Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I share this obituary of an outstanding young American, Mr. Brendan Bernard Francis McKay.

Brendan, 30, passed away Monday, September 8, 2014, in Rome, Italy, following a tragic accident.

An AmeriCorps volunteer, artist, multi-instrumentalist, snowboarder, world traveler, counselor, historian, Ph.D. candidate, and Seanchai in the Irish storytelling tradition, Brendan was born June 30, 1984 in Summit, New Jersey, the second of Bernard and Mazy McKay's four children. He grew up in Alexandria and McLean, Virginia, where he graduated from McLean High School in 2002.

Brendan began undergraduate studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, later attended Western Connecticut State University and John Cabot University in Rome, and in 2012 graduated magna cum laude from Rhode Island College with a Bachelor's in History. Most recently, Brendan completed his Master's degree in International Relations at St. John's University in Rome, Italy in June 2014.

Throughout his teens and early twenties, Brendan struggled with addiction issues. With the support of loved ones, he participated in therapeutic and rehabilitation programs in Utah, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Kansas. In 2008, Brendan emerged from this period secure in his recovery, and with a renewed passion for education, adventure, and experience which would come to define the rest of his life.

From 2008-2010, Brendan served with AmeriCorps as a volunteer with Big Brothers, Big Sisters in Worland, Wyoming. Within a matter of months he was promoted to Vice President of Development, going on to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of at-risk youth, before leaving to accept a position as an AmeriCorps Program Manager in Rhode Island. Before leaving Wyoming he was urged by locals in Worland to stay and run for mayor. He was flattered and seriously considered it.

Brendan is remembered fondly by his loved ones in the U.S. and around the world for his legendary sense of humor, a classic Irish storyteller vividly sharing his many adventures. He ran with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain. He rode a hot air balloon through the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. He skied across the Swiss-French border in the Alps, not entirely on purpose. Completing an Asian journey that included Malaysia, Cambodia and Nepal, he returned to Rome over the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. He crisscrossed the United States by car, camped in the badlands of North Dakota, and lived on a mountain in Southern California. During academic travel to North Korea he became one of only a small number of Americans to have seen the demilitarized zone from the north side.

Brendan was also intellectually brilliant. He was an enthusiastic reader, with particular interest in philosophy, history, physics, and comparative religion. His collection of unusual tattoos included the Fibonacci sequence on his arm. His creativity and humor led to unique inventions; on one occasion, Brendan created what he called a ``Scrabbanjelo,'' a playable banjo which he constructed from the wooden box of a Scrabble set--a game at which he was renowned as unbeatable.

At the time of his passing, he was looking forward to his doctoral work at King's College in London. His studies were to focus on the little-told story of the town of Fiumi on the Italy-Croatia border, which formed its own independent state in World War I in defiance of the warring countries around it.

Brendan's 6' 6" physical presence was the outer manifestation of an unusually humble, sensitive, self-deprecating person, whose generosity, kindness, and compassion for friends and family alike will never be forgotten. His beloved dog, Anastasia, is the physical embodiment of that kindness. Brendan had encountered a group of drug dealers about to shoot a young puppy for which they had no use. He persuaded them to let him adopt her in exchange for what little money he had in his pocket, a meager five dollars. For more than a decade, Anastasia has been a cherished member of the McKay family, displaying a level of emotional intelligence that is extraordinary to find in an animal.

Brendan was not immune to accidents, and indeed had scars going back to toddlerhood. But he always stood up, brushed himself off, and went at life again, charging boldly at every experience the world could offer. His enthusiasm for adventure inspired all who knew him.

Brendan is survived by his parents, Bernard and Mary, his two brothers, Patrick and Conor, his sister, Rosemary, sister-in-law Nora, and his beloved, Camilla Valeriano. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congress members Anna Eshoo and Mike Honda, to recognize the impact of Ms. Lee Sturtevant's lifelong service on the County of Santa Clara. We would like to express our deep sadness over her passing on August 7, 2014, in San Jose at the age of 91.

Ms. Sturtevant was a life-long, dedicated, selfless, and influential activist in Santa Clara County, particularly in her tenacious leadership capacity within the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee and of Democratic Activists for Women Now (DAWN). A committed Democrat, she believed in the government's importance in advancing opportunities for those who had none.

Ms. Sturtevant dedicated her life to getting women involved in politics. In 1974, she successfully managed the campaign of Assemblywoman Leona Egeland, the only woman serving on the Assembly at the time. In 1981, Ms. Sturtevant served as my Chief of Staff when I was first elected to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. She was a staffer for many other Santa Clara County area elected officials over the years, including Congressman Honda.

