Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to support the O-VISA Act, which is a narrow, but important, bill. I thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues--the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)--for their bipartisan effort in introducing this legislation, which will bring needed transparency to the O visa petition process. For individuals who seek an O visa specifically to work on a motion picture or a television production, the law requires that an individual have a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, which must be recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In recognizing the need to balance the demand for a global exchange of creative professionals with the need to prevent the displacement of American workers, current law requires that O visa petitioners provide a written advisory opinion from an appropriate labor organization regarding the beneficiary's qualifications. For example, when petitioning for a foreign director, a petitioner must seek an opinion from the Directors Guild of America. As experts in their fields, these labor organizations are in a great position to appraise a beneficiary's qualifications. This process is intended to ensure that only the most extraordinary and accomplished individuals are granted an O visa. The O-VISA Act requires that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provide a copy of the agency decision to the labor union that is consulted as part of the petition when one seeks work in a motion picture or on television. By doing this, the bill will help ensure that the union consultation is a meaningful part of the agency adjudication, as required under current law; and it will bring transparency for employers, workers, and the organizations that represent them, which is always a good thing. I do believe, as the gentlewoman has indicated, we could do more in this area. For example, we should be providing for the portability of O-1 visa holders and others so they can move between jobs. Portability not only helps employers in the industry, but it also ensures that foreign workers aren't trapped in positions or are used to undercut the wages of U.S. workers. I hope that we can continue the bipartisan effort that produced this legislation to make further improvements to the O visa program. As indicated during the consideration of the bill in the Judiciary Committee, the language contained in this bill has been coupled with provisions that also make important changes to the O visa program that were included in the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform from the last Congress, which died here on the House side. That bill provided for portability; it removed redundancies; and it better aligned these programs with others that involved honorarium or appearance fees. I know that we are not doing an entire rewrite of the immigration laws at this juncture, but I am hopeful that we will continue to work on these further improvements as this chairman has indicated he would be interested in. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say what we all know too well, which is that we have enormous problems in our immigration system. I hope that we can work together on real, substantial fixes on behalf of not just the movie industry--as important as that industry is--but for families, refugees, and employers in a range of industries, including agriculture and the high-skilled sector. Over the years, I have worked with friends on the other side of the aisle on immigration reforms, big and small, and I continue to stand ready to do so in the future. I thank the Speaker, the bill's authors, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters). I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill picks a fight with the librarians. In the bill, we seek to compel the Library of Congress to use an outdated and dehumanizing term to reference people who aren't citizens of the country. Although the term ``alien'' is used in our statutes, it is outdated and deeply insulting to people born abroad who have worked hard to contribute to our economy and communities. In fact, this fall, the Republican Party in California itself decided not to use the term ``illegal alien'' in its platform. In this bill, the Republicans in the House look like they are doubling down on vilifying immigrant communities. Now, as part of a longstanding, often-used process for reviewing and updating subject headings, the Library of Congress apolitically decided to use the term ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration'' instead of the pejorative term ``illegal aliens.'' The Library makes these types of changes all the time. It is one of 90 such modifications proposed en masse by the Library this last March. When a subject heading is changed, references to previous headings are retained so researchers can use them, but mandating the term ``illegal alien,'' which is what Republicans are doing in this appropriations bill, is entirely political. The rider countermands the Library's professional judgment. Now, it is noteworthy that the Library didn't choose the term ``undocumented immigrant'' favored by many because they didn't want to be political. They just wanted to be fair. Applying these standards in the past, the Library of Congress changed the subject classification ``Negroes'' to ``African Americans,'' the way we discuss African Americans today. The catalog used to say ``cripples.'' That makes me cringe. That was changed over time, first to ``handicapped'' and later to ``people with disabilities.'' But in this political season, it seems there is no limit to the racial invective that is being hurled around, and this bill plays into that. Now, to my knowledge, Congress has never before told the Library of Congress what the heading in their card catalog has to be, and that we would do it in this case to promote a term that is so offensive to people is a darn shame. Now, in the past, we have used the appropriations process to shut down the government. Republicans have done that repeatedly. I would hope that the Republicans in the House would not want to go down that path with this. It is true, this term is used in the statute. Our colleague, Representative Castro, has a bill to correct it. I would urge that bill be taken up and this unwarranted measure be rejected. I include in the Record a letter from the American Library Association. American Library Association and Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, April 28, 2016. Re: Request to Remove ``Library of Congress Classification'' Amendment from Legislative Branch Appropriations Legislation. Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey and Members of the Committee: We write today on behalf of the more than 58,000 members of the American Library Association and of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS): the division of ALA members expert in cataloging and classification. We do so to respectfully urge the House Appropriations Committee to strike language in legislation just adopted by its Legislative Branch Subcommittee that would bar the Library of Congress (Library) from implementing an appropriate and thoroughly researched change in its subject heading classifications announced in late March of this year. Specifically, the Library proposes to replace the terms ``Aliens'' with ``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with two headings: ``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized immigration.'' While some see politics in this decision, Mr. Chairman, as library professionals viewing the work of our colleagues we see only attention to historical detail, intellectual honesty, procedural transparency, and faithfulness to long-standing precepts and practices of librarianship. These have been the hallmarks of cataloging for all of ALCTS' nearly 60 years and of almost 130 years of library science. Stripped of polemic and sensationalism, these are the facts underpinning the Library of Congress' frankly routine and professional determination: The Library of Congress has a long-established, often used process for reviewing and updating outdated subject headings and establishing new ones as needed that preserves all prior versions of updated headings. Such updates may be proposed from outside or within the Library of Congress, but the Library makes the final decision on all changes to subject headings. The Library reviews each change proposal individually and typically adopts over a thousand each year. Indeed, the heading change now before the Committee was one of 90 such modifications proposed en masse by the Library in March. When a subject heading is changed, references to previous headings are effectively retained indefinitely so that researchers who perform a search for a former heading are certain to be directed to all relevant materials. No document in the Library of Congress' (or any library's) collection itself is ever substantively edited, modified, annotated or ``corrected'' in any way as the result of a subject heading update like the one interdicted by the Subcommittee's recent action. Only its catalog ``label''is altered. The Library's process in this case was rigorous, transparent, and consistent with the highest standards of professional cataloging practice. The Library was first asked 18 months ago, quite publicly, to review its use of the cataloging term ``illegal aliens'' by one of the nation's preeminent colleges. That request, with modifications, subsequently was echoed by the American Library Association upon debate and approval of a formal Resolution by its more than 180-member Council in January of 2016. A ``stakeholders'' meeting with all appropriate expert sections from within the Library then was convened just over two months ago at which both outside requests, and the broader issues they raised, were reviewed in detail. It is a measure of the Library's professionalism and independence that, in fact, neither external proposal as submitted actually was accepted. Rather, upon review of the totality of the facts and consistent with venerable cataloging practice, the Library apolitically crafted the proposed policy described above and now before the Committee. Decisions to update a subject heading are based on many considerations, including ``literary warrant'': the frequency with which a term is or is not used in print and other dynamic resources that, by their nature, change with and reflect current social structures and norms. For subject headings that refer to groups of people, special attention is paid to: popular usage; terms used by members of the group to self-identify; and avoiding terms that are widely considered pejorative toward the group being described. Applying these same standards in the past, for example, the Library of Congress uneventfully changed the subject classification ``Negroes'' to ``Afro-Americans'' and again to ``African Americans'' over a period of years. The catalog term ``Cripples'' similarly morphed over time, first to ``Handicapped'' and later to ``People with disabilities.'' Congress made no move to countermand those expert cataloging determinations. The Library reasonably and properly concluded in this instance that, when used in reference to people, the long- used terms ``illegal'' and ``alien'' have in recent decades acquired derogatory connotations, become pejorative, and been associated with nativist and racist sentiments. As the Library has noted: the heading ``Aliens'' has been in use by the Library since 1910; ``Aliens, illegal'' came into official use more than 35 years ago; and ``Illegal aliens'' has been in service for almost a quarter-century. Over that long span of time, and particularly in recent years, referring to undocumented persons (as opposed to forms of conduct) as ``illegal'' increasingly has been widely acknowledged as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur. This