard, and we can find a common path by working together.

Madam Speaker, as I come to the floor--I had been on the floor earlier today--I offer again my deepest sympathy to the people of France and mourn with them for the heinous tragedy yesterday, and I know all Americans also do so.

I come, however, to talk about an issue that will draw bipartisan recognition of the importance of ensuring the support in the lack of reductions of SSI benefits. There are 300-million-plus Americans in this country. Madam Speaker, 5.81 million Americans receive SSI; 4.6 million of them are disabled, and 1.3 million are children.

My office is in the Federal building in Houston, Texas. I watch individuals come to our Social Security office. They don't look rich. They don't look fraudulent. They don't look like they are trying to take advantage of the system of help that America is giving them.

I am sending out an SOS alert to all the families who have loved ones on SSI or the children who are receiving death benefits because their parents are dead. I am asking that we commit to ensuring and providing the support for the SSI account, not reducing it, not reducing benefits, because these are the neediest Americans who I would be in utter shame to point out that they are fraudulent.

We will be having a teach-in in my district. We will ask them to come and tell their stories because I am insisting and refusing to allow their benefits to be cut.