[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 59 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1793-H1797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          RESTORING ARTICLE I CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho) for 30 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this 
evening's Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, if Congress does not assert its constitutional 
authority, we risk becoming obsolete in the eyes of an Executive that 
would prefer to legislate with a phone and a pen as a replacement for 
this body.
  Thank you to all my colleagues who join me this evening, and may God 
bless America.
  Every day, before Members of Congress meet to conduct official 
business, we gather to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United 
States of America. We place our right hand over our hearts and promise 
to our colleagues, our constituents, and all Americans that we will 
uphold the rule of law.
  This very law is the very vehicle that has ensured liberty and 
justice for all even being a possibility: the rule of law. 
Unfortunately, this administration seems intent on operating outside 
the rule of law. It insists upon circumventing Congress by changing 
laws and legislating from the Oval Office, not from Capitol Hill.
  Time and again, the American people have had to bear witness to the 
blatant disrespect this administration has for

[[Page H1794]]

our Constitution. In my heart, I believe this disrespect is on full 
display in the embattled fight Congress and the American people find 
themselves in today with the executive branch at the Supreme Court.
  This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the United 
States v. Texas case, including 25 other States. To some, this case is 
simply an argument over whether or not you are pro-illegal immigration. 
Let me repeat that. You are pro-illegal immigration or not. To others, 
this case is about keeping families together. To many, like myself, it 
is about protecting the dignity of our Constitution and the balance of 
powers within the three branches of government.
  The United States v. Texas is about the rule of law and defending the 
integrity of our great institution of government. We are a 
constitutional Republic. And yet, the President's mass deferred action 
on deportation of individuals residing within our country illegally 
would make it seem more like we are living in a dictatorship.
  The Constitution is clear on the issues of legislation. Article I, 
section 1 explicitly states: ``All legislative powers herein granted 
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist 
of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  Let that sink in for a moment. ``All legislative powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  Article I, section 8, clause 4: ``to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization.'' That is solely the responsibility of this body. Take 
notice of the absence of any reference to the executive office, 
executive branch, or judicial branch.
  Article II, section 3, however, states that the President ``shall 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' It is referred to as 
the Take Care Clause. That the laws be faithfully executed, not 
established, not rewritten, not selectively enforce portions of law, 
but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