shift has been plain and pronounced, as the Library observed, in precisely the kind of dynamic materials that cataloging standards require any Library to assess in evaluating the suitability of a subject heading in use and its prospective modification. Indeed, in recent years many national news organizations (including the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times) categorically have stopped using the word ``illegal'' to describe human beings as a matter of editorial policy. Moreover, the Pew Research Center has documented that their actions were not merely anecdotal or aberrant in any way. To the contrary, Pew compared use of the term ``illegal aliens'' in U.S. newspapers during the same two-week period in 1996, 2002, 2007 and 2013 (all times when immigration matters were much in the news). It found that use of that phrase declined precipitously over the most recent 6-year period surveyed, appearing in 21% of news reports in 2007 but just 5% in 2013: a 76% reduction in use and all-time low. We understand, Mr. Chairman, why some have chosen to politicize the Library's proposed subject heading changes discussed above. In light of the foregoing, however, it is the view of our Associations that, at minimum, the Library of Congress' recent proposed reclassifications discussed above are fully consistent with accepted professional cataloging standards and practices. Indeed, we believe that a compelling case can be made that the proposed changes are required by them. We hope that the foregoing description of the standards and practices of our profession, rigorously adhered to and unimpeachably applied by the Library of Congress in this case, will assist the Committee to accept the Library's independent professional cataloging determinations. Specifically, we urge you and all Members of the Committee to strike all language from any piece of appropriations legislation that would countermand or modify the Library's recent determinations pertaining to the terms ``Aliens'' and/ or ``Illegal aliens,'' and to oppose any other legislation that would have similar effect. Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Committee with a factual context in which to consider its upcoming actions. Please contact us should you or your staff have any questions, or require any additional information. Respectfully submitted, Sari Feldman, President, American Library Association. Norm Medeiros, President, Association for Library Collections & Technical Services.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the missive from the American Library Association entitled ``Support Library of Congress Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations.'' Support Library of Congress Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations [From the American Library Association and Association for Library Collections & Technical Services] In late March of this year, after an extensive process consistent with long-standing library principles and practice, the Library of Congress proposed to replace the subject heading classification ``Aliens'' with ``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with two headings: ``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized immigration.'' Similar, but not identical, changes previously had been requested by Dartmouth College and endorsed by the American Library Association. In mid-April, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee adopted language that would, in effect, countermand the Library's professional judgments and reverse the proposed reclassifications noted above. (The Report adopted by the Subcommittee states: ``To the extent practicable, the Committee instructs the Library to maintain certain subject headings that reflect terminology used in title 8, United States Code.'') The full House Appropriations Committee will meet in mid-May and has the power to undo the Subcommittee's action. On April 28, the Presidents of ALA and ALCTS (ALA's division of members expert in cataloging and classification) wrote the attached letter to the Committee's leaders and members on April 28 asking that they do so. Its principal points and specific requests follow on the reverse. KEY POINTS: ``LIBRARY LETTER'' TO HOUSE APPROPRIATORS BACKING PROPOSED

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to note and put into the Record the fact sheet from the American Library Association indicating that it is the Library of Congress' belief that it will need to change its policy already underway on this, so if the gentleman is saying that the language in the bill doesn't require a change on the Library's part, I think that would be news to the Library.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th Anniversary of Ordination of our pastor and friend, Reverend Jon Pedigo. Reverend Pedigo currently serves as a pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in East San Jose and has been a fixture in our community's spiritual life for over two decades. His dedicated and adroit leadership in the issues of immigrant and workers' rights, LGBT rights, and a focus on carving a path forward to a more peaceful world have been well known and a source of pride throughout our community. As a pastor at St. Julie Billiart Parish in South San Jose, Reverend Pedigo delivered his homily on the story of Bartimaeus in this way: ``Physical sight was Bartimaeus's issue,'' he said, ``but the real sin was the blindness in the seeing-people around him. Seeing-people see skin color, status, age, gender, weight, orientation, education level, etc. They do not see the real you.'' Reverend Pedigo has been and continues to be a strong advocate for equal rights and fairness before our laws and in our culture. As he now serves the community at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, a spiritual haven to many working class immigrant families, Reverend Pedigo helps draw together multiple generations of parishioners of diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds and preaches inclusivity and mutual respect in the face of the issues that sometimes divide our society. ``In a time of hate, we must be love,'' he has said. ``At a time of exclusion, we must be inclusive.'' Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to honor Reverend Pedigo for his twenty- five years of service to our community. Reverend Jon Pedigo is an exemplar of selfless service to others. With his dedicated work, he has served to improve the lives of the parishioners who come to him for solace, respite, and guidance. I know that his many friends and colleagues join me in recognizing this milestone in his life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Ruth Ellen Wasem, a Specialist in Immigration Policy, will be retiring from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the end of this month. Dr. Wasem came to CRS in 1987 as an Analyst in Social Legislation, where she worked on teenage pregnancy, youth policy, homelessness, and immigration policy. She eventually moved full-time into immigration policy, where she became a recognized and leading expert in the field. Dr. Wasem is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where she received a Ph.D. and M.A. in History. She completed her undergraduate degree at Muskingum College in New Concord, Ohio where she graduated Magna Cum Laude. Dr. Wasem was raised in Cadiz, Ohio. Throughout her time at CRS, Dr. Wasem provided substantial legislative support to Members and Congressional staff who often turned to her for analysis, brainstorming, and consultation on various aspects of immigration and social welfare policy. Her work in these areas included assisting Congress with interpretations of current and proposed law, explaining agency operations, analyzing data, developing and analyzing legislative options, and comparing legislative proposals at various stages of the process. Dr. Wasem's work was used by Congress in hearings, legislative development, markups, and preconference negotiations. Dr. Wasem's extensive knowledge in immigration policy and her keen ability to frame and analyze issues of paramount concern to Congress often made her a prominent point of contact for Congressional staff. Her encyclopedic knowledge of immigration law and policy was on display during the past decade when Congress attempted to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Dr. Wasem provided an innovative view of the major categories of immigration issues and the key elements involved in reforming the nation's immigration system. Dr. Wasem wrote numerous analytic and concise reports for Congress-- well over 300 during her tenure at CRS. Dr. Wasem also contributed to the House Ways and Means Committee's Green Book. Her contribution to the Green Book consisted of high-level statistical analysis on nonimmigrant eligibility for public benefits. Dr. Wasem was routinely chosen to moderate the immigration panels of CRS' biennial Legislative Issues and Procedures seminar for new Members in Williamsburg, Virginia. She also testified before Congressional committees numerous times throughout her tenure at CRS providing testimony on issues ranging from asylum to unauthorized migration to immigration and social policy data. One of Dr. Wasem's most important contributions to CRS' work for Congress has been her leadership of the analysts, lawyers and information professionals who support Congressional consideration of immigration-related policy issues. As CRS' Immigration Team Leader, Dr. Wasem has been a mentor to her team members, as well as to Congressional staff. She unfailingly displayed great generosity and selflessness in devoting her time and energy to the issues of the day. The Congressional Research Service has given Dr. Wasem a number of outstanding commendations and special achievement awards for legislative analysis in the areas of immigration policy, Haitian relief, health care reform, homeland security, temporary foreign workers, and welfare reform. Dr. Wasem recently spent a year as a Kluge Staff Fellow at the Library of Congress where she researched legislative efforts to end national origins and race- based immigrant admissions to the United States, all of which culminated in the Immigration Act of 1965. During her time as a Kluge Fellow, Dr. Wasem was awarded the Abba P. Schwartz Research Fellowship, which is administered by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, to further her research in this area. During her 29 years at CRS, and her 2 years of previous federal service, Dr. Wasem won the respect and admiration of her colleagues. Her steadfast dedication to serve Congress and her commitment to the highest standards of analytic, unbiased and timely response to Congressional requests for information and analysis have made a positive and lasting contribution to the Congressional policy discourse.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. But finally, the net result could be this: if the Republicans prevail, we could end up with a roundup of a million kids who did nothing wrong, who were brought here as infants, who don't even remember the country of their birth. When all is said and done, that is what this is about. I would urge that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this radical resolution. We will attempt to offer a resolution that, instead, is something you know what you are buying into, not a pig in a poke, but a thoughtful, reasoned brief that outlines what the House has done to delegate to the executive, outlines what the executive's authority has been since Eisenhower.