Ms. Sturtevant was a dedicated advocate for those with developmental disabilities. She worked as a teacher and librarian for the Cupertino School District, and served on the San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. She had walked precincts for Franklin D. Roosevelt, organized community college professors, and conducted workshops on collective bargaining for the Detroit United Auto Workers. Ms. Sturtevant's continued hands-on involvement in key social issues cannot be overstated.

We join Ms. Sturtevant's family, colleagues, and the Santa Clara County community to express our heartbreak and great sense of loss. Ms. Lee Sturtevant was a source of tireless advocacy for social change and improvements in the lives of others and a tremendous force for good. She was a leader, advisor, and a mentor to many women and girls over the course of her impressive career. She leaves Santa Clara County and our world a better place and will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ms. Susan Hammer and congratulate her on her Cornerstone of the Arts Award, a timely and well-deserved honor.

From the beginning of her career in public service, Ms. Hammer worked tirelessly to link San Jose's civic future to the continued growth and development of its arts and cultural institutions. Indeed, she entered public life in 1969 by founding a community art museum that became the San Jose Museum of Art. She was instrumental in saving the historic building now home to its administrative offices from destruction.

Ms. Hammer's unwavering support of the arts continued throughout her illustrious career. As the 62nd Mayor of San Jose, Ms. Hammer lead the creation of San Jose's first cultural plan, which served as the blueprint for the evolution of the Office of Cultural Affairs and lead to arts education reform. Ms. Hammer created San Jose's first cultural tourism program, worked to build The Tech as a museum of national stature, and fought to complete the Guadalupe River Park. Ms. Hammer made sure that The Rep got a permanent home in San Jose. Together with the San Jose State University President, Ms. Hammer developed the idea of creating a joint library and was part of a committee that raised $16.5 million for the completion of San Jose's stunning Martin Luther King Jr. Library.

Ms. Hammer is a trailblazer when it comes to the development of San Jose area's thriving community and dynamic culture. As Mayor, she focused on affordable housing, child care, education, the arts, and the revitalization of the San Jose Downtown.

Ms. Hammer is truly the ``cornerstone'' of the San Jose arts community and sets the highest standard for public service. Unsurprisingly, in her retirement, Ms. Hammer continues to be civically involved and active in community and educational organizations.

I wish to congratulate Ms. Susan Hammer on her Cornerstone of the Arts Award and express my gratitude for her exceptional leadership and lasting impact on the San Jose art and cultural landscape.

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the antislavery law has some loophole that is being exploited. That is not the truth. It is not what the Evangelical Immigration Table says. Here is what they write:

By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for

children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that

the law is working. It should not be changed to address the

current temporary situation. The law allows for responses to

exceptional circumstances.

That is not some open borders crowd. That is the National Association of Evangelicals. That is the Southern Baptists. That is the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

I would note, also, that over a year ago we saw the Senate come together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. Republicans in this House have blocked a vote. We should vote on it today and get it to the President.

Evangelical Immigration Table,

July 22, 2014.

Dear Member of Congress, In a matter of months, more than

50,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in the United

States. Millions of Americans have been moved by the plight

of these children who are currently awaiting processing, with

many asking how they can help.

Children are vulnerable even in the best of circumstances

and warrant special protection beyond that offered to adults.

This vulnerability is compounded among children who flee

situations of criminal gangs, sexual violence, trauma and

extreme poverty, without their parents to accompany them.

Evangelicals are guided by Jesus' admonitions to welcome

and protect children (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:37, Luke 18:15-

17). As our nation responds to this humanitarian crisis, we

are thankful for laws that protect children and provide for

their needs. While our systems are currently stretched, our

laws uphold basic child protection principles.

Accordingly, we are concerned about potential weakening of

protections afforded by the William Wilberforce Trafficking

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which was

enacted in 2008 and reauthorized in 2013. The TVPRA ensures

that victims of trafficking are not only identified and

screened properly but that traffickers are penalized and

brought to justice. It also appropriately assigns

responsibility for the care of unaccompanied children to the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and ensures

that children are placed with their families when possible.

By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for

children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that

since the passage and implementation of TVPRA 23% more

children were assisted. The TVPRA is working according to its

design. It should not be changed to address the current

temporary situation. The law allows for responses to

exceptional circumstances.

Additionally, we urge you to provide the necessary

resources and policy guidance to address the current crisis,

and then hold the Administration accountable for fulfilling

its responsibilities under the law. Robust funding is needed

for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS which has

extensive experience with vulnerable immigrants, including

UACs, refugees, and victims of trafficking. To respond to

this crisis, ORR is considering reprogramming funding from

other refugee programs. Funds must not simply be transferred

from one vulnerable population to another. More funding is

needed. There should also be increased funding for

immigration courts and judges to more quickly screen the

children and counsel for children going through legal

proceedings so they know their rights and can understand the

process. More robust investment in effectively addressing

root causes of migration in Central America and Mexico is

also imperative.

