Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed publicly that the government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of emails and telephone calls, without individualized suspicion or probable cause when it comes to U.S. persons.

Last week, the director of the FBI testified under oath, before the Judiciary Committee, that this information is used for prosecution and without a warrant.

This amendment is simple. It allows us to get the bad guys, but it also says use probable cause and the Fourth Amendment. It also closes a backdoor to technology holes.

The broad support for this, I think, shows why it is important for Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin; myself; Mr. Conyers of Michigan; Mr. Poe of Texas; Ms. Gabbard; Mr. Jordan of Ohio; Mr. O'Rourke; Mr. Amash; of course, Mr. Massie; Mr. Holt; Mr. Nadler; Mr. Petri; Ms. DelBene; Mr. Farenthold; Mr. Sanford; and Mr. Butterfield--this spans all over this House of Representatives, from right to left, with Members saying: yes, we need to protect our country, but we also need to honor our Constitution and especially the Fourth Amendment.

We started this Congress by reading the Constitution of the United States aloud in this Chamber. Let's finish this bill by making sure that we honor that Constitution by adopting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Lofgren

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec.__. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of

the funds made available by this Act may be used by an

officer or employee of the United States to query a

collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under

section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using an identifier of a United States

person.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to queries for foreign

intelligence information authorized under section 105, 304,

703, 704, or 705 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805; 1842; 1881b; 1881c; 1881d), or title

18, United States Code, regardless of under what Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act authority it was collected.

(c) Except as provided for in subsection (d), none of the

funds made available by this Act may be used by the National

Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate

or request that a person (as defined in section 1801(m) of

title 50, United States Code) redesign its product or service

to facilitate the electronic surveillance (as defined in

section 1801(f) of title 50, United States Code) of any user

of said product or service for said agencies.

(d) Subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to mandates

or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance

for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sorrow over the tragedy that occurred on May 23rd in Isla Vista, a community adjoining the University of California at Santa Barbara, and to add my voice to the chorus of Americans demanding, ``Not one more.''

My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this senseless tragedy. The lives of UCSB students George Chen and Cheng `James' Yuan Hong of San Jose, Weihan `David' Wang, Katherine Breann Cooper, Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, and Veronika Elizabeth Weiss were cut far too short. This terrible event has touched not only my community of San Jose, but my office in DC, which is home to several Gauchos.

We owe it to these families to act immediately to address gun violence in our country. Incidents like the one that occurred in Isla Vista are becoming far too common. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 608 and to commit to action on preventing gun violence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the California Democratic congressional delegation, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This misguided amendment would prohibit additional Federal investment in California's high-speed rail project. As we know, California is in the midst of constructing the Nation's first truly high-speed rail system.

The project was approved by a strong majority of California voters in 2008 because we Californians know that high-speed rail is the most effective and environmentally sustainable way to increase mobility across the State.

Now, the project is already creating jobs for Californians. In fact, more than 70 firms that have committed to performing work on this project have offices in the Central Valley, and many of these firms, happily, are veteran-owned.

In San Jose, the California high-speed rail project is already providing immediate benefits by investing $1.5 billion in the Caltrain Modernization Program. This program will create over 9,500 jobs, over 90 percent in the San Francisco Bay area.

Now, the government's independent watchdog, the GAO, conducted an extensive audit of the project. And you know what? They gave high marks to the authority's business plan for high-speed rail.

Members of Congress are right to conduct proper oversight of infrastructure projects across the country. However, regardless of your views on the merits of this project, I think most of us would agree that attempting to kill a single project through the appropriations process is bad public policy and sets a horrible precedent.

I would note that electrified trains are really part of the future. China already has 5,000 miles of high-speed rail, and they intend to double that. Spain has 1,600 miles of high-speed rail, and they are building more. More than a dozen other countries have their own successful high-speed rail systems. Even Morocco is building a high- speed rail system. But we don't have anything in the United States except for what California is doing.

I would note that California is almost always on the leading edge of progress for our country. We are leading in energy conservation. We are leading in alternative energy, and we have the best public university, the University of California, in the entire United States. We always lead.

