[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 147 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8662-H8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE EXECUTIVE AMNESTY PREVENTION ACT OF 2014

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meadows). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I won't take long, but I wanted to address 
the bills that we took up late today. First we voted on H.R. 5759. This 
is the bill exactly as it appears. We always have copies of the bill 
that we vote on that are out here in the Speaker's Lobby so you can 
grab them as you come in here and see what we are voting on. But

[[Page H8663]]

what this did not reflect was the exceptions, the provisions that were 
added last night that had to be added by hand here on the floor so that 
as I tried to talk to my colleagues here on the floor and pointed out 
that our Republican leadership had added an exception, they didn't know 
that, and I had to show them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important to explain why a bill that I 
was listed as a cosponsor on ended up with my voting ``no'' on it, 
because it was a good bill. My friend, Ted Yoho, is a good man. He is a 
very dear friend. I think the world of him, and he had a good bill 
here. The purpose is, it says, ``to establish a rule of construction 
clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain 
forms of immigration relief.''

  It was basically to make clear that the President had no authority to 
do what he did when he started granting amnesty-type work permits to 5 
million people who were unauthorized aliens, as the law calls them. My 
friend Congressman Yoho's bill was entitled the Executive Amnesty 
Prevention Act of 2014. The title was changed by leadership, and it 
became the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act, and the 
exception that was added--and I won't read the whole thing--in part the 
exception says that basically this law that was passed by the House 
this evening shall apply except for humanitarian purposes where the 
aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.
  Now, I don't personally think that exception applies right now, but 
this administration has been using similar exceptions like that to 
grant amnesty in the way of asylum and refugee status to people that 
should not have gotten it, but they are already claiming this 
exception. So it is kind of like what happened at the end of July when 
our leadership, we had some great principles all Republicans agreed on 
regarding dealing with the border issue, the immigration issues, all of 
us agreed on the principles, but nobody got to see the bill until late 
Tuesday. I finished reading it about 2 a.m. and then got up at 5 a.m. 
and reread it, and it was a disaster. It was a de facto amnesty bill. 
So we only had 1 day basically to get the word out that this is a bad 
bill because we voted on Thursday, and by Thursday, people had 
awakened, realized it was a de facto amnesty bill, we got it fixed, so 
very late Friday night around 10 p.m. or so, we passed a good border 
bill.
  I know that is news to the President because nobody let him know. He 
didn't know the House had actually acted. But on this one, by adding 
that exception, I know the President issued a veto threat, but he 
probably didn't know about the exception being added either, because if 
you saw the official printout of the bill, it didn't include that 
exception. But if the Senate came through and passed this same bill 
with that exception, the President could actually claim that this 
exception on here legalizes what he had done illegally as an executive 
amnesty provision to give these work permits. So the bill that I was 
willing to cosponsor completely changed in the addition of that 
exception. It wasn't just the title that changed.
  On the National Defense Authorization Act, Buck McKeon worked very 
hard on that bill. The people on Armed Services worked very hard. I was 
very proud of them. They got things in that bill that we have been 
fighting for. For example, Fort Hood was not workplace violence. That 
was an act of war against our military members. The law should have 
reflected it, and the President should have reflected it. But, instead, 
those military members, those patriots of ours, had been mistreated. 
They have not been given the Purple Heart they deserved. They have not 
been given the benefits they deserved, and that needed to be fixed. 
That fix got in this NDAA, and I am very grateful to Buck McKeon for 
getting that in there.
  Another problem, we have had this administration going after 
chaplains for saying things like ``in Jesus' name.'' They pray in 
Jesus' name because as a Christian, Jesus said, if you pray in My name, 
then it will be answered--but not always ``yes.'' So chaplains were 
told it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, you can't pray 
in Jesus' name, and we have got to get rid of all the crosses. The 
place I reported to every morning for 4 years at Fort Benning had a 
chapel across the street. Under the orders I had seen, apparently they 
would have to remove their crosses.

                              {time}  1700

  Well, the provision in the NDAA extended religious freedom to our 
chaplains. It should have been a no-brainer, shouldn't have been 
required to have been said, but in this administration, it did.
  Also, something that many of us have had problems with was the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force going back to September 2001, 
after the 9/11 attacks. It gave the President way too much power.
  Some thought it was the NDAA that gave too much power, but actually, 
it was the AUMF. We amended that. The Gohmert amendment help amend 
that, but I feel a lot better under this NDAA because the AUMF is 
finally not continued anymore, so that was a good thing.
  The problem is the NDAA--this massive National Defense Authorization 
Act that is a big, important bill--got to the Rules Committee last 
night. We didn't have a chance to read it. I am anal enough, I actually 
try to read these important bills, and I didn't have time to read this 
bill.
  What happened to our 72-hour promise? Well, actually, it was a 3-day 
promise, and that has been whittled down since then, but we didn't have 
the 3 days that were originally promised by Republicans.
  I knew the bill increased TRICARE costs. I wasn't happy about that. I 
voted no against a process that takes something as important as our 
national defense and said, ``Here you go, here is the whole thing, 
trust us. Vote for it.'' We didn't have a chance to review it.
  Were there any powers in this thing given additionally to the NSA? Is 
there any more power to spy on Americans under this bill? I don't know. 
I couldn't vote for a bill that was launched on us last night that is 
this important, and I deeply regret it with the good things that were 
in here.
  There were numerous good things, well thought out, but you can't push 
a bill this important on us, especially when we know there are 
problems, we just don't get a chance to find them. Can't vote yes--I 
couldn't in good conscience vote yes.
  One additional irony, Mr. Speaker, I had run for Republican Study 
Committee chair, and I knew if I were elected chair of the Republican 
Study Committee, I would still vote as representative of my district in 
Texas, but I also knew if I were representing a majority of the 
feelings of the Republican Study Committee, I should not and would not 
be in a position to speak out as boldly against a majority of the 
people in my organization.
  Maybe it is fortunate I am not the RSC chair, so I am here to 
complain about the abuses when they happen by our own leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________