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth reflecting why we are here. When we had the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last Congress, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that it would mean almost a trillion dollars to the positive for the American economy, not to mention the human toll that our current broken system inflicts on people. Now, we failed to act. And when we did, the President went to the Office of Legal Counsel, an independent group, and asked them what he could do, if anything. I thought they were rather conservative, but one of the things they said he could do was to give temporary reprieve to children who had been brought here without their concurrence and to the parents of American citizens. So he did that. How could he do that? Because the Congress has delegated to the executive the authority to act. In 1952, we did so--it can be found at 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3)--and again in 2002. When we created the Department of Homeland Security, we told the Department Secretary that he should establish immigration policies and priorities for removal. Now, why would that happen? We have only appropriated 4 percent of the funds necessary to remove everyone who is here without their proper papers. So clearly, there needs to be some prioritization. We recognize that. We told the Secretary to do it, and that is exactly what he did. We delegated the authority. On work authorization, again, we delegated that authority. In 1981, President Reagan went to rulemaking and established that authority, which is actually in practice; it has been in place. And Congress, in 1986, explicitly recognized the authority to give work authorization to those who are in deferred action status. But even without that delegation, the President has long had the authority to take the action that the President has in this case. It is called prosecutorial discretion and foreign policy. In United States v. Arizona, Justices Roberts and Kennedy noted that when the executive has broad discretion, a principal feature of the removal system is that it extends, and it extends to whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. This isn't new with President Obama. When President Reagan held that office, he sponsored a bill that gave relief--amnesty, if you will--to several million people; but the Congress--and it is reflected in the Judiciary Committee report--specifically excluded the spouses and children of those who had relief. What did Reagan do? He gave deferred action to the spouses and the children who had been specifically excluded from relief by the Congress because he didn't want to break up families. That was about 40 person of the undocumented people at the time--about the same amount that President Obama has dealt with. Not only is this resolution wrong, it is the wrong process. Democrats went to the Ethics Committee. We got approval to get a volunteer to write a brief, which I will later include in the Record. We read it before we signed it. In contrast, what are you asking Members to do? You have no idea what you are signing onto, just that you are against it. Now, does this mean that you are saying that the Administrative Procedure Act applies whenever the President takes a discretionary action? Well, good luck fighting ISIS then. Good luck getting disaster relief if there is a flood. It is defective for process, too. There is a group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. I have been involved with that in the past. That group is consulted when there is an issue that relates to the prerogatives of the House. For example, is there a speech or debate issue before the court? This did not come before the BLAG because this is political. This is not about the prerogatives of the House. Now, all Members of the House had an opportunity to file a brief, and Republican Members still can if they can meet the time deadlines. But using this process, I think there is a reason why CRS was unable to tell us any other instance where a process like this was used about the prerogatives of the House. So this is a radical procedure and a radical act because it says the House cannot delegate to the executive, as we have done, because it could cripple the President by requiring the Administrative Procedure Act whenever he takes a discretionary act, because it violates the procedures the House has always used.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a political act because this action only comes with President Obama. We never did this with Republican Presidents. Let me give you an example. After Tiananmen Square, the House of Representatives passed a bill to preclude the deportation of Chinese students. President Bush vetoed that bill. Do you know what he did then? He deferred the deportation of the Chinese students because he had the executive authority. In 1999, a letter was sent to Janet Reno. It was signed by Henry Hyde, Lamar Smith, Sam Johnson, and many others asking her to use her prosecutorial discretion and citing the fact that the prosecutorial discretion is clear in removal proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I will include that letter in the Record. I was shocked to hear Mr. Sessions say that the Court had solicited a brief--maybe I misunderstood him--had asked the House for a brief. If that is the case, I would respectfully request to see a copy of the document soliciting a brief from the House of Representatives. That is a procedure that would be an extraordinary one, and it is certainly news to me. Finally, I would like to add that the fact that Mr. Goodlatte doesn't agree with the President has nothing to do with the fact that the procedures were not followed in this case. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is the process established in the House to be used when the House takes a step in Court to defend its prerogatives, which is what the majority is suggesting is at play in this case. This is clearly a political act, and if it succeeds, who will be punished? One million children who did nothing wrong, who will be rounded up and taken from their homes. I don't know what Republicans think they are doing if they sign on to this resolution because it doesn't give any findings nor does it say what, in fact, they are signing on to.