Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue, as important as the health of the American people. I salute Congresswoman Brownley for her alternative bill that we should be voting on, if we can defeat this rule, that helps students get manufacturing jobs, just what we have been asking for, a collaboration between business and education where kids are trained for good-paying jobs as they leave school. Instead, the Republicans are putting forth this rule that would, once again, for the 56th time, repeal the Affordable Care Act. We come together on the floor of the House right now, when we need to pass a homeland security bill to protect the American people. The Speaker said in December, when we didn't pass the appropriation bill for the year, we will do it after the first of the year. In January, the world was alarmed by what they saw in Paris. The whole world was galvanized around the issue of fighting terrorism and protecting homeland security, except in this hermetically sealed House Chamber. We still haven't done what we take an oath to do: support and protect the American people when we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Instead, we have the Republicans continuing to bay at the Moon. They are baying at the Moon, something that is not going to work; and instead of proposing any, which we would be welcome to hear, good suggestions they may have to approve the Affordable Care Act, they are baying at the Moon--56 times. We have important work to do for the American people. They want us here to create jobs. They want us here to protect them. We need to pass that homeland security bill. Instead, in our hermetically sealed world, oblivious to what is going on outside, we are taking this up. They want to strip health security from America's families. They are willing to threaten what that means to our economy, willing to jeopardize the need for us to lower costs for businesses is what this bill does. I have said over and over again, even if everyone loves his or her health insurance or his or her health care, even if that were the case in our country, we would still have had to pass the Affordable Care Act because the cost to individuals, to families, to businesses large and small, to governments--local, State, and national--the cost was unsustainable. That was one of the things the Affordable Care Act set out to do, and I am so pleased to show that the statistics show that the rate of growth of health costs is going at a lower rate than ever in our history--very important. The CBO projected that this bill would save--what?--hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe up to $1 trillion over its projected life, the life that we have to account for when we put it before us. So this is about the health of our people. It is about the health of our economy. It is about lowering costs. It is important to know what is at stake, because families are seeing the full promise of the Affordable Care Act emerge, to make health care a right for all, not a privilege for the few: 8.2 million seniors have saved more than $11.5 billion on their prescription drugs since this bill passed, an average of $1,407 per senior; 105 million Americans no longer have a lifetime limit or an annual limit on their coverage. This is what you want to repeal today; 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions no longer have to worry about being denied coverage because of their health status. That is what you want to repeal today. It is also important to note that, with the success of the Affordable Care Act and the 9.5 million people who are signed up in marketplaces, including Medicaid expansion, 19 million uninsured Americans will be covered in 2015. In addition to that, the Affordable Care Act has pushed forth the solvency of Medicare for 13 years longer. That is what you want to repeal today. Our Founders, how beautiful they were in all that they did and wrote and their courage and their optimism for the future. They wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. In that Declaration of Independence, that is the independence we want to give people: for a healthier life, the liberty to pursue their happiness without being job-locked because of a health care policy, free to be self-employed, to start a business, to change jobs, to pursue their happiness. So this is about, again, the health of our country, not just the health care of our country. On our path forward today, and in the future, the Affordable Care Act will continue to rank up there with Social Security, with Medicare, a third pillar of economic and health security for the American people. So I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Enable Congresswoman Brownley's education proposal to match kids up with skills and jobs, something that this country needs to move on to legislation to create good-paying jobs, to add bigger paychecks for America's working families, to stop the stagnation of wages, and to do so in a way that understands how important health care is to reducing the deficit in addition to improving the health of our country. Again, by the way, the clock is ticking on the bill for homeland security. That is our responsibility: to support and protect. Let's get about the business that we take an oath to do instead of, for the 56th time, bay at the Moon. It is hard to understand why we would waste the time of this Chamber and the American people on this frivolous resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House, instead of attacking women's access to health care, should be voting on bigger paychecks and better infrastructure for our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this weekend we observed the celebration of the life of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He talked about engagement for the American people, for jobs, for justice, for peace, and it was pretty exciting to see the response across the country at a time when all of these issues are in the forefront. Tonight we will hear from the President of the United States. From what I hear about what he will present, it will reflect what we have seen across the country in terms of what he said last year reflected across the country: about when women succeed, America succeeds; about college affordability; about child care; about sick leave; all the kinds of issues that enable families--not just women, but families--to succeed. Hopefully it will reflect what we talked about on opening day: better infrastructure, bigger paychecks. As we all know, despite all of the economic gains and all the indicators that tell us that progress has been made in our economy-- and, indeed, it has--it isn't reflected in the paychecks of America's working families. So what we hear tonight, I know, will be in furtherance of increasing that paycheck, starting from the middle, starting from initiatives that benefit the middle class and those who aspire to it, all of it a reflection of the American people's thinking, all of it about engagement for policies that Reverend Martin Luther King talked about, all of it hopefully that we are able to do in a bipartisan way. Let us find the areas in which we have common ground. Let us work together to get that done, build confidence between us in this body, among the American people, and keep America number one in education, innovation, and justice and a factor for peace in the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Again, what is disturbing about this is that you may have a difference of opinion about immigration or this or that, but don't describe the President as lawless and to use the Constitution as the basis for this debate when, in fact, the courts have upheld the rights of our Presidents to take executive action in relationship to protecting immigrants in our country--every President, Democratic and Republican, from President Eisenhower to the present. I urge a ``no'' vote on all of the amendments, particularly, in this case, the DeSantis amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her exceptional leadership, as well as that of the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, and the work of your staff to bring the facts to the fore on this subject. I rise in opposition to all of these amendments for reasons I spelled out for half an hour last night. Not to go into them again, but I want to say how disconcerting this is after we have seen the President act with authority under the law and also according to precedent of every President, Democratic and Republican, since President Eisenhower. That is why it is very disturbing to see the Speaker of the House saying President Obama has submitted his legacy of lawlessness. Legacy of lawlessness. Was President Reagan lawless? Was President George Herbert Walker Bush lawless? Was President George W. Bush lawless? I never heard him say that about any executive actions taken by them. I rise in opposition to all of these amendments, specifically, to the DeSantis amendment. Opposition is contained in a letter from the National Catholic Conference of Bishops. On behalf of the bishops, they write to ask that we oppose immigration-related amendments in the bill. Specifically to DeSantis, they say: Representative DeSantis' immigration amendment would prevent the Department of Homeland Security from implementing its memoranda setting civil immigration enforcement priorities. While presented as a measure that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse. Immigrants face obstacles to reporting crimes that have been perpetrated against them. This amendment would perpetuate this problem. So I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on all of the amendments, and I call to their attention the letter from the bishops urging a ``no'' vote on the amendments, which I will submit for the Record. Committee on Migration, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Migration, I write to ask that you oppose immigration-related amendments to H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act which are being offered by Representatives Aderholt, Blackburn, and DeSantis, respectively. I urge your opposition to these amendments, which attempt to defund and block implementation of the Administration's executive actions on immigration taken on November 20th to help keep immigrant families with U.S. Citizen and Legal Permanent Resident children together, as well as block continued implementation of the Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. Representative Aderholt's immigration amendment would bar the use of funds for nearly all of the Administration's November 20th Executive Actions on Immigration and undermine numerous Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memos that outline deportation priorities and prosecutorial discretion. Representative Aderholt's amendment would place millions of hard-working immigrant families in peril and perpetuate situations of family separation. In addition, this amendment would upend existing DHS deportation and discretion priorities and force millions of undocumented people to return to living in the shadows to avoid new draconian deportation priorities. Representative Aderholt's amendment would cause immigrant families to suffer great harm and would frustrate the existing administration of immigration laws. Representative Blackburn's immigration amendment would effectively repeal the Deferred Action Childhood Arrival (DACA) program by denying funds to new, previously denied, and renewal DACA applications. The amendment would therefore affect hundreds of thousands of hard-working ambitious immigrant children. As you know, DACA has benefited youth who have been able to work and pursue education, thus helping them to reach their potential and contribute to our nation. Forcing these children back into the shadows and exposing them to the threat of deportation would undermine their future contributions to our nation, and treat them as criminals in the only homeland they have ever known. Representative DeSantis's immigration amendment would prevent DHS from implementing its memoranda setting civil immigration enforcement priorities. While presented as a measure that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse. Immigrants face obstacles to reporting crimes that have been perpetrated against them. This amendment would perpetuate this problem. In our churches and in our parishes, we see firsthand the devastation of family separation and the family breakdown that results from such separation. For this reason, we strongly oppose these amendments and ask that you vote against them. Should any of them be agreed to, we would ask that you oppose the underlying bill. Instead, we urge you to pass just and humane immigration reform legislation that addresses all aspects of our broken immigration system. Such legislation is the best solution to our currently broken system. We welcome the opportunity to work with this Congress to fix our immigration system through comprehensive legislative means. We stand ready to work with the leaders of both parties to protect poor and vulnerable people, promote human life and dignity, and advance the common good. Finally, we are deeply disappointed that the version of H.R. 240 being brought to the House floor excludes prolife language that the House has included in its draft Homeland Security appropriations bills in recent years. This provision simply maintains the longstanding ban on use of DHS funds for abortions, a necessary step because DHS funds are no longer covered by the abortion funding ban contained in the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bills. We strongly urge that this important provision be restored to the bill before it is taken up by the full House, or that an amendment restoring it be made in order on the House floor. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues who have commended the Appropriations Committee on the fine work they have done under difficult circumstances on the Homeland Security bill. It had been our hope that their fine work would have been rewarded by its passage in December, but the Republican leadership in the House decided that we would not pass the bill then to give some certainty to how Homeland Security would be funded in this year and instead toss it over until the new year. We take an oath to protect and defend the American people. Their safety is essential to everything else. And Homeland Security is a place where we have a very big component for protecting and defending the American people. That is why we were so disappointed that, of all bills, the Republicans would pull that one bill out of the pack and say we are just doing this for a matter of weeks. It came with the promise that after the first of the year we would, of course, pass a Homeland Security bill. That was December. In December, the Republicans said, no, we don't want to have that certainty, not just yet. Then, along came January, Paris. ``Je suis Charlie,'' around the world it is echoed, everybody coming together, heads of state, leaders of countries, whether you were present there or not, everybody present in the moment and the time since of support for protecting people throughout the world from terrorism. It seems like that affected almost everybody, except it didn't penetrate the walls of this Chamber because here we are, once again, putting off, by other distractions, how we would pass as quickly as possible a homeland security bill. And what is interesting to me is that some of our colleagues are using immigration as the excuse. But, Mr. Chairman, what further is interesting is that now they are saying it is not about immigration--which, of course, it has always been about passing an immigration bill and we don't even have to have this discussion. They are saying it is about the Constitution. I have been here since President Reagan was President. I don't remember anybody calling up the Constitution when President Reagan used his executive action in the family fairness legislation. I don't remember anybody bringing up the Constitution when President George Herbert Walker Bush further expanded protections for people in our country--President Clinton and President George Herbert Walker Bush. So this is very interesting to hear it. But I do want to put this in perspective, and it will take a little time. There is a strong legal and historical precedent to support the extension--we are just talking about deferred action here--to a broad category of people who have strong equities to our country. The Immigration and Nationality Act and the judicial precedent make clear that the Executive maintains broad discretion to determine how immigration laws are to be enforced. Such discretion extends to decisions regarding whether to defer enforcement against entire categories of people, whether such categories are defined by nationality or some other common characteristic that makes them particularly deserving of an act of administrative grace. This legal authority has existed since the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, was first enacted in 1952 and has been exercised in various ways and under various names over the past 62 years. Based upon the administration's expansive prosecutorial discretion authority, the President could extend deferred action to persons who would qualify for registered provisional immigration status under S. 744, which passed the U.S. Senate on June 27, 2013, by a vote of 68-32. The President could similarly establish a separate deferred action for persons deemed essential for agriculture in recognition of the fact that our country's agriculture industry and millions of jobs that rely upon it are largely dependent on the labor of unauthorized workers as for the parents of young people who have already received deferred action under DACA. When Congress first passed the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, in 1952, it charged the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement of immigration laws and authorized the Attorney General to ``perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this act.'' Courts have relied upon this delegation of authority to support the principle that the act ``commits enforcement of the INA to the Attorney General's discretion.'' With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which many of us were here for, Congress further entrusted the newly created Secretary of Homeland Security with the responsibility of ``establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.'' In doing so, Congress acknowledged the inherent authority of enforcement agencies to decide whom to investigate, detain, charge, and prosecute under the law. The Supreme Court ``has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through criminal or civil process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.'' That is the Court's decision. If you want me to read the further authorities on that I will, but in the interest of brevity, courts consistently have applied this principle in the immigration context, and, in particular, to grants of deferred action and extended voluntary departure. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court relied upon the broad discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials, including ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal of all,'' to strike down almost all of Arizona's sweeping anti-immigration law. Because Arizona's law could result in ``unnecessary harassment of some aliens''--that is their term--for example, a veteran, a college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation whom Federal officials determine should not be removed, the law ``violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted at the discretion of the Federal Government.'' The idea that immigration enforcement efforts should be focused on high-priority targets has not always been controversial. Guidance pertaining to the use of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context has been issued at least as far back as 1976. Under President George W. Bush, in recent memory, the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, reaffirmed prosecutorial discretion guidance issued during the Clinton administration and reiterated the responsibility of ICE agents and officers to use discretion in identifying and responding to meritorious health-related cases and caregiver issues. Indeed, 15 years ago, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress joined together on a letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno urging her to issue guidelines that would provide specific instructions to agency personnel in order to alleviate some of the hardship caused by our immigration laws. Democrats and Republicans signed it, and the letter accepted the premise that ``the principle of prosecutorial discretion is well-established'' and asked the INS to explain why it would pursue removal cases that would result in unjustifiable hardship rather than prioritizing enforcement efforts against more serious cases. Although the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program announced 2 years ago provides the most recent example of temporary relief from removal being offered to a substantial class of persons, it is the ``Family Fairness'' program adopted by President Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush that proves to be the strongest precedent for building upon DACA and offering deferred action to a larger class of persons who meet certain criteria. This is very interesting, my colleagues, because in 1986, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, IRCA. The law provided a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants but provided no relief to the children and spouses of such persons who were not themselves able to meet the requirements for legalization. Indeed, when the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill to the floor, it wrote: It is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be required to ``wait in line'' in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens. But on October 26, 1987--less than 1 year after IRCA was enacted into law--President Reagan made the decision to defer enforcement against some of the close family members of persons who obtained lawful status under IRCA. Now this is President Reagan acting. President Obama is acting in the absence of congressional action; President Reagan is acting in the presence of congressional action and saying, You didn't go far enough. Under the Family Fairness program issued by then-INS Commissioner Nelson, the Reagan administration offered ``indefinite voluntary departure''--along with the opportunity to apply for employment authorization--to undocumented children residing with their parents if both parents--or in the case of a single-parent household, the parent with whom the child resides--had obtained lawful status under the act. Spouses of persons who obtained lawful status could also be granted indefinite voluntary departure and work authorization by demonstrating the existence of certain compelling or humanitarian factors. Would you be suing President Reagan for doing that, as some of you are friends of the court in the suit against the President, as you are using the Constitution as your argument here today? In response to continuing concerns that the Family Fairness program was too narrowly defined, President George Herbert Walker Bush went further 3 years later, expanding the program to apply to all spouses and all children of persons who were legalized under IRCA, provided they met certain requirements. The memorandum issued by then-INS Commissioner Gene McNary clarified that voluntary departure and employment authorization would be granted to such persons for a 1-year period and would be subject to extensions without limit. The Reagan administration--would you be taking the President to court, would you be arguing that he acted unconstitutionally on the floor of the House? People didn't then. The INS developed a new form--``Declaration, Ineligible Family Member of Legalized Alien''--precisely for the purpose of allowing undocumented persons who did not qualify for legalization under IRCA to affirmatively request relief from the threat of deportation and authorization to work lawfully. According to reports at the time, INS Commissioner McNary contemplated that the program could have affected as many as 1.5 million undocumented immigrants. Explaining the rationale for expanding the earlier program, McNary stated: It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families encourages further violations of the law as they reunite. In the end, only a fraction of the people eligible for relief under the Family Fairness program obtained such protection, but that is only because the Immigration Act of 1990 was enacted less than 1 year after the program was expanded by President Bush. Section 301 of that bill contained a family unity program that largely codified the executive actions taken by President Reagan and President Bush. The parallels between the Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program and what is being proposed at the present time are uncanny. There are several lessons that can be drawn from this past precedent. First, the authority to provide temporary relief from removal to a large percentage of the undocumented population has long existed, and past Presidents have exercised such authority. Second, such authority existed even when the Executive's authority would seem to be at its weakest--where Congress specifically declined to legislatively provide the relief granted administratively. The President is now being asked to take administrative action in the face of historic intransigence on the part of House Republicans after the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill buoyed by popular support, overwhelmingly supported in a bipartisan way in the Senate, but nothing happening in the House. By contrast, the Reagan administration adopted the Family Fairness program less than 1 year after Congress enacted the last comprehensive immigration reform bill that contains specific criteria for legalization and knowingly excluded from protection the very people affected by the administration action. Just as I said before, even when Congress acted, President Reagan said we can do better. Nobody argued the Constitution at the time. Well, if they did, history does not recall it. Third, the scope of the relief now being considered by the administration is entirely consistent with the Family Fairness program after it was expanded by President George Herbert Walker Bush. According to demographic work performed by the Pew Research Center, there were an estimated 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 1990. By extending the Family Fairness program to cover 1.5 million unauthorized immigrants at the beginning of that year, President Bush used executive authority to protect approximately 42.9 percent of the undocumented population from removal and offer them work authorization. I don't remember any uproar in Congress. Many of us were here at that time. Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center estimated that there were 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States as of March 2012. If the administration takes steps to protect 5 million undocumented immigrants from removal, as a recent article suggested, that would extend temporary relief to 42.7 percent--a lower percentage than President Bush protected--of the undocumented population now in the country. Finally, the most important lesson that can be learned from the Family Fairness program is that bold executive action can sometimes help change the legislative dynamic, helping to break the gridlock and pave the way to legislative reform. The only reason the Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program did not provide indefinite voluntary departure and employment authorization for many years without legislative approval--essentially a grant of deferred action--is that Congress did act and take steps, following the lead of the Presidents, to largely codify the President's program and provide such relief for removal and employment authorization itself. At the time the Bush administration expanded family fairness, legislation to extend similar protections were stuck in Congress, having passed the Senate in 1989 but having seen no legislative action in the House. Less than 8 months after the administration's action, the House passed its version of the bill. A conference committee was convened, and IMMACT was quickly enacted into law. The same pattern can be observed in many of the cases described in which the administration granted extended voluntary departure, deferred enforced departure, or deferred action to a broad category of people defined by their nationality or some other compelling characteristic. And Congress subsequently enacted legislation to permit such people to obtain lawful permanent residence. I hope that will happen. The President has executive orders. Hopefully, Congress will codify that. The Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program is just one of the many examples of past Presidents deciding to defer removal efforts and offer employment authorization to large classes of people. In 1960, the Kennedy administration granted extended voluntary departure to many Cubans who otherwise would have been subject to deportation. Over the next 20 years, the INS granted similar protections to nationals of more than a dozen other countries. Such grants have sometimes, but not always, resulted in the enactment of special legislation permitting extended voluntary departure beneficiaries to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents. In 1966, Congress enacted such legislation for Cubans. Again, President Kennedy acted. In 1966, Congress enacted such legislation for Cubans granted extended voluntary departure. Congress did the same in 1977 for Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians who were permitted to remain in the country on EVD, extended voluntary departure; and again in 1987 for recipients from Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Uganda. I have personal experience on the initiative. After Tiananmen Square, there were concerns that Chinese nationals residing in the United States, primarily as scholars and students, would face repression if forced to return home. Congress passed a bill to allow these Chinese nationals to remain, which President George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed. This is my bill. Then, in 1990, it passed the House and passed the Senate, went to his desk, and he vetoed it. It had strong bipartisan support. We could fight the veto in the House, but in the Senate, at the moment of truth, the Senate upheld the veto. President Bush promised that he would issue an executive order extending deferred enforced departure, or DED, to an estimated 80,000 Chinese nationals. While the President did not want it to be an act of Congress for fear of what an insult it might be to the Chinese Government as they were crushing people in the streets in Tiananmen Square and arresting people, he did promise to do an executive order, which