Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership, and the manager.

Many of us, Mr. Speaker, have come to the floor of the House time and time again and supported our troops, supported their families, wanted them to have increased dollars in their compensation; but today I come with a heavy heart that issues of war and peace are in this bill, the authorization bill, and we have not had the time to debate this in front of the American people. Sending young men and women in the midst of a storm in war where they may lose their life, and yet this majority refuses to give us hours of time to show the American people what the commitment is, I raise a question.

And then, of course, a bill that attacks the constitutional authority of the President of the United States in an immigration bill that is closed in falsehoods because the President is not going beyond the law; he is not changing the law. He has the authority to use his executive power for humanitarian relief, and he is saving the parents of children who are citizens.

This is a wrong rule, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of moral indignation that we would want to block parents from loving their children, children from loving their parents, and deporting persons who have no reason to criminally act in this Nation.

I join with the President in saying let us keep families and deport felons. That is a discretion that is given by the law to allow Presidents to take care and ensure that the laws are enforced properly.

This legislation is wrongheaded and misdirected. Allow me to say that this November 20 executive order is now being retroactively judged by this Congress. That is not the Congress' responsibility. The Congress, if they desire to do so, as they have done on many occasions, is to bring this to the judicial courts. But if they do so, they will find that the law has dictated that courts grant without much interest in deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with fault. The President, through his executive order, is making an administrative decision in terms of how laws are prosecuted.

Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed a lawsuit against the executive actions announced by the President on November 20. Much to my surprise--and, of course, with great joy--the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have already issued a decision, dismissing such a complaint. It did so in 1997 when Governor George W. Bush was arguing that the Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated article I, and the court rejected Texas' argument that the Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Specifically, the court said: ``We are not aware of and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are constitutionally adequate.'' Why? Because there is an interpretation of the law and an administrative component of the law.

Likewise, in Heckler v. Chaney, the Court said: ``An agency's decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.''

The President of the United States is not exercising discretion of executive order. He is instructing and giving guidance to administrative agencies who will make decisions accordingly to the framework of making sure that those who are felons are out but families are not.

If you want to stop human trafficking, if you want to have a conscience in this Nation, if you want to protect the vulnerable, if you want to keep young people who are bright-eyed simply to serve in the United States military----

I thank the gentleman for his kindness.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to recognize those individuals who have come here to do what is right and if you want to stop the siege of human trafficking, as I have said, where Houston is the epicenter of such, where we see it every day, where people are out of the shadows, if you want to do that, then you will vote against this misdirected law and you will read the constitutional dictates--first from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, then from the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States--and understand that the President has the executive authority to do just what he has done, to be a moral keeper and to give discretion to the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive Overreach On Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose the rule and the underlying bill 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.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.''

As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided:

No provision of the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch of the Government to exempt, by Executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of circumventing the objectives of this statute shall be null and void and without legal effect.

Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows.

The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .''

Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury:

``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.''

Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet death.

Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the

Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in remedying the many deficiencies of the original bill.

As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 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 amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition:

1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution:''

2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses at trial''; and

3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.''

The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken on that date by 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, 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, 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. 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 has not done anything that is novel or unprecedented.

Here are 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, the Bush administration 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 of H.R. 17, 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 earlier this 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 to pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same time 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 have 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 step is up to congressional Republicans.

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

Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed a lawsuit challenging the executive actions announced by the President on November 20. The lawsuit,

which will be known as Texas v. United States of America, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Much to my surprise, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have already issued a decision dismissing the Complaint. In the case of Texas v. United States--sound similar?--the Fifth Circuit in 1997 dismissed a lawsuit by then Governor George W. Bush arguing that the Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution--the Naturalization Clause. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Texas's argument that the Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In rejecting the Naturalization Clause argument, the Fifth Circuit wrote that ``A judicial action presents a nonjusticiable political question not amenable to judicial resolution where there is . . . a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.'' In this case, the Court stated plainly that ``We are not aware of and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are constitutionally adequate.'' Of course the President lawsuit challenges the enforcement actions of the President, not of Congress, but the broader point is the same.

In rejecting the statutory claim brought by Texas, the Court cited the Administrative Procedure Act and Heckler v. Chaney--the Supreme Court's leading case on the non-reviewability of agency decisions not to take enforcement actions--for the proposition that ``An agency's decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.''

At a time when illegal border crossings was at its peak--1.5 million returns each year in 1996 and 1997--the Court stated: ``We reject out- of-hand the State's contention that the federal defendants' alleged systemic failure to control immigration is so extreme as to constitute a reviewable abdication of duty. The State does not contend that federal defendants are doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws or that they have consciously decided to abdicate their enforcement responsibilities. Real or perceived inadequate enforcement of immigration laws does not constitute a reviewable abdication of duty.''

