To begin with, let's acknowledge what today's hearing is really about: it is yet another attempt by the Majority to prevent the President's implementation of duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose.

I think there are numerous examples of other presidents actually exercising this discretion far more than the current occupant of the White House.

this legislation; this provisional draft is hardly a way for us to start an important hearing like this.

Unfortunately, we have a one-sided, unbalanced approach that has been alluded to by the Ranking Member from Georgia on this Subcommittee, Hank Johnson.

But just 1 week later, all that promise is all but gone. Why the sudden turnaround? Apparently it is all President Obama's fault.

Is it reasonable that we should shoot for a goal that would allow people to have lawyers in case they cannot afford them?

Now, let me take this moment to assure them that the President is enforcing our immigration laws vigorously...

Less than 2 weeks ago, I was optimistic that we had turned a corner in the immigration debate...

the Protection of Children Act, contrary to its name does nothing to protect children.

We have struggled with this. We passed the DREAM Act and the 111th Congress couldn't overcome the conservative filibuster in the Senate.

these bills are not the solution to the broken immigration system that American families and businesses have been waiting for.

Well, that is okay. There are many Members of Congress who cannot either.

I am here to participate with a question. Why do we not have a bill instead of a discussion draft with these distinguished witnesses who are here?

It would make it a crime, potentially a felony, to be an undocumented immigrant in this country.

the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, unreasonably raises the credible fear standard.

Congress can recognize that Americans demand more privacy than that.

there has been no instance in which the National Security Agency could say with confidence that the outcome of a case would have been different without the Section 215 metadata program.

the status quo is unacceptable.

the burden of proof for retaining a particular Government power should be on the executive to explain that the power actually and materially enhances security.

It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties.

And it also makes it clear that it must be relevant, and relevant does not mean everything.

the operation of the bulk telephone record program bears almost no resemblance to the actual text of the statute.

If the Government can only collect metadata with a particularized showing of suspicion and the Government cannot hold information in bulk, what is left of the telephone metadata program?

On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 188, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as…

I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Judiciary Committee. Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose this sweeping anti-choice bill which would deny…