he did. Following President Bush's executive order, Congress acted quickly to permit Chinese nationals granted protection from removal and employment authorization to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residence. In 1991, President Bush extended that to approximately 2,000 Persian Gulf evacuees of various nationalities who were airlifted from Kuwait the previous year during the Persian Gulf War. The persons evacuated were chosen because they had children who were U.S. citizens or because they provided protection to U.S. citizens during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In 2000, Congress enacted a private immigration law to permit those who had not already been permanent residents by other means to obtain permanent residence. In 1992, President George Herbert Walker Bush also extended a DED, deferred enforced departure, to approximately 200,000 Salvadorans who fled civil war and previously had been protected from removal pursuant to a grant of temporary protected status, or TPS. President Bill Clinton later provided DED to Haitians in 1997, and President George Walker Bush extended DED to Liberians in 2007. Finally, again, this administration has extended deferred action to broad categories of people on two prior occasions. First, in 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services created a process in which surviving spouses of deceased U.S. citizens and the qualifying children of such spouses could apply for deferred action. The process was created because it was the position of the Department of Homeland Security at the time that no immigration relief was available under the law to protect surviving members from removal and that action was needed to address the humanitarian concerns. The DACA program announced by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012, presented the second deferred action program created under this administration. As of June 30, 2014, over 580,000 persons had been granted deferred action under the program. The use of Presidential ``parole power'' is one of the oldest and most-established provisions of Presidential authority in immigration matters. Parole was first used to allow the entry of refugees who would otherwise be excluded by the national origins quota system. Presidential parole was codified in the original 1952 INA, Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized the use of discretionary authority to parole aliens into the United States ``for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest.'' In 1956, President Dwight David Eisenhower first used his parole authority to allow 900 World War II orphans into the country and later paroled approximately 30,000 Hungarians. This use of parole power marks the first of many mass admissions by future administrations. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon collectively allowed approximately 600,000 Cubans to be paroled into the country; and Presidents Ford and Carter paroled approximately 300,000 Indochinese from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. In response to a concern that the parole power was being used to admit large numbers of persons not covered by international refugee laws, Congress enacted the Refugee Act in 1980, which amended the INA to provide a process for the admission of refugees. The act also limited the administration's ability to parole refugees into the country, absent compelling reasons in the public interest, but left untouched the general parole authority. Nevertheless, several Presidents subsequently used the parole authority to allow the entry of groups of persons who arguably could have been considered ``refugee populations.'' President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1989 created a program that allowed individuals in Vietnam who were ineligible for refugee status to enter the country as ``public interest parolees,'' if they were able to prepay their travel expenses and provide affidavits of support from sponsors in the United States. In 1996, President Bill Clinton paroled approximately 7,000 Iraqi Kurds to Guam and allowed them to apply for asylum to the United States. In 2006, President George W. Bush created a program which allowed the United States to parole certain Cuban medical professionals who have been conscripted to study or work in a third country under the direction of the Government of Cuba. In 1996, Congress once more amended the statutory parole authority to apply only on a case-by-case basis; nevertheless, as the terms are not defined by the statute, they are open to interpretation by the administration. In fact, the several instances in which parole authority was used by past Presidents demonstrate that promoting family unity can serve humanitarian goals or provide a significant public benefit. The Lautenberg Parole Program, implemented by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988, granted parole to individuals whose refugee claims were denied, but who had family reunification concerns. In 2007, President George Herbert Walker Bush established the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program to expedite the reunification of Cuban families by paroling into the United States beneficiaries of approved family-based immigrant petitions, so they might wait together with their family members until a visa became available. In 2007, President Bush created a program to authorize the parole of certain refugee derivative family members who had aged out and, therefore, could not be eligible for refugee status. Given the administration's broad statutory parole authority, the lengthy visa backlogs that exist in most immigrant visa categories, and the humanitarian interests and significant public benefits that would attach to the unification of families, the President could make parole available to the spouses, sons, and daughters of American citizens and lawful permanent residents who face a separation of a year or more or, in the case of less than a year, when hardship is in addition to the separation. This would not permit family members to skip the line, but would allow them to wait in the United States with their family members. Authority for parole in place already is present in the country. The legal authority for parole in place was originally recognized in 1998. That opinion was endorsed the following year by the Commissioner of the INS, and it was reaffirmed in 2007 by the Bush administration DHS general counsel under President Bush, as I say. According to these legal opinions, INA grants discretion to parole ``any alien applying for admission to the United States,'' and INA expressly defines an applicant for admission to include ``an alien who is present in the United States who has not been admitted.'' As a result, parole can be granted to persons who are present in the country without having previously been admitted to the country. The list goes on and on, and I have so much more that I want to tell our colleagues, but what I am saying to you is that there is legal authority for the President to take action under the law. There is Presidential precedent, bipartisan since President Eisenhower, since these laws were passed, to do so. To all of a sudden say we are having a debate now about the Constitution when we are supposed to be passing a law to protect and defend that Constitution and, instead, we are taking an exception to the interpretation of it--as I said, President Eisenhower, every President, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Nixon, the list goes on and on--all of the Presidents since President Eisenhower and certainly since President Reagan and both President Bushes and President Clinton, all acted in this way. Many of us were Members of Congress in those Presidencies. If somebody wants to come forward and say that he was a voice in the darkness, but nothing significant ever emerged to challenge the constitutionality of what the Presidents did, so why now, especially now, December? We are not going to protect and defend by extending this bill with certainty for Homeland Security. Paris, the whole world is in unity, galvanized by wanting to stop terrorism and to do everything in our power to do so, and we in this House are hesitating to do that. If we want to take up an immigration bill and argue that the President doesn't have the authority to do what he has done, but with an intention to act ourselves, that would be the appropriate place to have this debate, but to hold up the Homeland Security bill, which Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey and the subcommittee chairs-- and we are very proud of David Price on our side on that, and I am sure that all the Republicans are proud of their Members on their side, because they came up with, under difficult circumstances, a good bill-- let us just pass it, why don't we, and then let's get on with passing an immigration bill and debate what authorities the President has, and if we don't like them, then debate the merits of what he did and pass some of that into law. But to say that he doesn't have the authority to do it and this is about the Constitution really raises some serious questions. Again, we should be talking about how we are creating good-paying jobs in our country. That is what people want us to do. Let's just pass this bill, get it done, and go on to how we can invest in better infrastructure and bigger paychecks for the American people. Lifting the economy and the purchasing power of our workers really creates an atmosphere where immigration and other humanitarian initiatives are better received. I took the time tonight because I just was listening to this debate and how people were saying that the President was acting outside the scope of the Constitution, that he had overreached. Then I asked my colleagues: What are you thinking, that you would hold up the Homeland Security bill and that you would not question the authority of Republican Presidents--or even the Democratic Presidents when they had done this--but you are questioning the constitutionality of actions taken by President Obama? The time is not right for this. The time is right for us to pass an immigration bill. The time is right for us to, right now, tonight, pass a clean--tomorrow morning, pass a clean--reject these amendments, reject these amendments and pass a clean Homeland Security bill, so we can get on with that and then have a clear debate about immigration. I want to thank the staff of the Judiciary Committee for the important work that they have done, Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member John Conyers for the work that they have done educating Members about what the history is on this subject--and it is a recent history. I thank them for their leadership and their service. I ask our colleagues to reject these amendments, disabuse yourself of any notion--because it isn't a full-fledged idea--but any notion that the President is acting in an unconstitutional way. Let's get on with our work. When we say, ``Je Suis Charlie,'' we are not just identifying with a magazine office in Paris--that would be important enough--but we are identifying with the entire effort to protect people from terrorism. That is what the Homeland Security Committee was established to do. That is what this legislation will fund. Let's remove all doubt that we are going to do it as soon as possible. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the distinguished member and longest-serving member--I don't want to say ``senior member''--in the New York delegation for getting us off to a start to sing the praises of Mario Cuomo. It is my honor to join the New York delegation. I feel honored to do so. Four of our children were born in New York, so that gives me some standing on the subject. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to join the New York delegation in paying tribute to the memory of Governor Mario Cuomo. I am reminded of Ecclesiasticus. We all know this, but just think of how appropriate it is for Mario Cuomo. In Ecclesiasticus, it says: Now let us praise great men, the heroes of our Nation. They led the people by their counsel and their knowledge of the laws. From their font of wisdom, they gave instruction. These are godly men whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten. Their wealth is their descendants, and their inheritance is their children's children. Their bodies are buried in peace, and their names will live forever. The people will tell of their wisdom, and the congregation will continue to sing their praise. Does that remind you of Mario Cuomo? Is that perfectly appropriate for him? Surely, those words apply to the life and legacy of our great departed friend, Mario. As a fellow Italian American, I have always taken great pride in his leadership. As a San Franciscan who hosted the Democratic Convention, we in California had some kind of claim on Mario Cuomo because of the great speech that he made at that convention which Mr. Rangel referenced, but my observing of his greatness goes farther back than that. It was during a trip to Italy that we were invited by President Carter in 1980 to bring the sympathy and support of the American people to Italy at the time of the earthquake, when they lost 2,700 lives and which left 265,000 people homeless. I mention that because we went by helicopter from village to village to village. Villages were devastated. Mario Cuomo, here was this person who had such a large spirit and a good soul, who could sympathize with these people in English and Italian. For example, in a village where a First Communion class was rehearsing for First Communion, all of the 7-year-olds in that village were in that church when the earthquake hit. The roof came down, and every 7-year-old in the village was lost. Imagine the grief of those individual families and of that community to lose those children, but as you would expect, he was up to the task, knowing that words were completely inadequate and that no sympathy could meet the pain that they were feeling; nonetheless, there was this beautiful, sympathetic man identifying with these people from a region from which his family had come in southern Italy. Mario Cuomo was a pillar of strength through his community, his State, and our Nation. His values, his vision, and his effectiveness for the people of New York were an inspiration around the world. He was a man of principle and eloquence--that was good--and all the world saw, again, that manifested in the ``shining city on a hill'' speech at the 1984 Democratic Convention. With those soaring words, Governor Cuomo summoned the best of America and called us to empower the working people and middle class families who are the backbone of our Nation. He asked us to remember how futures are built. We know Mario Cuomo's language and leadership will echo through the ages just as vital, just as urgent, just as energizing as his words were that day. In word and deed, Governor Cuomo challenged us to make real the American Dream. He had it for his family. He wanted it for everyone else, for all who strived to realize it, and opened the doors of opportunity for every American family. Family meant everything to him. He was a proud Governor of New York for three terms, but his proudest achievement was his beautiful family. No one could miss the pride and inspiration he found in his immigrant parents and how he talked about them so beautifully or in his boundless dedication to Matilda and his children. Our country has lost a great leader, but his family has lost a devoted husband to his wife of over 60 years, to Matilda. He was a loving father to five children--Margaret, Andrew, Maria, Madeline, and Christopher--and was a doting grandfather to some really lovely grandchildren. My husband, Paul, and I and our entire family are heartbroken. We are really heartbroken by his passing, and we continue to extend our deepest sympathy and love to Matilda and their family. