Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was detained at a classified briefing with the Secretary of Homeland Security causing me to miss these two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 68 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 69.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up and consider H.R. 724, the Statue of Liberty Values Act of 2017.

Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court made an important decision. It said that women have a constitutional right to make decisions about their own health care and their own bodies, not the government.

It was just a few days ago that millions of American women marched all across the United States, reaffirming their opposition to efforts to take away their rights. That is what this bill would do.

There has been a lot of discussion about taxpayers funding abortion. That is not currently the law, not only in the Hyde amendment, but the Affordable Care Act requires women who wish to have this coverage to pay for it themselves.

We have heard a lot about alternative facts recently, but the fact is there is no taxpayer money for abortion in the United States--there hasn't ever been for many years--and that was also the accommodation that the Supreme Court made.

Let's make sure that the constitutional rights of women to control their own bodies is not attacked.

Mr. Speaker, a mere 62 years ago young Victor Corsiglia Jr. proudly graduated from Stanford Medical School and, in 1956, began a lifetime of practicing medicine. This month, his long practice is ending in retirement.

Vic and his wife, Joan, a registered nurse, first served their country when Vic served as a doctor for the Marines at Camp Pendleton right after graduation. In 1961, they made their way back home to San Jose.

Vic and Joan have never been the kind of people who expect others to do the work. They made immense contributions to our local arts world. Vic volunteered for the San Jose Arts Commission, served as a board member for the San Jose Symphony and, along with Ken Wiener and Barbara Day Turner, founded the San Jose Chamber Orchestra. While serving on the San Jose Arts Commission, Vic brought together Jim Reber and Clay Feldman, who founded the San Jose Repertory Theatre. Joan was also active with the San Jose Symphony and was instrumental in restoring its auxiliary. It is not an exaggeration to say that absent the many contributions of Joan and Vic Corsiglia, the artistic life of our community would have been much poorer.

Joan and Vic also took a great interest in the overall health of the community. Vic served on the Santa Clara County Mental Health Board for many years. Joan, as a neighborhood activist, but also as a nurse who understood the need for effective care, worked for decent care for the mentally ill in group homes.

Joan Corsiglia, with Vic by her side, helped found the Campus Community Association (CCA), one of the first active neighborhood associations in the city of San Jose. CCA grew to become an effective grassroots organization in the Naglee Park neighborhood, protecting the quality of life in this downtown neighborhood. The CCA founded the Naglee Park Fourth of July Parade. Before the parade begins, there is a traditional Coyote Creek Run, first initiated by Vic and Mike McDonald. Joan's civic engagement also included chairing the SJSU Campus- Community Task Force in the 1970s, and working on various local political campaigns, including the election of San Jose's first female mayor, Janet Gray Hayes. Joan served as an aide for Mayor Hayes and later for Mayor Susan Hammer.

Vic and Joan also made an invaluable contribution to local parks when, along with David Pandori and Kathy Muller, Joan helped create the Guadalupe River Park Gardens.

Vic and Joan raised four children in the Naglee Park neighborhood, and all four grew up to follow their parents into careers in the medical professions.

What a mark Vic Corsiglia has made as a member of the medical profession. As a leader of the San Jose Medical Group, he ensured that institutions dedicated to patient well-being would exist and flourish even after his retirement.

As a practicing physician, Vic has been a model of what a doctor should be. Modern insurance schemes don't always compensate the internal medicine physician when a patient is hospitalized. But that never stopped Vic from always attending to any patient who was hospitalized. Vic was always on duty to his patients and cared about them as human beings.

Vic Corsiglia has been a doctor who is really obsessive about keeping up with the latest in medicine and he's also a physician who takes the time to thoroughly explore every patient's symptoms, to understand just what is going on with a patient. That may be why Vic Corsiglia is known to have an almost uncanny ability to diagnose ailments, even obscure ones, among his patients. If you don't know what's wrong with you, but you know something is wrong, Vic is the man to see.

In the 56 years he has practiced medicine at the San Jose Medical Clinic, he has saved countless lives and has engendered the gratitude and trust of thousands of patients.

One of them is me. I am grateful that in December of 1980 Vic saved my life just as I am grateful that he has helped heal me and my family so many times over the years. To say we will miss him as a physician does not really capture the sense of loss all of his patients feel. However, I count myself among the lucky because although Vic Corsiglia is retiring from the practice of medicine, he is not retiring from being my neighbor and my friend. I know that Vic and Joan Corsiglia will have many new ventures and adventures before them and I hope to share some of them.

Please join me in recognizing Vic and Joan for their decades of service to our community.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House, instead of attacking women's access to health care, we should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment is unnecessary and harmful. The memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security already makes people convicted of these crimes ineligible for deferred action and already makes them top priorities for deportation.

So, at best, this amendment is duplicative, but it does something else. In the memorandum there is this proviso:

In evaluating whether the offense is a significant

misdemeanor involving domestic violence, careful

consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien

was also the victim of domestic violence. If so, this should

be a mitigating factor.

This amendment leaves that out. And so that is why so many supporters of services to domestic violence victims are opposing this amendment. That includes the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the law enforcement officers group. They all oppose this amendment because they say it will make victims of domestic violence less able to seek help, less willing to call the police, and more likely to remain victims of domestic violence.

Let me make it clear. People who are convicted of aggravated felonies, which includes child molestation, child pornography, rape, or any crime of violence, are a top priority for deportation. They are excluded from relief under what the President did, as are significant misdemeanors, which includes convictions of domestic violence.

So this is really much simpler than it looks. This is trying to correct a problem that does not exist, but also creates a problem for domestic violence victims in the solution to a nonproblem.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, this amendment is premised on a mistake in the understanding of how USCIS actually works. Here is a fact that some people may not know: the USCIS is funded not by the taxpayers, it is funded by the fees of the applicants.

