Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, I oppose this closed rule, and I oppose the underlying bill, which is the product of a closed and deeply flawed process. It contains policy riders that will do great damage to this country and that have no business whatsoever being in an omnibus spending bill. It contains an airdropped earmark for politicians that would allow wealthy couples to give as much as $3.1 million to political parties-- three times as much as the current level. No hearings, no markup, no discussion--just snuck into the bill with the hope that no one would notice. We ought to be finding ways, Madam Speaker, to get money out of politics, not the reverse. The bill would repeal, at the request of Wall Street special interests and lobbyists, important Dodd-Frank provisions. It would allow banks to engage in the same risky behavior that caused the financial crisis of 2008. What in the world are my Republican colleagues thinking? I know they want to do a lot of favors for their pals on Wall Street, but, please, please, do not do it at the expense of our economy. The bill contains a provision that the trucking industry wants to allow truck drivers to work up to 80 hours a week when we know that over-tired truck drivers put all of us at risk on the roads. Unbelievable. Finally, the bill funds new wars that Congress has not authorized. We are dropping bombs every day in Iraq and Syria. We have 3,000 troops deployed in Iraq, and we hear more and more talk about having those troops engage in direct combat. Yet, this Republican leadership has been content to do nothing. In fact, the majority has repeatedly and routinely denied Members the right to debate the issue of war on the floor of the House of Representatives. None of us will be asked to fight another pointless war, Madam Speaker--they are not our lives on the line--but we have a constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on whether to authorize it. But no. Instead, we are leaving town. Instead, we are ducking a vote. We are not doing our jobs. It is shameful and it is inexcusable, and it is a lousy way to end this session.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time and for his leadership on these important issues. I also want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Betty McCollum, for their leadership in bringing this important bill before the House. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in support of H.R. 5656, the Feed the Future Global Food Security Act of 2014. I remember in 2008 when our former colleague from Missouri, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, and I sat down with researchers from the GAO to talk about how our global food security programs could be improved and made more effective. Their advice was simple: Create a comprehensive government- wide strategy. I want my House colleagues to know that it was State Department and USAID officials under President George W. Bush who were the first to brainstorm about how to undertake such a comprehensive approach to global food security. And then in 2009, we were lucky enough to have Raj Shah, with his deep experience in agricultural development, evaluation, and analysis, take the helm at USAID. And most of all, we had Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who understood the importance of tackling agriculture and nutrition in a comprehensive fashion in order to increase food security, strengthen small farmers, empower women, and develop local and regional agricultural markets. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill helps codify and institutionalize one of our most important and effective global food security programs, Feed the Future, and its related nutrition and agricultural development programs. These programs have a proven track record of success. I want to thank all of the NGOs and private sector partners that have brought these programs to life on the ground. I have been engaged on global hunger, child nutrition, and food security issues for the past 18 years. I have never been more hopeful that the U.S. is finally pursuing a strategy that works and can make a difference. Increasing the ability of nations to feed their own people, care for the nutritional needs of their children, increase incomes for their farmers, and help them remain on their land is not just a worthy goal, it is an attainable one. And H.R. 5656 will ensure that the U.S. stays on that course. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that global hunger, I believe, is essentially a political condition. We have the leadership capability, we have the resources, we have the ability to end global hunger. What we need is the political will. I urge my colleagues, as they support this legislation, to reflect upon the success story of Feed the Future, and let's amplify it even more. This program works. It deserves our support.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in mid-November I was privileged to participate in the 25th Anniversary observance of the Jesuit martyrs of El Salvador. On November 16, 1989, the Salvadoran military carried out a joint operation with the specific purpose to enter the campus of the Jesuit-administered University of Central America Jose Simeon Canas (the UCA) and murder the university rector and several of its faculty. That evening, members of the Salvadoran Army shot and killed six Jesuit priests, including the rector, along with two women, a housekeeper and her teenage daughter, who were being sheltered at the university that evening. This year I traveled to El Salvador as part of a delegation led by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which included many presidents and officials of U.S. Jesuit colleges and universities. It was a very moving experience, one that strengthened both my faith and my commitment to stand up for human rights everywhere, including in my own country. I was invited to participate in one of the forums organized by the UCA as part of the 25th Anniversary events, The Legacy of the Jesuits on U.S. Foreign Policy toward El Salvador and Central America and on the Society of Jesus. Also appearing on the panel were Fr. Charlie Currie, SJ, with Georgetown University and executive president of Jesuit Commons; Fr. Michael Sheeran, SJ, president, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities/AJCU (in the USA); Fr. Andreu Oliva, SJ, rector, UCA; Geoff Thale, WOLA; and Fr. Tom Smolich, SJ, former president of US Conference of Jesuit Provincials. I would like to submit the remarks I presented at the UCA on how the murders of the six Jesuits and two women affected me and how I see their legacy in El Salvador and the United States. The Legacy of the Jesuits on U.S. Foreign Policy Toward El Salvador and Central America and on the Society of Jesus Forum at the UCA: 25th Anniversary Observance of the Jesuit Martyrs University of Central America Jose Simeon Canas Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:00 AM-12:00 PM Background: Panel presentations by Rep. Jim McGovern, Fr. Charles Currie, Geoff Thale, Fr. Tom Smolich, and UCA Rector Fr. Andreu Oliva. Presentations will be in Spanish/English with simultaneous translation provided. REMARKS BY U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES P. McGOVERN Thank you for that very kind introduction. I am here this morning because I am grateful to the Jesuits of El Salvador, and especially those who have served and those who continue to serve here at the UCA. You have been my friends, my mentors and my teachers. How I think, what I believe, how I view and evaluate what is going on in the world has been shaped by my relations with the Jesuits, before, during and after the war. The UCA itself was founded in the spirit of liberation. It is named after a Salvadoran priest, Jose Simeon Canas, who as a congressman in the Constitutional Assembly championed and achieved the abolition of slavery in Central America in 1824. Abraham Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until forty years later, in 1863. So it's right that we in the United States look to and work with the UCA to advance human rights, human dignity, freedom and equality. Many people look upon the deaths of Fathers Ignacio Ellacuria, ``Nacho'' Martin-Baro, Segundo Montes, Juan Ramon Moreno, Joaquin Lopez y Lopez, Amando Lopez, and Elba and Celina Ramos as crimes that epitomize the harsh reality of the war and the brutality of the Salvadoran armed forces. I prefer to remember their lives. I remember how they lived, how they carried out their pastoral work, their intellectual work and research, and how they interacted with their students, friends, colleagues and the Salvadoran people. And if there is one lesson that they taught me, it was that faith is more than ritual--it means action. ``Feed the Hungry'' means feed the hungry. ``Treat Everyone with Dignity'' means every person, and especially the poor, rightfully deserve a life with dignity. One of the reasons U.S. policy changed towards El Salvador in the 1990s was because Jesuit university and college presidents from all around the United States--many who are here today--took up the challenge of the murdered Jesuits and ignited their alumni across the country to take action, not to remain silent. Those actions had tremendous power--the power of faith working to move history in support of human rights, truth, justice and peace. We come to El Salvador this weekend to commemorate