                              {time}  2045

  That power is still delegated to Congress just as it was over two 
centuries ago.
  If the Supreme Court upholds the administrative executive action, I 
fear that our Republic--that is the United States--will die. We will 
see an end of a Nation that started by fending off tyranny. We will see 
the end of a Nation which has withstood a civil war, two world wars, 
and countless terrorist attacks.
  Terrorists hate the United States simply because of the manner 
through which we have prospered under the freedoms enshrined in the 
Constitution.
  Again, the success of our Nation is because we are a land and a 
Nation of laws. I urge all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate 
to not falter in their defense of the founding principles upon which 
this great Nation was built.
  Interesting, today, at the Supreme Court, I was there to speak on 
these very topics. Many pro-illegal immigrants were present, and I 
found it very interesting they were shouting, demonstrating, exercising 
freedom of speech, freedom of speech and demonstrating in America, 
simply because we have a Constitution that protects that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat), my 
good friend and colleague.
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the case being heard 
before the Supreme Court, United States v. Texas, and the President's 
unconstitutional executive actions on immigration and the need for the 
restoration of the balance of powers between the branches of 
government. This case is the challenge to President Obama's executive 
actions for illegal immigrants, the so-called Deferred Action for 
Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, otherwise known as 
DAPA, an expansion of the earlier Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals, otherwise known as DACA. The lawsuit was brought by Governors 
and attorneys general from the Texas Supreme Court and 25 other States. 
That is significant, in and of itself.
  Under these unconstitutional programs, President Obama claims the 
right to, by executive fiat, make an illegal immigrant ``lawfully 
present.'' Let me say that again real slow. The President claims, by 
right, by executive fiat, to make an illegal immigrant ``lawfully 
present'' in the United States and eligible to receive a work permit 
after an application is reviewed and a fee is paid. This is straight 
out of ``1984.''
  The language is upside down. The government is handing out work 
permits and making illegal immigrants eligible to work in the United 
States as well as receive Social Security, unemployment, and disability 
benefits. But this only hurts American citizens and taxpayers.
  What has Congress done about this? Not enough.
  The real issue in this case is not discretion, but whether or not 
there is any limit at all on Presidential power.
  The Founders recognized these distinctions, and they made Congress 
the first branch among equals of the Federal Government and the most 
accountable branch to the American people--and thus, Article I, not II. 
The Congress is Article I.
  The Founders created a system of checks and balances to ensure no 
individual could gain absolute power within the government without a 
check, not even George Washington, whom they all loved.
  Under our Constitution, the Congress is entrusted with ``all 
legislative powers''--all, including the power ``to establish a uniform 
rule of naturalization.''
  The Founders drafted the Constitution to clearly state that it is not 
the President who writes the laws; Congress does. Much of the 
President's job is to faithfully execute these laws passed by Congress. 
In fact, neither any immigration law nor the Constitution empowers the 
Executive to authorize, let alone facilitate, the violation of the laws 
passed by Congress. The President even acknowledged this 22 times on TV 
before using his pen and phone to act alone without Congress.
  This imbalance of powers is a threat to self-government itself. Our 
inaction, time and again, has expanded the administrative state and 
left the American people without a voice in Washington. The 
Presidential elections on both sides of the aisle are making this 
abundantly clear.
  For starters, we can advocate for reforms in four principled areas: 
reclaiming Congress' power of the purse, reforming executive-empowering 
legislative ``cliffs,'' restoring congressional authority over 
regulations and regulators, and reining in executive discretion.
  I have sponsored simple legislation to do just that: return power 
back to Congress. I introduced a bill to reform this process with the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, the primary agency 
for implementing the President's immigration executive order.
  USCIS funds itself through application fees, which insulates it from 
the will of the American people as expressed through their 
Representatives in Congress. Congress cannot effectively exercise its 
powers through the appropriations process to perform basic oversight 
functions and ensure the agency is executing the laws faithfully.
  My proposal, the Use Spending for Congressional Immigration 
Supervision, USCIS, Act, will make unaccountable agencies like the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services accountable to Congress and, 
therefore, accountable to the American people. Putting USCIS on 
appropriations ensures that unelected bureaucrats are held accountable 
and provides transparency for how the Federal Government is raising and 
spending your money.
  Congress needs to reassert its power of the purse by making agency 
budgets subject to appropriations, but we cannot stop there. There is 
more Congress has to do to restore Congress' power to hold the 
executive branch accountable. The Constitution still gives Congress all 
its powers. It is up to Congress to step up and start using them.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Florida for organizing 
this Special Order, for his leadership, for his constitutional 
convictions, and for the opportunity to address you tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

[[Page H1795]]