Now, it is important that the State of California has identified an ongoing source of funds to support high-speed rail, and that is the cap-and-trade funds. Is that appropriate?

Yes, it is, because the cap-and-trade funds are generated through energy conservation, and the high-speed rail system is going to help move Californians in an environmentally suitable way.

It is important to be visionary here. You know, when we started building the interstate highway system, when the first mile of highway was built, we didn't know that 50 years later we would still be identifying interstates to build.

We need to begin with high-speed rail in California. California is behind this project. The California Democratic delegation is behind this project.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, put our neighbors back to work, and allow California to continue building the Nation's first true high-speed rail project. We will all be proud of that project as it nears completion.

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

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

I just wanted to make a couple of quick points. First, it is easy to be a critic and it is hard to be a builder. The high-speed rail project is a big project, it is difficult to do, but we are going to get it done.

Sometimes I wonder, when people say don't do high-speed rail, how they plan to deal with the millions of additional Californians that are anticipated to clog our roads and need transportation infrastructure.

It has been suggested by dispassionate engineers that we would need at least two or three additional airports in California. We would need several, as many as five, additional lanes, north-south, in the middle of California to match the capacity of high-speed rail.

How are we going to do that?

Do we think that that is not going to be expensive?

The alternative to high-speed rail is not nothing. That is impossible for a State as vibrant as California, with an economy as booming as it is, and a future as bright as we have.

I would note also that the idea that it is inappropriate to use cap- and-trade funds, I just simply disagree with. California is among the first in the Nation, I would say, and it has got wide approval in the State, to do this cap-and-trade system, to bring down carbon emissions.

Funds will be generated through that project. Some of those funds will go to this very worthy project.

So I disagree very much with this amendment. I don't believe that we will be successful--my God, I hope we

are not--in stopping this visionary project that is going to allow the State of California to continue to prosper and for transportation north-south needs to be met into the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo and Congressman Mike Honda, to honor the life of our friend Janet Gray Hayes, the first woman elected as Mayor of San Jose, California.

We often use words like pioneer and trailblazer in tribute to inspiring and remarkable individuals, and that certainly is true for Janet Gray Hayes. She made a profound impact on our community in San Jose, and in a larger sense, was one of the pioneers who helped open the doors for women to serve their communities in public service.

Born Janet Gray Frazee in Rushville, Indiana, on July 12, 1926, she was the second of two daughters of John P. Frazee, Jr., and Lucile Charman Gray Frazee. Like other members of the famed ``Greatest Generation,'' she grew up in the hard scrabble years of the Great Depression. These humble beginnings, and the personal challenges she overcame, taught Janet Gray about character, empathy for others, and standing strong when it came to matters of principle.

Janet Gray would go on to pursue a higher education, graduating as a Phi Betta Kappa at the University of Indiana. She met her future husband Kenneth while she was a student at the University of Chicago. They married in 1950, after Janet Gray earned a master's degree in social work, and she supported his medical studies. Their marriage would last for over five decades until Kenneth passed away in 2013.

In 1956, when Janet Gray's husband Kenneth took a job as a physician at Agnews State Hospital, they moved to San Jose. Having been raised in an active Republican family, Janet Gray was introduced to politics at a young age when her family home became an official campaign base for Wendell Willkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940. But her real impetus for launching into the world of civics and politics came when she was eight months pregnant and made an appeal to the City Council for a school crossing guard in her neighborhood.

That battle for a simple community issue would ultimately take sixteen years, but it unleashed Janet Gray's involvement in San Jose politics. By 1960 she became the president of both the San Jose and Bay Area Leagues of Women Voters. Six years later she was appointed to the San Jose Redevelopment Board and rose to become chair.

In 1971, Janet Gray won election to the San Jose City Council, and four years later, sought to succeed Mayor Norman Mineta after he was elected to Congress. Against tremendous odds, and against a deeply entrenched establishment that fought her candidacy, she won.

Her election threw the doors open for other women to follow, sparking a movement for women to get actively involved and seek public office. Over the next two elections, women were elected to eight of the eleven City Council seats and three out of the five Santa Clara County supervisor seats--including a future Member of Congress named Zoe Lofgren.