During this President's tenure, well over 2 million people have been formally removed from this country. Prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry after removal have increased exponentially. And even if 5 million people come forward and receive temporary protection from removal through DACA and the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program, there will still be well over 6 million undocumented immigrants who have received no such protection. With funds to deport no more than 400,000 people each year I assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the President is in no danger of ``doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws'' and that he had not ``consciously decided to abdicate [his] enforcement responsibilities.''

The argument that the President has declared that he will no longer enforce our immigration laws is offensive to the 34,000 people-- including thousands of women and children--who are sitting in detention centers today waiting for their day in court. It is also frivolous.

The lawsuit filed yesterday will fail and this bill never will become law. Rather, the President's actions will soon take effect and will bring a small measure of sanity to our broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive Overreach On Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose the rule and the underlying bill 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.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.''

As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided:

No provision of the United States Constitution, the

Immigration and Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall

be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch

of the Government to exempt, by Executive order, regulation,

or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present

in the United States from removal under the immigration laws

(as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration

and Nationality Act).

Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of

circumventing the objectives of this statute shall be null

and void and without legal effect.

Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows.

The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .''

Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule

to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret

that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts

must decide on the operation of each.

Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet death.

Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in remedying the many deficiencies of the original bill.

As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 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 amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition:

1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;''

2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law

enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in

the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses

at trial''; and

3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at

imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.''

The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken on that date by 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, 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, 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. 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 has 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, the Bush administration 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 of H.R. 17, 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 earlier this 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 time 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 have 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 step is up to congressional Republicans.

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

Mr. Speaker, briefly on the floor of the House today I mentioned how many times I voted for the defense authorization bill and appreciated the underlying principles in that legislation, which is to wholly support the United States military and their families. Today, unfortunately, layered down with poisonous pills on the floor of the House, the majority did not give this Congress the opportunity to debate the questions of war and peace.

So I ask my colleagues and the leadership to let us debate this issue next week, or come back, or, as we begin 2015. Whenever we put our sons and daughters in harm's way, it is extremely important to do so.

Let me change to another topic very quickly and acknowledge and give my

sympathy to the Garner family and indicate that I am going to begin an assessment of the criminal justice system that includes a review of training for our law enforcement across America that will include the utilization of stop-and-frisk citations so that racial profiling can stop, and it will be an overview of the grand jury system, which is obviously broken. My sympathy, again, to the Brown family, to the Garner family, Sean Bell, Trayvon Martin, Robbie Tolan, and many, many others.

Mr. Speaker, let me finally say this Congress cannot turn its head away from a broken criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, in this season of reflection for many across the Nation, I will take a moment, first of all, to speak to my constituent Zeph to remind him that I have always supported the human dignity of all persons, and I will never fail to do so. I thank him for his warm embrace of those values and our commitment that we will continue to work together, which brings me to my concern of an ailing American who has continuously been held in Cuba.

I ask today on the floor of the House for the leadership of this government to continue to work diligently in the efforts to return Alan Gross to his family. I hope that we will join together, Republicans and Democrats, to work for his release and his return. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that I do not speak of the conditions of such, the reasons for such; just an American who is in failing health whom we need to work to bring home.

I think that is the kind of spirit of mercy that I would like to continue to speak of as we try to work our way through the understanding of the President's action on the executive order regarding immigration. It follows the directive of the Speaker of the House, who said:

A comprehensive approach to immigration reform is long

overdue; and I am confident that the President, myself, and

others can find the common ground to take care of this issue

once and for all.

Spoken by Speaker Boehner in 2012.

Now, as we approach the new year, 2015, 3 years later, there has not been one vote on the floor of the House to bring mercy or relief to those who have been languishing in the shadows--not opening the borders, Mr. Speaker, but to really provide a framework for those who are here in the United States, almost as if there was a temporary pardon.

This is not, as the Judiciary Committee pounded over and over again yesterday, a change in the law. This is a work within the confines of the law under article II executive powers of the President and the language to take care. It is actually a recognition to frame, if you will, the interpretation that is given to laws of the land--

might I say, civil laws as well. Because in a civil law, there is punishment; under immigration laws, you can be deported, a civil penalty.

So the President has said, in an executive order narrowly confined and reviewed by legal counsel and constitutional experts, supported by 136 scholars, that said that the President is within his rights to stop deportation of store owners and childcare workers and high-tech workers, and particularly the parents of children who are, in fact, citizen children of legal permanent residents.