The amendment seems to assume that, if you are out of status, somehow, somebody else is paying for you--the taxpayers or some other applicant. That is not the case. Each applicant pays enough money to cover the cost of processing his own fee, and it does not delay others.

What this amendment would do would not just deal with DACA applicants; it would impact people whom I don't think we want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. For example, people who are victims of torture can come to the United States and make a case--a plea--for political asylum. They file petitions to do that. This amendment would say that their petitions can't be heard.

There are people who are victims of domestic violence. We created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. Those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner.

Victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a T visa. That is something we created in law. According to this amendment, people who apply--sex trafficking victims--would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner.

Here is something else: most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based. If you have your American citizen daughter marry somebody from another country, she can petition so that her husband can become a legal resident of the United States. If that husband is out of status, that petition would not be petitioned.

I don't think we want to do what this amendment suggests we should do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague and compatriot on the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I believe I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of our full committee.

Mr. Chairman, some claim the President's actions are unconstitutional. That is not true.

I submit for the Record a letter signed by 135 law professors and confirmed by four former chief counsels for Immigration about why his action was lawful.

25 November 2014.

We write as scholars and teachers of immigration law who

have reviewed the executive actions announced by the

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

that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for

Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are within the legal

authority of the executive branch of the government of the

United States. To explain, we cite federal statutes,

regulations, and historical precedents. We do not express any

views on the policy aspects of these two executive actions.

This letter updates a letter transmitted by 136 law

professors to the White House on September 3, 2014, on the

role of executive action in immigration law. We focus on the

legal basis for granting certain noncitizens in the United

States ``deferred action'' status as a temporary reprieve

from deportation. One of these programs, Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was established by executive

action in June 2012. On November 20, the President announced

the expansion of eligibility criteria for DACA and the

creation of a new program, Deferred Action for Parental

Accountability (DAPA).

prosecutorial discretion in immigration law enforcement

Both November 20 executive actions relating to deferred

action are exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the

Department of Homeland Security to decide how the immigration

laws should be applied. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-

accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement

context, unavoidable whenever the appropriated resources do

not permit 100 percent enforcement. In immigration

enforcement, prosecutorial discretion covers both agency

decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement, like

cancelling or not serving or filing a charging document or

Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as

decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a

stay of remova1, parole, or deferred action.

Prosecutorial discretion provides a temporary reprieve from

deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like

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

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

deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not

unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other

exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an

independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United

States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility

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

President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the

qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship.

statutory authority and long-standing agency practice

Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, 103(a) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the ``Act''),

clearly empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to

make choices about immigration enforcement. That section

provides: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be

charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act

and all other laws relating to the immigration and

naturalization of aliens. . . .'' INA Sec. 242(g) recognizes

the executive branch's legal authority to exercise

prosecutorial discretion, specifically by barring judicial

review of three particular types of prosecutorial discretion

decisions: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate

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

the Act, Congress has explicitly recognized deferred action

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

exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain

victims of abuse, crime or trafficking. Another statutory

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

authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not

otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their

particular immigration status. This provision (and the formal

regulations noted below) confer the work authorization

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

Based on this statutory foundation, the application of

prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups has been

part of the immigration system for many years. Longstanding

provisions of the formal regulations promulgated under the

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

prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. Deferred action

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

administrative convenience to the government which gives some

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

for those who receive deferred action. Agency memoranda

further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in

immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel

Sam Bernsen stated in a legal opinion, ``The reasons for the

exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and

humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to

enforce all of the rules and regulations presently on the

books.'' In 2000, a memorandum on prosecutorial discretion in

immigration matters issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner

provided that ``[s]ervice officers are not only authorized by

law but expected to exercise discretion in a judicious manner

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

the factors that should guide those decisions. In 2011,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of

Homeland Security published guidance known as the ``Morton

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

humanitarian factors, for employees to consider in deciding

whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. These

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

include tender or elderly age, long-time lawful permanent

residence, and serious health conditions.

Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in

immigration cases

Federal courts have also explicitly recognized

prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in

particulary. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its

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

feature of the removal system is the broad discretion

exercised by immigration officials. . . . Federal officials,

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

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

v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme

Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. This

affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with

congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement,

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

detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the

noncitizens in the United States who lack lawfill immigration

status.

Based on statutory authority, U.S. immigration agencies

have a long history of exercising prosecutorial discretion

for a range of reasons that include economic or humanitarian

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

noncitizens involved have strong family ties or long-term

residence in the United States. Prosecutorial discretion,

including deferred action, has been made available on both a

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

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

been aimed at a particular group of people, individuals must

apply, and the agency must exercise its discretion based on

the facts of each individual case. Both DACA and DAPA

explicitly incorporate that requirement.

Historical precedents for deferred action and similar programs for

individuals and groups

As examples of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,

numerous administrations have issued directives providing

deferred action or functionally similar forms of

prosecutorial discretion to groups of noncitizens, often to

large groups. The administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan

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

predicted (though ultimately much lower) 1.5 million

noncitizen spouses and children of immigrants who qualified

for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act

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

Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though

Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA. Among the

many other examples of significant deferred action or similar

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

deferred action program in 2005 for foreign academic students

affected by Hurricane Katrina, and ``Deferred Enforcement

Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007. Several decades

earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of

prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary

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

legal sources and historical examples of immigration

prosecutorial discretion described above are by no means

exhaustive, but they underscore the legal authority for an

administration to apply prosecutorial discretion to both

individuals and groups.

Some have suggested that the size of the group who may

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

relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal

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

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

initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population

(about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial

estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions.

The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of

people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the

conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but

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

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

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

is doing precisely the opposite--exercising a discretion

conferred by the immigration laws and settled general

principles of enforcement discretion.