As we pray for these children and also our nation, we are

reminded of Matthew 19:13-14 in which Jesus said, ``Let the

little children come to me, and do not hinder them.' Churches

and faith-based organizations have long partnered with the

federal government in serving immigrant children and families

in the United States. Many churches and faith-based

organizations are ready and committed to provide the same

type of assistance and pastoral care in the case of these

unaccompanied children.

We offer our prayers and service as you make important

decisions about our nation's response to migrant children. We

hope that any response you make will strengthen our country's

tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable.

Sincerely,

Leith Anderson, President, National Association of

Evangelicals; Stephan Bauman, President and CEO, World

Relief; David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World;

Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development

Association; Russell D. Moore, President, Southern

Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission;

William Robinson, Interim President, Council for

Christian Colleges and Universities; Samuel Rodriguez,

President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership

Conference; Gabriel Salguero, President, National

Latino Evangelical Coalition; Richard Stearns,

President, World Vision U.S.; Jim Wallis, President and

Founder, Sojourners.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the legal experts in the country have urged that we not change the antislavery law.

We do recognize the need for resources to make that law work. I can't help but notice that the Republican majority is denying the resources to actually adjudicate these cases in the bill that was before us yesterday. I think it is ironic to say it doesn't work and then say we won't give you the resources to allow you to enforce the law. It is hypocrisy at its worst.

Mr. Speaker, some have been asking whether this bill repeals DACA and puts the DREAMers back in deportation, and the answer is yes. Page 1, lines 5 through 17 point out that no funds can be used for a new application.

The DACA applications were a granted deferred action for 2 years. They must make a new application--and there is no guarantee that application will be approved--at the end of 2 years. That is beginning now. So this will require that the DREAMers be removed from deferred action and become subject to deportation.

Further, the bill is meant to treat all children the way we treat Mexican children, but it does more than that. Right now, the Border Patrol is required to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a child has the capacity--whether they are old enough--to independently withdraw an application. That is stricken in this bill.

The law says now that a Mexican child who raises no persecution or trafficking concerns may be permitted to withdraw an application and voluntarily return home if the child is able to make the decision. This bill changes the law to say that a child may be permitted to withdraw an application, but, in the event, the child shall be returned. It doesn't matter whether the child has the ability to make a decision. No matter what, that kid is going home. So that is new.

Current law says that even Mexican children can request to see an immigration judge, but this bill says that is not the case. It makes the CBP person performing the screening the judge, juror, and, in some cases, the executioner.

It is worth pointing out that this is not just about kids from Honduras or Mexico. We will be returning the Thai child sex slave back to her traffickers; the Christian child from Syria who has

found asylum here in the United States, that child immediately returned; the Chinese teen fleeing forced abortion from China, that child immediately returned.

This is an outrageously unconscionable bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly that this bill simply treats all children the way that Mexican children are treated. It is true that the bill would subject all children to the ineffective border screening that Mexican children now undergo, but it actually makes that screening much worse.

Under the antislavery law, Mexican children are permitted to withdraw their applications for admission and return to Mexico only if the Border Patrol screener determines that the child has the capacity to understand what is going on and can independently agree to withdraw the application for admission.

This bill strikes that language. Under this bill, it does not matter whether the child can comprehend that she has been given the option to voluntarily return to her home country because, in this bill, it does not matter what she thinks.

This bill now says that while a child may be permitted to withdraw her application for admission, no matter what, she shall be returned-- no matter what, once Border Patrol decides, that is the end of the discussion, and that kid is going home.

Now, this is not just about our southern border and children from Central America. This new procedure would apply to any unaccompanied minor child who appears at our border seeking asylum.

It could mean that the pregnant Chinese teenager fleeing forced abortion in China simply gets turned away. It could mean that Syrian Christian children fleeing horrific violence and persecution in Syria simply get turned away. It would turn aside a child from Thailand being trafficked for sex.

I don't know that this was necessarily the intention of this bill--I would certainly hope not--but that is the way the bill is written. That is the effect it would have, and I think it is simply unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, some Members have asked whether this bill terminates deferred action for DREAMers with DACA. This question was put to Chairman Goodlatte at the Rules Committee today, and he answered, as I saw on TV, that the text speaks for itself. He is right. The text does speak for itself. And on lines 5 through 7 on page 1, the text clearly terminates DACA by prohibiting DREAMers from applying to renew their deferred action, which they must do after a 2-year time period.

It also prevents future deferred action to ensure that we continue to deport the parents of the DREAMers and parents of U.S. citizen children, sending those children, by the way, into foster care, or prevent DREAMers who have not yet filed for deferred action from doing so.