It is important for the American people to understand, there is no illegality here. There is no runaway Presidency here. There is an understanding that those who have status--not immigration status, not pathway to citizenship, but a temporary reprieve--almost like a pardon, yet it is more temporary, those children who have been deferred, all he did was to say that it should be 3 years and not 2 years. He has asked that the ICE officers be made, if you will, equal to other Federal law enforcement officers. I celebrate that. That is exciting.

Let me quickly say this, Mr. Speaker. I want to travel in the pathway of Reverend Dr. Sharon Stanley-Rea about immigration reform. Her words are, as I paraphrase them: We should choose our values for people over politics, community safety over partisan strategies, family unity and welcome over fear of foreigners, and humanitarian compassion for children and families above rhetoric and rancor.

Let me finally, Mr. Speaker, say that I want to, again, as I move to another topic, thank and compliment the protesters that were peaceful regarding the issue of Ferguson. I ask for people to understand these young people. I went out in Houston in the march and applauded them for the peacefulness of their protests. Now they are asking for us as legislators and policymakers to make a difference in their lives. I publicly say on the floor of the House they will not be forgotten.

I want AJ to know, who is an intern in my office from St. Louis, shot in gang fights, that he will not be forgotten. The work that he is doing will be remembered.

I ask the National Association of Chiefs of Police to join us in a discussion on how we best walk through these concerns. There are many legislative initiatives, but it has to be a combination of law enforcement, policymakers, civil rights leaders.

And to our police unions, let me say there are none of us that have not worked and stood alongside of you.

I want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 5550, that I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure that funding is not used by local communities through their various traffic stops to fund their communities.

Let's make a difference on Ferguson, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, Mr. Levin, for his kindness, as well as the manager for the majority, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Van Hollen, and the many others who, along with myself, cosponsored this legislation.

It is very moving to have a moment of family on the floor of the House as I listen to Members recount their individual stories of those in their families and those of us who encounter our constituents with wonderful, beautiful children, many of whom fit squarely in this relief that is being given.

As I watched two twins grow up who are prized and special in our community, I could just imagine what their

mother and their late father would say about this opportunity. This legislation, H.R. 647, squarely answers our concerns.

I want to get to two points that I think are so important. We hear it all the time: it seems as if these are rich people trying to get money, but they are not. They may be working families and middle class families, and to be able to not deny them eligibility for Medicaid when there are severe health issues that many of these young people and children face, and also for them to be able to have SSI, which is sometimes a lifeline, to be able to put aside this savings that will help them in education and transportation--I hear it so often, training for employment; any of us who have dealt with Goodwill and seen what Goodwill does with young people whose parents bring them there--yet they need other ways of being able to respond, and they should not be denied higher education.

This bill allows the savings to be part of the higher education efforts that these parents want for their children, and sometimes the ability for independence with primary residence, what it says is that these young people, as they grow, have developmental possibilities and opportunities, and that there are no throwaway children, there are no throwaway young people.

I thank the gentleman. There are no throwaway young people, and we should not throw them away.

I agree with my colleagues who have mentioned items that we would hope would be reframed, if you will, impacting workers' conditions and rights, provisions that may, in fact, impact Medicare. None of us who have committed ourselves to the strength of Medicare want to see that undermined. But I will say that the goodness of this legislation for my neighbors and my constituents whom I personally know, individuals whom I personally know--this is a lifeline.

I am very glad to speak on H.R. 647 for the lifeline that it provides for people who deserve it, and they do not in any way have the need or the desire to see the opportunities for their children and their young people be determined only by the limitations of their ability to provide for them.

This is an account. It is more than a savings account. It is a lifeline account to help give every American, no matter who they are, this equal opportunity and particularly those with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Let me express my appreciation to the author of this bill, Mr. Kinzinger, and to the managers on the bill, as well as, in particular, to thank the ranking member, the chairman, and, of course, the manager today. Thank you for your leadership.

I associate myself with Congressman Engel's remarks about leaving a space for affirmation of the Russian people but to make it very clear that we condemn the actions of Mr. Putin. Maybe calling him that is even too polite.

Remember the days of Gorbachev when we understood that there was an open Russia, there was a Russia who was committed to working for world peace, standing on their own principles and values and history, not denying their strength, but yet working collaboratively in a civilized way. What happened to that Russia? What happened to the Russia that was supposed to be shown to the world during the Olympics? What happened to the Russia that believed in its great history and was prepared to stand alongside of all world leaders to make a better place?