The Constitution and immigration enforcement discretion

Critics have also suggested that the deferred action

programs announced on November 20 violate the President's

constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be

faithfully executed.'' A serious legal question would

therefore arise if the executive branch were to halt all

immigration enforcement, or even if the Administration were

to refuse to substantially spend the resources appropriated

by Congress. In either of those scenarios, the justification

based on resource limitations would not apply. But the Obama

administration has fully utilized all the enforcement

resources Congress has appropriated. It has enforced the

immigration law at record levels through apprehensions,

investigations, and detentions that have resulted in over two

million removals. At the same time that the President

announced the November 20 executive actions that we discuss

here, he also announced revised enforcement priorities to

focus on removing the most serious criminal offenders and

further shoring up the southern border. Nothing in the

President's actions will prevent him from continuing to

remove as many violators as the resources Congress has given

him permit.

Moreover, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised,

particularly when the numbers are large, there is no legal

barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound

procedures that include a formal application and

dissemination of the relevant criteria to the officers

charged with implementing the program and to the public. As

DACA has shown, those kinds of procedures assure that

important policy decisions are made at the leadership level,

help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and

consistently, and offer the public the transparency that

government priority decisions require in a democracy.

Hiroshi Motomura & Susan Westerberg Prager, University of

California, Los Angeles, School of Law; Shoba Sivaprasad

Wadhia, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of

Law; Stephen H. Legomsky, Washington University School of

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

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

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

Deborah Anker, Harvard Law School; Sabrineh Ardalan, Harvard

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

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

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

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

School; Linda Bosniak, Rutgers University School of Law-

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

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

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

University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School

of Law; Stacy Caplow, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin Casper,

University of Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, University of

Minnesota; Howard F. Chang, University of Pennsylvania Law

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

Marisa Cianciarulo, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School

of Law; Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State University; Ingrid Eagly,

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

Cleveland Marshall School of Law; Bram T. Elias, University

of Iowa College of Law; Stella Burch Elias, University of

Iowa College of Law; Jill E. Family, Widener University

School of Law; Niels Frenzen, University of Southern

California; Maryellen Fullerton, Brooklyn Law School; Cesar

Cuauhtimoc Garcia Hernandez, University of Denver Sturm

College of Law; Lauren Gilbert, St. Thomas University School

of Law; Denise L. Gilman, University of Texas School of Law;

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

P. Gulasekaram, Santa Clara University; Anju Gupta, Rutgers

School of Law--Newark; Susan R. Gzesh, University of Chicago;

Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall University; Dina Francesca

Haynes, New England Law, Boston; Susan Hazeldean, Cornell Law

School; Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Chapman University; Laura A.

Hernandez, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, John Marshall

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

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

Hoffman, University of Houston Law Center; Mary Holper,

Boston College Law School; Alan Hyde, Rutgers University

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

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

of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Drexel University

Kline School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, Boston College Law

School; Elizabeth Keyes, University of Baltimore School of

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

Koelsch, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer

Lee Koh, Western State College of Law; Kevin Lapp, Loyola Law

School, Los Angeles; Christopher Lasch, University of Denver

Sturm College of Law; Jennifer J. Lee, Temple University

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

Irvine; Christine Lin, University of California, Hastings

College of the Law; Beth Lyon, Villanova University School of

Law; Stephen Manning, Lewis & Clark College; Lynn Marcus,

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

H. Marton, University of Tulsa College of Law; Elizabeth

McCormick, University of Tulsa College of Law; M. Isabel

Medina, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; Stephen

Meili, University of Minnesota Law School; Vanessa Merton,

Pace University School of Law; Andrew Moore, University of

Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Moore, University of

New Mexico School of Law; Daniel

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

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

Law; Alizabeth Newman, CUNY School of Law; Noah Novogrodsky,

University of Wyoming College of Law; Fernando A. Nunez,

Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares, Howard University

School of Law; Michael A. Olivas, University of Houston Law

Center; Patrick D. O'Neill, Esq., University of Puerto Rico

School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, University of Pennsylvania Law

School; Sunita Patel, American University, Washington College

of Law; Huyen Pham, Texas A&M University School of Law;

Michele R. Pistone, Villanova University School of Law; Luis

F.B. Plascencia, Arizona State University; Polly J. Price,

Emory University School of Law; Doris Marie Provine, Arizona

State University; Nina Rabin, James E. Rogers College of Law,

University of Arizona; Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Temple University,

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

Connecticut School of Law; Ediberto Roman, Florida

International University; Victor C. Romero, Penn State Law;

Joseph H. Rosen, Atlanta's John Marshall Law School; Carrie

Rosenbaum, Golden Gate University School of Law; Rachel E.

Rosenbloom, Northeastern University School of Law; Ruben G.

Rumbaut, University of California, Irvine; Ted Ruthizer,

Columbia Law School; Leticia M. Saucedo, UC Davis School of

Law; Heather Scavone, Elon University School of Law; Andrew

I. Schoenholtz, Georgetown Law; Philip Schrag, Georgetown

University Law Center; Bijal Shah, NYU School of Law; Ragini

Shah, Suffolk University Law School; Careen Shannon, Yeshiva

University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Anna Williams

Shavers, University of Nebraska College of Law; Bryn Siegel,

Pacific Coast University School of Law; Anita Sinha, American

University, Washington College of Law; Dan R. Smulian,

Brooklyn Law School; Gemma Solimene, Fordham University

School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah, Stanford Law School;

Juliet Stumpf, Lewis & Clark Law School; Maureen A. Sweeney,

University of Maryland Carey School of Law; Barbara Szweda,

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law; Margaret H.