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we all like and honor the Speaker of the House. I was pleased to hear his recognition that this should have gone through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group because that is how the House organizes itself before asserting a privilege of the House in court. What he didn't say is why, since cert was granted on January 19--and today is March 17--he didn't call together the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Certainly, we have met in a much shorter time frame. I know because I have been a participant in that process. The failure to follow the procedures in this instance can only lead observers to conclude that this is a more politicized action than is traditional in terms of intervening in the court. Now, the Speaker said: ``All legislative powers are vested in Congress.'' No one can disagree with that. And that the President must ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' No one can disagree with that. Is the Speaker saying that we did not, in 2002, delegate to the Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility to establish priorities and policies, the priorities for removal, that we did not fail to provide most of the money that would be necessary to actually remove every single undocumented person in here? I think not. In fact, the President has done exactly what we said he should do in 2002. To approve this resolution, which says that he has acted inconsistent with his duties, is a mystery. It is a pig in a poke for the Republicans. The District Court made a finding that in order to take a discretionary action, one would need to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. That is a very bulky procedure--90 days posting. Are the Members of the House being asked to say that whenever the President takes a discretionary action, he must post a rule for 90 days? We don't know because this resolution only says we are against it. If we are saying that a rule must be adopted whenever a discretionary action is taken, that would be an extraordinary departure from the President's power to act, and it is certainly something that Members ought to know they are doing before they vote on this resolution. Much has been said about the States that filed the lawsuit. They were all States with Republican Governors. But there are States who disagree, including my State of California. There is a brief filed by the Californians which reads that the discretionary action the President took would generate 130,000 jobs in California and that it would provide $3.8 billion in taxes to California. So if we are going to use as an excuse the fact that Republican Governors filed a lawsuit to stop it, let's think about the States that have been enjoined unfairly and that are experiencing extreme economic damage because of the Fifth Circuit's misguided opinion. I hate to say it, because I do appreciate the Speaker of the House, but there is only one way to look at this resolution--as a highly politicized effort. This is not the way the House has traditionally proceeded when adopting a court proceeding, a court intervention, that deals with the privileges of the House.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 4, 1999. Embargoed for release Monday, November 8, 1999. Contact: Allen Kay, Rep. Lamar Smith. 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 extent hardship have caused concerns 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 widespead 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 implement guildelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an expeditious and fair manner. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde; Lamar Smith; Bill McCollum; Bill Barrett; Barney Frank; Sheila Jackson Lee; Martin Frost; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Billbray; Charles T. Canady; Nathan Deal; David Dreier; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Patrick J. Kennedy. James P. McGovern; F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.; Henry A. Waxman; Gene Green; Corrine Brown; Barbara Cubin; Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Bob Filner; Sam Johnson; Matthew G. Martinez; Martin T. Meehan; Christopher Shays; Kay Granger; Ciro D. Rodriguez.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following amici curiae brief: No. 15-674 In the Supreme Court of the United States United States of America, et al., Petitioners, v. State of Texas, et al., Respondents.

Ms. LOFGREN. Is it the gentleman's proposition that a vote in this House that does not become law voids an action of the House that does become law, to wit, the 2002 Department of Homeland Security Act that directed the Secretary to establish priorities for removal?

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, I'm proud to support Brain Awareness Week to highlight the importance of neuroscience research as one of the most promising and productive areas of science today. Understanding the brain is not only important for understanding speech, memory, pain, or decision-making, but could lead to treatments that have a transformational impact on millions of individuals who suffer from neurological and psychiatric disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. We must continue to make robust and sustained investments in agencies like the NIH to continue the tremendous progress we've already made, both to improve public health, and to maintain our leadership in the scientific enterprise.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Under the rules of the House, in order to accept volunteer efforts, one must be cleared by the Committee on Ethics. The resolution purports to seek pro bono assistance, but the inquiry is whether this comports with the rules of the House requiring the Committee on Ethics to preclear the acceptance of such assistance to avoid unseemly or potentially illegal assistance?