The taking over, the dominance, the literal invasion of Crimea was intolerable and an unacceptable action by a nation that calls itself ``standing civilized with other nations.'' The horrific tragedy of Malaysian Airlines and what many of us viewed around the world as we watched bodies being unattended and thugs not allowing persons to come and see to those bodies, how long they languished in those fields.

So I think it is important to ask the question of Mr. Putin: What has happened to the Russia that we have known?

I would say that this resolution condemns the actions of the government and the leadership of the government, but not the Russian people. I look forward to legislation coming forward that we all will debate on how we interact with the Russian people and provide the freedom of press and the freedom of speech and the opportunities for them.

Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss not to be able to acknowledge Mr. Faleomavaega, who has an excellent bill on the floor, H. Res. 714, but to be able to say to him, I consider him a great American and a representative of his community and his region and all that he has done to turn our attention to south China, east China, and the Asian Pacific region. We are grateful for what he has done and grateful for his service. I thank him very much and wish for the continued support of his legislation and his service to this country.

Let me also say that I support S. 2673, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, and look forward to its passage.

Again, in conclusion, I hope that this legislation, the underlying legislation, is a statement on behalf of America, of what we mean and what we stand for.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Trayvon Martin's tragic death, the Nation waits. Young people wait. I could give a long litany. But certainly Michael Brown has galvanized us from north to south, from east to west.

I stand with the young men, among many others, of the St. Louis Rams and the young people that I have seen taking to the streets nonviolently, peacefully. Today I rise to thank them and to applaud them as Americans deserving of honor and respect. But they wait. So I believe that it is important that we work with those who are assigned and in uniform to protect and serve.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have stood alongside law enforcement, but now it is important that we realize that the system is not cracked but broken. There must be a complete overhaul of the training of local police in the nooks and crannies of America. There must be a reform of the system which provides the funding to local jurisdictions simply by traffic stops and foot citations. That is what geared Officer Wilson in the wrong direction. And finally, Mr. Speaker, there must be training to protect officers but to know when to use deadly force.

Deadly force was not warranted; it was not required in the life and the loss of Michael Brown. There must be solutions, Mr. Speaker, for those young people that are out in the streets protesting. We cannot have a lopsided justice system.

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, and I am very pleased to come from a city where so many celebrated and commemorated the progress and challenges involved.

I want to thank the Thomas Street clinic. I have visited there and seen the treatment that is given. As well, I thank the AIDS Foundation, which has always been on the front lines providing information and resources. I also want to thank the Montrose Clinic.

World AIDS Day, started in 1988, is an enormously important day. I remember being here as a civilian in the United States Senate when the Ryan White Act was introduced by Senator Kennedy and the distinguished Senator from Utah.

So we are here today to say we have not done all that we need to do. PEPFAR has cared for millions around the world through the work that we have done here in the United States Congress. Deaths have declined, but yet HIV/AIDS and transmission from mothers to infants still exists. It is important to continue the work. We should not ignore the success or challenges.

I am very glad to work with organizations in my district, and I hope that funding in the omnibus or the appropriations process is not diminished in fighting to eliminate HIV/AIDS in our lifetime. I thank all of those who have sacrificed and lost their lives.

Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day affords us an opportunity to reflect on our progress in fight against the global AIDS pandemic and to rededicate ourselves to ending the disease once and for all.

We have come a long way since the first World AIDS Day in 1988 by dramatically expanding investments in HIV/AIDS prevention, care, treatment, and research.

Strong advocacy has paved the way for the Ryan White Act, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Initiative, growing investments in NIH research, and an end to the ban on federal funds for syringe exchange.

Beyond our borders, our efforts have extended care to millions in the developing world, through increased resources for PEPFAR and the Global Fund.

Our investments have saved lives--preventing millions of new HIV cases, expanding access to improved treatments, and enabling medical advances that help HIV/AIDS patients live longer and healthier.

Here and across the globe, AIDS deaths are on the decline, and studies are pointing the way to new approaches to limit the spread of the disease, with treatment as prevention.

While our efforts have grown, we still only reach half of all people eligible for HIV treatment; and more must be done.

Working together, we must continue to strengthen--not weaken--our national and international efforts to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases.

We must work to achieve the Obama Administration's goal of an AIDS- free generation.

We must honor the memory of those we have lost and act on our hope, optimism, and determination to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

We must continue to work with programs and clinics, like the Harris County Hospital District (HCHD), who are treating and caring for patients with HIV/AIDS.

In 1989, HCHD opened Thomas Street Health Center, the first free- standing facility dedicated to outpatient HIV/AIDS care in the nation. The center has become the cornerstone of all HIV/AIDS care available to Harris County residents.