  I am listening to this dialogue that is taking place here on the 
floor, and this thought occurred to me that, several years ago, our 
borders are so open and our borders are so porous, and we have a 
President who has refused to enforce the law. In fact, he sends the 
message through his executive branch, if you are determined to enforce 
the law and you are a member of the Border Patrol, you had better find 
another job. I mean, that came out of the President and his leadership 
team all the way on down to our Border Patrol agents.
  I have been down to the border a good number of times, and I have 
watched as people come across the border in broad daylight, float 
across there in a raft. They get unloaded, stand there on the grass on 
our side of the river, and wait for the Border Patrol to come down with 
a welcome wagon and say: Would you like to apply for asylum?
  And, by the way, one of them was a pregnant lady, and so I am sure by 
now she has her asylum, or at least that baby is an American citizen.
  Our borders are so porous that, in order to illustrate how bad they 
are, we had James O'Keefe, who went down and put on an Osama bin Laden 
mask and walked across the border. Nobody bothered him.
  There was another individual that thought: I will make a bigger show 
of it. I will hire a mariachi band, and he rode a circus elephant 
across the Rio Grande River. That is how bad our border is.
  Now, here is how bad our law and our Constitution are. The mariachi 
band was serenading the Supreme Court today, Mr. Speaker, to try to 
convince them that we ought to see the Supreme Court rewrite law that 
Congress has written, that has been signed by a previous President, and 
every President since then has taken the oath to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  This constitutional balance that we have has seen a Supreme Court 
rewrite ObamaCare. So now they have the audacity to rewrite the law, 
and they are the ones that are deciding today, with eight Justices, 
sadly--sadly, not 9--as to whether or not the President of the United 
States can do what the Supreme Court did, in other words, rewrite the 
law.
  The President of the United States, 22 times, as the previous 
speaker, Mr. Brat, said, told America he doesn't have the 
constitutional authority to grant the amnesty, the executive amnesty 
that he did, whether it be DACA or whether it be DAPA. But then, after 
he deliberated for awhile, he checked his conscience. That didn't 
bother him. We shouldn't be amazed at that, Mr. Speaker. He already 
knew the Constitution. He lectured it to us. But what he checked was 
his politics, and his question was: Can he get away with it? Is there 
an enforcement capacity that could stop him?
  Well, he hadn't met yet Judge Hanen in Texas who, if these Justices 
in the Supreme Court deadlock 4-4, the President's executive amnesty, 
at least for DAPA, is going to be stalled for the duration of his 
administration.
  And so this prosecutorial discretion argument before the Court today 
that the Obama administration very well knew was the center of this 
case--and that prosecutorial discretion can be conferred on an 
individual basis only. That was the testimony of Janet Napolitano; and 
in the first Morton memo document, there were multiple references to an 
individual basis only. Her testimony was an individual basis only. But 
even the first document set out four categories, groups of people, whom 
the law would be waived for, and that is what we are talking about 
here.
  Who writes the law? If the President writes the law, how could we 
write one that would restrain this President that is out of line? Let's 
preserve our Constitution, and let's look forward to an appointment to 
the Supreme Court that actually means it when they take their oath as 
we do ours.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from Iowa for such great remarks and 
your passion and your leadership. It was great to see you in front of 
the Supreme Court today speaking passionately about this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from the great State of South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing this. I 
think it is such an important issue.
  I think that, as has been mentioned by a couple of speakers now, what 
is really at play here is a constitutional issue. The Founding Fathers 
were so emphatically clear that there were to be three different pieces 
of pie. There was to be an executive branch that administered the law, 
a legislative branch that created it, and a judicial branch that 
interpreted it.
  There is this amazing reservoir of common sense that exists out there 
with the American public. So what people told me back home is this is 
not about being against somebody from some other place. This is not 
about being against Hispanics. This is, in fact, about the rule of law 
and a system that our Founding Fathers gave us more than 200 years ago 
and how we preserve it. And how we preserve it is by actually sticking 
to it. Ultimately, the issue has less to do with immigration than it 
does to do with this larger notion of common sense and rule of law.
  I would also stress the common sense part. I remember back in the 
O.J. Simpson trial, there was this whole notion of, if the glove 
doesn't fit, you can't acquit. In this case, the glove doesn't fit from 
the standpoint of common sense.
  I actually had my staff pull up a couple of numbers this afternoon, 
and I think that they are fascinating, and here is what I mean by that. 
The numbers don't fit with the scale of every other amnesty that has 
been done for more than the last 50 years.
  Think about this. The amnesties that this President has proposed, in 
total, are about 5\1/2\ million people. That is more than all of the 
cumulative amnesties for the last 53 years, going back all the way to 
the time of Eisenhower. In fact, the average amnesty was about 32,000 
people in size.

  We have all always been a Nation that has been welcoming; we have 
included other people. So if you look back at the El Salvadorans that 
Clinton and Bush allowed in, based on civic conflict and real civil war 
down that way, if you look at the Persian Gulf evacuees, if you look at 
the--my eyesight is getting so bad, I need to get glasses. If you look 
at the Chinese, after Tiananmen Square, if you were to look at Soviet 
refugees, if you look at the Ethiopians, the Lithuanians, even going 
back to the war orphans at the time of Eisenhower, there has been a 
remarkable case when amnesties were judged okay by this Congress, okay 
by the American people, okay by the President because of scale, 32,000 
people, on average, per amnesty, for 53 years.
  Again, this President's amnesty dwarfs the total amnesties of all 
Presidents over the last 53 years, and, for that reason, the American 
public has reacted as it has saying this just doesn't fit.
  The other thing that I think is interesting, going back to the notion 
of sheer scale and the ways in which this particular amnesty that the 
President has proposed is at odds with every other for the last 53 
years, is, if you were to add up the cumulative amnesties of this 
President, you would be in the top 20 States in the United States of 
America--5.5 million people. That is well above the population of South 
Carolina; it is well above the population of Alabama. Or go down about 
another 30 States, wherein you would have a de facto new State added 
that would be more than midway in the graph of all States in this 
country. It doesn't fit.
  A third point that I would make, and I think this is a fascinating 
one that my staff pulled, is that if you look at all those amnesties I 
was just talking about over the last 53 years, they have really fallen 
into a couple of baskets, the one big amnesty being back in 1986 which, 
ultimately, went through this Congress. It was, in fact, as a 
consequence of the act of Congress and the will of the American public. 
That was a big one. But the other one was the Adjustment Act of 1966, 
which goes back to the plight of the Cuban people and trying to do 
something about that.
  The other one has been a basket of natural disaster, of political 
strife, of family reunification. That has been a basket. And then there 
has been a basket for refugees. But never before have we had a basket 
that was about a political objective as opposed to a reaction