Taylor, Wake Forest University School of Law; David Thronson,

Michigan State University College of Law; Allison Brownell

Tirres, DePaul University College of Law; Scott Titshaw,

Mercer University School of Law; Phil Torrey, Harvard Law

School; Enid Trucios-Haynes, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law,

University of Louisville; Diane Uchimiya, University of La

Verne College of Law; Gloria Valencia-Weber, University of

New Mexico School of Law; Sheila I. Velez Martinez,

University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Alex Vernon, Ave

Maria School of Law; Rose Cuison Villazor, University of

California at Davis School of Law; Leti Volpp, University of

California, Berkeley; Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State

University; Deborah M. Weissman, University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill; Lisa Weissman-Ward, Stanford Law School; Anna

R. Welch, University of Maine School of Law; Virgil O. Wiebe,

University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael

J. Wishnie, Yale Law School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Cornell

University Law School; Elizabeth Lee Young, University of

Arkansas School of Law.

* all institutional affiliations are for identification

purposes only

conclusion

Our conclusion is that the expansion of the DACA program

and the establishment of Deferred Action for Parental

Accountability are legal exercises of prosecutorial

discretion. Both executive actions are well within the legal

authority of the executive branch of the government of the

United States.

November 29, 2014.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.

We are writing as former General Counsels of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service or former Chief

Counsels of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As you

know, the President on November 20 announced a package of

measures designed to deploy his limited immigration

enforcement resources in the most effective way. These

measures included an expansion of Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the creation of Deferred Action

for Parental Accountability (DAPA). We take no positions on

the policy judgments that those actions reflect, but we have

all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express

our collective view that the President's actions are well

within his legal authority.

Some 135 law professors who currently teach or write in the

area of immigration law signed a November 25, 2014 letter to

the same effect. Rather than repeat the points made in that

letter, we simply attach it here and go on record as stating

that we agree wholeheartedly with its legal analysis and its

conclusions.

Respectfully,

Stephen Legomsky,

The John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington

University School of Law, Former Chief Counsel, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Roxana Bacon,

Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services.

Paul W. Virtue,

Partner, Mayer Brown LLP, Former General Counsel,

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Bo Cooper,

Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loew, Former General

Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

I note also that a lawsuit is currently pending to challenge the constitutionality.

Why don't Republicans just wait and see what the judicial branch has to say, what they decide?

The amendments being offered are poison pills and should be defeated. The first amendment is meant to block all but one of the President's actions on immigration. This includes the temporary protection from deportation for parents of U.S. citizens and the expansion of temporary relief for people brought to the country as kids.

This would break apart families, hurt more communities, deport the parents of U.S. citizens, and send thousands of American children into foster care.

But the amendment does more damage. In the interest of time, I will touch on just a few examples. It prevents improving the provisional waiver of the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars created by Congress in 1996 to prevent U.S. citizens from experiencing ``extreme hardship.'' Ironically, the changes the administration intends would actually make the waiver align more closely to what Congress enacted.

It would stop actions to help capitalize on the innovation of job- creating entrepreneurs and increase job opportunities. It would block initiatives designed to promote the integration of immigrants and to promote citizenship. The only action not blocked is a pay raise for ICE agents.

The second amendment would block further implementation of the 2012 DACA memo and any additional efforts to save DREAM Act kids from deportation. In the past, there was confusion about what amendments did. But this one is very clear. It is a straight up-or-down vote on whether to deport hundreds of thousands of young people who came forward, passed background checks, received DACA, and followed the rule. It would deport the DREAMers.

The third amendment looks reasonable at first, as it requires that those convicted of sex offenses and domestic violence be the highest priority for enforcement. But the point is, the President's actions already make those criminals a priority for deportation, and they are prohibited from getting any deportation relief.

The amendment is not only unnecessary, but it also endangers victims of domestic violence. How? It overturns the DHS policy of inquiry into whether a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence was actually the victim, not the perpetrators of the crime. This amendment is opposed by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and law enforcement.

I will now place into the Record a letter from 14 sheriffs and police chiefs asking that we oppose the DeSantis amendment.

January 13, 2015.

Re H.R. 240, The Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Act, 2015.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned law enforcement

officers, write to express our opposition to various

proposals under consideration in the House of Representatives

that seek to override aspects of the Obama Administration's

immigration policies.

While acknowledging that there is good-faith disagreement

over certain aspects of the administration's immigration

policies, several of the proposals under consideration by the

House of Representatives would represent a step backward,

lead to uncertainty in our immigration enforcement system,

and make it harder for state and local law enforcement to

police our communities.

The 114th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our

broken immigration system, advancing reforms that will help

the economy and secure our borders. While we are encouraged

by proposals that would secure our borders and reform

outdated visa programs, we are concerned by reports of

various proposals in the House that do not appear to have

bipartisan support and could unnecessarily threaten a partial

governmental shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS). As law enforcement officers, we regularly

work with DHS and its component agencies and fear that an

unfunded DHS will sow confusion and uncertainty.

We are also concerned about proposed substantive changes

that would undercut existing protections for victims of

domestic violence, undermine law enforcement's ability to

focus on catching and deporting dangerous criminals, compel

state and local law enforcement to hold low-level offenders

without probable cause, and threaten long-established and

necessary federal programs and funding that have long aided

state and local law enforcement. We oppose proposals that (1)

make law-abiding immigrants feel less safe in our

communities, (2) focus federal law enforcement away from

catching serious criminals and security threats, (3) increase

the state and local role in immigration enforcement, and (4)

threaten needed federal resources and funding used by state

and local law enforcement.

1. When immigrants feel safe in their communities, we are all safer

When immigrants feel safe in their communities, including

immigrant victims of domestic violence, we are all safer. We

oppose amendments that remove key protections from domestic

violence victims and undermine the executive branch's ability

to prioritize criminals over otherwise law abiding

immigrants.

One proposal under consideration by the House would scrap

DHS's entire existing enforcement framework, because it does

not treat ``any alien convicted of any offense involving

domestic, violence, sexual abuse, child molestation, or child

exploitation as within the categories of aliens subject to

the Department of Homeland Security's highest civil

immigration enforcement priorities.''