the lives and the loss of our Jesuit brothers. But we are also here to reflect on what has happened over the past 25 years. I believe that U.S. policy toward El Salvador has fallen far short in the aftermath of the war. In 1995, we all but abandoned El Salvador, significantly reducing our economic and development support just when it was most needed to consolidate the peace. When we have seen increases in our development aid, it has mainly been in response to natural disasters. The U.S. should have helped lead a Marshall Plan for Peace in El Salvador over the past 20 years; instead, we did the opposite. We still don't have robust assistance ready to support a national development strategy for El Salvador--and we certainly aren't prioritizing projects focused on listening to, working with and helping lift up the poorest and most neglected Salvadorans, rather than economic projects that support elite interests. Even our Millennium Challenge Grants, which are targeted at strengthening Salvadoran agriculture and related infrastructure, and now at supporting development projects along the Pacific Coast, were held hostage to private sector interests for too long. But I'm glad that all conditions have now been resolved and I'm hopeful that development projects that take into account the interests of the communities on the coast might now move forward. So, we Americans should not be surprised that we are now reaping what we have helped sow. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that had we invested significantly over the past 20 years in jobs, education, health care, food security, youth, women and families, fewer Salvadorans would have felt forced to abandon their homes and seek a life elsewhere. Not only did U.S. policies export gang violence to Central America, we did precious little to invest in preventing violence from taking root. With all these families and unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S. border--many with terrible stories to tell--it is time to develop a policy that is good for the people of El Salvador, Central America and the United States. Will we help our friends and neighbors create jobs and greater opportunities for young people and marginalized communities and towns? Will we help strengthen judicial institutions to investigate and prosecute those responsible for violence? Will we help those same institutions root out corruption and identify those among society who are in league with or benefit from criminal activity and violence? Will we invest in the kind of citizen security and infrastructure that benefits all Salvadorans, not just the wealthy few? President Sanchez Ceren is in Washington right now, and he and the other Central American presidents met with U.S. Vice- President Joe Biden yesterday. I hope that the Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress will decide to make long-term investments in youth, in development, and in citizen security. I hope they will embrace the positive lessons learned from USAID's recent programs on youth violence prevention. As they work on these proposals, I hope the U.S. and Salvadoran governments will make sure that programs are designed in partnership with civil society and affected communities--a real partnership. We in the U.S. government need to be committed to reforming and strengthening institutions, and we have to make sure that our partners in Central America, most especially the regional governments, are also genuinely committed to using these investments for real institutional reform, and for development that benefits youth and marginal communities. We need to make sure that civil society and affected communities are wholly integrated into designing and evaluating these projects. And when I look around the region, I feel like the most potential for creating these types of sensitive and genuine partnerships is here in El Salvador. Such long-term investments not only need to be made, they will need to be sustained. I am very concerned that the Administration, and especially the new U.S. Congress, will try to do everything ``on the cheap.'' And meanwhile, the questions remain whether we in the United States will respect our own laws, as well as international humanitarian law, and welcome those who come to our borders in need of protection? Or will we continue to spend money primarily on increasing border security, expanding detention facilities, denying immigrants legal counsel, streamlining deportation proceedings, and overwhelming, rather than strengthening, our immigration courts? My country owes a great deal to the hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans who have made the United States their home. They are great assets to our local communities, working hard, opening small businesses, investing in their neighborhoods, and all the while continuing to invest in their families and former communities here in El Salvador. It reminds me a lot of my own Irish-Polish immigrant heritage. I learned a great deal about El Salvador from refugees in 1983 who told my former boss, Congressman Joe Moakley, their stories. I believe that Salvadoran children and families telling similar stories about why they are trying to escape gang violence and criminal networks can make a difference today. Policymakers need to understand this reality. It also requires a commitment to invest in new policies, new ideas, new approaches--both here in El Salvador and in the United States. When we deal with criminal and gang violence in the United States, we know we need to deal with education, social services and prevention programs, and with jobs and opportunities for young people. I don't know why anyone believes it's any different here. The Government of El Salvador has made great progress. When I first traveled to El Salvador, the FMLN was in the mountains, settling differences through the barrel of a gun. Today, the Salvadoran people have just elected its second president from the FMLN political party. Peace has made a tremendous difference. The Salvadoran people's commitment to peace has made a tremendous difference. And today, political disputes are settled in the political and public arena. I am grateful to be able to honor the lives of the Jesuit martyrs, and to know that their memory and their example continue to influence so many people, even now, 25 years after their murders. I am also proud that we will be presenting later today a gift from the Moakley Foundation in Massachusetts for the UCA. I still believe that one of the best investments we can make in El Salvador is to support this university. Future leaders of El Salvador are being educated here today--maybe one of you sitting in the audience will be president of El Salvador one day, or a financial leader, or a teacher whose students will change the world, or a social worker who will work with communities and design the model that lifts thousands of Salvadorans out of poverty and into a dignified life. It is all possible, here at the UCA. Education is the great liberator. The history of the UCA-- and the lives and work of the Jesuit community--have long stood for an engaged and educated society, able to transform itself for the good of all people. This is why universities throughout Central America and around the world have created partnerships with the UCA. The UCA is the place where new ideas, new visions, and new leadership come to be nurtured and to flourish. And the UCA has always been where the voices of the poor were amplified--not just during the war, but in the hard work of advancing and consolidating the peace. We all know there is no quick fix to the problems facing El Salvador. But many of the solutions to those problems are ones that the Jesuits and the UCA have advocated for as long as I can remember. All people deserve to be treated with dignity. Investing in the poor means listening to those who live in marginal communities and letting them decide how best to address the many problems that affect their daily lives. Certainly, confronting violent gangs and criminal networks requires strong police and judicial systems. But it also requires that those institutions be free of corruption, transparent, respectful of basic human rights, able to carry out their duties at a decent living wage, and in harmony with the communities that rely on their protection. The good news is that there are solutions, and we basically know what they are. I believe with the commitment to act and press policymakers to do the right thing for the majority of Salvadorans, especially the poor, we can all make a difference. And I rely on the UCA and the Jesuits in El Salvador and the United States to remain committed and engaged, and to help show us the way. In 1982, in a speech at Santa Clara University, Father Ellacuria spoke eloquently about the role of the university. He began by saying: ``Our historical reality--the reality of El Salvador, the reality of the Third World, that is, the reality of the larger part of the world and the most universal--is characterized fundamentally by the dominance of falsehood over truth, of injustice over justice, of oppression over liberty, of scarcity over abundance, in short of evil over good. . .'' He then went on to describe the role of the university this way: ``We ask ourselves what to do with the University. And we answer, above all, from the ethical point of view: transform it, do what is possible so that good wins over evil, liberty over