[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H962-H969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moolenaar). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Brat).
Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, on November 4, the American people spoke
loudly and clearly on illegal immigration and President Obama's
repeated overreaches of his authority. Yet within weeks of the
election, the President tried to singlehandedly rewrite America's
immigration laws by granting amnesty by executive decree to 5 million
illegal aliens already in this country. It was a move that he
previously said he had no constitutional authority to execute. He also
acknowledged that only Congress could rewrite the laws. But he did it
anyway.
In response, the House took a firm stand last month to pass a bill to
stop the President's illegal and unconstitutional decree that grants
amnesty, work permits, and Federal benefits to illegal aliens. The bill
fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the
year, but it also prohibits the Department from carrying out the
President's illegal act. Let me repeat that last line. This bill fully
funds the Department of Homeland Security. It just says that in order
to get that funding, the Department cannot break the law.
That is just common sense. The American people don't want the Federal
Government breaking the law, and it is up to Congress to make sure that
no Federal funds are used illegally.
Yet today, Senate Democrats are currently united in opposing this
bill. Recent polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the
President's
[[Page H963]]
executive immigrations actions 58 to 36. I call on my Senate colleagues
to support the Constitution and the rule of law and pass H.R. 240 as it
was passed in the House.
The President's amnesty scheme is not only illegal, it is patently
unconstitutional. It creates a dangerous precedent where future
Presidents can ignore laws they don't agree with and expand their own
power beyond its legal boundaries, threatening the very liberty of the
American people.
Our constitutionally guaranteed liberties, our rule of law and
economic opportunities are precisely the things that immigrants come to
America to experience. Our Constitution, rule of law, and economic
prosperity are precisely the things that we will be giving up if we
allow the President to break our laws to give amnesty and work permits
to those who are here illegally.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. DeSantis).
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, about 5 weeks ago, Members of this body
stood on the House floor and we all raised our hands and we all swore
an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. It is the
same oath that Members in the other body, in the Senate, take. I think
it is an oath that means something. It is not just window dressing. We
have a responsibility to conform the actions of this body and to
counteract actions of other branches of government if those actions are
not consistent with the Constitution.
And so here we have an instance in which the President is on record
22 different times saying he does not have the authority to grant work
permits unilaterally, 5 million of them, to people in the country
illegally. He can't give Social Security numbers or benefits without an
act of Congress. And yet, after losing the election, he did it. When he
did it, a number of Members in his own party in the Senate said they
were concerned about what he did, and they didn't think that it could
be done by executive fiat and that changes to immigration law had to
happen through Congress.
And so we are in a curious situation now because the House has passed
a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but to constrain the
President from acting illegally, because the government has to follow
the law just like any other citizen. And you have a situation in the
Senate in which the Democrats, including those seven Senators who said
that this is problematic, they are blocking even having a debate on the
bill. Forget about being opposed to the bill in its final form or if
you don't get an amendment, they will not even let it come to the floor
so it can be debated.
To me, this is the most important type of debate, when it goes to the
central purpose of our oath: to support and defend the Constitution. I
think they need to go on record about why they think this is
constitutional. What limits are there for the President in terms of
exercising this executive power? Can he legislate lower tax rates? Can
he legislate in the field of environmental law or workplace safety law
that the Congress doesn't support?
I think what you are seeing is a dereliction of duty by those
Senators who are unwilling to have a discussion and they are unwilling
to debate. They are putting protecting the political interests of a
President in their own party over their duty to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
If you were right on the issues and you knew that what he did was
constitutional, then you should have no problem going to the floor and
making that case to the American people. The fact that they are
unwilling to do that, I believe, is proof positive that they know that
case cannot be made, and, in fact, they would not be able to make it.
So I appreciate my friend from Georgia reserving this time. I think
this is something that absolutely needs to have a thorough debate; and
the American people overwhelmingly are opposed to what the President
did, so let's debate it. If you don't like what we did, offer your
suggestion, but the idea that you can go run and hide is something that
is not consistent with our duties or with our oath of office.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fine remarks by the
gentleman from Florida.
I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the
State from which our Declaration of Independence was passed and the
very Constitution we are speaking about was debated and proposed to
this great Union.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague from Georgia for organizing this
very important discussion that we are having here today.
Three weeks ago, this House passed a bill to fund the lawful
operations of the Department of Homeland Security. Our bill provides
nearly $40 billion for the protection of our Nation, with a $100
million increase for border security and $600 million more for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Democrats in the Senate, however, now refuse to vote on funding these
important programs because they are insisting on funding President
Obama's unlawful amnesty order for 5 million illegal aliens.
The dollars that hardworking taxpayers send to Washington should not
be used to fund any unlawful order, including President Obama's amnesty
order.
And how do we know that the President's action is unlawful? Well, I
remember what the President said repeatedly. For example, in 2011, the
President said:
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend
deportations through executive order, that is just not the
case because there are laws on the books that Congress has
passed. For me to simply, through executive order, ignore
those congressional mandates would not conform with my
appropriate role as President.
Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 16 days.
The House acted 21 days ago. It is time for the Senate to act.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
{time} 1745
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Georgia, Barry Loudermilk, for the leadership that he
has shown in putting this event together where we on the House floor
can try to help explain to the American people what is at stake here
with the President's executive amnesty.