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people in their own State, in the country, and, really, throughout the world mourn their loss and continue to pray for them and continue to be inspired by this great man. As Ecclesiasticus says: People will tell of his wisdom, and the congregation will continue to sing his praise. I thank Mr. Crowley for yielding. I thank him for bringing us together to sing the praises of Mario Cuomo.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Section 5: ``The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' Amendment XV, section 1: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to celebrate the unanimous Senate confirmation of a public servant of integrity, energy, expertise, and ability; a person of deep dedication to our country, to ending poverty, fighting disease, and advancing democracy; someone I have had the privilege to have on my staff for the past 15 years, the new assistant administrator for Asia at USAID: Jonathan Stivers. Over the years, Jon worked closely with USAID and congressional committees to promote our national interests, fight poverty and disease around the world, and address ongoing challenges in global development across Asia. He played a central role in advancing foreign policy priorities of our country, especially in the fields of human rights, appropriations, HIV/AIDS, international trade, and in countries across the Asia-Pacific region. Many of our Republican colleagues know that Jon worked very much across the aisle on all of these issues. Jonathan's professionalism and attention to detail were unparalleled, and I can say with confidence on the most challenging and critical issues of our day, Jon Stivers consistently exhibits the leadership needed to improve the global community. Though we will miss his expertise and his experience, I am proud that he is serving these critical issues in his new position, and I wish him; his wife, Ramsey, who is here with us; his baby daughters, Josephine and Parker, all the best in their new adventures. Thank you, Jonathan Stivers. Congratulations and good luck.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I know at some point the House will take more official and formal notice of what happened in Paris as we awakened early yesterday morning. It was such a tragic terrorist act not only upon freedom of the press, but upon freedom of expression and life in a civil society. In this Chamber, there are two paintings, as you know, Mr. Speaker. One is of our patriarch, George Washington, and the other is of the Marquis de Lafayette. After 9/11, the French newspaper Le Monde said, ``We are all Americans.'' Last night, we heard, ``Je suis Charlie.'' People all over the world were saying, ``I am Charlie,'' referencing Charlie Hebdo, the publication that was assaulted. I am certain the Speaker is putting together a formal moment of silence, but I didn't want the day to go by without acknowledging the tragedy that befell our friends in France. They were with us to help the founding of our country, hence the Marquis de Lafayette painting in this Chamber, along with our own patriarch, George Washington. My thoughts and prayers and those of our Members are with the families of those who lost their lives in this terrible terrorist act and also with the people of France as they mourn their loss.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. My colleagues of the United States House of Representatives, it is a high honor to welcome you and your families to the 114th Congress. To our newest Members, this is a special pleasure to give you an exceptional welcome and congratulations. Welcome to our newest Members. As was indicated by the vote, many of our colleagues from the State of New York are not with us because they are attending the funeral of Governor Mario Cuomo. I extend condolences to our colleagues from the State of New York and have extended the sympathies of many in this body to Governor Cuomo's widow, Matilda, and to his family. As an Italian American, I am especially proud of his leadership and extend sympathies to his family. Thank you, Cuomo family. Thank you, New York delegation. None of us would be standing here without the support and the strength of our families. Today, I am going to thank my dear husband of 51 years, Paul Pelosi, and my five children and nine grandchildren, all the Pelosis and D'Alesandros. Let all of us applaud all of our families. To my Democratic colleagues and to my constituents in San Francisco, I thank you for the privilege of serving in the House, but to my colleagues, I thank you for the honor of serving as leader, but all of us should applaud all of our constituents for sending us here. So let us, again, applaud our constituents. Each one of us, Mr. Speaker, as you know, represents Republicans, represents Democrats, Independents, and others, and we should always pay tribute to the American people. The American people have called upon each of us to serve them. They have entrusted us with their hopes, their dreams, and they have asked us to address their challenges. The financial stability of a strong middle class and those who aspire to it is the bedrock of our economy and the backbone of our American democracy. We have a moral imperative to ensure that working men and women enjoy the bounty of their unprecedented productivity and to expand the purchasing power of families. To that end, today, Democrats will put forward a legislative package to put Americans back to work building our roads and bridges and meeting the needs of the American people, paid for by bringing our tax dollars back home and to increase the paycheck of America's working families. We invite our Republican colleagues to join us in supporting the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act. It is time to stop rewarding companies to move overseas and instead use those dollars to create good-paying jobs here at home. We ask for Republican support and action on the CEO-Employee Pay Fairness Act, legislation to ensure that workers share in the fruit of their productivity, denying CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions on annual income over $1 million unless they give their employees a well- deserved raise. We must have an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few, and we hope Republicans will join us to achieve a better infrastructure and bigger paychecks for the working people of our country--better infrastructure, bigger paychecks. We open this 114th Congress in the year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in our history. President Lyndon Johnson and Congress passed it. The President signed it. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and others, along with our own John Lewis, fought for it and inspired it. We must continue to inspire the engagement of every American. It is the vote that preserves our democracy, ends injustice, advances dreams, and sustains our freedom. In terms of protecting our freedom, let us recognize, salute, and thank all of those brave Americans who protect our rights--indeed, protect all of our liberty--our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and our military families. Mr. Speaker, today, we are at the start of a new year and a new Congress, with fresh opportunity for the American people. Today is the Feast of the Epiphany, the visit of the magi; so let us have our own epiphany, for this moment, on this day, we are not just Republicans and Democrats, we are Americans not just in name, but in spirit, standing on higher ground than the last election. My hope is that in the inevitable exchanges and clashes that may happen in the months ahead, we will not lose sight of the truth that is as fresh as this ceremony is today and as historic as our Republic that the ideals that unite us are stronger than the issues that divide us in this House. That does not mean that we are dispensing with all disagreements in this debate. Our democracy is robust precisely because we have beliefs and we stand proudly, even persistently, for them; and our democracy endures and prevails because in the end, we are humble enough to find a way forward together. My fellow colleagues of the 114th Congress, let us uphold our deep and different convictions, but let us honor our common obligation to our country. In this Congress, we will do so under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner. This House will continue to be led by a proud son of Ohio and a happy fan of the Ohio State football team. A man of abiding faith, great heart, and deep dedication, John Boehner is truly a gentleman from Ohio. Congratulations to you, John, to Mr. Speaker, to Debbie, to your daughters, Lindsay and Tricia, and the entire Boehner family. Thank you for sharing John Boehner with us. God bless you and your family, Mr. Speaker. May God continue to bless the Members of the House of Representatives. This is the people's House. This is the people's gavel. In the people's name, it is my privilege to hand it to the Speaker of the House for the 114th Congress, the Honorable John Boehner. God bless you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for her wonderful work on behalf of the American people as the ranking member on the Rules Committee for such a long time and in such a very strong way. My colleagues, I congratulate you and your families on your swearing in today. We had a lovely ceremony earlier. Eventually it became that, after we knew the outcome of the vote. But it is clear that the election at the polls in November demonstrated that the American people are hopeful that this new Congress can work together to grow our economy and, in turn, grow paychecks for American workers. Honoring that trust, House Democrats today are putting forward a legislative package to increase paychecks for working families and put Americans back to work building the roads and bridges our country needs, paid for by keeping our tax dollars here at home. I talked about this a little bit earlier when I introduced the Speaker. What we are proposing, sadly, is in sharp contrast to what the Republicans have in this rule. The first vote that the Republicans are asking this Congress to take in the new Congress will be to advance additional tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests. When they talk about dynamic scoring--when they talk about dynamic scoring--it is a very bad deal for middle-income families in our country. In sharp contrast to them, we will bring forth the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act, which prevents U.S. corporations from renouncing their citizenship in order to dodge paying their fair share of taxes. It is time to stop rewarding companies that move overseas and instead use those dollars to create good-paying jobs here at home. Every chance any of us gets, we have to make that point. I don't see anything partisan about it. And many Republicans have voted in this manner in the past. So this was supposed to be something where we have common ground. House Democrats will also put forth the CEO-Employee Pay Fairness Act, and that is legislation to ensure that workers share in the fruit of their productivity, denying CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions on income over $1 million unless they give their employees a well- deserved raise. The American people are owed an open and transparent debate on these issues. Today, with this rules package, Republicans are shutting down debate for Democrats and Republicans. With their extending of the amount of time it takes for Members to put forth a motion to instruct, they are shutting down debate. They are rejecting transparency and openness. That is what the American people want: transparency and openness. In all that we do in Congress, we must keep the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the American people in the forefront. We must be committed to do this is a bipartisan way, an open and transparent way. This bill today rejects that. Now what I want to say, and we all have been reading our Christmas cards and all the rest, but one of the ones that I want to share with you which is irrelevant to our discussion today is from my friend Jack Trout. What he said in ``A Seasonal Greeting for the Times'': To borrow a Biblical reference, the money changers have taken over the temple. What is behind all of this is a concerted effort by wealthy companies and people to protect the status quo and their vested interests. The result is the sad fact that the middle class gets squeezed while the rich get richer. This squeeze is why the consumer-led economy has been so slow to rebound after the financial crisis. What people fail to realize is the simple fact that the middle class are the real job creators in America. They generate demand, which, in turn, builds markets. The middle class put ``merry'' into Merry Christmas. I mention this because the fact is that it is true that when the consumer economy, which is what we are, is alive and well and thriving, they spend money, inject demand in the economy, create jobs, and our economic recovery is accelerated. Dynamic scoring, suppressing debate, and some of the other things contained in this rule are contrary to that and antagonistic to the financial stability of the middle class. So I hope that our colleagues--and there are so many reasons to go through. But what means the most to America's working families is their financial stability. On that subject alone, were it not even for other things in this bill which we could talk about all day that should be rejected, but just because it, again, has a negative impact on the growth of our economy when it comes to supporting the financial stability of the middle class we should vote ``no'' on this. The Democrats offer a sharp contrast. The motion that will be made to call the previous question is one that calls for us to talk about building the infrastructure of America. The motion to commit that will be put forth by Mr. Van Hollen is one that is fair in terms of pay to our workers. So for many reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no.'' This isn't what was talked about in terms of ideals and values this morning. This is about putting the squeeze on the middle class, doing it in a nontransparent way, and doing it under the rules of the House. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her tremendous leadership. With great pride, we point to her as our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. I thank you for yielding and for your leadership. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for your leadership. As an appropriator for many years, I know the hard work that goes into putting an appropriations bill together. There was a day when we did them individually. It seems lately we just keep putting them on a bus, an omnibus. That is too bad. But in any event, I appreciate the work you have done to bring this bill to the floor. That is why I was so really heartbroken. I don't think I have ever said that word on the floor of the House. I was heartbroken to see the taint that was placed on this valuable appropriations bill from on high. I am sorry that we cannot have a full homeland security bill, that is for sure. We knew that was possible. The Speaker says in January we will vote on a full homeland security bill. I hope that that is the case. But the taint I refer to is what the President described in his letter today as a rider that would amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk. So when people are talking to you about what is in the bill and this or that, I am going to say to you what you are putting your name next to if you choose to vote for this bill. And why I am so appalled--well, I will tell you why. It was September 2008. Things were happening in the financial services industry. Lehman Brothers, down; Merrill Lynch, down; AIG, whatever. It all happened within a matter of days. I called the Secretary of the Treasury and I said: ``How can we be helpful? What is going on?'' He said: ``It is terrible.'' I said: ``Well, is one of the major financial institutions going down?'' He said: ``No, it is bigger than that. We are in a serious meltdown.'' ``Why am I calling you, Mr. Secretary Paulson?'' ``Well, the White House wasn't ready for Congress to know about this. But you are the Speaker.'' At the time I was. ``I am the Secretary of the Treasury. You are asking me; I am telling you. We are in a terrible situation.'' So they came to my office that night, the Speaker's Office, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans. We came together and we heard an appalling meltdown of our financial institutions. And I said to the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Ben Bernanke, who was there: ``Mr. Bernanke, what do you think about what the Secretary said?'' He said: ``If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday.'' We will not have an economy by Monday. By the policies that were in place at that time, we were taken to a place where we wouldn't have an economy. No commercial paper, no economy by Monday. Here we are, 2014, going down the same path. Earlier today, the Republicans put a bill on the floor that would make certain tax incentives permanent and unpaid for. We should be doing revenue reform, but not that way, because the revenue policy of the Bush administration contributed to the Great Recession, taking us close to a depression. So their tax policy jeopardized our economy. Then, their laissez, laissez, laissez-faire attitudes of no regulation, that took us to a meltdown of our financial institutions to the point where we, the taxpayers, had to rescue the financial institutions to the tune of $700 billion. That is twice as much as in the domestic discretionary spending of the bills that will come before us--two-years' worth of non-defense discretionary domestic spending. We put provisions in the bill that the American taxpayer would be paid back. But that wasn't enough for the Republicans to vote for it. They voted against it, by and large. It was the Democrats who voted for the TARP, the most difficult vote for Members to vote for and the most politically harmful to them. So here we are in the House being blackmailed--being blackmailed--to vote for an appropriations bill. I am not asking anybody to vote one way or another. I am just telling you why I would not put the name of my constituents in my district next to a bill that does, as the President says, ``weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.'' At that time, they accused us of bailing out Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. The public still doesn't understand fully why everybody would benefit from what we had to do. But we shouldn't have had to do that, $700 billion, because of laissez-faire attitudes and trickle-down tax policies of the Bush administration, which got us to that place. Because of initiatives taken by President Obama when he became President, working with the Democratic Congress, with our initial Recovery Act, we were able to reverse some of that, and pull ourselves out of the ditch Republicans took us in. So here we are today. This should be a day where we say, isn't it too bad we can't do more for the American people, but in the interest of bipartisanship we have put together a bill on the Appropriations Committee that helps meet the needs of the American people. Wouldn't that have been just fine? Except, popping out of the wilderness comes two things: one, this provision, this provision, as I described, that the President described, and then another one, to make matters worse--to make matters worse--a bill that lifts political contributions to such a height that it is really unimaginable as to why those who put this in there thought that that was a good idea. They told me it was $90,000 for the convention. It turned out to be millions of dollars from a donor or from a family in that regard. So they weren't even on the level of how it was portrayed. But be that as it may, what is important is what is in the bill. As Congressman Sarbanes said, it is ``quid pro quo.'' You have quid: give Wall Street what they want, relax the responsibility of that. This is a moral hazard. We are being asked to vote for a moral hazard. Why is this in an appropriations bill? Because it was the price to pay to get an appropriations bill. I was told we couldn't get all these other things that have been described here so beautifully unless we gave Wall Street this gift. And, on top of that, that we gave their donors, high-end donors, all the opportunity in the world to pour money into the process. Now, maybe the public is right about Washington, D.C. I heard this funny line about Lily Tomlin when she was Ernestine, the operator, when she said: ``Am I communicating with the people that I am speaking to?'' Are we communicating with the people we are speaking to when we say to them it is an important priority and we have to put it in our budget bill that we give donors the opportunity to spend endless money, undermining the confidence the American people have in our political system, at the same time--at the same time--as we say to Wall Street, you can engage in risky activity with your derivatives and the FDIC will ensure your action? That is just plain wrong. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, if a bank wanted to engage in those risky activities they had to be pushed out to another entity, and that entity could engage in those activities, but they were not insured by the American taxpayer. With this bill now we are saying the exposure, the recourse, is with the U.S. taxpayer. Just plain wrong--and what is it doing in an appropriations bill, except to have this bill be taken hostage? This is a ransom, this is blackmail. You don't get a bill unless Wall Street gets its taxpayer coverage. So it is really so sad that something which I respect enormously, the appropriation process--because it is hard. There are so many competing calls on resources, so much that we have to try to invest in the American people, their health, their education, the economic stability of their families, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and how we fund all of that. I have some questions about some of that in this bill, but the fact is it is all a compromise, and it could have been a good compromise. So whatever Members choose to do. I am enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this, and that would be the only reason I think they would say they would sign such a bill that would ``weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.'' Those are the words in the administration's statement. I feel sad for the American people today, because we are saying in order for us to invest in the education of our children and all of the responsibilities we have to the American people, we have to pay off Wall Street in addition to that. And I don't begrudge Wall Street, and I don't paint everybody there with the same brush. But what I am saying is the taxpayer should not assume the risk. It is back to the same old Republican formula: prioritize the gain, nationalize the risk. You succeed, it is in your pocket; you fail, the taxpayer pays the bill. It is just not right. So I think we have a missed opportunity today to have some strong bipartisanship, and there will be bipartisan support for this bill. But the fact is, my colleagues, you are being asked to put your name next to privatizing the gain and nationalizing the risk. You are asked to put your name next to practically unlimited contributions to political campaigns just at a time when we are trying for reform to reduce the role of politics and money and increase the voice of the American people. So, again, a missed opportunity. But I respect decisions that Members will make because there are equities to be weighed here. But the biggest equity we have is our responsibility to the American people to do the right thing. What was added to this bill, which may be a good bill, what was added to this bill is not the right thing. That is why it has bipartisanship, it has good things in it, but it will not have my support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of our California Democratic delegation. Zoe Lofgren, thank you for bringing us together this evening for a very bittersweet circumstance, that is to say how proud we are to honor the leadership of two great giants of the Congress, Henry Waxman and George Miller. How sad we are that they are leaving us. I come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, today, to join in celebrating two of the most accomplished Members of this great body, and when I say ``most accomplished,'' I am not just speaking in the context of the present Congress. I am talking about two of the most accomplished Members of this great body of all time, a pair of Californians with 80 years between them, 80 years of service in the House, retiring with unparalleled record, certainly an unsurpassed record of legislative achievements to their names, Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman George Miller. I am proud to do that as a Californian and to thank our chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren, again, for this opportunity. As they depart for new endeavors at the end of this session, which is in about 48 hours, each of them leaves a legacy of leadership that is felt in the lives of everyday Americans, and that is so important. In doing so, they are both pioneers. For four decades, Henry Waxman's name has been synonymous with responsible action, extraordinary legislative skills, passionate public service, and bold leadership on behalf of the people of Los Angeles, whom he represents, and the American people. Time and again, Henry has been the first to appreciate the seriousness of the challenges before us and the first to bring forward solutions to resolve them. Time does not allow, and other Members will mention so many accomplishments, but I just want to focus on from the start, this is where I saw up close and early, from the start in the early dark days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Henry Waxman fought to invest in AIDS research, support treatment, and care prevention and pass the landmark Ryan White CARE Act. Long before the rest of our Nation awakened to the gathering storm of climate change, early on, Congressman Waxman worked to create bold new protections for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the Earth we call home. From the first days of his long career, he recognized the urgency of delivering quality, affordable health care to all, and together with some of our other colleagues, with his leadership as chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we honored that commitment with the Affordable Care Act. Also working on the Affordable Care Act from his committee, the Education and Labor Committee, Chairman George Miller has left an indelible mark on the laws and the Members of this august body. George has been the model of a serious and substantive legislator, a champion of working people who has had his hand in some of the most innovative and important legislation of our time. Members over and over--some already have and others will--talk about his legislative accomplishments. I just will name some. I mentioned the Affordable Care Act; Lilly Ledbetter, the first bill signed by President Obama to end discrimination in the workplace; the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the last bill that passed by a House Democratic majority; ending discrimination for women in the workplace, for men and women in the military. One thing I want to mention, this PAYGO--because again this is something I saw firsthand. George Miller put together the initiative for pay as you go, so that we were not increasing the deficit as we made investments for our future. It was 1982; we were at a midterm convention of the Democrats in Philadelphia. George Miller had the resolution to pass PAYGO. It was very fiscally sound and responsible. It passed. The resolution passed. It was so revolutionary that they never had a midterm convention again because it was really there not to make speeches but to make change. In any event, they made that change, and it didn't become effective really until several more years later when President Clinton became President of the United States, and then we want on a pay-as-you-go basis, so whatever we were doing, we were not increasing the deficit. So he has been a deficit hawk, a very progressive, liberal deficit hawk in the lead on that subject. So when he was doing the earned income tax cut; Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids; ENDA--really, we haven't passed it yet, but George has advanced it in the House any number of times--early childhood education to lifetime learning, I keep coming back to the children. I have said that when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children, and our children. Their health, their education, the economic security of their families, the air they breathe, environment in which they live, a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment. No one in the Congress has done more for our children, our children, our children than George Miller, George Miller, George Miller. So his focus on the children, but having them live in a world at peace has taken him outside of our country. So forceful was he in his advocacy for children in other countries, for fairness and opportunity and social justice, that he became a subject of the Salvadoran death squads. They tried to search him down in the United States because he was such a fierce champion for fairness in their country as well. So here we are--two great, very committed people. If you ask them what the secret of their success would be and how they achieved so much, they will be modest--well, sometimes. But what they will both tell you separately and the guidance they give the rest of us, just stick with it. Just keep on working. Just make sure that the other side, whoever that might be, knows you are not going to go away because you have a goal that is responsible, you have an urgency for the people, and you will make sure that you make the difference. In many ways we all live in a nation shaped, defined, and strengthened by George Miller and Henry Waxman. Their keen vision, abiding determination, courageous leadership have put them in the ranks of the greatest legislators in our history. When they leave this House, we can be certain that they will use their extraordinary knowledge and talent in new venues and in new ways to serve America's children and families. As we acknowledge them and express our appreciation to them, we also have to acknowledge their spouses. Janet Waxman and Cynthia Miller have contributed 80 years of being spouses to Members of Congress. That is really almost like 80 years each. That is twice as long as serving, to be a congressional spouse with all the sacrifice that that involves. Tonight we say a heartfelt ``thank you'' not only to George and Henry and voice our gratitude to them, but to the Waxman and Miller families for sharing these great men with our great Nation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his friendship with the distinguished leader of the entire Congress, the dean number one, as Congresswoman Kaptur said. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief and put some of my statement in the Record and hopefully return to the floor in the couple of days ahead to say more about Mr. Dingell because so many Members are waiting, and I hope more time will be afforded for us to sing the praises of this great man. Every now and then, you hear the expression ``somebody is a living legend.'' That doesn't even begin to describe John Dingell. He is a living legend. He has had a hand in nearly every major legislative accomplishment over the past six decades from protecting civil rights and workers' rights--and I am so glad to see John Lewis here--to ensuring food safety, to enacting essential consumer protections, and to creating jobs in Michigan's Twelfth District and throughout our country. Among his countless achievements, none holds greater significance than his contribution to the good health of the American people. Each congressional term since 1955, he introduced legislation to secure affordable health care for all Americans. In 1965, he held the gavel in his hand as Medicare became law of the land, and in 2010, more than half a century later, it was my privilege to hold that same gavel in my hand as we passed the Affordable Care Act, realizing the dream of the Dingell family. To work alongside John Dingell is to be inspired by his strength, by the history of our institution, and by the seriousness of his work, not only the length of his service for sure, but the quality of his leadership. He is our distinguished chairman, our distinguished dean, a cherished colleague and friend, a living legend as I said, but that only begins to tell the tale. His experience, his leadership, his partnership, and his passion will be sorely missed by all of us who had the honor to serve alongside him. We wish him and his beloved wife, our soon-to-be colleague, Debbie, and the entire Dingell family the very best. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the tributes to a public servant of unmatched leadership and quality. The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey has followed the many footsteps of Mr. Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his leadership as chairman and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and his important work for comprehensive immigration reform. I also salute the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California, who has not only chaired the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, she has taught immigration law, she has been an immigration lawyer. She represents a very diverse district in California blessed with a strong immigrant population. Mr. Speaker, more than 520 days ago, the Senate passed bold bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform by an overwhelming margin. It was bipartisan, it was overwhelming, 520 days ago--more than that. Time and again, the Republican leadership of the House has promised productive action to fix our clearly broken immigration system; yet, time and again, Republicans have refused to give the American people a vote on this critical issue. They have ignored law enforcement, the badges; faith leaders, the Bibles; and business groups--the three Bs. They have denied our country billions of dollars in economic benefits and $1 trillion in deficit reduction, turned their backs on millions of hardworking immigrant families forced to live in daily dread of separation and deportation. In the face of Republicans' failure to act, President Obama has used his well-established legal and constitutional authority to bring our immigration system back into line with our needs as a Nation and our values as a people. The President's executive actions will restore accountability to our immigration enforcement: securing our borders; deporting felons, not families; and requiring undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes. Presidents have had broad authority to defer removal when it is in the national interest, and past Presidents have regularly used this authority. President Ronald Reagan understood that immigration was the constant reinvigoration of our Nation. As a new President in 1981, President Reagan said: Our Nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. In the lead-up to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, President Reagan, again, called our Nation to action when he said: We are also going to have compassion and legalize those who came here sometime ago and have legitimately put roots down and are living as legal residents of our country, even though illegal. We are going to make them legal. In his signing statement of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, President Reagan said: We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. He went on to say: The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Does that sound familiar? He went on to say: Very soon, many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight, and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans. In the years immediately following the enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, President Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush took bold action to protect the spouses and children of people who received status under that law. Although Congress explicitly chose not to grant status to these people, Presidents Reagan and Bush recognized that it was not in the national interest to separate families. Using their authority to establish a family fairness program by executive action, they offered spouses and children indefinite protection from deportation and gave them work authorization. Every President since President Dwight David Eisenhower has used this same broad authority, Republicans and Democrats alike. Dating back more than 50 years, Presidents have granted Extended Voluntary Departure to nationals of more than a dozen countries, including Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Uganda. President George Herbert Walker Bush granted Deferred Enforced Departure to Chinese nationals after the Tiananmen Square massacre, even though he vetoed a similar bill passed by Congress. I remember that well. It was my bill. He vetoed the bill because he didn't want to sign the bill, and then he issued the executive order doing exactly what the bill would do. Several years later, he granted the same status to 200,000 Salvadorans. Thanks to President Obama's immigration accountability executive actions, in the same vein, millions of hardworking, law-abiding families will be able to celebrate the holidays with renewed hope in the future. In response to this Presidential action of common sense and compassion, Republicans are advancing today on this floor a radical bill of appalling callousness and cruelty. With this bill, Republicans are demanding that we deport hundreds of thousands of young DREAMers who know no country but the United States. With this bill, Republicans would tear apart millions of families and throw thousands upon thousands of American children into foster care. With this bill, Republicans would deport the family members of our heroes in uniform who are serving overseas, deny relief and respite to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, and reject the values that are at the heart of our heritage and our history. This legislation is unworthy of our Nation. Don't take it from me. That is why this bill is opposed by groups, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wrote: Instead of traumatizing these children and young adults-- the future leaders of our country--we should invest in them by ensuring that their families remain intact. Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will take the advice of the Conference of Catholic Bishops and vote against this legislation. Democrats in the House will continue to demand comprehensive immigration reform, which honors our heritage, giving certainty to families, fueling innovation, creating jobs, and reducing the deficit. We know that the President's steps cannot be a substitute for legislation. They must be a summons to action. Here in Congress and across the country, we will keep up the drumbeat for the progress of advancing comprehensive immigration reform. We will do so in heeding the advice of President George W. Bush, who told us as we dealt with this issue to treat the people who are affected by it with respect. Republicans should reject this coldhearted bill and give the American people the vote on immigration reform that they deserve.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime season ticket holder and proud fan, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2014 World Series Champions, the San Francisco Giants. On October 29, 2014, our beloved Giants won San Francisco's third championship in five years, defeating the Kansas City Royals in the seventh game of a down-to-the-wire World Series. The Giants' post-season performance was masterful, a shared victory built on the shoulders of our entire team. The people of San Francisco salute our champions--players, coaches and staff who carried forward the banner of our city to seize the pennant and final victory. With timely hitting and phenomenal pitching, the Giants rose from the Wild Card to reclaim their position as baseball's champions. In their hard-fought victory, the Giants have once again made us the proudest city in baseball, and given fresh energy to the talk of a rising dynasty on the Bay. Congratulations to all our `Stronger Together' players, especially the members of the World Series roster: Tim Hudson, Jake Peavy, Ryan Vogelsong, Jeremy Affeldt, Santiago Casilla, Tim Lincecum, Javier Lopez, Yusmeiro Petit, Sergio Romo, Hunter Strickland, Buster Posey, Jean Machi, Andrew Susac, Joaquin Arias, Brandon Belt, Brandon Crawford, Matt Duffy, Joe Panik, Pablo Sandoval, Gregor Blanco, Travis Ishikawa, Michael Morse, Hunter Pence, Juan Perez and of course, our latest legend on the pitcher's mound, NLCS and World Series MVP Madison Bumgarner. Bumgarner's composure and phenomenal pitching silenced the bats of the Kansas City Royals, and vaulted himself into the ranks of the greatest playoff pitchers in history--pitching more innings in a single post-season than anyone in history and securing the lowest World Series ERA of any pitcher with at least 25 World Series innings pitched: only one run allowed in three World Series. In our march back to the championship, we were also grateful for our gifted announcer, Renel Brooks-Moon, and talented English and Spanish- language broadcasters: Duane Kuiper, Mike Krukow, Jon Miller, Dave Flemming, Tito Fuentes and Erwin Higueros. The Giants represented excellence from the field to the front office. As San Francisco cherishes our latest victory, our gratitude extends as well to the team's Chief Executive Officer Larry Baer, General Manager Brian Sabean, Manager Bruce Bochy, and to the men and women of the Giants' excellent staff. Their leadership and vision continue to support and strengthen our team. The heart and hard work of the Giants extend well beyond the baseball diamond through the Giants Community Fund, which has donated more than $18 million to vital community efforts. Under their auspices, communities and non-profit organizations throughout Northern California team with our champions to promote health and violence prevention, youth fitness and recreation, education and literacy. And, as the Junior Giants celebrate their 20th anniversary with more than 24,000 participants, we know there is perhaps no better gift we could have received than the Commissioner's Trophy. As we celebrate our latest championship and turn our eyes to future World Series, we know that our team is blessed by the millions of passionate and devoted San Francisco Giants fans in Northern California, across the country, and around the world. We are proud fans of a proud community. In pride, let us say once more say: Go Giants!

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. John Glen Sperling, the visionary educator, entrepreneur, and University of Phoenix founder who passed away in August at the age of 93. Sperling embraced education as the foundation for living a full life--and as a resource for overcoming poverty and creating new ladders of opportunities for fellow citizens to fulfill their potential. Throughout his life, Sperling drew wisdom from the wellspring of his own experience. Coming of age in rural Missouri during the Great Depression, Sperling struggled with childhood illnesses, physical abuse, and learning disabilities. When he received his secondary school diploma, Sperling was still illiterate. He decided to join the U.S. Merchant Marine, where he would finally learn to read. After the U.S. entered the Second World War, Sperling joined the U.S. Army Air Corps. His service made him eligible for the educational benefits of the G.I. Bill. The affordable education made available through the G.I. bill unlocked previously unimaginable possibilities for Sperling. He discovered a passion for learning, receiving his Bachelor's from Reed College and earning a Master's in history from the University of California at Berkeley. He capped his studies with a Ph.D. in 18th century mercantile history from the University of Cambridge. Education had lifted the sharecroppers' son to attend one of the most august institutions in the English-speaking world, and Sperling was determined to help other non-traditional students realize their full potential. So began the passion for education that would become Sperling's defining legacy. As a professor at San Jose State University, Sperling made a point of working with police officers and other educators who aided teenagers with behavioral troubles--championing the value of flexible, patient, and non-judgmental teaching for students struggling to find their way forward. Sperling knew there was an opportunity and a need for an institution dedicated to people reaching for education at all times of their lives--a place that recognized the circumstances of students already juggling the demands of work or a family. As he wrote in his memoir, Sperling found himself a ``Rebel With a Cause,'' working to put higher education within the grasp of working adults. In 1973, Sperling started what would become the University of Phoenix, one of the largest institutions of higher education. Sperling created an institution that has empowered thousands of working adults with the tools needed to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their families. His enduring legacy of innovation and entrepreneurship in education has inspired new thinking and a renewed focus on non-traditional students across all of academia. John Sperling inspired so many Americans to see--and seize--the opportunities in their lives. We hope that it is a comfort to son, Peter, his family, Joan Hawthorne, his companion, and all of John's loved ones that so many share their sadness.