The Thomas Street Health Center has dedicated their services to about 25 percent of Harris County's HIV/AIDS.

Annually, the health center, along with HCHD, serves 4,463 unique patients for about 37,000 patients' visits.

We will continue to fight a tough fight against HIV and AIDS. We will continue to strengthen and support centers like Thomas Street Health Center who work diligently with HIV/AIDS patients.

Our focus on HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness will be to ensure all of our friends, relatives and children live healthy and full lives.

Allow me to add my appreciation for the continued leadership of my friend and colleague from New York and to thank the previous speakers. We all associate ourselves with the passion, the commitment, the determination that has been expressed.

Let me, as I stand, acknowledge that I am particularly pleased to be associated with distinguished legislators. Many people in this Nation have their particular roles as pastors and as civil rights leaders.

In a meeting held right before the Thanksgiving holiday, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were reminded of the giant role that they have played over the years in combining passion with legislation, hearings with pain.

As early as the 1990s, we held hearings on the questions of excessive force, as well as of the issues of racial profiling along the highways of America; of the issue of excessive sentencing in the crack cocaine disparities; of the issue of dealing with the overincarceration of minorities and the overfilling of jails.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to plead to my colleagues. We are legislators, and we cannot legislate without the partnership of Republicans, so I stand as a Democrat and as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus that has always been cited as the conscience of America to say that we need to walk in step on the conspicuous Achilles heels of America, that is the criminal justice system.

As we stand here today, every one of us has applauded a police officer, has mourned at their passing in the line of duty, has given them awards, has stood alongside of them--every one of us.

Certainly, I will not take a backseat to anyone on my respect for law enforcement across the gamut. I recognize that they are here to protect and serve, and I think it is very crucial that our friends in law enforcement recognize the work that members of the Congressional Black Caucus have done, if not individually, then collectively.

Let me say that I also admire the young St. Louis Rams players who raised their hands to be able to share in the dignity of those young, peaceful protesters. If we don't affirm nonviolence, then who will?

I think everyone--law enforcement and others--who agree or disagree should recognize young people like the ones in Houston, Texas. ``Don't shoot.''

That does not in any way denigrate or disrespect our law enforcement officers. For just a few minutes, I want to speak about that aspect and how we see the justice system.

To my colleagues, this is 2,500 pages. Those documents issued by the DA in St. Louis County were 10,000 pages. I am continuing to grow this stack. It is clear that what happened in the grand jury system, for many who don't know that system, is that those individuals are appointed by a judge.

A single judge says, ``Who do I know in the community? Let me see if I can appoint 12 of them.'' In St. Louis County, it took nine to indict.

If you listen to New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, who famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, when I served on the municipal court, there were many probable cause hearings that we held, and there were many efforts by police officers to get a warrant, to be able to go when they thought there was suspicion of a crime. We worked with law enforcement officers.

In fact, the data says, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 Federal cases. In 2010, which is the most recent year for which we have data, grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11. That is Federal. That is not the State system in Missouri, but I assure you it is comparable.

So what happened in Missouri as it relates to the criminal justice system?

First of all, a grand jury system is not a jury of your peers. A grand jury indictment is not a conviction. It would not have meant, if there was an indictment, that the officer in question was convicted. It would simply mean that we would transition to the jury system, and we would be able to address the question of Michael Brown's rights, for Michael Brown was protected under the Constitution.

The First Amendment not only talks about freedom of religion and speech, it talks about the right of association and the right of movement. Michael Brown, an 18-year-old ``big boy,'' as his mom and dad lovingly called him, had a right to move, had a right to move on the streets of America. But he was denied that right. He was denied that right with seven shots.

So there has to be a question. No one would deny that there is a reason to have a full trial, and the question would be: Why didn't the St. Louis district attorney act like many other district attorneys?

I know there are some who are in that role here on this floor tonight, which is presenting a case, and let the jury ultimately decide. And the facts in the grand jury evidenced that a question remains.

Let me say these two points as I close. I am a supporter of the executive order of the President for body cams, and there are many legislative initiatives that include that, but we need a broad view of what we are going to do in this situation.

As I indicated to you, a grand jury is something different from a trial, a petit jury or a trial by your peers.

So I would say that what happened in St. Louis was not the way that the process usually goes. Mr. McCulloch threw this on the grand jurors. And you needed nine--nine. Unfortunately, the configuration of that jury made it very unclear that there was not going to be an indictment.