While the amendment is intuitively appealing and directed

toward protecting domestic violence victims, it actually has

the opposite effect in many cases. By guaranteeing

``highest'' priority treatment of all domestic violence

cases, the amendment raises the stakes for any report of

domestic violence--a single report of domestic violence could

lead to removal proceedings and deportation.

Immigrant victims are particularly vulnerable to being

arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence, even when they

are not the primary perpetrator of violence in the

relationship, due to language and cultural barriers. Once in

custody and/or facing trial, and desperate to be released and

reunited with their children, these same factors--combined

with poor legal counsel, may lead to deportation of wrongly

accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly

convicted of domestic violence charges. Currently, federal

authorities have flexibility in separating victims from

perpetrators in dual arrest situations. The proposed

amendment would remove this flexibly, leading to the

deportation of victims of domestic violence.

2. Law enforcement should refocus its priorities toward catching

serious criminals and security threats

Federal immigration agencies, including Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE), do not have the capacity or

resources to remove all undocumented immigrants. Existing

federal policies prioritize the removal of immigrants with

criminal records over those who pose no threat to the

community. We believe that law enforcement agencies should

spend their limited time and resources focusing on pursuing

truly dangerous criminals, not otherwise law-abiding members

of the community.

Various amendments would seek to override these

longstanding priorities. We oppose such amendments.

3. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility

We believe that immigration enforcement on the state and

local levels diverts limited resources away from public

safety and undermines trust within immigrant communities.

State and local law enforcement agencies face tight budgets

and often do not have the capacity or resources to duplicate

the federal government's work in enforcing federal

immigration laws. Rather than apprehending and removing

immigrants who have no criminal background or affiliation and

are merely seeking to work or reunite with family, it is more

important for state and local law enforcement to focus

limited resources and funding on true threats to public

safety and security.

Various amendments would seek to foist additional

enforcement responsibilities onto state and local law

enforcement, including amendments that would reinstitute and

codify the Secure Communities program. Some proposals also

would impose a federal mandate on state and local law

enforcement agencies to hold suspects even in the absence of

probable cause, an action that raises serious constitutional

and legal questions and would risk creating legal liability

for state and local law enforcement agencies. We oppose such

amendments.

4. State and local law enforcement need adequate resources

To the extent that state and local law enforcement play a

role in immigration enforcement, the federal government must

provide adequate funding in line with these responsibilities.

Some proposals under consideration by the House would place

needed federal funding to state and local law enforcement at

risk. These proposals, including proposed amendments that

would condition significant federal funding on holding

suspects in the absence of probable cause, raise serious

concerns. We oppose such amendments.

Additionally, as referenced above, we call on Congress to

fund DHS, including valuable DHS programs that provide needed

funding to state and local law enforcement. We support

legislation to fully fund this crucial agency for the entire

2015 fiscal year.

Conclusion

As law enforcement officers, we believe that the 114th

Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our broken

immigration system, advance reforms that will help the

economy and secure our borders. Any executive actions taken

by the executive branch are temporary and limited--by

themselves they will not fix a broken system, nor will their

repeal fix a broken system.

We continue to recognize that what our broken system truly

needs is a permanent legislative solution. It is our hope

that DHS funding legislation passes promptly and without any

of the shortcomings we flagged above. Passing such

legislation opens the door for this Congress to work

constructively towards necessary immigration reform

legislation.

Sincerely,

Chief Richard Biehl, Dayton Police Department, Dayton,

Ohio;

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff's Office,

Pima County, Arizona;

Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office,

Santa Cruz County, Arizona;

Chief Randy Gaber, Madison Police Department, Madison,

Wisconsin;

Chief Ronald Haddad, Dearborn Police Department,

Dearborn, Michigan;

Chief James Hawkins, Garden City Police Department,

Garden City, Kansas;

Chief Mike Koval, City of Madison Police Department,

Madison, Wisconsin;

Chief Jose Lopez, Durham Police Department, Durham, North

Carolina;

Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland County Sheriff's, Department

Richland County, South Carolina;

Chief Thomas Manger, Montgomery County Police Department,

Montgomery County, Maryland;

Sheriff William McCarthy, Polk County Sheriff's Office,

Polk County, Iowa;

Lt. Andy Norris, Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office,

Tuscaloosa County, Alabama;

Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown Police Department,

Marshalltown, Iowa;

Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff's Office,

Dallas County, Texas.

The final amendment also creates problems. It says that USCIS should adjudicate petitions of individuals in lawful status before adjudicating petitions of individuals in unlawful status. But that is too broad. There are many petitions filed by people in unlawful status that we would not want to delay: green cards for the wives and husbands of American citizens; requests for U visas and T visas from crime victims or sex-trafficking victims; immigrant visa petitions filed by domestic violence victims. These are all people who would be harmed by the amendment.

I would note that the fourth amendment is based on the falsehood that the President's immigration actions created an incentive for employers to hire deferred action recipients instead of American workers. This is simply not true.

Now, we need to have a serious conversation about immigration policy in the House, but threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security is not the way to do that. These amendments are foolish and a step backwards, and not funding DHS is dumb and dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congress members Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda, and Mike Thompson to recognize the four decades of tenacious, dedicated service of Mr. Dan McCorquodale to the County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose, and the State of California.

For over 40 years, Dan has been a fixture in public service in California after becoming interested in remedying the pervasive, lingering injustices of racial, gender, and disability discrimination. Having served as a Sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps for four years, attended college, and worked as a teacher, Dan joined the City Council of Chula Vista, California in 1962 as the youngest person in history to ever be elected to the Council. Only four years later, Dan became the City's first Mayor, elected by a broad margin.

Consistent with his lifelong passion for teaching and the cause of individuals struggling with mental health issues, Dan returned to education from 1969 to 1972, teaching

learning-disabled fourth, fifth, and sixth-graders. During this time, Dan initiated the first Educationally Handicapped program for the Evergreen School District. After discovering the need to increase access to mental health centers in Santa Clara County, among other issues, Dan decided to run for the Board of Supervisors there.