San Jose was declared the ``feminist capital of the world.'' And as Janet Gray welcomed delegates at the 1977 National Women's Political Caucus, hosted in the city, she proudly remarked that ``In sunny Santa Clara Valley, you are in the heartland of women in power.'' However, Janet Gray's accomplishments were not limited to her milestone election.

Her successful stewardship running a major city shattered long held myths that women could not be successful executives. Janet Gray made a commitment to improving access to the mayor's office and presided over San Jose's growth during the high-tech development years by laying out a vision to make the city ``better before we make it bigger.'' That vision for San Jose is present today in a city that has focused on smart growth and urban planning to avoid urban sprawl and achieve a better quality of life for its citizens.

When asked by her son to name her biggest source of pride, Janet Gray replied ``I was proudest of the fact that I could open doors. I had a lot to do with these women getting where they are today.'' Her generous assistance, guidance, leadership and friendship helped emerging women leaders after her succeed.

Mr. Speaker, more than fifty years ago, Adlai Stevenson praised another pioneering woman when he said of Eleanor Roosevelt that she would `rather light a candle than curse the darkness.' Those words are also fitting for Janet Gray Hayes. Because of her, and other pioneering women like her, future

generations of women inherit a country where women are increasingly encouraged to engage in serving their communities and our country in public office.

We invite all of our colleagues in Congress to join us in paying tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of Janet Gray Hayes.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the role that Mr. Sensenbrenner has played in this and honor him and his wife, Cheryl, for their commitment to freedom. But I must oppose the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today.

This is not the bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I voted for that bill not because it was perfect but because it was a step in the right direction. After the bill was reported out, changes were made without the knowledge of the committee members, and I think the result is a bill that actually will not end bulk collections, regretfully.

As Mr. Scott has said, our job is not to trust, but to codify. And if you take a look at the selection changes made in the bill, it would allow for bulk collection should the NSA do so. Further, I would note that the transparency provisions have also been weakened. The 702 section would no longer be reportable by companies who receive orders, and instead of the Attorney General noting decisions that change the law, it is now sent over to the Director of National Intelligence.

Regrettably, we have learned that if we leave any ambiguity in the law, the intelligence agency will run a truck right through that ambiguity. And I think that is why all the civil liberties groups have withdrawn their support from this bill: the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CDT, Open Technology. I would add that FreedomWorks and other libertarian groups have also pulled their support. Companies like Facebook and Google have also pulled their support of the bill.

Now, I hope that we will defeat this bill and come back together-- because we do work together well here in the Judiciary Committee--and fix the problems that were created, I think, at the insistence of the administration and give honor to Mr. Sensenbrenner's original bill that had 151 members cosponsoring it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concern about the USA FREEDOM Act.

First, it is important for all of the Members to know that what is being considered is not the bill that was marked up by the House Judiciary Committee. After it was reported out unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee, certain key elements of this bill were changed.

I think it is ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was secretly changed between the committee markup and its floor consideration, and it was altered in worrisome ways.

The definition of ``selector,'' rather than being narrowed, has been defined in such a way that it would allow for the large-scale acquisition of data. This is a concern that has been expressed to me by both Republicans and Democrats.

The way the definition is lodged, you could get first the southern half of the United States, then the eastern half of the United States, then Missouri. Those could be the selectors.

I offered nine amendments. None were put in order. We should insist that we do better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 863 to commission a study on the potential creation of a National Women's History Museum.

As you know Mr. Speaker, women make up over half of our population, and yet we know their stories are often underrepresented--and underappreciated--in our history.

Here in the Capitol, for example, we have over 200 statues, but only 12 depict women. As Ms. Magazine recently noted, ``The nation's capital includes museums for the postal service, textiles and spies, but lacks a museum to recognize the rich history and accomplishments of women in the U.S.''

