[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4130-S4131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          RECESS APPOINTMENTS

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled 
against the President's unconstitutional recess appointments in a 
dramatic repudiation of the White House's position. Nine to zero they 
ruled. It was an obvious decision, in my opinion. It was breathtaking 
that the President of the United States would appoint members to the 
National Labor Relations Board who have to come before the Senate for 
confirmation under the Constitution--we have the advice and consent 
authority--and he did not want to do that, so he just appointed them 
and claimed we were in recess. We were

[[Page S4131]]

not in recess. It was not a close question. He just did it. So it took 
over 2 years of a lawsuit, and finally the Supreme Court has now ruled. 
A lower court ruled against the President some months ago. The 
President clearly and deliberately violated article II of the 
Constitution in circumventing the advice and consent clause.
  At the time of these appointments, the Senate had determined it was 
not in recess. We determined we were not in recess, and the Court 
affirmed that determination. The question of whether the Senate is in 
session is up to the Senate, not the President. So the President has to 
yield to the Senate's authority to determine its own rules and 
procedures. This is basic law, it seems to me.
  Unfortunately, the President has made it clear that he will only 
follow the letter of the law when it is not an impediment to whatever 
agenda he has at the time.
  Just today, the White House displayed again its lack of respect for 
our constitutional traditions. In a rather brazen display of candor, 
the new White House spokesman today explained the administration's 
rationale for moving unilaterally to rewrite America's immigration 
laws. Here is what Josh Earnest had to say. Hear me, colleagues. This 
is a direct threat to the integrity of our constitutional separation of 
powers. It is not far different from what the President said before, 
but it was today.

       [W]e're not just going to sit around and wait interminably 
     for Congress. . . .

  How about that: We are not going to sit around and wait on Congress. 
We do not have to fool with Congress.
  We have been waiting 1 year already. The President has tasked his 
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options 
are available to the President, what is at his disposal using his 
Executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have 
been created by our broken immigration system.
  So this is about as close as you can get to an open admission that 
the administration does not believe it has an obligation to follow the 
law. You cannot just eviscerate whole code sections of the law claiming 
that you have authority to decide what you want to prosecute and what 
you do not. Jonathan Turley, the great law professor, has hammered this 
idea. He is a liberal. He voted for President Obama in 2008. He has 
hammered this idea. This is an abuse of Executive power.
  We are seeing the results of this on our borders right now. In 2011, 
we had 6,000 illegal immigrant youth from Central America apprehended. 
This year, we may hit more than 90,000. Next year, projections are as 
high as 130,000, costing billions of dollars to take care of them. That 
would be more than a 2,000-percent increase.
  The President's policies are directly responsible for this crisis. 
They just are. He has acted unilaterally to suspend immigration 
enforcement and has sent the signal to the world that our borders are 
open and that if you get here unlawfully and borough in, you will be 
able to stay here.
  As former ICE Director John Sandweg said: ``If you are a run-of-the-
mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close 
to zero.''
  I asked Homeland Secretary Johnson about this during his testimony, 
to say clearly to the world: Do not come unlawfully. You must follow 
the laws of the country. If you come unlawfully, you will be sent back 
home. He refused to even say that in my presence with any clarity.
  Here is what the New York Times reported on April 10:

       With detention facilities, asylum offices and immigration 
     courts overwhelmed, enough migrants have been released 
     temporarily in the United States that back home in Central 
     America people have heard that those who make it to American 
     soil have a good chance of staying. ``Word has gotten out 
     that we're giving people permission and walking them out the 
     door,'' said Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent who is vice 
     president of the local of the National Border Patrol Council, 
     the agent's union. ``So they're coming across in droves.''

  That is exactly what has happened. It is a national tragedy. It is a 
human tragedy for those children. It is costing them money, placing 
their lives at risk, and we are not able to handle them effectively.
  Colleagues, I have a timeline over 17 pages long of the ways 
systematically this administration has ignored or simply suspended 
immigration law by issuing orders to the officers not to do their duty 
essentially.
  So 1 week before the Fourth of July holiday, America cannot even 
protect its own borders, and what do our Democratic colleagues wish to 
do? They want to adjourn this Chamber, go home to their barbecues, work 
on their reelection campaigns, and promise while they are home they are 
fighting to end the lawlessness at the border, while doing nothing, 
while actually doing nothing but objecting to legislation that would 
make a real difference.
  I see my colleague Senator Sanders and I will wrap up.
  I believe we were elected, colleagues, to protect this country and 
its people and the laws of our country. A critical component of 
national sovereignty is a control over your borders. We have passed 
immigration laws that are on the books and not being enforced. We on 
the Republican side have opposed immigration laws that would reduce the 
illegality that cannot even see the light of day on the floor of the 
Senate.
  So I am asking my colleagues, we ought to stay here. Why do we not 
stay here and work on this crisis? I intend to request that we do so--
and have done so--and offered unanimous consents to bring up 
legislation that would help improve the situation. But that has been 
objected to.
  Our taxpayers are overstressed. If we want to get this country back 
on track, we need to control this border and enforce the Nation's laws 
in a fair and equitable way that allows generous immigration to 
America, that treats people fairly and decently, but is not an open 
border, where people can come by the tens of thousands unlawfully.
  How can any of us relax at an Independence Day barbeque next week 
knowing at this very moment the Nation's sovereignty is being eroded? I 
think we have failed in our session. We have not responded to the 
crisis that is on our border. We could have made real progress. But 
there is a lack of will and a lack of willingness to act. I am 
disappointed to see that fact.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________