oppression, justice over injustice, truth over falsehood and love over hate. . . ``A Christian university must take into account the gospel preference for the poor. This does not mean that only the poor study at the university; it does not mean that the university should abdicate its mission of academic excellence--excellence needed to solve complex social problems. It does mean that the university should be present intellectually where it is needed: to provide science for those who have no science; to provide skills for the unskilled; to be a voice for those who have no voice; to give intellectual support for those who do not possess the academic qualifications to promote and legitimize their truth and their rights. I do not mean to be presumptuous by quoting Fr. Ellacuria to all of you who work and study at the UCA, but for me, those words resonate as strongly today as they did three decades ago. How can we look at the agony and desperation of so many Salvadorans and Central Americans and not feel called upon to respond generously and in solidarity with them, their families and their communities? I strongly believe--and it is one of the most important legacies of the Jesuit martyrs-- that we are here to help the least among us. For me, this is the most important mission--for governments, for churches, for universities, for all of us. As Professor Emeritus Dave O'Brien, at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in my home town of Worcester, wrote earlier this week, the challenge for all of us is in ``creating the next chapter.'' When I think of the lives and the deaths of those who we honor and who bring us together for this reflection, I believe that if they were still here with us, experiencing El Salvador's current reality, they would be calling us to the same commitment, built on the same ideals. These eight individuals--six priests, two women--they died for a reason. What they stood for is very powerful. As long as I live I will be inspired by their words and by their example. It is a powerful legacy. Let us build upon it together. Let us create the next chapter. Thank you.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk a little bit about the immigration bill. As I said before, the President didn't create this problem. Quite frankly, the House Republican leadership created this problem. We had the Senate that acted in a good faith bipartisan manner and passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. That was a year and a half ago. In a year and a half, this House of Representatives has done nothing except come to the floor and demagogue the immigration issue. The debate on the other side of the aisle, quite frankly, has gotten so ugly that it is, I think, beneath the level of dignity of this House of Representatives. We should expect better in terms of the debate on the issue of immigration. I enter into the Record the November 20 editorial from The New York Times, which concludes by saying: The right will falsely label Mr. Obama's actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo. [From the New York Times, Nov. 20, 2014] At Long Last, Immigration Action (By the Editorial Board) President Obama says he will speak to the nation on Thursday night about making major changes to immigration policy, including shielding several million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under executive authority, because he has given up waiting for Congress to act. The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress's failures--temporary permission to live and work without fear. But respite for as many as four million to five million people, according to some estimates, should be cause for relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people living here without authorization. It should focus on expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep and permanent. Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. Obama's plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. Other, smaller groups may qualify as well. Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as possible--up to the eight million or so who might have qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings--the plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and too small. The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical usurpation of congressional authority by ``Emperor'' Obama. They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 400,000 a year. It has been the immigration system's retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama's new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy--over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own. This may have suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true. It's good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are. This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of support from those who accept the need for progress on immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of their cause--and to do something about it. The only proper motion now is forward. The right will falsely label Mr. Obama's actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to just be clear about one thing. The President did not create this problem. The cowardice of the House Republican leadership created this crisis. Over 1\1/2\ years after the Senate passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill, this House, Mr. Speaker, has failed to bring it up and debate it. If there is a crisis of leadership, then it is here in this House. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. McGOVERN. Twice now, Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and I have tried to offer an amendment requiring a vote next March to authorize any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and twice, the leadership of this House has refused to allow our amendments to come to the floor. What is the leadership afraid of? Why do they refuse to allow a debate and a vote on authorizing America's post-2014 mission in Afghanistan? Don't we owe it to the troops who are going to be there? Don't we owe it to their families? The gentleman from Florida talks about that we need to be the voice of our troops. Well, we are not the voice of our troops. We are ducking these important debates. It is shameful. We are letting our troops down. We are better than this, and we ought to be debating and voting on these important issues. We are also at war against the Islamic State. On July 25, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that I offered that if the U.S. were involved in sustained combat operations in Iraq, Congress should vote and enact an authorization. Mr. Speaker, 370 Members of this House voted for that resolution. Two weeks after that vote, we began bombing Iraq. We have been bombing Iraq nearly every day for the past 4\1/2\ months. We have increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to around 3,000. On September 22, we started bombing Syria. We have flown scores of bombing missions over Syria over the last 2 months. We bomb Iraq and Syria as part of our coordinated military operations with the Iraqi military and Kurdish military forces. We bomb to protect infrastructure, and we bomb to target towns and camps harboring Islamic State forces. If that is not being involved in sustained combat operations, I don't know what is. The war against ISIL began under this Congress. It has escalated under this Congress. It has expanded from Iraq to Syria and now, maybe, to Turkey under this Congress. It is the responsibility, the constitutional responsibility of this Congress, the 113th Congress, to authorize it. And yet while the bill authorizes the money to carry out this war, it does not allow us a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on actually authorizing the war. Now, last night in the Rules Committee, I offered amendments to limit funding for the Iraq/Syria war until Congress enacted an authorization to ensure that U.S. ground troops in Iraq would not engage in combat operations. Both were rejected. Both were rejected. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is the institutional and constitutional duty of the Congress of the United States to decide matters of war and peace. It is time for the leadership of this House to step up to the plate and bring an authorization to the floor. It is time to debate it and vote on it before the 113th Congress adjourns. No more excuses. No more whining. Just do it. The rule also includes H.R. 5759, the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Give me a break. For over a year and a half, a Senate-passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill has been awaiting House action. All it needs is a House Republican leadership with the political backbone to take it up because we all know that the votes are there. We could pass it today or tomorrow or next week. We could put an end to all this rancor, all the nasty sound bites by simply doing what we are paid to do: debating and voting on major pieces of legislation. I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you don't want the Executive to take administrative action, then start acting like a real Congress. There is still time before we leave town for the holidays. Stop this farce. Take up the Senate bill, pass it, and send it to the President for signature. Mr. Speaker, whether it comes to issues of war and peace or whether it comes to major issues like comprehensive immigration reform, the answer is simple: all we need to do is our job. I urge my colleagues to defeat this ridiculous triple-closed rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this convoluted closed rule, which includes a huge defense bill, a partisan anti-immigrant bill, a California water bill, and, from out of nowhere, an Arizona land exchange bill all in one. The gentleman from Florida is praising this Congress as somehow being open. The fact of the matter is this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. This is appalling the way this House of Representatives has been run. Routinely, important, vital issues are shut out from debate on the House floor, and what we are talking about here today is no exception. The rule includes the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act. I am pleased that the NDAA establishes the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, but this version of the NDAA also authorizes over $500 billion for the Pentagon's base budget and, on top of that, includes an additional $63.7 billion for the Pentagon slush fund to finance the continuing war in Afghanistan and the new war in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State. Once again, Congress is failing to do its job because, once again, this bill continues to fund two wars for years to come without Congress authorizing either one. First, Afghanistan. We are ostensibly pulling out of Afghanistan in just 3 weeks, but, in fact, we are leaving about 10,000 troops behind for the next several years. Congress has the responsibility to authorize this new mission. We just can't continue the same-old, same- old. Mr. Speaker, I will insert, for the Record, a Reuters article, entitled, ``Obama Widens Post-2014 Combat Role for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.'' It doesn't sound like we are winding down anything. [From reuters.com, Nov. 23, 2014] Obama Widens Post-2014 Combat Role for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan (By Steve Holland and Mirwais Harooni) President Barack Obama has approved plans to give U.S. military commanders a wider role to fight the Taliban alongside Afghan forces after the current mission ends next month, a senior administration official said. The decision made in recent weeks extends previous plans by authorizing U.S. troops to carry out combat operations against the Taliban to protect Americans and support Afghanistan's security forces as part of the new ISAF Resolute Support mission next year. Obama had announced in May that U.S. troop levels would be cut to 9,800 by the end of the year, by half again in 2015 and to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance office in Kabul by the end of 2016. Under that plan, only a small contingent of 1,800 U.S. troops was limited to counter terrorism operations against remnants of al Qaeda. The new orders will also allow operations against the Taliban. ``To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe,'' the official said. A report by the New York Times late on Friday said the new authorization also allows the deployment of American jets, bombers and drones. The announcement was welcomed by Afghan police and army commanders after heavy losses against the Taliban this summer. ``This is the decision that we needed to hear . . . We could lose battles against the Taliban without direct support from American forces,'' said Khalil Andarabi, police chief for Wardak province, about an hour's drive from the capital and partly controlled by the Taliban. Afghan government forces remain in control of all 34 provincial capitals but are suffering a high rate of casualties, recently described as unsustainable by a U.S. commander in Afghanistan. More than 4,600 Afghan force members have been killed since the start of the year, 6.5 percent more than a year ago. Despite being funded with more than $4 billion in aid this year, police and soldiers frequently complain they lack the resources to fight the Taliban on their own. ``Right now we don't have heavy weapons, artillery and air support. If Americans launch their own operations and help us, too, then we will be able to tackle Taliban,'' said senior police detective Asadullah Insafi in eastern Ghazni province. The Taliban said it is undeterred by the U.S. announcement. ``They will continue their killings, night raids and dishonor to the people of Afghanistan in 2015. It will only make us continue our jihad,'' Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujajhid said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by again asking my colleagues to vote against this closed rule--triple closed rule. It unfortunately has become a pattern in this Congress, the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' as well because we are talking about a defense bill, but we are not allowed to have a debate or a vote on any of these wars that we are involved in. If we truly care about our troops, if we are truly living up to our constitutional responsibilities, we ought to have a debate and a vote. We ought not to duck it. We ought not to leave town without talking about these serious issues. On the issue of immigration, rather than this silly, petty, ugly, symbolic bill that is being brought to the floor, if my colleagues don't approve of the President's executive action, then help me defeat the previous question and we will bring up H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in a bipartisan way, and we can get that job done and end all this nonsense and end all this rancor that we have seen unfold here in the House. We could do better than what is on display today. I regret very much that the Republican leadership continues to insist on this closed process which stifles debate and prevents us from debating and voting on important issues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. We have a couple, but they are not here yet. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that this Congress is kind of ending the way it began, under a very closed and restrictive process. As I said earlier, this is the most-closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Routinely important issues, issues that impact not just the American people, but that impact the entire world, are denied a debate on the House floor. We are bringing up multiple bills here today all under a very closed process; yet there are some very important issues that need to be debated and to be discussed and to be voted on. I have crumbling bridges and sewer and water systems in my district that need repair, and I can't get a penny to repair or replace them. We are told that we don't have any money, but we seem to have billions and billions of dollars to throw at these endless wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the November 2 New York Times editorial, ``The New War's Rising Cost.'' [From the New York Times, Nov. 2, 2014] The New War's Rising Cost (By the Editorial Board) The Pentagon disclosed last week that America's ever- shifting new war in the Middle East has cost taxpayers more than half a billion dollars since it began in August. Yet Congress has not bothered to hold a vote to authorize the Obama administration's decision to get into another war. As the price tag of the military campaign in Iraq and Syria rises, it might seem reasonable to expect that Congress would have to consider the state of the effort and appropriate funding for it. Thanks to the dysfunctional politics of defense budgeting, it turns out Congress won't have to--at least not anytime soon. As of Oct. 16, the air campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, had cost $580 million, according to the Pentagon. The military is paying for the bombing sorties using the Overseas Contingency Operations budget, a flexible fund established for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the Afghan war drawing to a close this year, the Obama administration had sought to cut that fund from the nearly $85 billion appropriated for 2014 to $59 billion for 2015. But because lawmakers were not able to pass a budget in time, the fund will continue at last year's level under a continuing resolution that ends in December and is likely to be extended until the spring. Authorizing a new defense budget would force lawmakers to take stock of the military action that was initially billed as a limited defensive measure before the White House said that it was likely to last for years. It would also serve as an opportunity to revisit the dubious legal authority the White House is relying on. American officials continue to be alarmingly vague about a central unanswered question about the military campaign against the Islamic State: whether it formally or implicitly represents a shift in American policy toward the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Washington has called for Mr. Assad's ouster and has provided limited support to rebel factions fighting the state. But the United States must clarify what its goals are concerning Mr. Assad, some senior administration officials believe, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as Mark Landler of The Times reported recently. The Pentagon says the bombing campaign has dealt the Islamic State setbacks in the battlefield. But the group remains strong and continues to make inroads in key parts of Syria and Iraq. Military officials have said curiously little in recent weeks about Khorasan, a militant group they described during the early stages of the airstrikes in Syria as posing an imminent threat to the United States. The vague and at times contradictory information the government has provided about that group, and the broader strategy, shows a distressing level of improvisation. The past few weeks have also presented reminders of the risks of the military mission. Officials at the Pentagon are worried about reports that Islamic State fighters have acquired shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, which could be used to bring down American aircraft. Those fighters recently took credit for shooting down an Iraqi military helicopter; the group posted online a manual instructing fighters how to use one of the missiles to bring down Apache helicopters, one of the attack aircraft the Pentagon has been using. Congress has a responsibility to take a hard look at the long-term goal of the military mission and its projected cost. It has skirted that duty for too long.