Mr. Speaker, the stories of women tell the story of our nation's history, and they deserve to be enshrined for future generations to learn and celebrate. I'm so pleased that my colleagues Carolyn Maloney and Marsha Blackburn have introduced this important legislation to start the process of creating a museum where the achievements and lives of women are chronicled and celebrated.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a letter that I recently received from Chet Campanella of San Jose. Mr. Campanella is an Italian American who experienced firsthand the injustices committed against Italians living in America during World War II. He has been sharing his story, and his efforts to raise awareness resulted in a formal acknowledgment and apology from the State of California in 2010.

Many are familiar with the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, partly due to the enactment of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act in 1980, the Commission's report in 1983, and the subsequent Civil Liberties Act of 1988 that provided an official apology for the internment of Japanese Americans. What remains less well known is the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese and European Latin Americans, European Americans, and Jewish refugees that took place prior to and during WWII.

The 1980 Commission did address the mistreatment of Japanese, German, and Italian Latin Americans, but only in the appendix to its report. Just one chapter of thirteen addressed the mistreatment of German and Italian Americans in the U.S. Moreover, no recommendations were made with regard to these populations and no official apology was issued-- unlike for Japanese internment.

This is an issue that I've been involved with for several years. In 2008, I worked with a number of my colleagues to amend a Japanese- American internment resolution to include injustices committed against European Americans during World War II. As amended and passed by the House, H. Res. 1357 specifically expressed Congress' resolve to ``review the wartime treatment of . . . Italian Americans, to determine whether they should also receive an apology and reparations similar to that provided in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 for Japanese Americans interned during World War II.'' The following year, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, I led a hearing that featured testimony from experts detailing the severe injustices suffered by Italian Americans and other groups during this difficult time in our nation's history. Under my leadership, the subcommittee also considered H.R. 1425, the ``Wartime Treatment Study Act,'' which called for a commission to study and issue a report on the treatment of European-Americans during World War II. Although the bill

made it through the subcommittee and was reported favorably by the full Judiciary Committee, the bill was not taken up on the House floor.

I urge my colleagues to take the time to read Mr. Campanella's letter.

February, 2014.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Lofgren: My name is Chet Campanella,

and I am writing this letter to ask that you and all members

of Congress vote in favor of giving us Italian survivors a

formal public apology on behalf of our United States

government for the mistreatments and injustices suffered by

Italian ``Enemy Aliens'' here in the U.S. during World War

Madam Speaker, I think what we are engaging on today has the potential of being truly historic. We need a vote on immigration reform.

Several weeks ago, I was home in the district I represent. I go home every week. The Secretary of Commerce was visiting in Silicon Valley. She gave a good speech. After she finished her speech, she invited questions. The very first question was from a young man--a scientist-- who said this:

I started a company. I am about to hire four Americans. But

my visa is up next month. What am I supposed to do?

As I was talking to that young man, another young man came forward-- another scientist who has just formed a company. He is about to go into a hiring mode, but his visa was about up.

So when you take a look and listen to the people in Silicon Valley saying we are going to lose jobs in America because we have a dysfunctional immigration system, that shows the problem that we have allowed to fester.

Recently, I met with farmers. They told me that they are not planting crops this year because they can't identify who is going to pick those crops. About 80 percent of the migrant farmworkers in America are here without their proper documents. Do I think that is a good situation? No, I do not.

A number of years ago, when I chaired the Immigration Subcommittee, we had a wonderful witness, Dr. Richard Land, then the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, and this was his testimony. He said:

We had for many years two signs at the southern border. One

sign said, ``No Trespassing,'' and the other sign said,

``Help Wanted.''

Those farmworkers who are here picking the vegetables that we will enjoy at our meals responded to that ``Help Wanted'' sign.

Sometimes people say you should do it in the legal way. Get to the end of the line. And this is from someone who was a former immigration lawyer. I used to teach immigration law at the University of Santa Clara. The truth is, there is no line to get into. We have created a dysfunctional system that does not serve American interests.

H.R. 15 is not a perfect bill. No piece of legislation is. But it was a bill that attracted broad bipartisan support in the United States Senate.

This discharge petition says just one thing: Let's have a vote. Why would the Speaker of the House and the Republican leadership refuse to allow this body to have an up-or-down vote on that bill?