So basically, this bill will have the effect of removing DACA from the DREAMers and making them deportable.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about the role that DACA has had, and I will put into the Record a report from the Cato Institute, titled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children.'' If you do statistic analysis, you can see that it is impossible that DACA has been the cause of these children coming from the three war-torn countries, as the report reports.

[From the Cato Institute, July 29, 2014]

DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children

(By Alex Nowrasteh)

In June, 2012 the Obama Administration announced that it

had authored a memo deferring the deportation of unauthorized

immigrant childhood arrivals in the United States, a program

known as deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The

memo directed then Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security to practice prosecutorial discretion toward a small

number of unauthorized immigrants who fulfilled a specific

set of characteristics. In essence, some unauthorized

immigrants who had come to the United States as children were

able to legally stay and work--at least temporarily.

Did DACA Cause the UAC Surge?

Some politicians contend that DACA is primarily responsible

for the surge in unaccompanied child (UAC) migrants across

the border in recent years. A recent House Appropriations

Committee one-pager stated that, ``The dire situation on our

Southern border has been exacerbated by the President's

current immigration policies.'' Proponents of this theory

argue that DACA sent a message to Central Americans that if

they came as children then the U.S. government would legalize

them, thus giving a large incentive for them to come in the

first place. Few facts of the unaccompanied children (UAC)

surge are consistent with the theory that DACA caused the

surge.

First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15, 2012

announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed

in late May 2012 but the surge was underway by that time.

From October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93 percent

increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in Fiscal

Year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama

about the rapid increase in UAC at the border in early May

2012--more than a full month before DACA was announced. In

early June 2012, Mexico was detaining twice as many Central

American children as in 2011. The surge in unaccompanied

children (UAC) began before DACA was announced.

Second, the children coming now are not legally able to

apply for DACA. A recipient of DACA has to have resided in

the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15,

2012, a requirement that excludes the unaccompanied children

coming now.

Third, if DACA was such an incentive for UAC to come from

Central America, why are so few Nicaraguan children coming?

They would benefit in the same way as unaccompanied children

from El Salvdaor, Honduras, and Guatemala. The lack of

Nicaraguans points to other causes of the surge.

The timing, legal exclusion of the UAC from DACA, and lack

of Nicaraguans indicate that DACA was not a primary cause of

the surge. Of the 404 UAC interviewed by the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, only 9 mentioned

that U.S. laws influenced their decision to come to the

United States. Other American laws could have influenced the

unaccompanied children to come but DACA is not the main

culprit.

Details on DACA

The DACA beneficiaries, at the time of the memo, would have

to fulfill all of these requirements to have their

deportations deferred: under the age of 31; arrived to the

United States before reaching their 16th birthday; entered

the United States without

inspection or overstayed a visa prior to June 15, 2012;

continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007

to the time of the memo; physically present in the United

States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting

deferred action from United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS); been in school at the time of

application, or have already graduated or obtained a

certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained

a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an

honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the

U.S. Armed Forces; not been convicted of a felony,

significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors,

and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or

public safety.

Beneficiaries of DACA were also allowed to apply for

employment authorization according to the Code of Federal

Regulations. There is a debate amongst legal scholars over

whether the administration's grant of deferred action was

legal. Those who argue that DACA was illegal contend that the

President overstepped his constitutional authority to defer

the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants. Those who

argue that DACA was legal point to the general power of the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to defer

enforcement action. They argue that the Supreme Court has

ruled that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement

proceedings fall within the authority of the Executive--an

enforcement power used since the early 1970s. Here is more of

their argument. This disagreement has not been settled.

By the end of September, 2013, 580,000 requests for DACA

were accepted by the U.S. government and 514,800, or 89

percent, were approved. Seventy-six percent of the requests

came from Mexicans. Twenty-nine percent of the requests were

filed from California, 16 percent from Texas, and 6 percent

from Illinois.

Read the Full Article: DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in

Unaccompanied Children

Now, we know that this bill would eliminate DACA for DREAMers and make them deportable, but few in this body may know that the bill also returns to our bitter 2-year fight about reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It took this House 2 years to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this Congress, and when we did it, we did it over the strong opposition of the majority of House Republicans.

Today's bill undermines the basic premise of that act, that victims of domestic violence should be empowered to leave their abusers. It does that by denying the ability of battered immigrant spouses who have left their abusers and successfully self-petitioned for a VAWA visa the ability to work for the months it may take for a visa number to become available. This one change will prevent countless battered immigrant spouses from ever leaving their abusers and will drive others right back into the hands of their abusers.

Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about the law, but I think it is important to recall that the ability to make prosecutorial decisions is well-grounded in the law. In fact, in 1999, I recall well the letter sent by then-Chairman Henry Hyde, signed by 28 bipartisan Members of Congress, to the Clinton administration asking for the use of prosecutorial discretion. And most recently, the Supreme Court in the Arizona case recognized the broad authority of the administration to make decisions about whom to prosecute. The Arizona case reaffirmed the legality of the deferred action program.