In 1972, Dan was elected to the Board, serving as a Chairperson for two of his three terms. As a Supervisor, Dan took local leadership on justice and gender and racial equality, health care access, environment, and transportation issues.

Dan never backed down from his lifelong fight against discrimination and injustice. He worked to bring in women, minorities, and individuals living with developmental disabilities to the workforce. For example, Dan appointed the first woman commissioner to the Fire Commission. He also garnered Board consensus regarding supporting workshops, job training, and a program to ease job access for the developmentally disabled.

During his tenure on the Board, Dan expanded his efforts beyond local leadership, representing Santa Clara County on regional and state-wide governing Boards and Commissions, including becoming a member and Chairperson of the Bay Area Quality Management District, and a member of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Advisory Council of the State Office of Planning and Research.

In 1982, Dan was elected State Senator where he served for three terms. As a Senator, Dan authored legislation in a variety of areas including: comprehensive water plans for the State, water reclamation, conservation, consumer protection, people with disabilities, LGBT issues, and humane treatment of animals.

After leaving office, Dan worked as a Commissioner on the California Medical Assistance Commission with the Office of the Governor, working to enhance access to medical care for those in need.

Throughout his career Dan has been known for his stellar work ethic, incredible resilience, professionalism, and commitment to hard work in the best interest of the people. I wish Dan the happiest of birthdays, congratulate him on his impressive career, and commend him for his invaluable service to our community and the State of California. We have been lucky to have him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order on honoring our retiring Members, Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman George Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the California Democratic delegation, and we are losing from our membership two spectacular Members who have served with tremendous distinction for 40 years each.

Representative Miller and Representative Waxman were the final two remaining Members of the House elected as part of the historic Watergate class of 1974. Both were instrumental in passing the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is the culmination of a nearly century-long struggle to guarantee that every American has access to quality and affordable health care.

Representative Waxman was one of the most prolific lawmakers in American history. He has a long record of not only legislative, but oversight achievements. He was elected, as I said, in 1974 and reelected 17 times. He chaired the Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Health and the Environment, the Energy and Commerce Committee from 2009 to 2011, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from 2007 to 2009.

He left his mark all over this body, but the five areas that he will be remembered most about is health care, consumer protection, environmental protection, telecommunications policy, and just many good government laws.

Some of the most important bills that he either wrote or coauthored include: the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments--we can recall when we couldn't breathe in Los Angeles, and that is no longer the case because of Henry's leadership and work preventing smog, air pollution, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer; the Medicaid and CHIP expansion gave coverage and access to health care for children and working families; and his nursing home reforms helped protect the most vulnerable people in America.

The Hatch-Waxman generic drug act gave rise to the generic drug industry, and the Orphan Drug Act gave hope to families across the country whose family members had diseases not lucrative prior to the act. From the Ryan White CARE Act to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act to the cigarette and smokeless tobacco health warning laws, Henry has been recognized as a leader here.

His oversight efforts were simply marvelous. Looking at waste, fraud, and abuse, he identified over $1 trillion in wasteful and mismanaged Federal contracts, including billions of dollars in wasteful spending in Iraq and in response to Hurricane Katrina. His oversight of the tobacco industry and the Wall Street collapse are known throughout the country. He has over his 40 years here provided tremendous service to our country.

Our colleague, Representative George Miller, has similarly left his mark not only on this body, but on this country and indeed on this world. Our friend, George, is an aggressive and unapologetic investigator on behalf of taxpayers into the health and safety of children and workers.

He took on asbestos executives, for-profit colleges, subsidized agribusiness, mining corporations, oil companies, and administration officials of both parties. Why? To stand up for the little guy who didn't have a voice.

He chaired three committees during the past 40 years, the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families from 1983 to 1992; the Committee on Natural Resources from 1992 to 1994;

and the Committee on Education and Labor from 2007 to 2010. He is a longtime cochair to the Democratic Steering Policy Committee. He is among the 50th, as is Henry, consecutive longest-serving Members of Congress in history out of more than 10,000 Members.

His list of accomplishments is too long to read, but they certainly include fair pay for women; investigating sweatshops not only here, but around the world; fighting for pension reform; standing up for occupational safety and occupational disease compensation; international labor standards; the minimum wage; antidiscrimination laws; and the defense of the right to organize and collectively bargain.

The notable legislation written or cowritten by George Miller include: the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007; the student loan reforms of 2007 and 2010; the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002; the California Desert Protection Act of 1994; the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as the Individuals With Disability Act; and the Pay-As-You-Go Act, PAYGO, passed in 1982 to reduce the deficit and instill greater discipline in the budget process and to ensure that military and nonmilitary spending were treated under the same rules.

He played a key role in shaping the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the response to the worst American recession since the Great Depression.

California is proud of our two colleagues, and many Californians and indeed some honorary Californians are here tonight who would like to say a few words to honor these two outstanding men.

First, I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Alan Lowenthal, who represents a district in southern California for his tribute.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored now to yield to the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to our colleague from California, Mr. Mark Takano.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Congresswoman Jackie Speier, my neighbor in the San Francisco Bay area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Santa Barbara, Congresswoman Lois Capps, our friend and colleague.

At this point, I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, our colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Napa, Congressman Mike Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from over the mountains, Congressman Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from East Bay, Congressman Eric Swalwell, a new Member of our delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to our new colleague from North Bay, Congressman Jared Huffman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished colleague from Los Angeles, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to our colleague from New York, an honorary Californian and a fellow fan of these two great Members, Congressman Paul Tonko of New York's 20th District.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield to our colleague from Maryland, Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to another distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Congressman John Sarbanes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Rush Holt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, we are through with an hour. We could have filled many hours, but we say goodbye to these two colleagues. Eighty years of experience and expertise will leave this Chamber.