So today I think it is very important that we address several questions. We need to look at the grand jury system here across the Nation. We need to look at it in the name of Sean Bell; Amadou Diallo; Eric Garner; Robbie Tolan, in my community, where the police officer was not indicted; Trayvon Martin, a civilian; Michael Brown; and the 12-year-old boy. We need to look at it from the perspective of why isn't community-oriented policing used? Why wasn't it used in Ferguson?

Under the Urban Justice Act, which I have introduced, it says that communities that rely heavily on fines and other means of funding their government, their Federal funding should be diminished accordingly if their whole base of living and funding is just to stop people along the streets. I said racial profiling; the expanding of civilian review boards; the increasing of diversity, which is being tried, unfortunately a little late in Ferguson; the use of conservatorships, of taking over police departments until they get it right; and last but certainly not least, educational reformation in teaching our young boys, our minority boys, along with things like My Brother's Keeper.

To my colleagues today, this is only the beginning. And I believe, as Martin King said: Where do we go from here? It is imperative that legislation join with compassion, that it not only be Democrats or members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but we want partners, Republicans who realize that the criminal justice system, as it penetrates into local communities, must be enhanced, changed, and reformed.

How long can we tolerate the shooting down of our children in streets?

And it has nothing to do with one's respect or lack of respect for law enforcement, from the very high levels of the FBI, DEA, and ATF, to our local constables and sheriffs and police officers.

So tonight my question is: Where do we go from here? The question is a reformation of the grand jury system. And I would almost say that a special prosecutor should have been the route in Missouri, and I would hope that we would look to legislative fixes with our colleagues to make America better.

The Congressional Black Caucus will not be silenced. Those of us who serve on the respective jurisdictional committees will not be silenced. We will not be silenced because America is better than this, a country that we love.

Where do we go from here? We must fix it, and fix it now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Jeffries for his leadership, and I thank the Speaker, I am sorry that we were walking across the floor, and we may not publicly say it, but we thank you for your clarification, and to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Gohmert, who has engaged in the issues of the criminal justice system. We are grateful for your knowledge on these issues.

I want to leave two points behind as we clarify how we can move forward and recognize crises, but yet not be overcome by such. Might I thank the former mayor of New York for his provocativeness, but say that I disagree with some of the interpretation of why officers are in the African American community.

A statistic does say, in fact, that over 2005 to 2012, a white police officer used deadly force against an African American person almost two times every week. That does not have to be because we know there are broader ways of addressing these questions, so let me say to you why there is such ire about what happened to Michael Brown.

As I started out in my remarks about the grand jury system, it is one that raises the fact question, and if the fact question is not answered, why were his hands up? Why was he shot these many times? Then you go to a jury of your peers. It is a criminal justice system that no matter what color, creed, race, or religion you are, abiding by the Constitution, you can clearly say a question has been raised, and justice needs to answer that question.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking for, a simple justice that allows everyone to stand at the table of opportunity, equality, and rightness.

So I would make the argument tonight that we have laid out a roadmap with a number of suggestions, whether it is cameras--supporting the President's request for money--whether it is legislation dealing with the utilization of tickets and citations, stopping people from moving, whether or not it is My Brother's Keeper, I believe that the Judiciary Committee, along with our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, can raise up the specter of the Constitution and no matter who we are, we can look at those young men in St. Louis who raised their hands, applaud them for their work, applaud law enforcement officers who are engaged in community-oriented policing, and make a purposeful commitment that we will follow in the pathway of nonviolence and use the tools that our Constitution has given us to make our criminal justice system work for all of

us, whether we are poor, whether we are rich, whether in unique communities, or whether we are Big Mike.

We are going to say to Mr. Brown and we are going to say to Mike's mother that justice is going to come, not respecting whether or not we stand on one side or another, one race or another, because we are going to do right.

I have faith in the Constitution, and I have faith in this Congress. For the very reason that Judge Gohmert yielded us the time to finish our words, I know that we will be engaged, Republicans and Democrats, with the Congressional Black Caucus in a pathway forward to make America rise to our higher angels and to the Constitution that we so love.

Thank you, Mr. Jeffries, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for convening this very timely Special Order on one of major challenges facing our nation: how can we best rise from the ashes of the miscarriages of justice in Ferguson, Missouri and restore the trust and confidence of all Americans in the fairness and impartiality of the criminal justice system.

That trust and confidence does not exist today among large segments of our population in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager who died after absorbing six gunshots from a Ferguson, Missouri police officer even though he posed no imminent threat, was not resisting arrest, and was observed by numerous witness to be holding his hands up, the universal sign of surrender.