Mr. Speaker, in that vein, I rise to speak in opposition to President
Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal
aliens. Why? Because I was elected by Americans to represent Americans
in Washington, D.C. While, clearly, protecting the United States
Constitution is the number one reason to fight President Obama's
illegal and unconstitutional conduct, a close second reason is the
economic welfare of American families searching for jobs that will
empower them to take care of their own families.
In that vein, a report by the Center for Immigration Studies is very
instructive. The Center for Immigration Studies did a report based on
Federal Government data. It was collected from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Census Bureau.
And this is what they found.
From the first quarter of the year 2000 to the first quarter of the
year 2014, a 14-year period, with respect to people in America who are
ages 16 to 65--and I will repeat that--ages 16 to 65, which is far and
away the largest block by age of working Americans, the American
economy for that 16 to 65 age group created 5.6 million net new jobs.
Some would say that is pretty good--5.6 million net new jobs.
But do you know how many of those jobs went to American-born
citizens? Do you know the answer to that question? Well, I would submit
to you that every American citizen should--and they ought to be
outraged by the answer. Of those 5.6 million net jobs created over a
14-year period in the United States of America for people ages 16 to
65, American-born citizens had a net loss of 127,000 jobs.
And you wonder why the polling data shows that Americans still
believe they are in a recession. The answer is American-born citizens
are still in a recession.
Well, who got those jobs? Well, according to the Center for
Immigration Studies report, 5.7 million net job gains were by two
groups: illegal aliens, plus lawful immigrants.
So look at the priorities of our Federal Government over the last 14
years.
[[Page H964]]
Look at the priorities established by President Obama's executive
amnesty. The priorities do not lie with American citizens. Rather, they
lie with people of all kinds other than American citizens.
We had 127,000 net job losses, but that doesn't really tell the whole
picture. We also had population growth in the 16 to 65 age bracket for
American-born citizens during that 14-year period of time.
So do you know how many more Americans are unemployed today--
jobless--in the 16 to 65 age bracket because of America's faulty,
porous like a sieve immigration policies? Seventeen million.
And you wonder why our youth are despondent, you wonder why they are
depressed with the job circumstances they face, you wonder why American
families cannot earn a living with the wages that are now being paid.
It is because there are so many people in the White House, on K Street,
and other places who are lobbying the United States Congress to
dramatically increase the labor supply by bringing in illegal aliens
and lawful immigrants to suppress wages and to take jobs from American
families. That is wrong.
Now, you have heard the argument often raised: Well, Americans won't
do those jobs. Let me tell you about those jobs for a moment. We have
got two categories: illegal aliens and lawful immigrants.
Well, you can make the argument that illegal aliens are seeking the
blue collar jobs and that perhaps Americans won't do them at the
suppressed wages now being paid.
With respect to lawful immigrants it is a different picture. Over
those 14 years, in that 16 to 65 age bracket, American-born citizens
lost jobs while lawful immigrants gained jobs in these fields:
engineering, architecture, health care, sales, office staff. Those are
good-paying jobs that when I was growing up American citizens used to
be able to compete for and get but which are now being denied because
of immigration policies.
Those are sobering numbers, those are startling numbers. So sobering,
so depressing, that I challenged my staff. I said, This report can't be
right.
So my congressional staff went to the raw data from the Census
Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Department of Homeland
Security, and they confirmed that the Center for Immigration Studies
data was correct. Which brings us back to President Obama's executive
amnesty that does so much damage to American citizens.
The House has done its job. We have passed legislation to defund
executive amnesty to prevent the President from doing what he has been
doing. The problem, as has been the last 4 years that I have been in
the United States Congress and hopefully won't be the case for the next
2 years, lies with the United States Senate.
Media reports say that we are in an impasse, that the Democrats are
standing with illegal aliens and shunning American families and
filibustering. And the Republican leadership is professing: We don't
have the firepower, we don't have the 60 votes, we are stymied, we
can't end this filibuster.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is another option.
Let's think back for a moment and let's look at Harry Reid when he
was Senate majority leader and the power that he wielded. And what did
he do? He said: I am not going to let the filibuster stop me from
achieving my political goals. And he exercised the nuclear option. And
then under Harry Reid you did not need 60 votes for appointments of
Barack Obama-submitted appointees; rather, a mere majority would work.
Well, if Harry Reid and the Democratic majority can do that, if they
can stand up for their beliefs, however wrong those beliefs may be,
then where is our Republican Senate leadership, and why aren't they
doing the same thing? We have 54 Republican Senators. Mitch McConnell
last time I checked is the Senate Republican majority leader.
All of our Senators have said they object to executive amnesty. Why
don't they do the same thing in respect to bills that we have to pass
to prevent government shutdowns, bills dealing with spending matters,
and say only 51 votes are needed; no longer can a minority with a
filibuster shut down the United States Government?
And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is time for the
United States Senate to change their rules to reflect the will of the
American people. And certainly if those rules can be changed for mere
appointments by a President, they can also be changed to protect the
United States Constitution and the separation of powers.
Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for any Senators or, for that matter, any
elected officials in Washington, D.C., but I can speak for me and I can
speak for the people of the Tennessee Valley of the State of Alabama. I
vote to put the jobs and wage interests of struggling American families
over the interests of illegal aliens. I encourage all Senators of both
parties to do the same. Respect the wishes of the American people, act
on behalf of the American people, and if you do that America will
continue to prosper and the rule of law in America will continue to
prevail.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
those passionate words.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), my freshman colleague.
Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues,
Congressman Jim Jordan and Congressman Barry Loudermilk, for arranging
this special session tonight to address a critical issue looming before
our Nation.
Senator Harry Reid and the President are currently risking the full
funding of our national security to protect the President's unilateral
and unconstitutional executive action on amnesty.
On 22 occasions, President Obama himself said he did not have the
authority to grant executive amnesty before flipping and denying the
will of the American people and taking unilateral action anyway. This
attitude follows a pattern of unilateral action, executive action,
including the President's war on coal, and it must be stopped.
Now, Senator Reid and his allies continue to block any consideration
of the bill passed by the House to fund the Department of Homeland
Security. This obstruction is intended to protect the President's
unconstitutional executive amnesty.
Sadly, no one is surprised that this President would use this
unlawful, unilateral action to pursue his own radical agenda. But now
Senator Reid and the President are edging closer to putting the
American people in danger to protect that agenda.
The Constitution clearly gives the power of the purse to the United
States House of Representatives--this Chamber right here. And the
American people said clearly last year that they expect us to use our
authority over spending to keep government operating in a responsible
manner.
I call upon Senator Reid, President Obama, and their Democrat allies
to end this political gamesmanship. Instead, bring up the bill to fund
Homeland Security for consideration and passage.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
West Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, we have people from all over this great
Union that have risen here today to speak, not just from the South. I
would like to yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), my great friend.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman leading
tonight's discussion on the floor. As we do so, we think about the
people back at home and across this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Americans are hurting because
they are out of work, Americans are hurting because they lost jobs,
they find they can't find new jobs. Families are hurting because of
this. Families, Mr. Speaker, are also hurting because they are waiting
for other fellow family members to be able to join them here in this
country through the legal immigration process. They are patiently going
through all the processes that we have set up in this country to
process it, and they are hurting as they wait for their family members
to join them.
As we come here to the floor today as Members of Congress, we
understand that this government has to ensure that everyone plays by
the rules, including this administration.
[[Page H965]]
As Members of Congress, we are obligated to uphold the Constitution,
and that is exactly what this House has done by defunding the
President's unconstitutional actions in which he granted amnesty. Added
to that, he provided working permits to over 5 million illegal
immigrants, thereby creating additional problems for those Americans
who are out of work and creating additional problems for those
Americans who are waiting for their fellow family members to come into
this country through the legal immigration process.
Mr. Speaker, the House has done its job. We have acted. We have fully
funded--this is important--we have fully funded the Department of
Homeland Security while at the same time undoing the damage the
President's unprecedented executive amnesty is having on our Republic
and, more important, on our American families.
The President's actions to grant de facto amnesty has broad-reaching
consequences for many of my constituents and constituents all across
the United States as well.
It is unfair. It is not only unfair, it is irresponsible to divert
resources away from legal applications of those who, as I said before,
are patiently waiting and going through the legal process of
immigration to give it to those who have broken the law.
It is also reckless to reward those who have blatantly broken the law
with work permits, allowing them to compete directly with those
Americans and those American families who are hurting because they are
out of work today and are finding themselves in a hard position to find
work.
So because of this, Mr. Speaker, I call on our Senators who are
blocking a vote on the bill: do not turn your backs on the millions of
Americans who are struggling to find work, do not turn your back on
those who have immigrated here legally, and do not turn your back on
those who are still waiting to try to immigrate into this country
legally as well.
{time} 1800
It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the Senate to act. It is time for the
Senate to end its obstruction. It is time to move this bill.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. I thank my friend from New Jersey for those
appropriate words.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my good friend and freshman colleague
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, we are rapidly approaching a crossroads
regarding the President's executive actions that provide de facto
amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
On February 27, the appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security runs out. Here are the facts:
The House has done exactly what the American people have asked. We
have passed a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland
Security, including broadly supported amendments that would defund the
President's illegal executive orders.
Now the time has come for the Senate to engage. Sadly, they are not
even debating the issue. Senate Democrats are now blocking the
consideration of the bill. I strongly urge the Senate majority leader,
Mitch McConnell, to hold the line and to work diligently.
The President's overreach needs to be stopped. This is a
constitutional issue, not an immigration one. Are we not outraged at
such abuse? The President has violated his own words, attempting to
enforce authoritative actions he repeatedly said he did not have. In
fact, 22 times he has said he did not have the constitutional privilege
to do so. This administration's opinion on other issues may continue to
evolve or change, but may I remind him the Constitution has not
changed.
I am calling on not only my constituents but on our fellow citizens
across this land to let your voices be heard. Demand results from your
leaders.
I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia for organizing this
meeting to allow our voices to be heard in a very loud manner.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the comments that
have been made here today. As you can tell, this is not a party issue.
