[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.

                          ____________________