Compounding this unreasonable and excessive use of lethal force was the failure--some might say refusal--of the local prosecutor to obtain an indictment of any kind against the officer who killed Michael Brown.

The strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed. Similarly, effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.

While most police officers take this responsibility seriously and strive to treat all persons equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence placed in them.

Remedial action should be taken with respect to officers whose conduct has been determined, after an adjudicatory proceeding, to violate applicable legal standards.

In recent months, the nation has been repeatedly shocked by the killings of unarmed African Americans, mainly young African American males, by persons claiming, despite substantial and credible evidence to the contrary, that the use of lethal force was justified. The tragic killing of Michael Brown is just one of the worst examples.

In August of this year in Staten Island, unarmed Eric Garner, an asthmatic 43-year-old father of six and grandparent, died from an unlawful chokehold administered by a New York Police Department officer who suspected Mr. Garner of selling an untaxed pack of cigarettes.

And closer to home my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and I all remember the outrageous case involving young Robbie Tolan, who was shot and seriously injured by a white Bellaire Police Department officer while in the driveway of his home, 15 to 20 feet away from the officer, had committed no crime, and whose innocence had been affirmed to the officer by his mother and father.

Let me state at the outset that as a Member of Congress and member of the bar that I hold the rule of law sacred.

I have always supported law enforcement and have always recognized the value and importance of prosecutors seeking justice and defense attorneys fighting to protect the rights of the accused.

I also revere the grand jury process, which on the federal level at least, has been one of the bulwarks safeguarding the public and the accused since the ratification of the 5th in 1791.

I do not fault the decision to impanel a grand jury to investigate the killing of Michael Brown; on the contrary, a grand jury investigation was the proper way to proceed. Like many others, however, I have two main concerns regarding the way the grand jury investigation was conducted.

First, the failure of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, Robert McCulloch, to recuse himself and seek the appointment of a Special Counsel was a grave mistake.

Not just because his father was a St. Louis policeman killed in the line of duty by a black man when he was 12. Not just because his brother, nephew and cousin all served with the St. Louis police and that his mother worked as a clerk for the force for 20 years. And not just because Mr. McCulloch would have joined the police force too, but he lost a leg in high school due to cancer.

Mr. McCulloch's credibility and reputation for fairness has been at low ebb among African Americans in St. Louis County since his handling of the notorious ``Jack-in-the-Box'' shooting in June 2000, in which two officers approached a stopped car carrying two unarmed African American men from the front and fired 21 shots, killing Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley.

In the ensuing investigation, Mr. McCulloch put the case to a grand jury which declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision.

The story presented by Mr. McCulloch's office to the grand jury was that Murray's car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury and both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. However, a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse. The officers involved in the shooting did not testify truthfully to the grand jury, yet Prosecutor McCulloch stated publicly that he agreed with the decision not to indict.

The second major flaw was that the manner in which the grand jury investigation was conducted impeded rather than facilitated the search for truth that is the province of a petit jury.

The purpose of a grand jury is two-fold: to make the threshold determination as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it. Once this minimal showing has been made, it is for the petit jury to determine whether the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt each essential element of the offense.

In discharging its duty, the grand jury looks to, and is dependent upon, the prosecutor for an orderly and coherent presentation of evidence establishing probable cause and for guidance as to the law and in making sense of the evidence and testimony.

That did not happen in this case. Instead, the prosecution did not present any indictment that the grand jury could evaluate against the evidence to determine whether to return a ``true bill'' and did not make any recommendation regarding charges that could or should be lodged.

It is common wisdom that a grand jury historically has functioned as a tool of the prosecution, so much so that is frequently noted that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to ``indict a ham sandwich.''

This is not an exaggeration. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 cases.

So the failure of the Ferguson Grand Jury to return an indictment exacerbated the lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system, especially among African Americans, not just in Ferguson, Missouri but all across the country because to many it sends the signal that the lives of African American males have less value that do others.

It should be noted that according to the FBI's most recent accounts of ``justifiable homicide,'' in the seven years between 2005 and 2012, a white police officer used deadly force against an African American person almost two times every week.

Of those African American persons killed, 18 percent, or nearly one in every five, was under 21 years of age. In contrast, only 8.7 percent of white persons killed by police officers were younger than 21.

In 2012, Houston had an African American population of 23.7 percent. That same year, African Americans accounted for 48% percent of victims killed by the police.

Chicago was even worse with a whopping 91% of police killings involving an African American victim, nearly three times their percentage of the city's population.

For New York, the comparable figures were 87% and 28.36 percent. Across the country, in 2012 there were 739 justifiable homicide shootings by police and citizens and of these, 313 of the victims (42.35%) were African American.