This is not about Republicans or Democrats or conservatives. This is
about our Constitution. This is about American principles and the rule
of law, but, more importantly, it is about fairness. It is about the
American Dream. It is about those who are working hard every day. It is
about the children and our future.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the
beautiful State of Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I have cherished the privilege to chair the Subcommittee
on the Constitution in this body, and throughout the Obama
administration, I have been bewildered many times by this President's
many casual dismissals of constitutional principle and the respect for
the rule of law, itself, in America.
However, I now believe that the President's recent actions related to
illegal immigration constitute a fundamental and seminal abrogation of
his sworn oath to the Constitution. If left unchallenged, Mr. Speaker,
this President's unconstitutional act could create a precedent that
could threaten to place a permanent crack in the very foundations of
this Republic. Consequently, the issue before us now is about far more
than illegal immigration--it is about protecting the Constitution of
the United States of America.
Now it is both the prerogative and the solemn responsibility of this
House and of the U.S. Senate to uphold our own collective oath to the
Constitution. Through the constitutional power of the purse, we must
stand with and for the American people and refuse to fund this
unconstitutional action by this President. We must call upon the Senate
to continue to hold multiple votes for cloture so that this Nation can
discover and understand who it is who prevents us from doing our
constitutional duty.
Mr. Speaker, failing that, we must now call upon the United States
Senate to subordinate its own cloture rules to the United States
Constitution and to use their rules to change their rules for that
purpose if it becomes a choice between the Senate cloture rules and the
United States Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster once said:
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the
Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster;
and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen
again. So hold on to the Constitution, for, if the American
Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout
the world.
Mr. Speaker, our duty is clear.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. I thank my good friend from the Grand Canyon State.
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Mr. Speaker, many of us sat in this very room back in January, and we
listened to the President as he gave his State of the Union Address. He
outlined a complete program, from the cradle to the grave, of what
government would do--take over the rights of individuals. Many of us
heard from citizens across the Nation that they were opposed to that.
Mr. Speaker, if we allow this President to continue on legislating from
the Oval Office, I would submit there is nothing standing in the way
for him to implement every one of his plans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this
key issue to us on the floor tonight.
Mr. Speaker, in November, the voters sent a very loud message to
Washington, D.C. Now, they elected a lot of Republicans, but I tell my
Republican friends that they weren't affirming our principles so much
as they were desperate for a check and a balance against a President
whose policies were frightening to them but also whose actions lay
outside the bounds of laws that he was constrained by and
constitutional constraints on his actions also. He, himself, admitted
that multiple times, maybe more than 20 times, saying: I don't have the
right to do it--as his own party chastised him and tried to force him
into these executive actions, which he ultimately took. He said at one
point: I am not the emperor.
Are we now to believe that he declares himself to be such? That is
the basic question that faces us now.
The people of America want this institution called Congress--the
House and the Senate together--to operate properly. I think, as much as
anything else, the voters were expressing discontent that 380-plus
bills from this
[[Page H966]]
House were stalled on the other side of the Capitol, never making their
way in any form to the floor of the Senate.
The people expect to see the issues up here and wrangled about. They
want the tension between the two parties' different ideological points
of view pulling at the fabric of the ideas in front of us. They are not
so much concerned about the next bill. They are concerned about our
vision for America and where we would take it, and they are frightened
of a President who himself would take on actions which they knew were
contrary to the good of the future of the country and that were
certainly outside the boundaries of the laws which restrain even the
President, because this country believes that not even the President is
above the law.
So the questions before us are very critical. There are some who are
saying: You all in the House have passed a DHS bill, and it is all your
way or no way. I beg to differ. We sent our version of a Keystone
pipeline bill to the Senate. The Senate made significant changes. They
sent that back, and, just today, we sent the bill with the changes, the
changes that were brought by Democrats in the Senate. The Senate
Democrats allowed the bill to come up for debate. They amended the
bill. There are more amendments in this one bill than have been heard
in the previous year, total, so the system is working properly. We just
sent that bill to the President. We are going to ask him to sign it or
to turn it down. The people will have an opinion now about the outcome
of whether the President signs it or doesn't sign it.
In contrast, look at what is happening with the DHS bill. The Senate
Democrats, under Harry Reid, are saying: No, we are going to block it
again. There is no debate, and there is no discussion, and there are no
more ideas that are going to come in front of this Senate. I think that
the American people are going to have the same opinion that they had
about Reid's blocking all of the bills that came from the House before.
I think that to be the case.
At any rate, we in the House have passed our bill. The Senate should
either obstruct or move forward. There are many fashions to do both,
but the American people are looking and judging because they
desperately want an institution that functions. They are not really
significantly interested if it functions for Democrat rule or
Republican rule. I think what they want is a system that is passing
commonsense legislation, guaranteeing that the future of this country
will be solid and sound. Then we can build a healthy economy, where
everyone has got opportunity and where everyone has a chance to succeed
based on the merits of his work.
That is not what this President is putting in line, and that is the
question before the House now as the Senate twice has rejected or has,
maybe, even three times rejected the opportunity to debate the issue. I
just calmly tell the American people that we are here, prepared to do
the work you sent us to do. We will continue to do it. All you have to
do is express your opinions to this body.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from Representatives of
the people of this Nation from all across the country. So far, I have
yielded to Representatives from Florida, Alabama, West Virginia, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Now I yield to a good friend and patriot from the State that has seen
and has participated in creating so much of the history of this Nation.