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion here that the gentleman may be offering to amend the rule. I am just trying to get a sense for what is going on over there before I yield back all of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. That basically will be the text of H.R. 15, the Senate- passed comprehensive immigration reform bill. We could bring this issue to a close right now. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment along with extraneous material that I will offer in the Record if we defeat the previous question immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I enter into the Record a November 29 letter to Senate and House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Leahy and Goodlatte and the ranking members, Grassley and Conyers, from four former INS general counsels from the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations on the President's authority to take lawful executive action on immigration. Four Former INS/USCIS General Counsels on President's Authority To Act on Immigration Nov 29, 2014. Hon. Patrick Leahy Hon. Chuck Grassley Hon. Bob Goodlatte Hon. John Conyers, Jr. We are writing as former General Counsels of the Immigration and Naturalization Service or former Chief Counsels of U.S. Citzenship and Immigration Services. As you know, the President on November 20 anounced a package of measures designed to deploy his limited immigration enforcement resources in the most effective way. These measures included an expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the creation of Deferred Action for Parental Accountabilty (DAPA). We take no positions on the policy judgments that those actions reflect, but we have all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express our collective view that the President's actions are well within his legal authority. Some 135 law professors who currently teach or write in the area of immigration law signed a November 25, 2014 letter to the same effect. Rather than repeat the points made in that letter, we simply attach it here and go on record as stating that we agree wholeheartedly with its legal analysis and its conclusions. Respectfully, Stephen Legomsky, The John S. Lehman University Professor, Washington University School of Law, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citzenship and Immigration Services. Roxana Bacon, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citzenship and Immigration Services. Paul W. Virtue, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP, Former General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Bo Cooper, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loew, Former General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also enter into the Record a November 25 letter from 130 legal scholars on why President Obama's action is lawful and has historical precedent. 25 November 2014. We write as scholars and teachers of immigration law who have reviewed the executive actions announced by the President on November 20, 2014. It is our considered view that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are within the legal authority of the executive branch of the government of the United States. To explain, we cite federal statutes, regulations, and historical precedents. We do not express any views on the policy aspects of these two executive actions. This letter updates a letter transmitted by 136 law professors to the White House on September 3, 2014, on the role of executive action in immigration law.\1\ We focus on the legal basis for granting certain noncitizens in the United States ``deferred action'' status as a temporary reprieve from deportation. One of these programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was established by executive action in June 2012. On November 20, the President announced the expansion of eligibility criteria for DACA and the creation of a new program, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA). Prosecutorial discretion in immigration law enforcement Both November 20 executive actions relating to deferred action are exercises of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to decide how the immigration laws should be applied.\2\ Prosecutorial discretion is a long-accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement context,\3\ unavoidable whenever the appropriated resources do not permit 100 percent enforcement. In immigration enforcement, prosecutorial discretion covers both agency decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement, like cancelling or not serving or filing a charging document or Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a stay of removal,\4\ parole,\5\ or deferred action.\6\ Prosecutorial discretion provides a temporary reprieve from deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like deferred action, confer ``lawful presence'' and the ability to apply for work authorization.\7\ However, the benefits of the deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility to apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As the President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship. Statutory authority and long-standing agency practice Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, Sec. 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the ``Act''), clearly empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make choices about immigration enforcement. That section provides: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens . . . .'' \8\ INA Sec. 242(g) recognizes the executive branch's legal authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, specifically by barring judicial review of three particular types of prosecutorial discretion decisions: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate cases, and to execute removal orders.\9\ In other sections of the Act, Congress has explicitly recognized deferred action by name, as a tool that the executive branch may use, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain victims of abuse, crime or trafficking.\10\ Another statutory provision, INA Sec. 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their particular immigration status. This provision (and the formal regulations noted below) confer the work authorization eligibility that is part of both the DACA and DAPA programs. Based on this statutory foundation, the application of prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups has been part of the immigration system for many years. Longstanding provisions of the formal regulations promulgated under the Act (which have the force of law) reflect the prominence of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. Deferred action is expressly defined in one regulation as ``an act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases lower priority'' and goes on to authorize work permits for those who receive deferred action.\11\ Agency memoranda further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Sam Bernsen stated in a legal opinion, ``The reasons for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to enforce all of the rules and regulations presently on the books.''\12\ In 2000, a memorandum on prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner provided that ``[s]ervice officers are not only authorized by law but expected to exercise discretion in a judicious manner at all stages of the enforcement process,'' and spelled out the factors that should guide those decisions.\13\ In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security published guidance known as the ``Morton Memo,'' outlining more than one dozen factors, including humanitarian factors, for employees to consider in deciding whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. These factors--now updated by the November 20 executive actions-- include tender or elderly age, long-time lawful permanent residence, and serious health conditions. Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases Federal courts have also explicitly recognized prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in particular.\15\ Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its Arizona v. United States decision in 2012: ``A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . . . Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all . . . .''