A discharge petition is something that has been in the rules of the House for many, many decades. It has been used occasionally in the past to actually un-bottle-up bills that the leadership didn't want the body to vote on. Most recently, campaign finance reform came to the floor of the House because of a discharge petition.

A lot of Members of the House say that they favor immigration reform. Here is an opportunity to hold every Member of this House accountable. If you favor reform of the immigration system, you should favor having an up-or-down vote on H.R. 15. If you favor an up-or-down vote, we expect you, no matter what your party designation, to sign this discharge petition so the House of Representatives may have an opportunity to address this question and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on this bill.

I hope that members of the public who are aware of the need for immigration reform to reform a system that is not serving our economic interests, that is breaking up families and leaving children in foster care while their parents are deported, will call their Members of the House of Representatives and ask them to sign this discharge petition. It is in the rules. It is what we expect.

We need a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that on March 4, 2014, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 488, supporting the people of Venezuela as they protest peacefully for democracy, a reduction in violent crime and calling for an end to recent violence. I am pleased that this resolution expressing support for basic human rights passed the House decisively.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about two cases being argued before the Supreme Court this month, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. I am a strong supporter of our Constitution, which allows for religious liberty, but religious liberty does not include the right to impose your own religious beliefs on others. If Hobby Lobby CEO David Green opposes birth control, he's entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to impose his beliefs on others by deliberatively refusing contraceptive coverage for his female employees. This coverage makes a difference, especially for women working in entry level positions that too often leave them below the poverty line. Women need to be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care without interference from their bosses. It is their right, and it should not be trampled upon.

Mr. Chairman, in the committee report that accompanies these bills, on page 13 and 14, there are three items that the majority says that the President can't do.

One is to defer action for the DREAMers, young people who are brought here innocently in violation of immigration laws; two, to allow the wives of American soldiers who are undocumented to stay and not be deported; and, finally, to allow parents who have been arrested for immigration to try and preserve their parental rights.

Is it legal for the President to take these actions? Certainly, it is. In Heckler v. Chaney, as well as in the Arizona v. United States court decision, the Supreme Court makes clear that, in immigration, the ability to enforce or decide not to enforce is part of the broad executive authority; and further, the United States Congress has actually delegated to the executive branch, at 6 U.S. Code 202, the national immigration enforcement priorities and policies to the President.

Now, is this anything new? No. We have paroled-in-place Cubans since John F. Kennedy was President. In 2010, a bipartisan group of members, including Congressman Michael Turner and Mac Thornberry from the Armed Services Committee and myself wrote and said: Please, Mr. President, don't deport the wives of American soldiers.

The President used his authority to do that as prior Presidents had done. The use of parole in place is delegated to the President and nothing new.

Now, why is this important? These bills are drafted to keep the President from doing the things that he did to allow the children to stay and to allow the wives of American soldiers not to be deported.

I think that what the majority wants to do is to not only have a do- nothing Congress, but to have a do-nothing President. When it comes to immigration, this is very serious. We have had one vote on immigration here in the Congress that was on Congressman King's bill to deport the DREAM Act kids.

We have heard a lot of discussion about a bill supposedly that is going to be brought forward by the majority about the innocent children who have been brought here, but we haven't seen a bill; instead, we see these bills, which would allow the Congress to overrule

the President's action, so that the DREAM Act kids will be deported, so that the wives of soldiers who are in battle in Afghanistan would be deported, so that individuals who are caught up in an immigration problem would lose their children to social services, would lose their parental rights.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation isn't just about bringing a lawsuit. I think it is important to note on page 13, 14 of the committee report, item 3, it says, unlawful extension of parole in place.

I think that shows what the majority thinks about that, and shockingly enough, that is the action that was taken by the President pursuant to express statutory authority, section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to allow the wives of American soldiers to not be deported.

In July of 2010, a letter was sent to the Department signed by nine Democrats and nine Republicans. I will insert the letter into the Record. And we said this:

Although many of the immigration issues experienced by our

men and women in uniform require legislative action, Congress

has already given you tools to provide some relief to these

brave soldiers and their families.

We urged them to consider deferred action, to favorably exercise parole authority for close family members and to forbear from initiating removal in certain cases.