I looked--in 1974, the top of the charts was ``The Way We Were,'' that was the song, but also on that chart was a song called ``Rock On,'' and that is what we want our two colleagues to do.

We are in their debt. We are impressed. Our country and our world is a better place because of their wonderful service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is legal authority for the President's immigration actions derived, in part, from his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court explained this duty does not require the President to act against every technical violation of the law. The Court said: ``An agency's decision

not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute discretion.''

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Arizona v. United States, struck down most of Arizona's S.B. 1070 law. The Court said then the broad discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials extends to ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.'' The Court said discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns and can turn on factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.

When we created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we charged the Secretary with the duty to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. That is at 6 U.S. Code 202.

Congress delegated that authority to the executive branch, and they are now using this authority. We enacted a law that permits the issuance of employment authorization. They are now implementing that part of the law.

This bill would block some portions of the President's recent action to keep young people from facing deportation and to prevent parents of U.S. citizen kids from being deported, but the bill harms others, too. Immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek a green card through the Violence Against Women Act are not protected from deportation while they wait for a visa. With this bill, they would face deportation.

Victims of serious crimes approved for U visas get deferred action while they wait for a visa. Under this bill, they would face deportation. The exception in the bill is insufficient because victims may assist law enforcement without appearing at trial.

Victims of severe forms of human trafficking eligible for statutorily-capped T visas could also face deportation. The bill would end the ability to parole in place the undocumented families of American military personnel and veterans. Deporting the mothers of American soldiers could be the result.

There is strong historical precedent for the President's actions. Prior Presidents were not met with such obstructionism. President Ronald Reagan created the family fairness program. Once expanded by President George H.W. Bush, that program is expected to protect 1.5 million people. The reason was to keep families together, one of the key motivations for the President's actions last month.

As some wrongly claim, the Reagan program was to carry out congressional intent in the 1986 act. That is false. When the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill, they said: ``It is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens.'' President Reagan decided otherwise.

Some wrongly argue the scope of the Reagan family fairness program was smaller, that it was not intended to provide relief to 1.5 million people, about 40 percent of the undocumented population at the time. Again, that is false. The INS Commissioner then testified before Congress that it covered 1.5 million people. An internal decision memo at the time states:

Family fairness policy provides voluntary departure and

employment authorization to potentially millions of

individuals.

The draft processing plan at the time said:

Current estimates are that greater than 1 million IRCA-

eligible family members will file for this benefit.

Now, many Members on the other side of the aisle want to prevent the President's actions from going into effect, but the President has strong constitutional and statutory authority to take these actions.

He cannot change the law, and he has not done so. He does have the authority to grant temporary relief to some. We need broad reform, and to do that, we need to legislate.

It is shameful that the House has failed in its duty to legislate to fix our broken immigration system. The Judiciary Committee has reported out four bills. We have yet to see them on the floor.

I would like to enter into the Record the testimony by the Commissioner before the Judiciary Committee in 1990, the draft processing plan from 1990, and the decision memo from 1990 that prove the elements of the Reagan fairness plan.

Mr. Speaker, I, in my opening remarks, did note the uncanny similarity between the action that President Reagan and the first President Bush took and the action that President Obama has now taken.

I would note that I used the official record as a source of information instead of chat and articles, and I submitted for the record the internal decision memorandum in the INS, dated February 8, 1990, indicating that 1.5 million, 40 percent of the undocumented population, in contravention to the orders of Congress, were going to be given deferred action.

The Commissioner of the INS testified that 40 percent of the undocumented population were going to be given, in contradiction to the Congress' explicit decision, were going to be given deferred action. I also have the draft processing plan that says millions of people would be given, in contravention to the act of Congress, deferred action. They even have the amount of money that they were going to make off the estimated filing fees.

I would recommend that people take a look at the documents, and they will see that what President Reagan did is almost exactly the same as what President Obama did--40 percent of the population.

I don't think that President Reagan could get the Republican nomination today, but that does not diminish the validity of his action at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, San Jose for 150 years of service, fellowship and stewardship to the San Jose community.

The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Mother Church, was founded in New York City, in October 1796. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church was named the Freedom Church because it struggled mightily for the dignity and emancipation of Black people in America.

In 1864, the First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, San Jose was founded in San Jose and has continued in the tradition of the Mother Church to fight for the dignity, emancipation and rights of all people and has been recognized by the City of San Jose as the oldest Black church in San Jose.

On November 23, 2014 the First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church will celebrate 150 Years of service to the San Jose community and is planning for the community service demands of the future.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. I really believe that the so-called Secret Science Act is in fact a direct attack on American science.

I am a very strong supporter of transparency in government, as well as in science, and in Silicon Valley, where I am from, we believe more data in more hands benefits everybody, but I think this bill is not in fact an open data bill. It will be a data reduction bill.

It doesn't give the EPA greater authority to provide the raw data it uses.

It actually reduces the kinds of data that can be used by prohibiting the EPA from using any data that can't currently be publicly released.

That sounds reasonable except that in fact there is some data that you can't actually release under current law--medical records, confidential business data, trade secrets--all of which, if made publicly available, would run afoul of various provisions of law.

I believe that we could work together on a bipartisan basis to figure out how to fix the barriers to release of data while maintaining necessary confidentiality for some data. I think we should all agree on that.

I want to point out another way that the bill is a problem, and that is the additional cost that is going to be incurred per study. The estimate, according to CBO, is that there will be an additional $10,000 to $30,000 added per study. That means that if this bill were to become law, it would cost an additional $500 million to $1.5 billion a year to do science studies.

I would love to be disappointed, but I don't believe that the Republicans intend to add additional funding to the EPA to cover the cost of the science studies that this bill would create. In fact, this bill does not address that issue.