So all this discussion to the contrary is really nothing more than legal nonsense.

What does this bill do?

It deports the DREAMers. It reinvigorates the Republican war on women by forcing women with VAWA visas back to their abusers. This is bad policy. It is an outrageous bill. It is being done in the worst possible process, and I wish so much that the Republicans had reached out, taken the offer of our leaders to sit down and work together to come up with a solution that really works for our country instead of deporting the DREAMers who are so much the hope and future of our great American Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of an 11- year-old Salvadoran boy who is applying for asylum because he was threatened by gang members who killed his cousin and who suffered severe domestic abuse.

Andres is an 11-year-old Salvadoran boy, abused by his

caretakers and fleeing gang violence after his cousin was

killed, he entered the U.S. to reunite with his mother,

grandmother (USC), and extended family. He entered in July

2013 when he was 10 years old. He is applying for asylum.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells us this bill would result in the U.S. sending children who have relief available to them back to the conditions they fled, and will result in many children being harmed and some being killed on their return.

I join the bishops in opposing this bill.

With this bill, children who have been trafficked, who have fled persecution, violence, and abuse, will be stripped of protections that have existed for years.

Our laws provide that victims of persecution and torture must have a meaningful opportunity to request safe haven. We need not prejudge the outcome of these cases. We need only adhere to our laws that ensure that each child is treated in a fair manner, that their case be individually considered, and if they deserve protection under the law, so be it; if not, they go home.

This is not new. Refugees have received protection in America for decades. In 1980, the asylum system that we have today was established. Most of the special protections for unaccompanied children were created in 1997. Many were codified in 2002. Critics of the antislavery law of 2008 claim it has caused the influx of kids to America, but the protections began in 1997, 17 years ago.

No, kids are fleeing because of the extreme violence in three countries. Children from other countries in the region are not fleeing here. And people from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are fleeing to every other country in the region--a 712 percent increase in asylum cases in Belize, Nicaragua, and the other Central American countries.

What the 2008 law actually did was give less protection to kids from Mexico and Canada, and that was a mistake because the U.N. review now makes clear that, as a consequence, we are sending kids who have been sex-trafficked back to their abusers. Rather than fix this loophole, this bill would subject all kids to that flawed process. I can't help but note that this will be the only immigration bill with an up-or-down vote, a bill to strip victims of their protections.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to consider H.R. 4582, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which would help the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5195 accomplishes the important goal of allowing these additional 1,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visas to be issued before the end of the calendar year.

As has been mentioned, this program was established in 2009 to protect Afghan nationals who were placed in grave danger because they were employed by or assisted the United States Government. Having benefited greatly from their faithful service, Members on both sides of the aisle recognized that we owed a debt of gratitude. We owed these people and their family members the opportunity to live safely and freely.

The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program has not been without its problems. Many of us have come together over the years to complain that the process for issuing the visas was too slow and cumbersome.

Mr. Speaker, from the start of the program through fiscal year 2012, only 1,051 of the 8,500 visas authorized by statute had actually been issued to deserving Afghan nationals. In October of 2012, The Washington Post reported that more than 5,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applications were sitting in a backlog waiting to be adjudicated.

Secretary Kerry recently stated that because of ``unconscionably long processing times for applicants, some deserving people were simply falling through the cracks.''

Now, recently, the program has undergone major improvements. In this fiscal year alone, the State Department has issued more Afghan Special Immigrant Visas than in all previous years combined. The process is now moving swiftly enough that we are coming right up against the cap of 3,000 visas that we set earlier this year in the approps act.

That is where this bill comes in. By making these visas available to Afghan nationals who are facing danger precisely because they provided service to our country, to America, this bill will help ensure that we stand by our commitment to protect those who helped to protect us.

I think it is worth noting that keeping our commitment to these people--the large majority of whom acted as our translators in the field--is not merely a good in and of itself. It is important that the United States stands by its commitment here because we ultimately have to work collaboratively with people all over the globe.

We must ensure that the message we send through our actions is that we honor those who take great personal risks to assist our men and women serving overseas and we do not forget what they do.

Mr. Speaker, I support today's bill. I hope to work with my colleagues to support future extensions of this program, if necessary. I urge my colleagues to also support this important measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the author of this bill, who has been a tremendous advocate to make sure that America does the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), who has herself served our country in the armed services.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

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

I will just thank all of the people who worked so hard on this, certainly on both sides of the aisle, and, most especially, Mr. Blumenauer, who has just been ceaseless in his efforts to make sure that these translators were not left behind and not forgotten.