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am here to join the distinguished delegation from Illinois, especially Congresswoman Bustos, who represents a district in Congress that was once magnificently also represented by Congressman Lane Evans. So it is with great sadness that I come to the floor to join his colleagues, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Congressman Danny Davis, who served with him, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, and others who will be here. Thank you, Congresswoman Bustos, for bringing us together to honor the life and service and leadership of Lane Evans, who passed away this month at the age of 63, my colleagues. He was the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and served our veterans so well. He served our country in uniform. He served our country in the Congress. He served our country in the community. He was just a great person. We were honored to call him colleague, many of us privileged to call him friend. The son of a firefighter and a nurse, Lane Evans was born and raised in the district he represented here for 24 years. From his service in the Marines--and he was proud of that--to his work as an attorney with the Western Illinois University Legal Assistance Fund, to his time in the House, Lane spent his life fighting for those who could not fight for themselves. Each and every day, Lane Evans fought to strengthen the middle class and to expand the ladders of opportunity that define the American Dream. He stood strong and resolute against efforts to privatize Social Security. That was one of his fights here. As a Vietnam-era veteran who served on Okinawa, Lane took the struggles of our military families personally. It is especially fitting that we honor Lane today and this week as we observe Veterans Day, for he was one of the House's most dedicated legislators of those who served our country in uniform and, as I say, a leader in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. From that position as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Lane worked relentlessly to ensure that veterans of all generations would receive the support and benefits they deserve. He championed veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. He was instrumental in passing legislation to assist veterans exposed to Agent Orange. But on the subject of posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, Lane had whatever symptoms he had of his service to our country. As the ranking member, he traveled the country. I had the privilege on a number of occasions to welcome him at Fort Miley, our veterans hospital in San Francisco. The way he connected with the veterans, because he understood, he shared their pain--literally, shared their pain--he fought for all kinds of research, whether it was the hidden injuries of war that we now know so much more about. But there in that hospital we had not only met the needs of our veterans, but we had tremendous research, whether it was about Parkinson's or other traumatic brain injury. He was a champion for our veterans and military families, hardworking people across America. Many of us who had been invited by--he was so proud of his district, and many of us had the privilege of being invited there to join his constituents in honoring him. It was just an all-American experience to see people from all walks of life honoring this great man and, of course, his colleagues from the military being a very important part of it. Diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1995, Congressman Evans continued to serve the people in his district for almost another 12 years. He was determined to make a difference and help create a better world for the next generation. He surely has left our country stronger for having served it. He was a pioneer in terms of the hidden wounds of war for our soldiers. Today we remember his courage, his commitment, his vision, his beautiful smile, his lovely personality, his gracious being, his strong commitment to our vets. We hope it is a comfort to his brothers and loved ones that so many here in this body and around the world mourn their loss, pray for them, but we feel very strengthened as a country because of the blessing of Lane Evans' life to us. So again I thank Congresswoman Cheri Bustos for bringing us together to honor this great man. It is my privilege to join the members of the Illinois delegation and other Members who will be on the floor to honor Lane. He was a proud son of Illinois, that is for sure. I remember seeing him in Moline just so proud, so proud of his district, of his constituents, and they were all, in turn, as we are, proud of him. Thank you, Congresswoman Bustos.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of Carol J. Lancaster, the visionary educator, public servant, and trailblazing dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, who passed away last month. Born to working-class parents during the Second World War, Lancaster became the first in her family to attend college. At Georgetown University, she became one of the first women to earn a bachelor of science degree from the School of Foreign Service. Following graduation, Dean Lancaster was awarded a Fulbright fellowship to study at the Universidad de San Andres in La Paz, Bolivia, adding Spanish to the five additional languages she would learn in adulthood. Lancaster later earned a doctorate in international relations from the London School of Economics in 1972. After teaching in England and following a series of prestigious fellowships, she was called to serve in the U.S. Department of State as a member of the policy planning staff, and in the early eighties she became Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs at the State Department. During the Clinton administration, she served as Deputy Administrator of USAID. In every position, she focused her time and talent on creating a better world for all our children. At the end of her government service, Lancaster's commitment to building the next generation of global leaders compelled her to teach at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, where she inspired students, encouraged scholars, strengthened diplomacy, and authored numerous books and articles for more than 30 years. At Georgetown, Lancaster motivated a new generation of young leaders, thinkers, and problem solvers to soar to greater heights and tackle today's challenges with vigor, compassion, and courage. Mr. Speaker, her legacy of excellence continues to echo through Georgetown's community. Georgetown University President Jack DeGioia noted that Lancaster ``provided extraordinary leadership as dean of SFS and was a leader and a professor contributing in countless ways to our community through her vision and scholarship. Moreover, the joy and dedication that Carol brought to her work inspired us all to be the very best versions of ourselves,'' he said. Chairman of the Foreign Service School's Board of Visitors, my husband, Paul Pelosi, noted that as the first woman and first alumnus to become dean of the School of Foreign Service, she ``was renowned for her commitment to her students; she demonstrated both intellectual curiosity and courage and had a profound effect on the way we think about global development. Carol will be remembered as a pioneering woman in international affairs and a stalwart champion of human dignity.'' In conclusion, when speaking around the world, Lancaster also had to stand on what she called the ``Madeline Albright box'' to be seen over podiums. Today, thousands of young students and women from across the world stand on her shoulders, inspired by her example and empowered by her leadership to speak boldly, act bravely, and make their mark in the world. May it be a comfort to her husband, Curt, their son, Douglas, who is with us today with his wife, and the entire Farrar family that so many people around the world mourn their loss, share their grief, and are praying for them at this sad time. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia said it best: ``May she rest in peace for her long years of labor to make the world a better place.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of James Scott Brady, a courageous champion in the fight against gun violence and the legacy of lifesaving leadership he leaves behind. Through triumph and tragedy, Jim Brady remained an insistent and impassioned voice of clarity and consequence in our national effort to strengthen our gun laws. His death at age 73 concludes a life defined by public service and personal bravery--and renews the call to action that he made so well for so long. Jim Brady, a proud alumnus of the flagship institution in his home state, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, discovered a life-long passion for public policy after earning a Bachelor of Science degree in political science. After graduating, Brady worked with some of the leading American political figures of the late 20th century. As an aide to then-State Senator Everett Dirksen--who would later serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and as the U.S. Senate Minority Leader--Brady deepened an abiding belief in the power of public service to build a better world. As an advisor to top-level public officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Defense and the U.S. Senate, Brady became an indispensable counselor and trusted friend to many. He was tapped to serve as Director of Public Affairs and Research for the Reagan-Bush Committee and, following the election, as Spokesperson for the Office of the President-Elect and White House Press Secretary. On a fateful March in 1981, Jim Brady suffered a gunshot wound to the head during the assassination attempt on President Reagan's life. The road to recovery would be hard, but Jim and his wife, Sarah Brady, would inspire the nation with their resolve. Strengthened by their own struggle, Jim and Sarah vowed to take a stand on behalf of all victims of gun violence. This couple's heroic leadership challenged our nation to act, and because they did, millions of Americans are safer and many of our communities are more secure. It took the Bradys six years, seven votes, three administrations, endless strength and boundless courage to enact the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. But, thanks to their dedication, the Brady bill became the law of the land. By 2010, the Brady law had blocked felons trying to buy guns more than a million times--an average of 171 felons denied applications to buy firearms a day. Almost 300,000 domestic violence offenders were prevented from buying guns. Thanks to Jim and Sarah Brady, countless families have been spared the tragedy of gun violence. In recognition of this leadership, Jim Brady was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton. Today, the White House press secretary addresses the media--and the nation--from the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Every day, the Bradys' legacy is felt in lives saved by the law that bears his name. Jim Brady's perseverance challenges all of us to never stop fighting for the common sense gun violence reduction measures our nation needs. Jim Brady was a man of extraordinary wit, charm and courage, and he will be sorely missed by all who had the good fortune to know him I hope that it is a comfort to Jim's wife, Sarah, his children and all of his loved ones that so many people across the country share their grief and mourn the loss of such a valiant and dedicated man.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of a civic-minded giant and one of our nation's leading legal minds: Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., who passed earlier this week at the age of 73. Thomas Boggs, Jr. belonged to a great American family--a family devoted to public policy and leadership. His father, Congressman Hale Boggs, represented the people of Louisiana in the House for almost 28 years, elected by his colleagues to become Democratic Whip and Majority Leader. When Leader Boggs tragically died, Thomas's mother Lindy won the election to fill his seat, serving for 18 years as a forceful and dynamic Congresswoman unafraid to know her own power and make her own mark. Tommy's late sister Barbara Boggs Sigmund won public office as mayor of Princeton, N.J., and his sister Cokie Roberts is one of our nation's finest journalists. Thomas Boggs's family taught him that public service was a noble calling, leaving a sterling legacy of leadership and civic engagement that would guide and define his entire life. As an undergraduate at Georgetown University, he studied government from within the halls of Congress, working as an elevator operator in the House of Representatives. As a law student at Georgetown, he worked with the Joint Economic Committee, at one point helping to advance President Johnson's 1964 anti-poverty tour of Appalachia. Later, he spent 15 months as Assistant to the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, before leaving to pursue a life in law. In 1966, he joined the law firm that would become Squire Patton Boggs, building a list of accomplishments that includes critical victories for American automakers and preserving thousands of American jobs. Although he lost an election for Congress in 1970, he continued his commitment to public service as part of the Presidential Commission on Executive Exchange and as a Presidential Delegate to our trade mission to China in 1979. In recognition of his intellect and ability, The National Law Journal has named him to their list of the top 100 lawyers in the United States every year since the list's inception. Thomas Boggs was a towering advocate for American workers and middle- class families--carrying forward the legacy of public service that his family continues to exemplify. I hope that it is a comfort to his wife, Barbara, his children, his sister Cokie, and all of his loved ones that so many people throughout the world share their grief and mourn the loss of the devoted and loving patriarch of the Boggs family during this most difficult time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in helping us all uphold the oath that we take when we become Members of Congress to protect and defend the American people. I believe that the McKeon amendment that is on the floor today helps us to do just that as well. Last week, the President presented to the American people a forceful strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS, a strategy built on a firm foundation of nonmilitary action. The President is to be commended for his strong leadership and humanitarian, political, and diplomatic components that must be part of any successful mission. In a humanitarian vein, for acting to help assist those impacted by ISIS and avert the genocide of religious minorities. Who could ever forget those people isolated on the mountain until the United States and others came to the rescue? Politically, for insisting and pushing for an inclusive government in Iraq. And I commend the Vice President, as well, for his leadership. Without a change to an inclusive government that respects not only Shia, Sunni, and Kurds but also the religious minorities in the country as well, militarily actions would not be so productive. And, again, in a nonmilitary vein, the President bringing together NATO allies, a coalition, as well as regional partners, to assist in degrading and destroying ISIS. This comprehensive strategy includes increasing our intelligence, disrupting ISIS' finances, and interdicting the flow of foreign fighters. I have said in the past, in my view, the President already has the authority to do what he is doing. And, I will add, this House has voted overwhelmingly that should the President's actions go farther comprehensively, then Congress should vote on that authority. Today we are called upon to authorize a discrete but critical component