\16\ In its 1999 decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. This affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement, which are at an annual level that would allow for the arrest, detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the noncitizens in the United States who lack lawful immigration status.\17\ Based on statutory authority, U.S. immigration agencies have a long history of exercising prosecutorial discretion for a range of reasons that include economic or humanitarian considerations, especially--albeit not only--when the noncitizens involved have strong family ties or long-term residence in the United States.\18\ Prosecutorial discretion, including deferred action, has been made available on both a case-by-case basis and a group basis, as are true under DACA and DAPA. But even when a program like deferred action has been aimed at a particular group of people, individuals must apply, and the agency must exercise its discretion based on the facts of each individual case. Both DACA and DAPA explicitly incorporate that requirement. Historical precedents for deferred action and similar programs for individuals and groups As examples of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, numerous administrations have issued directives providing deferred action or functionally similar forms of prosecutorial discretion to groups of noncitizens, often to large groups. The administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush deferred the deportations of a then- predicted (though ultimately much lower) 1.5 million noncitizen spouses and children of immigrants who qualified for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, authorizing work permits for the spouses.\19\ Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA.\20\ Among the many other examples of significant deferred action or similar programs are two during the George W. Bush administration: a deferred action program in 2005 for foreign academic students affected by Hurricane Katrina,\21\ and ``Deferred Enforcement Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007.\22\ Several decades earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary Departure'' in 1981 to thousands of Polish nationals.\23\ The legal sources and historical examples of immigration prosecutorial discretion described above are by no means exhaustive, but they underscore the legal authority for an administration to apply prosecutorial discretion to both individuals and groups. Some have suggested that the size of the group who may ``benefit'' from an act of prosecutorial discretion is relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal authority for such an assumption. Notably, the Reagan-Bush programs of the late 1980s and early 1990s were based on an initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population (about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions. The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but this would be a policy choice, not a legal issue.\24\ For all of these reasons, the President is not ``re-writing'' the immigration laws, as some of his critics have suggested. He is doing precisely the opposite--exercising a discretion conferred by the immigration laws and settled general principles of enforcement discretion. The Constitution and immigration enforcement discretion Critics have also suggested that the deferred action programs announced on November 20 violate the President's constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''\25\ A serious legal question would therefore arise if the executive branch were to halt all immigration enforcement, or even if the Administration were to refuse to substantially spend the resources appropriated by Congress. In either of those scenarios, the justification based on resource limitations would not apply. But the Obama administration has fully utilized all the enforcement resources Congress has appropriated. It has enforced the immigration law at record levels through apprehensions, investigations, and detentions that have resulted in over two million removals.\26\ At the same time that the President announced the November 20 executive actions that we discuss here, he also announced revised enforcement priorities to focus on removing the most serious criminal offenders and further shoring up the southern border. Nothing in the President's actions will prevent him from continuing to remove as many violators as the resources Congress has given him permit. Moreover, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised, particularly when the numbers are large, there is no legal barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound procedures that include a formal application and dissemination of the relevant criteria to the officers charged with implementing the program and to the public. As DACA has shown, those kinds of procedures assure that important policy decisions are made at the leadership level, help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and consistently, and offer the public the transparency that government priority decisions require in a democracy.\27\ conclusion Our conclusion is that the expansion of the DACA program and the establishment of Deferred Action for Parental Accountability are legal exercises of prosecutorial discretion. Both executive actions are well within the legal authority of the executive branch of the government of the United States. Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law*; Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law, Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law*; Stephen H. Legomsky, The John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington University School of Law*. David Abraham, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law*; Raquel Aldana, Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship, Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; Farrin R. Anello, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law; Deborah Anker, Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Harvard Law School. Sabrineh Ardalan, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, Assistant Director, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program; David C. Baluarte, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, Washington and Lee University School of Law; Melynda Barnhart, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Jon Bauer, Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano '69 Scholar in Human Rights, Director, Asylum and Human Rights Clinic, University of Connecticut School of Law. Lenni B. Benson, Professor of Law, Director, Safe Passage Project, New York Law School; Jacqueline Bhabha, Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights, Harvard School of Public Health, Lecturer in Law, Harvard Law School; Linda Bosniak, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University School of Law-Camden; Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Global Programs, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Jason A. Cade, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Georgia Law School; Janet Calvo, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law, New York. Kristina M. Campbell, Associate Professor of Law, Director, Immigration and Human Rights Clinic, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law; Stacy Caplow, Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Professional Legal Education, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin Casper, Visiting Associate Clinical Professor, University of Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, Visiting Associate Professor of Clinical Law, University of Minnesota; Howard F. Chang, Earle Hepburn Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Michael J. Churgin, Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law, University of Texas at Austin. Marisa Cianciarulo, Professor of Law, Director, Bette & Wylie Aitken Family Violence Clinic, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law; Evelyn Cruz, Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigration Law & Policy Clinic, Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Ingrid Eagly, Assistant Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Philip Eichorn, Adjunct Professor--Immigration Law, Cleveland State--Cleveland Marshall School of Law; Bram T. Elias, Clinical Visiting Associate Professor, University of Iowa College of Law; Stella Burch Elias, Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law. Jill E. Family, Professor of Law, Director, Law & Government Institute, Widener University School of Law; Niels Frenzen, Clinical, Professor of Law, Gould School of Law, University of Southern California; Maryellen Fullerton, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, Visiting Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law; Denise L. Gilman, Clinical Professor, Co-Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Texas School of Law John F. Gossart, Jr., Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, University of Maryland School of Law, United States Immigration Judge 1982-2013, retired; P. Gulasekaram, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University; Anju Gupta, Associate Professor of Law, Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, Rutgers School of Law--Newark; Susan R. Gzesh, Senior Lecturer & Executive Director, Pozen Family Center for Human Rights, University of Chicago; Jonathan Hafetz, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University; Dina