He is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. I thank Mr. Loudermilk for putting this together this
evening.
Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the situation we are in, and it
came to my mind that there is a reason that the legislature is supposed
to make the laws. There is a reason that we have a debate and that we
discuss all of the different facets, because what also came to mind is
the fact that the folks who have been legalized by the President's
unconstitutional action will now get a Social Security number. With
that, it will allow them to qualify for the earned income tax credit.
As well, many will qualify for the child tax credit. Now, the IRS Code,
Mr. Speaker, allows taxes to be amended back 3 years, and these folks
who have just now received their Social Security numbers will be able
to receive this payment retroactively.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Where is the fairness in that? I mean, what
is fair about an illegal amnesty bonus? a bonus for breaking the law?
What is fair about an immigrant's standing in line, coming here
legally, wading through the process, only to watch somebody come right
around him into this Nation, getting a Social Security number and, not
only that, getting paid for doing that?
What is fair about hardworking, tax-paying Americans knowing that
they can't get a break on their taxes because that money has got to go
to somebody who came here expressly to break the law? What is fair
about all of the children of all of these hardworking, tax-paying
Americans being saddled with debt for the rest of their futures and
their children's futures and those of their children's children for the
sake of an illegal amnesty bonus? It is a bonus for breaking the law.
What is fair about that, Mr. Speaker?
Now it is in the Senate, and the Senate is saying: Well, maybe the
House should send another bill. The House sent a bill. It is the will
of the House. It is the Senate's turn. With all due respect, if you
don't want to vote for the bill, we get that. Vote ``no.'' You can
explain that to your constituents--you can explain that to your
voters--but it is more important to you to pay somebody a bonus for
coming here illegally. You can explain that.
The point is that they don't even want to have the vote. They are
making sure there will be no vote. We are saying give this bill its
chance; give it its day. If you have got a better idea, if you have got
a different idea, that is great. That is wonderful. Let's see it. Pass
your bill and send it over, and we will work together to pass something
along.
I would say this to the leader of the Senate: It is time you make the
rules, Mr. Leader. If now is not the time to change those rules in
favor of the Constitution, when is the time? Instead of being concerned
about 40-some years of tradition and of the way we run the Senate--
instead of being concerned about that--how about being concerned about
hundreds of years in favor of the Constitution? When President Obama
didn't like the rule, apparently, even though he said 20 times or so
that he had to abide by the Constitution, he just changed it. He just
disregarded it.
{time} 1815
And when Harry Reid didn't like the rule--a couple hundreds years of
votes in cloture and the nuclear rule in the Senate--he just changed
it. Right?
We are not asking to change it all the time, but when it comes down
to a constitutional crisis, when it comes down to a division of powers,
do you want to stand up for a bonus for acting illegally, for breaking
the law, or do you want to stand up for the Constitution?
If that is not the time to change the rules for the President's
unconstitutional executive action, if that is not the time to change
the rules, Mr. McConnell, when is the time? The time is now.
Pass a bill. Whatever your bill is, have a vote, ``yes'' or ``no,''
send it to the House, and we will work it out. This legislation, this
issue demands your attention. It demands a vote. It deserves a vote.
The American people need to know. They deserve to know where their
elected representatives in the Senate stand, not to just not vote on
anything. They didn't send them there to just not vote. They sent them
there to make a decision, ``yes'' or ``no.''
We get it. If you want to vote ``no,'' good for you. You explain
that. If you want to vote ``yes,'' great. But have the vote. There is
no reason to not change the rule if it gets us to a vote and upholds
the Constitution. As a matter of fact, if it takes changing the rules
to uphold the Constitution, this is one Representative of the Fourth
District of Pennsylvania who thinks it is worth it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I ask you: What is fair? What is fair
about giving these bonuses to people who just received a Social
Security card and who have been operating outside of the law for years?
They receive their Social Security Card and they get a bonus.
You try that. Having worked here as a person who was born in this
country,
[[Page H967]]
you try to work under the table and then just apply and see if you will
get a bonus from the IRS. Let me tell you what you get, Mr. Speaker.
You will get a visit from the IRS, but it won't be for a bonus.
Think about fairness, Mr. Leader in the Senate. Change the rules.
Let's move this bill forward.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this is a very
passionate issue for many of us--not just because of politics but
because this is about the heart of our Nation. This is the basis, the
foundation of our Nation.
I now yield to a good friend and another freshman colleague from the
great State of Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. I thank my colleague for yielding. I am pleased to have
this time on the floor to talk about this important issue that faces
our Congress.
On more than 22 occasions, President Obama has told audiences that,
on the advice of his counsel, his attorneys, he could in fact not do
what he has just proposed to do last November of 2014.
He stated that he did not have the statutory authority to defer
deportation of over 5 million people who are in our country illegally,
thereby granting them rights to drivers' licenses, work permits, Social
Security, and health benefits.
For example, in 2013, the President stated that implementing
immigration ``reform'' through executive action was ``difficult to
defend legally'' and ``not an option.'' He has repeatedly told the
American people that he is a President, not a king, not a emperor.
Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the 22 times that the
President has uttered these words that say that he does not have the
authority to take executive action on immigration.
President Obama's Twenty-Two Statements on His Lack of Authority to
Handle Immigration Policy by Executive Action
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any
day now despite the American people's staunch opposition, on
Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many
statements he made in the past about his inability to
unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response
was astonishingly brazen: ``Actually, my position hasn't
changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest
was in me, through executive action, duplicating the
legislation that was stalled in Congress.''
This is a flagrant untruth: ``In fact, most of the
questions that were posed to the president over the past
several years were about the very thing that he is expected
to announce within a matter of days,'' reported The New York
Times. ``[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the
sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,'' The
Washington Post's Fact Checker agreed, awarding President
Obama the rare ``Upside-Down Pinocchio,'' which signifies ``a
major-league flip-flop.'' Even FactCheck.org piled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans,
but he can't run from what he's said over and over (and over)
again. Not only are Americans not stupid--they can read:
1. ``I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest
problems that we're facing right now have to do with [the
president] trying to bring more and more power into the
executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And
that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the
United States of America.'' (3/31/08)
2. ``We've got a government designed by the Founders so
that there'd be checks and balances. You don't want a
president who's too powerful or a Congress that's too
powerful or a court that's too powerful. Everybody's got
their own role. Congress's job is to pass legislation. The
president can veto it or he can sign it. . . . I believe in
the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the
United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a
way of doing an end-run around Congress.'' (5/19/08)
3. ``Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve
this problem. . . . Anybody who tells you it's going to be
easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen
hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.'' (5/5/
10)
4. ``[T]here are those in the immigrants' rights community
who have argued passionately that we should simply provide
those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least
ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation
until we have better laws. . . . I believe such an
indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It
would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally
that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And
this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And
it would also ignore the millions of people around the world
who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our
nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to
control its borders and set laws for residency and
citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter
their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be
held accountable.'' (7/1/10)
5. ``I do have an obligation to make sure that I am
following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that
are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are
changed.'' (10/14/10)
6. ``I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things
just by myself. We have a system of government that requires
the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it
happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to
have some partners to do it. . . . The main thing we have to
do to stop deportations is to change the laws. . . . [T]he
most important thing that we can do is to change the law
because the way the system works--again, I just want to
repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on
the books that says that people who are here who are not
documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some
flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to
focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed
to families who are just trying to work and support
themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can
show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the
Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by
myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus
on changing the underlying laws.'' (10/25/10)
7. ``America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the
President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a
choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate
for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both
respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation
of immigrants. . . . With respect to the notion that I can
just suspend deportations through executive order, that's
just not the case, because there are laws on the books that
Congress has passed. . . [W]e've got three branches of
government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's
job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the
judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on
the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we
have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply
through executive order ignore those congressional mandates
would not conform with my appropriate role as President.''
(3/28/11)
8. ``I can't solve this problem by myself. . . . [W]e're
going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it
happen. . . . I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to
change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it
happen.'' (4/20/11)
9. ``I know some here wish that I could just bypass
Congress and change the law myself But that's not how
democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it's right.
Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds
and changing votes, one by one.'' (4/29/11)
10. ``Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they
wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.
But that's not how a democracy works. What we really need to
do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive
reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's
what I'm committed to doing.'' (5/10/11)
11. ``I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . .
Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change
the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on
my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on
immigration reform. But that's not how our system works.
That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our
Constitution is written.'' (7/25/11)
12. ``So what we've tried to do is within the constraints
of the laws on the books, we've tried to be as fair, humane,
just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves
need to be changed. . . . The most important thing for your
viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in
order to change our laws, we've got to get it through the
House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by
Republicans, and we've got to get 60 votes in the Senate. . .
. Administratively, we can't ignore the law. . . . I just
have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just
change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing
everything we can administratively. But the fact of the
matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.
And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause
of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive
immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow,
by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not
true. . . . We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills
through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if
all the attention is focused away from the legislative
process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-
end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then
apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten
and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.'' (9/28/11)
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred
action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing ``eligible
individuals who do not present a risk to national security or
public safety . . . to request temporary relief from
deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.''
He then argued that he had already done everything he could
legally do on his own:
13. ``Now, what I've always said is, as the head of the
executive branch, there's a limit to what I can do. Part of
the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole
lot of money into it, and when you have a lot
[[Page H968]]
of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are
going to be higher numbers. What we've said is, let's make
sure that you're not misdirecting those resources. But we're
still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order
to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see
coming up occasionally. And that's why this continues to be a
top priority of mine. . . . And we will continue to make sure
that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible.
But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for
legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question,
we're going to continue to be bound by the law. . . . And so
part of the challenge as President is constantly saying,
`what authorities do I have?' '' (9/20/12)
14. ``We are a nation of immigrants. . . . But we're also a
nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken
immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my
own[.]'' (10/16/12)
15. ``I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch
of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's
what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure
that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account
people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on
deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we
have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.'' (1/
30/13)
16. ``I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the
executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you
know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws,
we've got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But
we can't simply ignore the law. When it comes to the
dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, `These
folks are generally not a risk. They're not involved in
crime. . . . And so let's prioritize our enforcement
resources.' But to sort through all the possible cases of
everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very
difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive
immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a
way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that
there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying
out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who've
put down roots here. . . . My job is to carry out the law.