[[Page H1796]]

to an external event. We have had a long list of external events over 
53 years that is at odds with what we see taking place.
  So not only is this important from the standpoint of the Constitution 
and the rule of law, as has been so eloquently stated thus far, it is 
something that doesn't fit common sense from the standpoint of scale.
  And there is one last point. There is a financial cost to this. The 
Cato Institute estimated that you are looking at about $14,000 per 
household. If you multiply that times the number of refugees that the 
President is talking about here, you are looking at about $19 billion 
in cost. That is about two-thirds of the dustup we have had over the 
budget. You are talking about $30 billion. Is the number 1070 or 1040? 
A $30 billion difference. In this case, two-thirds of that total would 
be taken care of just with this question of amnesty that is before us 
tonight which you, again, have brought, and I very, very much 
appreciate you doing so.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from the great State of South Carolina 
for those--I mean, those are great numbers that really illustrate the 
significance and the large amount of numbers that we are dealing with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the State of Arizona, Dr. 
Paul Gosar.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) 
for his leadership on this issue and for organizing this Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times right here on the House Floor 
about upholding the rule of law. Whether it be about a lawless Attorney 
General who tried to cover up a gunrunning operation, or a rogue IRS 
Director illegally targeting innocent Americans, or a President 
attempting to enact amnesty by executive action, ensuring that the 
Federal Government is held accountable for its lawlessness has been one 
of my top priorities as an elected Representative to the people's 
House. And while the concept of equal application of the law may not 
seem like it needs any explanation, I would like to speak to the heart 
of why upholding the rule of law is so fundamental.
  Our laws seek to incentivize Americans to behave responsibly and to 
impose consequences when they don't. This is the fundamental contract 
woven into the fabric of our Republic. It is a concept envisioned by 
our Founding Fathers, not only to protect the individual rights of 
every man, woman, and child, but also to prohibit executive overreach 
from an intrusive Federal Government.
  Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis captured these principles 
best when he stated: ``In a government of laws, existence of the 
government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law 
scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. 
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime 
is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds 
contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto 
himself; it invites anarchy.''
  Sadly, we are witnessing what happens when the Federal Government 
becomes a lawbreaker and breeds contempt for the law--anarchy. The 
Obama administration has created an immigration crisis as a result of 
its failure to enforce Federal immigration laws on the books.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported just last 
week that 2016 could set another record for the number of unaccompanied 
alien children crossing our southern border, and that from 2011 to 
2014, unaccompanied alien children increased by 1,200 percent. Also 
last week, 1,000 Cuban aliens stormed the Costa Rica-Panama border 
demanding to pass so they could continue their journey to enter the 
United States illegally.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress clear 
jurisdiction on immigration matters, and President Obama's executive 
actions on immigration clearly infringe on that authority. The 
President even admitted that fact 22 times previously when he stated he 
did not have the authority to take the executive actions he ultimately 
ended up taking.