of the overall plan: the President's request to train and equip moderate, vetted Syrians outside of Syria to fight ISIS. This is not an authorization for use of military force, as we had in 2001 and 2002. I do not support, nor will I support, combat troops on the ground. That is not what this is about. I believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and those who have worked so hard to put this amendment together took many precautions and set a high standard in terms of the criteria and standards that the administration must meet with this training: where it would occur, who would be trained, extensive vetting of the moderates and the rebels. That is probably the most frequently asked question: ``How do we know?'' Well, we can do the best we can to vet, to ensure that we are doing what we set out to do. The brutality of ISIS, ISIL--whatever they call themselves on any given day--is outside the circle of civilized human behavior. We wish that this action that we are called upon to do today was not necessary. But it is really hard for us to uphold our oath of office all the time to protect and defend. It is not always easy. And most of the time, it is hard for anything that takes us down a military path. But the fact is that with the diplomatic, political, and humanitarian foundation that the President has laid, with the narrowness of the request that he is making to us, it is not pleasant, it is not easy--it is hard, but it really is necessary for the House to approve this. We all wish, again, that it wasn't necessary. But we will approve it to help the Syrian people take responsibility for building peace and stability in their country, to stem the threat that ISIS can pose to U.S. interests abroad and to our national security. Now, I have frequently quoted Hannah Arendt, who said, ``Nations are driven to an endless flywheel of violence because they believe that one last, one final gesture of violence will bring peace, but each time, they sow the seeds for more violence.'' I would hope that what we are doing today takes us in a different direction, one that is predicated on a nation of inclusion in Iraq, one that defeats ISIS by the moderates in-country defeating ISIS, because ISIS is now cross-border--in Iraq and in Syria, and who knows where they may try to go next. So this is important. It is urgent. And I hope that it will have the support of our colleagues. As with all votes, I have never asked a Member to vote with any vote of use of force or, in this case, training of moderates. But I just wanted you to know why I am proud to support the President and salute him for his efforts. I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership in shaping this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The time is late, the cause is great. We must, we must have clarity in how we understand what is before us. Today, we had an opportunity to work together to address humanitarian emergency at the border. Instead, it is a day of missed opportunity. The Republican leadership has rejected our hand of friendship to compromise on this supplemental. Instead of bringing legislation forward that could solve this problem really and truly, it has resisted the appeals of humanitarian and religious leaders across all faiths. The Evangelical Immigration Table calls on us to ensure that our response strengthens our country's tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable. This legislation that we have before us does not do that. It is wrong. But don't take my word for it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Members to oppose H.R. 5230 and work together to craft legislation that is more befitting the United States of America and the American people's history of compassion and generosity to vulnerable children and refugees. The Archbishop of Miami, Thomas Wenski, speaking on their behalf, has said of this legislation, the two pieces of legislation before us: This is a sad day for our country. A Chamber of Congress is poised to send vulnerable children back to danger and possible death. It violates our commitment to human rights and due process of the law, and lessens us as a Nation. In their letter, the bishops further state their opposition to H.R. 5232 and say that it ``stems from its elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,'' otherwise known as DACA. In conclusion, the bishops write: How our Nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272, which we feel fail to live up to that test. Others, such as the American Bar Association, write: Due to their age, lack of education, language, and cultural barriers, and the complexity of U.S. immigration law, these vulnerable children face insurmountable obstacles to proving their claims before an immigration judge on their own. It is the children who are most likely to be eligible for some relief under the law who may be least able to articulate their experiences under this proposed procedure. They have been through a lot of trauma, and we want to add to that. Yet, this has not been enough to stem the path that the House Republicans are going down. To further poison the pie they offer their caucus the chance to even be less compassionate in their vote to end DACA and to deport the DREAMers. It is not enough for Republicans to send desperate children back to the violence of their home countries. They must also vote to deport the best young immigrants and brightest in our schools, vote to send victims of domestic violence back to their abusers, vote to hand witnesses back to drug lords, vote to remove the parents of American children. These pieces of legislation dishonor America. They are a rejection of our values. But don't take it from me, take it from the bishops, the Evangelical Table, and others. They run counter to the respect for the spark of divinity that we believe exists in every person, the respect for the dignity and worth of every person that we share, but these pieces of legislation ignore. House Republicans have truly lost their way. I certainly hope that you will consider rereading the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped a stranger. He did not ignore or harm a stranger he saw on the road. Perhaps that may be a path back for you. I pray that it is so. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the record letters from the bishops, the Evangelical Immigration Table, and the ABA who oppose these pieces of legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Committee on Migration, Washington, DC, August 1, 2014. Dear Representative: I write to reaffirm the opposition of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to H.R. 5230 and express our opposition to H.R. 5232. Our opposition to H.R. 5230 stems from four troubling aspects of the measure. First, it would make crippling changes to current U.S. trafficking victim protection law that we fear would send these vulnerable children, and others in the future who have fled trauma, exploitation, and violence, back into harm's way, likely resulting in continued degradation, injury, and death for many of them. Second, it would not provide adequate funding for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to enable it to care for vulnerable unaccompanied children in U.S. custody. Third, its level of funding for ORR is so low that it would severely hamper the agency's ability to fulfill its responsibility to care for refugees, asylum seekers, special immigrants, trafficking victims, and torture victims. And fourth, the measure contains no provisions to address the root causes that have compelled so many children to make the arduous journey from their homes in Central America to the United States and elsewhere in the region. Our opposition to H.R. 5232 stems from its elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It is our view that this program has helped protect a vulnerable group of children who for all extensive purposes are Americans. It would subject them once again to removal to countries they do not know. We urge its defeat. How our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5232, which we feel fail to live up to that test. Sincerely, Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, who, from day one of knowing about this challenge that we have with the children at the border, has reacted in a very wise, humanitarian--yes--and practical way as to what the best way is to address the challenge, honor the values of our country, and save the children. I was interested in the back and forth between the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, and our ranking member on the subject of the change in the law that is in the legislative language that is in this supplemental, because I agree with our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, and other who have said: There are two things happening here. We need to address the humanitarian challenge. We need resources to do that for particular purposes. And we should do that in the supplemental. Another is to change the law, which we shouldn't do in a supplemental. It is legislating on an appropriations bill in a manner in which all kinds of statements can be made which may be anecdotally significant but not significant in terms of the difference that they make, a difference enough to change the law. So when people talk about witnesses in one context or another, just saying something on the floor of the House, it is interesting. But there should be hearings. If we are going to change the law, there should be hearings where testimony can come forth, be challenged, confirmed, whatever it may be. But a serious discussion worthy of the country that we are, worthy of the Congress that passed the Wilberforce law, which was a very bipartisan initiative. And I salute my Republican colleagues who played such an important role in passing the bill. And that bill directed agencies of government to incorporate antitrafficking and protection measures for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, into either post-conflict or humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities, according to the law. There was a purpose for the law. But with a phrase in an appropriations bill, we want to undermine that purpose. That is not necessary to do here. Why does this belong in a bill where we are allocating resources to meet a humanitarian challenge that we have? Now let's get to what is in the actual supplemental. I had hoped that we could work in a bipartisan way, and I thought that is the path we were on. The Republican majority wanted to decrease the amount of resources and the amount of time--well, that is commensurate, if it is a lower amount of money and a shorter period of time, that is okay, but when you change what that money is for, then you are doing a disservice to the entire issue. Instead of providing adequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs--the immediate humanitarian needs--largely of these children, that is just totally inadequate in this legislation, in terms of its proportionality in the bill, whether it fails to provide any resources for legal assistance to these children to plead their case. They may have a legitimate cause for asylum--refugee status to come into the United States or not, but they should be represented, and they should be represented in a way that repatriates them back to their home country, if they do not qualify in a way that is safe. This legislation does not do that. The American people are fair-minded, they are wise, they are practical, and they want to help, but they want to do so in a way that is fair to everyone involved. They want to feed the children. There are not enough resources here to do that with the humanitarian side. They want us to honor who we are with due process for these children. This legislation does not do that. They want to have judges to quickly facilitate giving these people a hearing, in addition to the representation that they should have due process. The bill does not. It tramples due process to rush terrified children back to the violence of their home countries. That is not who we are as a country, and it also poses a particular danger to children victims of gang violence and human trafficking, which takes us right back to the Wilberforce bill--human trafficking. It is a global crisis. It is happening at our border. We have a bill to stop it. This legislation on the floor today weakens that and then, in a manner of distribution of funds and paucity of funds, does not address the challenge. It takes us backward. It is hard to understand. Now, what we should be talking about, what Mr. Tierney suggested, how do we help communities that are receiving these children into their communities and our country? Again, how do we help? This bill hurts. Madam Speaker, in addition to this--I guess the way you were able to get the votes for this bill--which is even opposed by people who are anti-immigration because it is not bad enough--was that you had to sweeten the pie by having a followup bill that would only be taken up if enough of your Members agreed to vote for this bad bill, and that again does not address who we are as a country. We are a great country because we are a good country. Others have said that as long ago as 200 years ago or longer, so let us be good and let us be great, and let us do something that really was closer to what the Republicans were talking about earlier in this discussion. It seems that in order to get more votes, you had to make the bill worse; the worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side. No, let's find common ground in the middle, where we can get the most votes to do the best possible job that we can do. It may not be every good thing we would ideally like to do, but it is a reasonable place to go forward to honor what the national Catholic Conference of Bishops have talked about, where all the people of faith are urging us to do here in the Congress and the United States, and that is to honestly respect the dignity and worth of all of these children, all of them children of God. I get mocked for quoting what the bishops have said because it is so generous to the children, but let's give the children a fair shot. Let's do better than this, and you know that this bill isn't going anywhere, so once again, it is a waste of time. It is not a statement of values. It is a statement of meanness. The Republican bills responding to the humanitarian crisis at the southern border are the latest evidence of their breathtaking extremism. The Republican proposal is unjust, inhumane and abhorrent to our values as a nation. Their supplemental: Fails to provide any resources for legal aid to children with legitimate asylum claims; Does not authorize enough judges to adjudicate extensive case backlog; Tramples due process to rush terrified children back to the violence of their home countries; and Poses a particular danger to child victims of gang violence and human trafficking. To coax their party into voting for even that much, Republicans are also teeing-up a vote to bar any adjustment or expansion of DACA. No additional relief for children and students; No relief for parents of DREAMers; No relief for parents of young U.S. citizens; and Certainty that we will continue to tear apart immigrant families. It is appalling that Republicans' price for doing next-to-nothing for vulnerable children is the opportunity to vote against the young immigrants who want nothing more than a future in the only country they have ever known. We should be acting on comprehensive immigration reform, but this Republican Congress is allergic to meaningful solutions.