This cannot and must not continue. That is why I am renewing my request to Attorney General Holder that the Justice Department consider bringing federal charges so that those responsible for the killing of Michael Brown are held accountable.

I am also calling upon the Department of Justice to exercise the authority conferred by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which gives the Department's Civil Rights Division authority to investigate state and local law enforcement agencies that it believes have unconstitutional policies or engage in unconstitutional patterns or practices of conduct. The law is intended to address

systemic issues, rather than individual complaints.

As Americans we must demand that the law is applied fairly and equally to all persons in the courtroom and on the street.

Achieving this goal is the best way to honor the memory of Michael Brown.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to

have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military.

We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You

only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.

By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated and that is why today I rise to pay tribute to four extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Ruby Grace, Chelsea Banks, Adam Kong, Lauren Buchanan, Rachel Foster, Keome Rowe, Jesus Vasquez, Maria Mojica, and Ruth Welland, and finally to Victoria Brayer, to whom today I also wish a very happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world.

Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first year or the second year or the third year of the administration. In actuality, we are going towards the end of the term of this administration.

From my perspective as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security Committee and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on the Committee on the Judiciary, every single year, this administration has extended its hand of collaboration to this Congress to intervene in the desperate lives of those who have been stolen from their children, deported, or families that have been disunited, if you will, wanting to be reunited.

I stand with the President tonight as he gives his message to America that we are a humanitarian country and that ``under my constitutional authority, as can be documented by scholars across this Nation, I have the authority to be merciful to give humanitarian relief,'' citing the U.S. v. Arizona case in 2012, when Justice Roberts said that the President has the authority for humanitarian relief.

Every difficult decision, unfortunately, in this Nation, from freeing the slaves to making the armies or the militaries integrated, took courage from Presidents. Lyndon Baines Johnson had courage when he signed the

Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Mr. President, you are doing the right thing. I stand with you on exercising your executive authority. We need mercy for these people who are desperate.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the co-sponsors and Co-Chair of both the Children's Caucus and the Pakistan Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3583, the Malala Yousafzai Scholarship Act.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of H.R. 3583 would provide numerous educational opportunities to Pakistani women in situations similar to Malala Yousafzai.

According to the United Nation's Education for All Global Monitoring Report, Pakistan has the second-largest number of children not attending school, and nearly half of rural girls have never been to school.

The Pakistan-based Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program awards scholarships to academically talented, financially needy Pakistani students from all regions to pursue bachelor's or master's degrees at participating Pakistani universities.

The Malala Yousafzai Scholarship Act would require the U.S. Agency for International Development to award 50 percent of its Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program scholarships to Pakistani women each year through 2016.

Mr. Speaker, Malala Yousafzai is the heroic Pakistani girl who rose to prominence as she stood against the oppressive policies imposed on the citizens of Pakistan by the Taliban.

She is the youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner, and was awarded the honor for her struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.

Malala's devoted service to education, justice, and equality in Pakistan is deserving of recognition, which is why I introduced H.R. 60 to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Malala Yousafzai.

The Congressional Gold Medal is one of the highest civilian awards in the United States, and Malala's legacy of inspiring young women around the world is truly commendable and worthy of this honor.

It is fitting that this act, the Malala Yousafzai Scholarship Act, is named in Malala's honor, as she is a symbol of hope in a country long beset by violence, and her actions demonstrate the impact one person can have on the entire world.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3583 to help change the lives of Pakistani women, like Malala Yousafzai, by opening doors to education, justice, and equality.

I love living in a country, Mr. Speaker, that is known around the world for its humanitarian generosity.

In the State of Texas, there are almost 1.3 million undocumented individuals. They are undocumented, but they are working. They are undocumented, but they are paying taxes. They are undocumented, but they love their children, many of them citizen children who everyday go to school or work or college to try and make a difference.

Mr. President, you do the right thing, and that is to use your executive power vested in article II of the Constitution that allows you to give humanitarian relief as indicated by the Arizona decision in 2012.

This is a time for courage, not politics. It is a time for truth, not misrepresentation. This is not amnesty--this is prioritization; this is saving money; this is keeping families together; this is allowing children to not come home to places where their parents have been thrown from their places of work and taken away from them.

I am excited about the courage of this President. I look forward to America finally understanding the gifts that you are given. Let us not be a selfish nation. Let us be a generous nation, and let us help those who are in this country who are working every day, including many of our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by a meeting on constituency matters on rollcall vote No. 521 and 522. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 521 and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 522.