A note on the future: I am happy to support this bill for 1,000 visas today. However, it is reported that there are 5,000 translators backlogged. Now, we don't know, in that 5,000, some may have been murdered already, some may have given up, or some may have gone elsewhere. We don't know that we are going to need an additional number of visas, but we need to open our hearts in the same spirit of bipartisanship that if we fall short, we are going to have to come together as a country. Because we all know, not only is this the right thing to do morally, but for our troops in the field it is essential.

People have to know in other countries that if they step forward to assist the United States, the United States will honor its promises to them.

That is why this bill is so important, not only for what it does, but what it stands for, and why I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Kyle Matthew Ota, a member of Boy Scout Troop 611 at the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin and one of my constituents, on achieving of the rank of Eagle Scout in April of 2014.

Kyle, the son of Pat and Dorothy Ota, began his scouting career as a member of Cub Scout Pack 611 at the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin, where he earned the Metta and Sangha awards, as well as the Arrow of Light. Rising through the ranks, Kyle served as patrol leader, troop quartermaster, dharma scribe, troop scribe, senior patrol leader, and den chief.

Kyle's Eagle Scout project reflects his longstanding commitment to the people of San Jose, and the residents of Japantown in particular. Yu-Ai Kai, a stellar community-based organization that promotes healthy aging, independent living, and high quality of life, provides multi- lingual community services, social interaction, and a sense of belonging to our elderly citizens. Seniors and their families frequently pass in front of Yu-Ai Kai's Akiyama Senior Wellness Center on Jackson Street while traversing beautiful Japantown, so Kyle constructed an outdoor bulletin board in front of the building. This board displays flyers, schedules, and other information that allows seniors to better understand and utilize the Akiyama's many life- improving offerings.

Kyle was a scholar-athlete at St. Francis High School in Mountain View, where he participated in varsity track and intramurals, earned entry into the honor roll and National Honor Society, and was awarded tuition assistance by the California Scholarship Federation. Kyle now attends San Diego State University, where the dedication to community service instilled in him by scouting continues to make his parents--and all of us in California's 19th District--very proud.

Madam Speaker, in this country, we have reached the consensus that victims of human trafficking should be provided help. That consensus was north-south, east-west, conservative-liberal, and Democrat-Republican. Human trafficking victims need protections.

Now there is a discussion of truncating that protection, and we must say that would be wrong. We know especially for child victims that special care must be taken to elicit the facts of what has happened. And the idea that we would short-circuit that process for children who are human trafficking victims at our border is unconscionable.

Now we have received a letter from the National Association of Immigration Judges telling us the ground truth: that special care must be taken for child victims. These are not the same as other cases.

I include for the Record a letter from the National Association of Immigration Judges.

National Association of

Immigration Judges,

San Francisco, CA, July 22, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader,

House of Representatives.

Re Special Concerns Relating to Juveniles in Immigration

Courts

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The

National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) is a

voluntary organization formed in 1971 with the objectives of

promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism,

dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court. We are the

recognized collective bargaining representative of the fewer

than 230 Immigration Judges located in 59 courts throughout

the United States.

Our nation's Immigration Court system is currently facing

an unprecedented surge in the numbers of unaccompanied minors

who have presented themselves at our southern border seeking

shelter. As you and your colleagues consider how to address

this complex and urgent situation, we would like to offer our

expertise to help inform your decision-making. The opinions

provided here do not purport to represent the views of the

DOJ, the Executive Office for Immigration Review or the

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Rather, they represent

the formal position of the NAIJ, and my personal opinions,

which were formed after extensive consultation with members

of the NAIJ.

In the legal arena, it is universally accepted that

children and juveniles are a vulnerable population with

special needs. Since the passage of the William Wilberforce

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) in

2008, Congress has codified special provisions such as non-

adversarial adjudication of unaccompanied children's asylum

claims and, to the extent practicable, access to legal

services through pro-bono representation. The law recognizes

that these children are especially vulnerable to potential

human trafficking and abuse. From the perspective of

practicalities, because of their vulnerabilities and lack of

full competency, Immigration Court cases involving children

and juveniles must be conducted in a different manner than

those of adults. Immigration Judges are charged with assuring

that those who come before them understand their rights and

responsibilities under governing law. For minors, it can be

especially challenging to effectively communicate the

complicated nuances of our law and the possible remedies

which may be available to them. Immigration judges are

trained to alter their demeanor and lexicon to adapt to the

more limited life experiences and understanding of minors,

but that alone is not enough. The judge must carefully gauge

the response they receive to be sure that the minor truly

understands what he or she is being told, rather than

feigning compliance in order to please the judge as an

authority figure.