Francesca Haynes, Professor of Law and Director of Human Rights and Immigration Law Project, New England Law, Boston. Susan Hazeldean, Associate Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School; Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Professor of Law, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; Laura A. Hernandez, Professor, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School; Barbara Hines, Clinical Professor of Law, Co-Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Texas School of Law; Laila L. Hlass, Clinical Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law; Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Assoc. Professor, Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Houston Law Center. Mary Holper, Associate Clinical Professor, Boston College Law School; Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor and Sidney Reitman Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law--Newark; Kate Jastram, Lecturer in Residence, Executive Director, The Honorable G. William & Ariadna Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Kit Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University Kline School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, Professor of Law, Dean's Research Scholar, and Director, International Human Rights Program, Boston College Law School. Elizabeth Keyes, Assistant Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law; Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; David C. Koelsch; Associate Professor, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Lee Koh, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Clinic, Western State College of Law; Kevin Lapp, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Christopher Lasch, Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Jennifer J. Lee, Clinical Assistant Professor, Legal Director, Sheller Center for Social Justice, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Stephen Lee, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine; Christine Lin, Clinical Instructor/Staff Attorney, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Refugee & Human Rights Clinic, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Beth Lyon, Professor of Law, Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic, Co-Director, Community Interpreter Internship Program, Acting Director of Clinical Programs, Villanova University School of Law; Stephen Manning, Adjunct Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark College. Lynn Marcus, Professor of the Practice, Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Miriam H. Marton, Director, Tulsa Immigrant Resource Network, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law; Elizabeth McCormick, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigrant Rights Project, Director, Clinical Education Programs, University of Tulsa College of Law; M. Isabel Medina, Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; Stephen Meili, Vaughan G. Papke Clinical Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School; Vanessa Merton, Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law. Andrew Moore, Associate Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, Weihofen Professorship, University of New Mexico School of Law; Daniel I. Morales, Assistant Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law; Nancy Morawetz, Professor of Clinical Law, Co-Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, NYU School of Law; Karen Musalo, Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law, Professor & Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Alizabeth Newman, Clinic Law Professor, Immigrant & NonCitizens Rights Clinic, CUNY School of Law. Noah Novogrodsky, Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law; Fernando A. Nunez, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares, Associate Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law and Director, Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance, University of Houston Law Center; Patrick D. O'Neill, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law, University of Puerto Rico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, Practice Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Sunita Patel, Practitioner-in-Residence, Civil Advocacy Clinic, American University, Washington College of Law; Huyen Pham, Associate Dean for Faculty Research & Development, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law; Michele R. Pistone, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law, Luis F.B. Plascencia, Assistant Professor, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University; Polly J. Price, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law; Doris Marie Provine, Professor Emerita, Justice & Social Inquiry, School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University. Nina Rabin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona; Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Professor of Law, Co-Director, Institute for International Law and Public Policy, Temple University, Beasley School of Law; Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law; Ediberto Roman, Professor of Law & Director of Citizenship and Immigration Initiatives, Florida International University; Victor C. Romero, Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law, Penn State Law; Joseph H. Rosen, Adjunct Professor, Atlanta's John Marshall Law School; Carrie Rosenbaum, Professor of Immigration Law, Golden Gate University School of Law. Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Associate Professor, Northeastern University School of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, Professor of Sociology, Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine; Ted Ruthizer, Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law School; Leticia M. Saucedo, Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education, UC Davis School of Law; Heather Scavone, Assistant Professor of Law, Director of the Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic, Elon University School of Law; Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Professor from Practice, Georgetown Law. Philip Schrag, Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Bijal Shah, Acting Assistant Professor, NYU School of Law; Ragini Shah, Clinical Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Careen Shannon, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Law Field Clinic, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Anna Williams Shavers, Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law, University of Nebraska College of Law; Bryn Siegel, Professor, Immigration Law, Pacific Coast University School of Law; Anita Sinha, Practitioner-in- Residence, American University, Washington College of Law. Dan R. Smulian, Associate Professor of Clinical Law, Co- Director, Safe Harbor Project, Brooklyn Law School; Gemma Solimene, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah, Professor of Law and Director, Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Stanford Law School; Juliet Stumpf, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; Maureen A. Sweeney, Law School Associate Professor, University of Maryland Carey School of Law; Barbara Szweda, Associate Professor, Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law. Margaret H. Taylor, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law; David Thronson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law; Allison Brownell Tirres, Associate Professor & Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, DePaul University College of Law; Scott Titshaw, Associate Professor, Mercer University School of Law; Phil Torrey, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, Clinical Instructor, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School; Enid Trucios-Haynes, Interim Director, Muhammad Ali Institute for Peace and Justice, Professor of Law, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville; Diane Uchimiya, Professor of Law, Director of Experiential Learning, Director of the Justice and Immigration Clinic, University of La Verne College of Law; Gloria Valencia-Weber, Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico School of Law; Sheila I. Velez Martinez, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Alex Vernon, Acting Director of Asylum and Immigrant Rights Law Clinic, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law; Rose Cuison Villazor, Professor of Law & Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, University of California at Davis School of Law. Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley; Jonathan Weinberg, Professor of Law, Wayne State University; Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lisa Weissman-Ward, Clinical Supervising Attorney & Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School; Anna R. Welch, Associate Clinical Professor, University of Maine School of Law. Virgil O. Wiebe, Professor of Law, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Director of Clinical Education, Co-Director, Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy Dean for Experiential Education, Yale Law School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Adjunct Professor, Cornell University Law School; Elizabeth Lee Young, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law. Endnotes \1\ See Letter to the President of the United States, Executive authority to protect individuals or groups from deportation (Sep. 3, 2014), https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/ _file/Law-Professor-Letter.pdf \2\ See Thomas Aleinikoff, David Martin, Hiroshi Motomura & Maryellen Fullerton, Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy 778-88 (7th ed. 2012); Stephen H. Legomsky & Cristina Rodriguez, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy 629-32 (5th ed. 2009); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 243 (2010), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _id=1476341. \3\ Notably, in criminal law, prosecutorial discretion has existed for hundreds of years. It was a common reference point for the immigration agency in early policy documents describing prosecutorial discretion. See Doris Meissner, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion 1 (Nov. 17, 2000) [hereinafter Meissner Memo], http:// www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/ Meissner-2000-memo.pdf; Sam Bernsen, INS General Counsel, Legal Opinion Regarding Service Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion (July 15, 1976), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/ prosecutorial-discretion/service-exercise-pd.pdf. See also, e.g., Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice (2007); Hiroshi Motomura, Prosecutorial Discretion in Context: How Discretion is Exercised Throughout our Immigration System, American Immigration Council 2-3 (April 2012), http:// www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/motomura_- _discretion_in_context_04112.pdf; Stephen H. Legomsky, Legal Authorities for DACA and Similar Programs (Aug. 24, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/ 2014/11/17/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/ executive%20action%20legal%20points.pdf. \4\ 8 C.F.R. Sec. 241.6. \5\ INA Sec. 212(d)(5). \6\ 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(c)(14). \7\ Under INA Sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), a person will not be deemed unlawfully present during any ``period of stay authorized by the Attorney General'' (now the Secretary of Homeland Security). The Department of Homeland Security has authorized such a period of stay for recipients of deferred action. See Donald Neufeld, Lori Scialabba, & Pearl Chang, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act (May 6, 2009), http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/ revision_redesign_AFM.PDF; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Frequently Asked Questions (updated June 5, 2014), http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/ consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-process/ frequently-asked-questions. \8\ INA Sec. 103(a). \9\ INA Sec. 242(g); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999). \10\ INA Sec. 237(d)(2); 204(a)(1)(D)(i)(II,IV). \11\ 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(c)(14). \12\ Bernsen, supra note 3. \13\ Meissner Memo, supra note 3. Notably, the Meissner memorandum was a key reference point for related memoranda issued during the Bush administration, among them a 2005 memorandum from Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal head William Howard and a 2007 memorandum from ICE head Julie Myers on the use of prosecutorial discretion when making decisions about undocumented immigrants who are nursing mothers. 14 John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (June 17, 2011), available at http://www.ice.gov/ doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion- memo.pdf. [hereinafter Morton Memo]. 15 See e.g., Lennon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 527 F.2d 187, 191 n.5 (2d Cir. 1975); Soon Bok Yoon v. INS, 538 F.2d 1211, 1213 (5th Cir. 197 6); Vergel v. INS, 536 F.2d 755 (8th Cir. 1976); David v. INS, 548 F.2d 219 (8th Cir. 1977); Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1979). 16 See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012). 17 525 U.S. 471 (1999). One source suggests that DHS has resources to remove about 400,000 or less than 4% of the total removable population. See Morton memo, supra note 14. 18 For example, of the 698 deferred action cases processed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement between October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, the most common humanitarian reasons for a grant were: Presence of a USC dependent; Presence in the United States since childhood; Primary caregiver of an individual who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness; Length of presence in the United States; and Suffering from a serious mental or medical care condition. See Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, My Great FOIA Adventure and Discoveries of Deferred Action Cases at ICE, 27 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 345, 356-69 (2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2195758. See also, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Relics of Deferred Action, The Hill (2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/ 224744-relics-of-deferred-action. 19 See Marvine Howe, New Policy Aids Families of Aliens, N.Y. Times (March 5, 1990), http://www.nytimes.com/ 1990/03/05/nyregion/new-policy-aids-families-of-aliens.html. 20 See 67 Interpreter Releases 204 (Feb. 26, 1990); 67 Interpreter Releases 153 (Feb. 5, 1990). Bush's policy followed a narrower 1987 executive order by President Reagan's immigration commissioner that applied only to children. 64 Interpreter Releases 1191 (Oct. 26, 1987). Congress later in 1990 legislatively provided some of them a path to legalization. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 301, 104 Stat. 4978, http:// www.justice.gov/eoir/IMMACT1990.pdf. 21 See Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Response, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Act, 91 Tex. L. Rev. See Also 59, n.46 (2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract__id=2195735, citing Press Release, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Announces Interim Relief for Foreign Students Adversely Impacted by Hurricane Katrina (Nov. 25, 2005), http://www.uscis.gov/ sites/default/files/files/pressrelease/ F1Student_11_25_05_PR.pdf. 22 DED Granted Country-Liberia, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary- protected-status-deferred-enforced-departure/ded-granted- country-liberia/ded-granted-country-liberia (last visited Nov. 22, 2014). 23 Legomsky & Rodriguez, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy, supra note 2, at 1115-17; See also David Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America 202 (1986). 24 For a broader discussion about the relationship between class size and constitutionality, see Wadhia, Response, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Act, supra note 20. 25 U.S. Const. art. II, 3. 26 U.S. ICE, FY 2013 ICE Immigration Removals, http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2014); Marc R. Rosenblum & Doris Meissner, The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement, Migration Policy Institute (April 2014), http:// www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma- reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement. 27 For a broader discussion of the administrative law values associated with prosecutorial discretion, see Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration Outside the Law 19-55, 185-92 (2014); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Sharing Secrets: Examining Deferred Action and Transparency in Immigration Law, 10 U. N. H. L. Rev. 1 (2012) (also providing a proposal for designing deferred action procedures), http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1879443. * all institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American people would be better served if we addressed our broken immigration system. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the immigration reform bill. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire how many additional speakers the gentleman has?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. And he is correct. We were in a meeting yesterday for quite some time--over 6 hours--in the Rules Committee discussing multiple amendments on the defense bill, on the immigration bill, and on other things as well. My problem with what happened yesterday is that, after all that talk, we got nothing; not a single amendment is being made in order here. We have yet another closed process. I appreciate the fact that the Senate can be difficult, but the Senate is not the problem when it comes to the House of Representatives debating and voting up or down on an AUMF on Iraq or Syria--or any other war for that matter. We can do that ourselves. We don't need anybody to tell us we can do it. We don't need the White House to tell us we can do it. It is our constitutional responsibility. Yes, we had a long meeting. We had a lot of discussion. It was a spirited discussion, but at the end of it all, we got nothing. I regret that very much because the issues that we talked about last night are very, very serious, and we owe it to the American people, we owe it to the men and women who we put in harm's way to have these serious discussions, and we are not having that on the floor today. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.