Now, this is nothing new. We have used parole authority pursuant to the Immigration Act in faithful enforcement of the law to prevent Cubans from being deported back to Cuba since John F. Kennedy was President of the United States.

For the majority to suggest that keeping the wives of American soldiers who were under fire in Afghanistan from being deported is, and I quote, ``an unlawful extension of parole in place,'' I think it is a truly shocking, and I would say, very distressing and disturbing phenomenon. We knew that the majority wanted to deport the DREAM Act kids because they voted for the King amendment last year. When Democrats took the DREAM Act up for a vote, all but eight voted against it.

But that you want to deport the wives of American soldiers in Afghanistan, I am sorry, is a new low.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2010.

Hon. Janet Napolitano,

Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland

Security, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Napolitano: We write to commend your

attention to a May 8, 2010 New York Times article entitled,

``Illegal Status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags.'' It

describes the struggle of U.S. Army Lt. Kenneth Tenebro to

serve his country while at the same time navigating a complex

immigration system that has, thus far, failed to grant legal

immigration status for his wife, Wilma.

The article explains that Lt. Tenebro,

served one tour of duty in Iraq, dodging roadside bombs, and

he would like to do another. But throughout that first

mission, he harbored a fear he did not share with anyone in

the military. Lieutenant Tenebro worried that his wife,

Wilma, back home in New York with their infant daughter,

would be deported.

Although Lt. Tenebro would like to continue deploying for

combat, today he does not volunteer for deployment for fear

of losing his wife to deportation and because he does not

know what would happen to his three-year-old daughter while

he is away on a military mission.

Lt. Tenebro is not alone. Many soldiers are unable to

secure legal immigration status for their family members,

even as they risk their lives for our country. Some have

testified before Congress about their own stories and those

of fellow soldiers they seek to assist.

This is not only an issue of keeping U.S. citizen families

together. It is a military readiness issue. After 33 years of

service, Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, a former

commander of ground forces in Iraq, stated in a 2008 letter

to the House Committee on the Judiciary, ``We should not

continue to allow our citizenship laws and immigration

bureaucracy to put our war-fighting readiness at risk.'' He

explained:

As a battlefield commander, the last thing I needed was a

soldier to be distracted by significant family issues back

home. Resolving citizenship status for family members while

serving our country, especially during combat, must not be

allowed to continue detracting from the readiness of our

forces. When soldiers have to worry about their families,

individual readiness falters--which can lead to degradation

in unit effectiveness and the risk of mission failure. I have

personally witnessed this on the battlefield.

Although many of the immigration issues experienced by our

men and women in uniform require legislative action, Congress

has already given you tools to provide some relief to these

brave soldiers and their families. We hope that you will use

all the power at your disposal to assist Lt. Tenebro and

other soldiers, veterans, and their close family members to

attain durable solutions. For example, DHS can join in

motions to reopen cases where there may be legal relief

available; consider deferred action where there is no

permanent relief available but significant equities exist,

such as deployment abroad; favorably exercise its parole

authority for close family members that entered without

inspection; forbear from initiating removal in certain cases

where equities warrant exercise of prosecutorial discretion;

and, other tools that would ease the burden for soldiers

suffering from immigration-related problems to the extent

that the current law allows. Of course, we expect that you

will continue to conduct all necessary national security and

criminal background checks before providing relief in any

case.

As this country is engaged in two wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, we must do everything we can to address the

immigration needs of our soldiers. As Lt. Gen. Sanchez

stated,

It matters greatly that those who fight for this country

know that America values their sacrifices. As leaders, it is

our duty to sustain the readiness, morale and war-fighting

spirit of our warriors. We must not fail them for America's

future depends on their sacrifices and their willingness to

serve.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look

forward to your immediate response.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren; John Conyers, Jr.; Mac Thomberry; Mike

Pence; Howard Berman; Silvestre Reyes; Solomon Ortiz;

David Price; Henry Cuellar; Xavier Becerra; Susan

Davis; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Sam Johnson; Michael

Turner; Adam Putnam; Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mario Diaz-

Balart; Anh ``Joseph'' Cao.