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that Mr. Sessions is not a lawyer and I would not suggest he intended to mislead this House. But the comment was, in fact, misleading because that is not a requirement for the House to brief that point. It is simply directed to the parties in the litigation, which we are not. This is about whether we deport kids or not, but it is also about whether we engage in rhetoric that is injurious to the public because it distorts the actual facts of this case. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very eloquent comments today. I was particularly taken by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the committee, his passionate speech about the rule of law. In fact, we all do agree about the importance of the rule of law in American life and in the vitality of our country. Unfortunately, the facts of this case have nothing to do with the speech given by Mr. Gowdy. On November 20, 2014, a number of memoranda were issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security. One of them is titled: ``Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.'' That was pursuant to the 2002 action of this Congress, creating the Department of Homeland Security and directing the Secretary to establish priorities for removal. And it is worth pointing out that this memorandum has not been enjoined. Nobody sued to stop it. It is in effect. Nobody has challenged its legality. It is what is happening right now. In fact, the only things that have been enjoined temporarily are the DAPA, the relief for parents, and the expansion of relief for children. My colleague, who I respect and like, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), did mention that the deferred action provides benefits, health care, and education. In fact, the deferred action provides no such benefits. It is not a legal status. It is a deferral of deportation. It is revocable at any time. Here is what the memorandum establishing this said: ``This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only an act of Congress can confer these rights. It remains within the authority of the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action within the framework of existing law. This memoranda is an exercise of that authority.'' In fact, the exercise of that authority is nothing new. We have mentioned earlier that President Reagan deferred action on the deportation of the wives and children of those who got relief through the 1986 IRCA Act that Congress passed, despite the fact that Congress told him not to do it, because he had the authority to do it. We have also had instances where wives of American soldiers were going to be deported. Do you know what? The President gave them deferral from deportation because it was unconscionable to us that a soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan would have his wife deported while he is over in the battlefield. We have private bills that we take up, egregious cases. Do you know what? If we ask for a report from the Department about that bill, the Department defers action on it. They defer deportation for the person who is the subject of that bill. We, on the committee, thank them for doing that. We know that they do that, and we agree and like that they do that. I mentioned earlier that the Congress, after Tiananmen Square, passed a bill to prevent the deportation of Chinese students who had been murdered, some of them, in Tiananmen Square. President Bush vetoed that bill. Why did he veto it? He vetoed it so he could give deferred deportation to the students because it was his position--and no one challenged that--it was the President's authority to do that. I want to raise another issue. My friend, the Chairman of the Rules Committee, mentioned earlier this morning that the House had received a request to brief this issue. I was very surprised by that. It was the first I had heard of it. It is my understanding from the paper submitted that what he was referring to was the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was granted. This is what it says: ``In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question--''

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on January 13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act (H.R. 3662). Had I been present for the vote, roll call vote number 44, I would have voted no.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mike Honda and Anna Eshoo to honor an important member of our community, Mr. Ernie Glave, who passed away on December 22, 2015. Ernie will be remembered for his dedication to San Jose as both a businessman and to the public, especially veterans. Ernie proudly ran his downtown jewelry shop for over 30 years and was widely known for his exceptional work ethic. Even during the economic recession, while many stores fled to the suburbs or shut down completely, Ernie worked 6 days a week with remarkable enthusiasm and professionalism. He also took pride in downtown San Jose and was known as a leader in the Small Businessman's Association. An Army World War II veteran, Ernie was also a passionate advocate for veterans. He worked hard to keep the San Jose Veterans Day Parade as one of the largest military pageants in the Western United States. Dedicated to the United Veterans Council, Ernie often spoke at local veterans events and commended their unbreakable bond and commitment to country. When we commemorate Memorial Day at Oak Hill Memorial Park every year, Ernie was always there, always working, always caring. Today, we honor the life of Ernie Glave. Ernie's commitment to his country and community can only be matched with the strength of his hallmark vise grip. We thank him for his contributions to San Jose and join his loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Why? Because it is important for our country that this program, this Visa Waiver Program, be tightened up, that we are assured that it is being operated in a safe and secure manner. I am happy that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to do this, because we are at a time in our country when reckless and racist things are being said about some of our fellow Americans--people who are saying that if you are of the Muslim faith, somehow you are a threat to the United States. That is not true. And it is important for us to stand up against that rhetoric, to stand up for all Americans and people of all faiths, but also to work together on sensible, modest reforms to the VW Program. I am glad that we will, hopefully, stand together in the face of outrageous racist rhetoric and that we will also stand together supporting this modest reform to the program. I would note also the suggestion that the bill does not solve all the problems. As I said in my opening statement, the most important part of this program is the database provisions. If countries do not want to share their data, they can't be in the Visa Waiver Program. I think that, as we move forward, more and more countries will understand we need to collaborate together, and I urge support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.