Judges must assure that a minor is put at ease in an

inherently stressful and unfamiliar setting. These

precautions are not solely for the benefit of the minor, but

are a practical necessity for a judge in order to obtain the

information necessary to arrive at a fair and accurate result

based on a true understanding of the child's situation. To do

so, an atmosphere of trust must be established, and a rapport

developed which assures that the minor is both emotionally

able and psychologically willing to discuss issues which may

be embarrassing, shameful or traumatizing. In order to

accomplish this, a judge frequently has to take more time

than in the case of an adult to make the child feel

sufficiently safe so as to fully participate in the hearing.

This often involves multiple hearings, so that familiarity

with the people, location and general process can ease

tensions and inspire confidence.

Because many of the juveniles we see in proceedings come

from countries where governmental authorities are corrupt or

pose a danger to them, Immigration Judges need to be

particularly aware of the environment in which their hearings

are conducted, so that their neutrality and independence is

clearly demonstrated, enabling a minor to address difficult

issues without fear or a feeling of futility. We must go to

great lengths to create an courtroom environment where our

hearings are not perceived as coercive. Frequently we find

that both children and adults who appear in Immigration Court

do not understand the difference in the roles of the

government trial attorneys and judges, and even when provided

pro bono counsel, assume that everyone associated with the

proceeding functions as a prosecutor or law enforcement

official. At this early stage some of our judges have

reported concerns about the lack of quality of interviews

that have resulted in ``negative credible fear'' findings and

summary deportation orders at the border. For all these

reasons, it is particularly important that Immigration Judges

be the ones charged with making these crucial determinations,

rather than Border Patrol agents.

The complexity of a judge's job is increased exponentially

due to the language and cultural differences which we

routinely encounter, as well as the limitations upon minors

who are not represented by attorneys. Under governing

regulation, children under sixteen without responsible adults

to help them cannot accept service of the charging documents

which initiate removal proceedings, and those under fourteen

without a responsible adult cannot enter pleadings to those

charges. In addition, in the vast majority of cases, the

burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for relief rests

on the minor, even though their ability to gather the

evidence necessary to support their claim--whether it is

personal documentation, general country conditions

information or expert opinions--is greatly reduced because of

their age. In many cases, the lack of corroborating evidence

may be fatal to a claim for relief from removal. This is even

more true for a child's case, since their ability to provide

clear, consistent and detailed testimony that could support a

claim without corroborating evidence may be compromised by

their age.

All these factors lead inexorably to the conclusion that

removal proceedings regarding juveniles should not be subject

to strict time constraints regarding scheduling or decision-

making. Judges need the ability to tailor the time frames of

various aspects of the proceedings to the emotional, physical

and psychological state of the individual in court. The

ability to find local counsel or obtain supporting evidence

and documentation can vary significantly depending on an

individual's age, mental capacity and custodial

circumstances.

The adage ``haste makes waste'' is apropos to the context

of these cases, because speeding up or truncating the process

creates an unacceptably high risk of legal errors which

directly lead to higher rates of appeal. Rather than making

the process move more quickly overall, the opposite occurs as

appeals cause a backlog and delay at the higher levels of our

court systems, which in turn, drives up the fiscal costs of

these proceedings. This effect has been proven by past

experience when proceedings at the Board of Immigration

Appeals were ``streamlined'' only to result in an outcry from

the federal circuit courts and harsh criticism of the lack of

proper records for them to review, resulting in remands

rather than resolutions. Similarly, bypasses to Immigration

Court proceedings such as expedited removal proceedings have

been subject to serious criticisms by neutral observers,

including the U.S. Commission on International Religious

Freedom and United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. In

this situation, the concern is not that ``haste makes

waste,'' but that hasty decisions could result in loss of

lives or limbs, by deporting individuals to a country where

they face persecution.

It is our experience that when noncitizens are represented

by attorneys, Immigration Judges are able to conduct

proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more

quickly. Judges have found that cases with legal

representation generally 1) reduce the number and length of

proceedings for benefits for which individuals are

ineligible; 2) generally require fewer continuances for

preparation (including when applications must be processed

with other agencies); 3) obviate appeals based on a lack of

understanding regarding legal rights or concerns about

fairness; 4) take less hearing time for judges because they

are better researched and organized; and 5) tend to reduce

the number of futile claims which utterly lack a basis in the

law. Because of those and several additional reasons why

attorneys are beneficial to our process, allowing judges to

grant reasonable requests for continuances, based on their

knowledge of the local availability of low fee and pro bono

counsel, ends up being the most time-efficient approach.

A due process review of the fundamental fairness of any

proceeding requires consideration of three distinct factors:

first, the nature of the private interest affected; second,

the risk of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures

used and the probable value of additional or substitute

procedural safeguards; and finally, the fiscal and

administrative burdens that those additional or substitute

procedural requirements would place on the government.