Mr. Chairman, this is about deporting the DREAM Act students. On page 13 of the committee report, the majority calls out for condemnation the exercise of prosecutorial discretion relative to the DREAMers. It is quite a departure from when Republicans joined with Democrats to say that it is well established that prosecutorial discretion can be used in immigration cases and asking that guidelines be developed and be implemented and used for categories of individuals.

In fact, the ``discretion'' in ``prosecutorial discretion'' comes from the Take Care Clause. That is what the Supreme Court has told us. That is the guidance we have from the highest law in the land.

What this is really about, Mr. Chairman, is about the majority's apparently voracious appetite to deport these young people. That is why the deportation of DREAMers is called out in the committee report. It is why they oppose prosecutorial discretion. I think it is quite a shame.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the amendment.

I would note that the late Henry Hyde signed the letter urging for prosecutorial discretion. That is part of the law recognized by the Supreme Court in the Arizona case. I do not believe that the late Henry Hyde would have urged the administration to do something that did not comport with the Constitution or the law, and I include for the Record this letter.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.

Re Guidelines for Use of Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal

Proceedings

Hon. Janet Reno,

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Hon. Doris M. Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner:

Congress and the Administration have devoted substantial

attention and resources to the difficult yet essential task

of removing criminal aliens from the United States.

Legislative reforms enacted in 1996, accompanied by increased

funding, enabled the Immigration and Naturalization Service

to remove increasing numbers of criminal aliens, greatly

benefitting public safety in the United States.

However, cases of apparent extreme hardship have caused

concern. Some cases may involve removal proceedings against

legal permanent residents who came to the United States when

they were very young, and many years ago committed a single

crime at the lower end of the ``aggravated felony'' spectrum,

but have been law-abiding ever since, obtained and held jobs

and remained self-sufficient, and started families in the

United States. Although they did not become United States

citizens, immediate family members are citizens.

There has been widespread agreement that some deportations

were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. If the

facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to

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

when so many other more serious cases existed.

We write to you because many people believe that you have

the discretion to alleviate some of the hardships, and we

wish to solicit your views as to why you have been unwilling

to exercise such authority in some of the cases that have

occurred. In addition, we ask whether your view is that the

1996 amendments somehow eliminated that discretion. The

principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established.

Indeed, INS General and Regional Counsel have taken the

position, apparently well-grounded in case law, that INS has

prosecutorial discretion in the initiation or termination of

removal proceedings (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, a

number of press reports indicate that the INS has already

employed this discretion in some cases.

True hardship cases call for the exercise of such

discretion, and over the past year many Members of Congress

have urged the INS to develop guidelines for the use of its

prosecutorial discretion. Optimally, removal proceedings

should be initiated or terminated only upon specific

instructions from authorized INS officials, issued in

accordance with agency guidelines. However, the INS

apparently has not yet promulgated such guidelines.

The undersigned Members of Congress believe that just as

the Justice Department's United States Attorneys rely on

detailed guidelines governing the exercise of their

prosecutorial discretion, INS District Directors also require

written guidelines, both to legitimate in their eyes the

exercise of discretion and to ensure that their decisions to

initiate or terminate removal proceedings are not made in an

inconsistent manner. We look forward to working with you to

resolve this matter and hope that you will develop and

implenent guidelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an

expeditious and fair manner.

Sincerely,

Representatives Henry J. Hyde; Barney Frank; Lamar Smith;

Sheila Jackson Lee; Bill McCollum; Martin Frost; Bill

Barrett; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Bilbray; Corrine

Brown; Charles T. Canady; Barbara Cubin; Nathan Deal;

Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

David Dreier; Bob Filner; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Sam

Johnson; Patrick J. Kennedy; Matthew G. Martinez; James

P. McGovern; Martin T. Meehan; F. James Sensenbrenner,

Jr.; Christopher Shays; Henry A. Waxman; Kay Granger;

Gene Green; Ciro D. Rodriguez.

Madam Speaker, either this bill does nothing because it is vague or it does something that is a serious problem. In the committee report for this bill, it specifically calls out as something that is wrong the DREAM Act, apparently suggesting that the DREAMers should be deported.