                              {time}  2100

  Justice Kennedy rightfully pointed out today that DAPA is a 
legislative act, not an administrative act. Thus, its creation is 
unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should uphold the lower court's 
ruling that halted Obama's illegal actions.
  What incentive do Americans have to follow the rule of law themselves 
if they have no faith that their government will do the same? How can 
lawmakers ask immigrants seeking to migrate lawfully to our country to 
follow these rules when this President so blatantly violates those same 
rules?
  Unfortunately, if we don't take bold action now to hold the President 
accountable for his lawlessness, we risk permanently damaging the 
integrity of all our laws beyond all repair.
  The good news is there is a solution. The House must utilize our 
power of the purse to block any and all funding for the President's 
executive amnesty orders.
  I am attempting to do just that and recently spearheaded an 
appropriations rider supported by 35 of my colleagues to block funding 
for all executive actions on immigration dating back to 2011.
  Returning to the rule of law begins with the House enforcing its own 
constitutional power of the purse. We must fundamentally reject the 
President's legacy of lawlessness and renew the faith that we all place 
in the rule of law.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague for such wise words of wisdom.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the State of 
Colorado, Mr. Ken Buck.
  Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration somehow missed the class in 
civics about separation of powers, checks and balances, and so many 
other issues from our Constitution. Thankfully, the Supreme Court can 
offer some remedial education when it decides the case United States v. 
Texas.
  The facts of the case are simple. The President's executive action on 
immigration is downright illegal. He bypassed Congress, even though the 
Constitution explicitly states that the legislative branch has the 
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
  This administration uses the excuse of prosecutorial discretion. As a 
prosecutor for 25 years, I can tell you this isn't true. When his 
executive order creates a new special class for millions of people in 
the United States, this isn't a case-by-case use of discretion. It is a 
blanket rulemaking, and it is rulemaking that directly contradicts the 
wishes of Congress.
  All three branches of government agree that these actions are 
illegal. Courts have already issued an injunction against the rule.
  Congress submitted a friend-of-the-court brief highlighting its 
proper role, and the President himself knows it would be 
unconstitutional to bypass Congress and create his own immigration 
laws. He said so many times. For some reason, he still went ahead and 
issued the executive order.
  Real people feel real consequences when we put the Constitution 
through the paper shredder. The President's actions will lead to 
devastating new costs for States. Our healthcare system, our judicial 
and law enforcement systems, and our education system will all be 
strained as they try to accommodate the President's unconstitutional 
orders.
  The judicial branch has a chance to stand up to executive overreach 
in this case and reassert congressional power. I hope the Court rules 
correctly because the fate of the Republic hangs in the balance.
  Mr. YOHO. Words spoken so true, and I appreciate that. The 
Constitution and the sovereignty of this Nation is what is at stake 
here, along with the institution itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Jody B. Hice from the 
State of Georgia.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. I am grateful to my colleague from 
Florida for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the United States Supreme Court heard oral 
arguments on what certainly has every potential of being one of the 
most important cases of our time. Of course, we are talking about a 
case involving an unprecedented and inexplicable expansion of powers by 
the President.
  We all remember in November 2014 when President Obama, fresh from, I 
might add, losing midterm elections, announced his executive decision 
to

[[Page H1797]]

grant amnesty to some 5 million illegal immigrants.
  Immediately 26 States, my home State of Georgia being one of them, 
quickly moved to challenge this President's decision in the courts.
  Those States rightly and correctly argued that they were being forced 
by the Federal Government to bear the costly burden of this President's 
abuse of power.
  So after months of legal wrangling in the lower courts, now we watch 
United States v. Texas being considered in the High Court.
  We watched this being put on in the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful, 
as many of my colleagues, all of us here tonight, that the rulings from 
the lower courts will stand and that, ultimately, this President's 
executive amnesty will be ruled for what it is, a clear violation of 
the Constitution.
  That is what we are dealing with tonight, a violation of the 
Constitution, specifically article II, section 3, the faithful 
execution clause.
  Many ask: What is that? Basically, that clause requires the President 
to enforce the laws of the land. Is it too much to ask for the 
President to enforce the laws of the land as written by Congress and 
interpreted by the courts?
  This President has turned that upside down. He has turned our 
Constitution on its head with his own legislative policies from the 
executive office and the abuse of executive authority.
  Many of us here have voted multiple times to oppose many of the 
President's unconstitutional actions, and I have cosponsored many bills 
trying to deal specifically with his planned amnesty program.
  Going forward, now we have the Supreme Court case before us, and we 
all hope that they will see that what the President has done is a 
direct, gross violation of our Constitution.
  Again, I want to thank my friend from Florida, Congressman Yoho, for 
putting together this Special Order.
  Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia for 
participating.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, our institution of law is threatened more 
today than ever before. All evil or tyranny needs to succeed or for a 
constitutional republic to fail is for good men and women to be 
complacent and do nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________