Immigration Judges are in the best position to guarantee due

process, while at the same time efficiently and fairly

conducting removal proceedings. However, to do so, they must

be given the flexibility to balance the needs of the

individual appearing in court with the interests of an

expeditious adjudication based on the unique situation

presented in each case. Rigid deadlines hamper rather than

enhance that ability, and artificial constraints on the time

necessary to fairly adjudicate cases will likely promote

litigation, rather than resolve individual cases. For all

these reasons. NAIJ strongly opposes the proposed

implementation of a seven-day adjudication time frame for

these cases.

With the proper allocation of resources to allow the hiring

of sufficient Immigration Judges and support staff to assist

them, we would be able to schedule all hearings within

appropriate time frames. Justice would be served and legal

challenges to individual outcomes reduced. While the need to

address the surge in juveniles is seen as paramount now, the

overall context of this crisis cannot be overlooked. As of

today's date, there are only 228 full time Immigration Judges

in field offices, handling a nationwide caseload of more than

375,500 cases. The average time to decision nationally has

now climbed to 587 days. The unfortunate and ironic fact is

that with long delays, people whose cases will eventually be

granted relief suffer, while those with cases which will

ultimately be denied benefit. Individuals with ``strong''

cases are trapped in limbo inside the United States while

family members abroad become ill and die, family members who

can provide them with eligibility for an immigration benefit

die, and their claim for relief becomes stale by the passage

of time. Conversely, those individuals who do not qualify for

benefits, or who have adverse discretionary factors making

them undeserving of legal status are allowed to remain for

years, possibly accruing eligibility for relief, while their

cases are pending.

We believe that the totality of this situation deserves

your immediate attention, so that fairness and balance can be

assured to all who appear in our nation's Immigration Courts.

If the general needs of our entire caseload are sacrificed to

address the short term crisis, we fear that the overall

reputation of the Immigration Court system will be damaged

unnecessarily and irreparably.

Of course, if we can provide any additional information or

answer specific questions you may have, please just let us

know.

Very truly yours,

Dana Leigh Marks,

President.

Madam Speaker, after nearly two decades, it does make sense to make this moratorium permanent. The moratorium is one of the reasons for the huge growth in the digital economy. The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without affordable Internet access. And, by the way, this tax relief is not to companies. It is to individuals who access the Internet.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the Judiciary Committee for ensuring that the moratorium is made permanent before it expires. But the work on discriminatory taxes is not done. Wireless access to the Internet is still vulnerable to discriminatory taxation. The average tax is 17.2 percent--it goes as high as 25 percent in some States--and a disproportionate number of low-income Americans access the Internet only through wireless devices.

We have the Wireless Tax Fairness Act that I introduced. It has 220 cosponsors. So, in addition to voting for this moratorium on Internet taxation, I would encourage my colleagues to ask for a vote on the Wireless Tax Fairness Act that, after all, is sponsored by a majority of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Karen Bass, Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congressman Ami Bera, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Congressman Tony Cardenas, Congressman Jim Costa, Congresswoman Susan Davis, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congressman Sam Farr, Congressman John Garamendi, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, Congressman Mike Honda, Congressman Jared Huffman, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman

Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Congressman George Miller, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Congresswoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Scott Peters, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Congressman Raul Ruiz, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, Congressman Adam Schiff, Congressman Brad Sherman, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Juan Vargas, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Congressman Henry Waxman to honor our dear friend Mike Garcia who is retiring after more than 30 years of service to working families in California.

Mike served as the President of Service Employees International Union United Service Workers West (SEIU USSW) between 1988 and 2014, where he led 40,000 janitors, security officers and airport workers across California in the fight for good jobs. Mike has been involved in the labor movement since 1980, when he began his career organizing janitors first in San Jose and later in San Diego in the ``Justice for Janitors'' campaign.

In 2010 he oversaw the merger of several local unions into SEIU USWW, a statewide union of property service workers. Mike guided SEIU USWW through years of dramatic growth, taking a union of 1,800 janitors and building a powerful statewide local on the forefront of fighting for immigrants' rights and lifting working families out of poverty.

Mike had a deep understanding of policy and the questions that matter most to working class Californians. He was also extremely brave; willing to face the strongest adversaries when fighting for those who needed his help. According to Mike, his greatest accomplishment was winning the historic janitors' strike of 2000 in Los Angeles, an action he proudly notes ``changed the lives of thousands of janitors and their families because USWW members--the real heroes of the strike--laid it all on the line for a chance to win and bring their families into the American middle class.''

In retirement Mike will remain a powerful voice for vulnerable populations and a strong advocate for comprehensive immigration reform to help millions of aspiring citizens achieve better lives.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the entire House of Representatives to join us in honoring Mike Garcia for his service to our Country.