[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 10104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, two new words were added to 
the American immigration policy: ``Prosecutorial discretion.''
  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently ordered 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to not deport certain 
classes of aliens who are in the country illegally. Instead, these 
illegal aliens will be given 2-year work permits that can be renewed 
indefinitely. The reason Secretary Napolitano and President Obama have 
given the American people for this de facto amnesty program is 
prosecutorial discretion.
  The Secretary and the President claim that the Department of Homeland 
Security personnel can use their discretion to decide what individuals 
they can and cannot deport. But in Federal immigration law, this 
discretion does not exist. Congress took it away from the executive 
branch in 1996 when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act.

                              {time}  1030

  The law requires, and I will repeat that, this law requires 
immigration officials to address illegal aliens when they become aware 
that they are in the country illegally. It clearly spells out the 
actions that must be taken by Federal officials.
  In fact, according to one of the Nation's leading experts on 
immigration, Congress, frustrated at the time because the Clinton 
administration was using it to let thousands of illegal aliens remain 
in the United States, wrote the law to remove that discretion. In other 
words, the discretion that President Obama and Secretary Napolitano 
claim they use no longer exists because Congress deliberately 
eliminated it in 1996. By stating they still have it, President Obama 
and Secretary Napolitano are actually ordering Federal immigration 
officials to break the law.
  Since the executive branch is citing a privilege that no longer 
exists in ordering Federal immigration officials to break the 1996 
immigration act which was passed by Congress and signed into law, 
today, I'm calling on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees to 
hold hearings to investigate the legality of this decision to use so-
called ``prosecutorial discretion.''
  Just this week we heard from the United States Supreme Court that 
because the Federal Government writes immigration laws, State laws must 
work in harmony with the Federal Government. In striking down part of 
Arizona's S.B. 1070, the High Court's majority said that Federal law 
shall be the supreme law of the land when laws do not work in harmony 
with the Federal scheme or when Federal law is explicit. Well, in this 
case, the law is very clear: there is no prosecutorial discretion.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my district in Pennsylvania has one of the highest 
unemployment rates in the State, and our country is still reeling from 
one of the worst recessions we have ever faced. The Department of 
Homeland Security's unlawful action could have grave consequences on 
our labor force and on our economy, both at the local and national 
levels.
  Additionally, allowing individuals with forged documents to remain in 
this country could pose a serious threat to our homeland security.
  Let me also state that I am troubled by the expansion of the 
authority of the President that he believes he has. In the past, 
President Obama clearly stated he had to follow existing immigration 
laws. During a town hall meeting with Univision in March 2011, he said:

       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.

  During that same town hall meeting, President Obama also said:

       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.

  So what changed? In the last 15 months, did Congress grant the 
President new powers? I don't remember doing that. Fifteen months ago, 
President Obama said he can't ignore congressional mandates. But 
suddenly, 2 weeks ago, he can? Again, I ask, what changed?
  I'm concerned President Obama overstepped his constitutional 
authority in this case, just as he did in claiming executive privilege 
in Operation Fast and Furious. That's why these two committees must 
hold formal hearings and investigate this claim of discretion and the 
unilateral rewriting of Federal immigration policy.

                          ____________________