What this would do would be to actually cut the number of science studies that the EPA is able to do. I think that that is a result that would be very unfortunate for the country. What we need is more science, not less.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this bill makes a small but important change to the Federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. As has been mentioned, it would amend the charter to become gender neutral by replacing ``men'' with ``veterans'' and ``widows'' with ``surviving spouses.'' I think doing this aligns the charter with the actual makeup of the organization today, and I totally support the change.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States has been serving veterans of our Armed Forces for over 100 years and traces its roots to the Spanish-American War. Only men were permitted to serve in the military when the organization was chartered in 1936, and of course, we know, since that time, things have changed a great deal.

The role of women in the military has greatly expanded. In fact, two of our colleagues--Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth of Illinois--both served with both distinction and honor in our military services and now serve with us as colleagues in the House.

Women serve in varied roles throughout the Armed Forces, and they have made many important sacrifices for the country. Women in fact now make up almost 10 percent of the total veterans population, and the Department of Veterans Affairs predicts they will represent nearly 18 percent of veterans by the year 2040.

In recognition of these facts, the VFW opened its membership to women over 35 years ago, and they certainly deserve our commendation for doing so.

Generally, as has been said many times, it should be up to the organization, not Congress, to decide who may and may not be a member of that organization. That is one of the many reasons why Members on both sides of the aisle have long supported the committee's policy against creating new Federal charters.

Even so, there is no policy against amending existing charters, and if such amendments are needed to align the charter to actual reality, then there is no reason to prevent such an amendment.

In fact, I also support the reason for this change. The Veterans of Foreign Wars seeks this change because it ``strongly believes that combat service, not gender, determines membership eligibility.'' I could not agree more, and I can only applaud the VFW for initiating this change and coming to the Judiciary Committee, seeking out the author of the bill and working with us in a bipartisan basis to get here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of the bill, and this was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Miller for his leadership in this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congress members Anna Eshoo and Mike Honda, to recognize the impact of Mr. Peter Andreas Szego's lifelong involvement in the life of our community. We would like to express our deep sadness over his passing on September 28, 2014, in San Jose at the age of 89.

To escape Hitler's Germany, Mr. Szego immigrated to the United States with his family in 1934. After he started his studies at Stanford University, his education was interrupted in 1944 when he entered the U.S. Army to serve in Europe as a dental technician until 1946. After WWII, Mr. Szego returned to the United States to finish college, undertake course work toward a Ph.D., and teach at Rice University, Houston, Texas, and Santa Clara University.

Around this time, Mr. Szego began his life-long activism for civil rights, justice, peace, and many political campaigns for candidates who stood for these causes. After doing research for over a decade and while continuing to work and publish in applied mathematics, Mr. Szego left engineering to join the staff to Mr. Dan McCorquodale, the Santa Clara County Supervisor at the time. Among other things, in 1963, Mr. Szego joined an interracial group to take part in the March on Washington. Additionally, Mr. Szego served as an advisor to U.S. Representative Phil Burton on the issue of drafting fair political districts long before computer programs were used to draw boundaries.

After his retirement from the Legislature in 1991, Mr. Szego continued to work even harder to improve the lives of people of all races, backgrounds and ages, both on the local and national levels. In fact, in recognition of his numerous years of dedicated volunteer service, Mr. Szego received the AARP's highest state honor, the California Percy Andrus Award for Community Service. Deservedly, in May, 2014, Mr. Szego received the Santa Clara County Democratic Party Don Edwards Lifetime Achievement Award.

We join Mr. Szego's family, colleagues, and our community to express our heartfelt sense of loss. Mr. Szego's service leaves our world a better place, and he will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in honoring our former colleague from Minnesota, Congressman Jim Oberstar.

He was a legendary figure in the House, elected in 1974 as part of the class of Democrats called the Watergate Babies that also included my colleagues from California, Henry Waxman and George Miller.

During his service in Congress, he became a well respected voice for transportation and infrastructure issues, earning him the nickname of ``Mr. Transportation.''

For decades he fought tirelessly to rebuild and renew our country's infrastructure and he eventually rose to chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Under his leadership he championed transportation, reinvigorating commerce, and good stewardship of our environment. An avid cyclist, he championed the creation of trails for hiking and cycling. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he can be credited with including major funding for transportation and infrastructure projects that put Americans back to work rebuilding our bridges and roads--and rebuilding our economy in the process.

I have very fond memories of Jim Obstar.

At the time Democrats were in the majority--I was Chair of the Ethics Committee--I enjoyed Jim's wise counsel and perspective on many legislative matters when we gathered with our fellow Chairs during the Leader's weekly Chair meetings.

Jim was a real expert in transportation and infrastructure but his passion was for working people. I appreciate Jim Oberstar as an amazing and multi-faceted person.

He was born into humble roots in Chisolm, Minnesota and he rose to greatness through hard work and higher education:

He earned his Bachelor of Arts from College of St. Thomas (now the University of St. Thomas) in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1956.

He earned his Master's degree in European Studies from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium in 1957,

And he studied further at Universite Laval in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada and Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Jim even spent four years as a civilian language teacher in the United StatesMarine Corps, teaching English to Haitian military personnel and French to American Marine officers and noncommissioned officers.

Jim's talents did not go unnoticed and when he served as a Congressional staffer he quickly rose to Chief of Staff for Congressman John Blatnik (D-Minnesota-8).

Later, he was elected to represent his beloved Minnesota as the Congressman from the 8th District, ultimately being reelected for 18 terms--the longest tenure in Minnesota history for a Member of Congress.

Many of us will remember Jim Oberstar as a modern renaissance man of many talents and an amazing intellect but--he never forgot his hardworking roots, or stopped fighting for the hard working people of his state and our country.

Like many of my colleagues, I join in praising Jim Oberstar and send my deepest sympathy to his wife Jean, his children and his grandchildren. We share your feelings of loss and send our sincerest gratitude to you for sharing this great man with our country.