Now, I don't believe that what happened with the DREAMers, the deferred action, was beyond the President's authority. And I have this letter here that was sent in 1999 signed by the late Henry Hyde and two Republicans who went on to chair the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner, urging then-President Clinton to do the same thing that President Obama has now done, which is to come up with actual standards that are then applied. So I don't think that this bill should change that.

But let's say it does. Let's say that we would have to report each time a DREAMer applies for deferred action. I think what we are talking about is that 500,000 or so DREAMers, their names and addresses, would have to be reported in to the Congress. Is that really what we want to do, to have all those kids be reported in to the Congress?

Let's talk about another thing mentioned in the earlier bill, specifically on page 14 in the committee report, the so-called point 3, unlawful extension of parole in place. What the President did--as prior Presidents have done--is to parole the immediate family, the husbands and wives, of American soldiers who are in immigration trouble.

The reason for that, and the military asked us to do that, the last thing you want, you have a soldier in Afghanistan dodging bullets, you don't want

that soldier worrying about what is going to happen to his wife, the visa got lost and she is facing deportation, and so parole in place was used.

Now, we believe, and I mentioned, there is a specific statutory authority for that, section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but apparently the majority believes it is unlawful. So what would this bill mean? I guess that all of the wives and husbands who are not deported, and I guess their little children, their names and addresses should be reported in to the Congress. So we have a little list here of people who are Americans in every way but their papers, whose husbands are off fighting for our country, but we are going to create a list of them. I think they are going to feel exposed and at risk.

If the bill does anything, it does something very dangerous and wrong. We should not vote for this. I oppose it. I oppose the deportation of the DREAMers, as the majority has asked be done in these two bills, and I hope my colleagues vote against it.

Madam Speaker, if you look at the actual statute that is being proposed here, it says the report shall be made by any Federal officer, undefined, establishes or implements these policies, to refrain.

I would note, and it was hardly a secret when the deferred action program was started, it was a memorandum on June 15, 2012. It was made available to the committee and to Congress, and it points out on page 2 that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion will be made on an individual basis for those who fit within the category. So I think if this means anything, and it may not because it is vague, it means that each time an individual receives the benefit of that prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, they would have to be reported to the Congress.

Now, what information would be reported? I don't know; presumably the name or the case file or the phone number. There are many John Smiths in that group of kids, so I presume that you would need more than just the name, perhaps an address or other identifier. The point is, we are creating a little list here. It is a little list that I think will feel very dangerous to those who are identified, and unwarranted by those whose hearts are very touched by DREAM Act kids who were brought here as children. As the principles released by the Republican leadership pointed out, these are young people who committed no offense, whose only country is the United States; and but for pay-for, they would be Americans. I don't think it is something that we should do, to have their names released, to deport them, to turn our backs on them, as this bill would do.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to note that, in 2010, the House of Representatives did pass the DREAM Act. Eight Republicans voted against it. It was killed by Republicans in the Senate, but we did our best to pass the DREAM Act.

In fact, it did pass this House, and I still have the gavel that Speaker Pelosi used while presiding over that measure displayed proudly in my office.

I think, also, as we discuss matters, we can help undercut confidence in our system of government. Yes, we are fans of article I because we are in the Congress, but article II has its role as well.

I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court itself has, as recently as last year, noted--and that is in the Arizona case--that Federal immigration officials have broad discretion, including ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all'' as part of their authority under the Constitution.

Further, we have delegated to the President by statute, 6 U.S. Code 202, for the administration using its article II authority to establish the national immigration enforcement policies and priorities, which is what the President did.

So let's not instill anxiety and confusion among our constituents by somehow saying, when the President uses the authority that we have granted to him that the Supreme Court has noted he has, that somehow that is improper. It is not.

I would say further, on the merits of the case, this is not just random authority, as the gentleman from Arizona suggested earlier. It is the majority who specifically mentions the DREAM Act on page 2 of their report--of the committee report, as being problematic and a reason for this legislation.

It was the majority report, not me, who suggested that. I think it is very mistaken and wrong on a policy matter, wrong on a legal matter, and wrong constitutionally.