And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They
give us an order that we've got to go out there and enforce
the laws that are on the books. . . . If this was an issue
that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time
ago. . . . The way our system works is Congress has to pass
legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and
implement it.'' (1/30/13)
17. ``This is something I've struggled with throughout my
presidency. The problem is that I'm the president of the
United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My
job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right
now has not changed what I consider to be a broken
immigration system. And what that means is that we have
certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place
even if we think that in many cases the results may be
tragic. . . . [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative
flexibility as much as we can[.]'' (2/14/13)
18. ``I think that it is very important for us to recognize
that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I
can do some things and have done some things that make a
difference in the lives of people by determining how our
enforcement should focus. . . . And we've been able to
provide help through deferred action for young people . . .
But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.''
(7/16/13)
19. ``My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to
carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said `here
is the law' when it comes to those who are undocumented, and
they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement.
And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument
that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the
resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress
has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the
DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown
up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But if we
start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring
the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to
defend legally. So that's not an option. . . . What I've said
is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's
through Congress.'' (9/17/13)
20. ``[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems
without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But
we're also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.
And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I
can do something by violating our laws. And what I'm
proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic
processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve.
. . . It is not simply a matter of us just saying we're going
to violate the law. That's not our tradition. The great thing
about this country is we have this wonderful process of
democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is
hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.'' (11/25/13)
21. ``I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive
immigration reform. But what I've said in the past remains
true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am
constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I've done
is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can't
enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million
people, there aren't the resources there. What we've said is
focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on
people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on
young people, who we're calling DREAMers . . . That already
stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was
confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a
certain point the reason that these deportations are taking
place is, Congress said, `you have to enforce these laws.'
They fund the hiring of officials at the department that's
charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any
more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws
that are on the books. That's why it's so important for us to
get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.'' (3/6/
14)
22. ``I think that I never have a green light [to push the
limits of executive power]. I'm bound by the Constitution;
I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we
can't do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. .
. . Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So
I don't have a green light. . . . My preference in all these
instances is to work with Congress, because not only can
Congress do more, but it's going to be longer-lasting.'' (8/
6/14)
Further, notwithstanding the President's own legal argument to the
contrary, Mr. Obama's supporters argue that he simply is doing what
Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did. This statement is simply not true.
Instead, President Reagan and Bush responded in a statutorily
acceptable matter to an ambiguity in a specific law and did not seek to
circumvent or prevent enforcement of the law as it was written.
I supported recent House legislative action to defund the President's
executive actions based on the facts above, as well as my view that
Congress must in fact fix our broken immigration system by legislation.
The separation of powers argument here is clear. In article I of the
U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the enumerated power of setting
uniform law for naturalizing our citizens.
Mr. Obama's approach violates this provision by both exceeding his
constitutional authority as well as his sworn obligation to faithfully
execute the laws as passed by Congress.
While we are all familiar with the Executive's obligation to
faithfully execute, we must focus on the cynical distrust that doing
the opposite causes among our citizens.
James Madison in Federalist 51 discussed the need for each branch of
government to guard against overreach by another. ``When such an
overreach occurs,'' Madison stated, ``ambition must be counteracted by
ambition.'' And clearly, our government works best when each branch
stays within its prescribed boundaries.
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy argued this in a recent separation of
powers case before the court when he said:
Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches
seek to transgress the separation of powers.
As a matter of principle, as a matter of our role in Congress, I urge
my colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the proper separation of
powers and assert that Congress alone can debate and enact such
sweeping changes to our immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, Members seeking to reform our broken immigration system
should support our efforts to rein in this tyranny of the Executive.
Only then can Congress work together to craft the proper solutions to
fix our broken system. Only then will Congress come together and insist
on a border that is secure and fully functioning as a cornerstone of
our homeland security.
With a land, sea, and air border that knows who and why people are
entering our beloved Nation, we can then turn our attention to those
many connecting facets of our system: visa overstays; lack of a
balanced, well-staffed, and functioning guest worker program; adequate
welcome and legal openings for those facing persecution; speedy
adjudication for those aliens who are detained; opportunities for
needed workers, professors, and students in our universities; and
finally, a process for handling those among us who remain outside our
legal tax and societal systems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the
first branch and our constitutional prerogative. Take action on our
Homeland Security bill and send it back to the House.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Again, Mr. Speaker, you can see that Representatives
from all across the Nation have stood here today and represented the
people of this Nation on how important this issue is.
[[Page H969]]
Mr. Speaker, we live in one of the most dangerous times in American
history. Innocent American citizens are targeted by extreme Islamic
terrorists at home and around the world.
On September 11, 2001, even the sanctity of our homeland was proven
to be vulnerable. And now, an organization considered too evil and too
extreme by other terrorist organizations is calling for homegrown
terrorists to carry out unspeakable acts of violence against innocent
Americans--acts which we have witnessed in the past year.
Since 2001, there have been more than 60 coordinated terrorist plots
against Americans on American soil. These perpetrators of evil planned
to execute their violence in the places where innocent civilians live,
work, and play. They have targeted civilians on aircraft, at military
installations, mass gatherings of citizens, sporting activities,
restaurants, and shopping malls--the very places where Americans should
expect to feel safe and secure.
However, the current administration continues to deny the ideology
that motivates these acts of evil. When a known sympathizer to
terrorist organizations chooses to carry out his evil acts against
coworkers, it is passed off as workplace violence. When our Embassy in
Benghazi was invaded and officials of the United States Government were
slain at the hands of known terrorists, it was spun as a violent
response to a YouTube video.
When a military pilot of an allied country was murdered in the most
horrific and painful way, the President referred to the perpetrators as
a cult of death, not extremist Islamic terrorists.
With the rise and the expansion of ISIS, our citizens, military, and
first responders are in more danger than ever before, and we must be
vigilant to protect our citizens and our national interests.
Following the terrorist attacks of
9/11, our government recognized that the threat of organized and well-
planned acts by international terrorist organizations required new and
dedicated resources to protect American citizens. In response, the
Department of Homeland Security was created, and resources were
allocated by Congress to protect our homeland from future devastating
acts of terrorism.
Since the turn of the century, terrorists have plotted over 60
attacks against our Nation. Thankfully, more than 50 of these were
thwarted by U.S. law enforcement and our intelligence community, while
others were stopped with the cooperation of law enforcement from other
nations.
In the past several months, the threat against America has grown
exponentially. ISIS is one of the most well-funded, the most organized,
the best armed, and the most ruthless terrorist organization in the
history of the world.
Even al Qaeda, which planned and executed the most devastating attack
on American soil since the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor, pales in
comparison to the organization and resources of ISIS.
Recently, ISIS has expanded well beyond traditional communication
tactics used by other terrorist organizations and has engaged in an
effective Internet and social media campaign to recruit foreign
fighters to join their ranks. They are purposefully, Mr. Speaker,
targeting our youth by using popular video games to appeal to thrill
seekers. They are promising that these young people can live out the
fantasy world that they experience in their games.
Today, we are experiencing what may be the largest convergence of
terrorist activity in history. As a result of the growth and the
recruitment of ISIS, foreign fighters are swarming to Syria to join the
ranks of the international jihad.
While it is virtually impossible to stop every act of terrorism
against Americans, I believe the Department of Homeland Security, our
military, and law enforcement agencies have done an exceptional job.
However, we are only days away from the current funding of the
Department of Homeland Security expiring, which, even according to this
administration, could put us at grave risk.
During the first week of this 114th Congress, the House of
Representatives took quick and decisive action to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security will continue to function at full
capacity. We passed a funding measure that would ensure that all public
safety functions within the Department are fully funded so that the
agency can fulfill its mission.
Unfortunately, a few Senate Democrats are filibustering this bill and
are keeping it from even coming to the floor for consideration. The
Democratic Party is putting our national security at risk through their
insistence that the President be able to grant 5 million illegal aliens
legal status so they can receive work permits, tax refunds, and public
assistance.
The President's recent executive order on amnesty places the safety
of every citizen in jeopardy and eliminates job opportunities for
hardworking Americans. At a time when millions of Americans are
struggling simply to make ends meet, the President should be focused on
providing American jobs, not introducing millions of new laborers into
the workforce. Since the President assumed office, he has already
issued almost 5.5 million work permits to foreign laborers.
The Senate now has the perfect opportunity to protect the safety of
all Americans by approving House Resolution 240, a bill that would
defund the President's executive order on amnesty, yet they refuse to
take up this commonsense measure and do what is right for the American
people. By not taking action, the Senate is relinquishing control to
the President to continue carrying out these actions without the
consent of Congress.
Today, my office and the office of every Member of Congress received
a formal request from the White House to authorize the President to use
military force to fight against ISIS. It is ironic that, on one hand,
the President is asking to send our young men and women overseas to
fight against terrorism but, on the other hand, he and Senate Democrats
are willing to put our security at risk at home so he can, without
constitutional authority, saturate the American workforce with foreign
labor who have entered this Nation illegally.
{time} 1830
Instead of working to strengthen our economy and secure our jobs for
American citizens, the President seems to be more concerned with
providing jobs for illegal immigrants.
He has even threatened to veto the Keystone pipeline, a bill that we
just passed here just a couple of hours ago. He has already threatened
that he is going to veto this bill with one stroke of his pen, a bill
that would create more than 40,000 jobs; but with another, he is
willing to add 5 million illegal immigrants to an already struggling
job market.
Mr. President, the American people are hurting. Many families are
spending countless hours around the kitchen table discussing how to pay
their bills and live within their means. These families should not have
to compete for jobs with those who are not legal U.S. citizens.
The American people should be calling on the Democrats in the Senate
to stop their filibuster of H.R. 240. It is time for the President, Mr.
Speaker, and Members of the Senate to put the American people first and
help hardworking Americans find jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Trott). The Chair will remind Members to
address their remarks to the Chair and to refrain from engaging in
personalities toward the President.
____________________