[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1597-1599]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of moving to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. I hope we do that with a vote 
today. This is very important in terms of governing and in terms of 
passing an appropriations bill for a vital part of government.
  It is also important to address and debate and vote head-on on 
President Obama's illegal Executive amnesty, which he announced last 
December, which would basically give amnesty to about 5 million illegal 
aliens with no basis whatsoever in statutory law. In fact, statutory 
law is opposed to that sort of Executive action.
  I find it ironic that the very same Members from the very same party 
and ideology that is constantly beating the drum and saying ``For God's 
sake, we can't shut down the government; we can't have that sort of 
showdown'' are apparently preparing to vote against even moving to this 
spending bill which is necessary to fund a vital part of the 
government. That makes no sense.
  We need to move to this spending bill, debate it, and act on it. Not 
moving to the spending bill is a vote for a government shutdown in that 
area of the government, and I think that is irresponsible. We need to 
move to the spending bill which originated in the House. This is the 
House-passed spending bill for Homeland Security. We need to move to 
it.
  Furthermore, as is evident from the last couple of weeks, we are 
going to have an open amendment process. There will be amendments 
offered and available to be debated and voted on that will have 
anything and everything with regard to this spending bill.
  The House put several policy provisions in the spending bill, 
including those that I agree with, such as defunding this 
unconstitutional Executive amnesty from December. I agree with that, I 
support that, and I will certainly vote to support it. But the point is 
that there will be plenty of opportunity to vote on that and 
potentially remove that because we are going to have an open debate and 
amendment process--as we should--here on the Senate floor.
  Let's move to this vital spending bill. Let's not threaten to shut 
down the government. Let's have the debate here on the floor, and let's 
vote. That is what we were elected to do. We were elected to represent 
our constituents, debate major issues of the day--and that certainly 
includes the President's Executive amnesty--and to vote.
  If there is an effort to not allow us to even move to the bill to do 
that, I can only come to one conclusion: that folks voting that way for 
the most part support President Obama's illegal Executive amnesty, but 
they just don't want to have to say so, and they certainly don't want 
to have to vote that way. Well, sorry. You ran for the job, you asked 
for the job, and you got it. Let's do our job, which means putting the 
country's business on the floor of the Senate and acting one way or the 
other, debating, voting, proposing amendments, and moving on with this 
essential spending bill for this part of the government.
  I will strongly support moving to the bill. That is the responsible 
thing to do. I will strongly support the provisions in the bill that 
the House enacted, including blocking the President's illegal Executive 
amnesty.
  With regard to that, this is an important matter for two reasons. 
First of all, I believe this Executive amnesty is really bad policy 
that is going to grow the problem and not solve it. A fundamental rule 
in life is that when you reward something, you get more of it, not less 
of it, right? That is true of our Tax Code, and that is true in 
parenting. Well, we are rewarding illegal crossings. We are rewarding 
that flow of illegal immigrants. We are rewarding that through the 
President's Executive amnesty, and it is only going to produce more of 
it. That is my first objection to the policy. It is a very bad idea, 
and it is going to grow the problem, not decrease it.
  My second objection is even more fundamental. I believe this action 
is clearly way beyond the President's Executive authority and way 
beyond his true powers under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has 
said many times that there is nothing that Congress has more clear and 
straightforward powers on than immigration policy, and it certainly 
includes anything like a major amnesty.
  What the President did in December was not filling in the blanks of 
statutory laws or executing statutory law. What he did was completely 
contrary to all sorts of statutory law. Statutory law is clear. It is 
on the books. It has been passed through a valid process. It is clear 
that folks who enter the country illegally, break the law and are here 
illegally, are subject to removal and cannot work in the country 
legally.
  In contrast to that clear statutory law, President Obama is first 
giving them authorization to stay here for at least 3 years, and that 
can be renewed. Secondly, he is handing them a document that he is 
making up out of thin air called a work permit which gives them 
authority to work even though that is clearly contrary to statutory law 
given the means by which they entered the country.
  We need to put that issue and topic directly on the Senate floor and 
debate and act on that as well. As I suggested, the only way we do any 
of that is to first take a responsible vote and put the House spending 
bill on the Senate floor. To vote otherwise is to block a necessary 
spending bill, to basically threaten shutting down part of the 
government, and to avoid our responsibility in terms of debating and 
voting on the major issues of the day--to deal directly with that.
  I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to put this 
necessary bill on the floor, and then we will have an open and full 
debate, we will have an open amendment process, we will have all of the 
votes that go to this topic, and then we will act. That is what we 
should do, and that is what we were elected to do.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, elections in our representative form of 
government are supposed to have consequences, and if they don't have 
consequences, there is not much point of having elections.
  One of the issues in the most recent election for Congress was a 
promise of some people running for office to overcome the President's 
constitutional actions, particularly what he did on immigration but on 
a lot of other things as well. The bill we have before us is a 
demonstration on the part of people who were victorious in that last 
election to deliver on the promises of that election.
  So obviously I am here at this time to speak on the Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations that the Senate is considering today 
and, as the Senator from Louisiana just said, to urge my colleagues to 
support the efforts to move ahead.
  In doing so, I wish to discuss what we are doing. This bill is about 
stopping the unilateral actions the President has taken with respect to 
the country's immigration laws, doing it without congressional approval 
or scrutiny. It is our responsibility to check the President and ensure 
that he does not go beyond the limits of his powers as defined in that 
basic document, the Constitution. This is about restoring the rule of 
law. This is about restoring the Constitution by denying that funds be 
utilized to carry out the President's improper, unconstitutional 
actions.
  Our government is based on the rule of law. No one is above the law, 
not even those who were chosen to be leaders among the people. This 
core principle has kept us free and preserved our rights and liberties 
for over 200 years.
  However, the rule of law in our country has slowly eroded away. While 
the current administration is not the only culprit of that corrosion of 
the rule of law, this administration has expedited its erosion more 
than others. That is the basis for the President saying: If Congress 
won't, I have a pen and a phone, and I will.
  Let me explain this erosion. Under article II of the Constitution, 
the

[[Page 1598]]

President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' 
This is not a permissive clause, letting the President pick and choose 
which laws he will enforce. The article uses the mandatory ``shall,'' 
which requires him to enforce all laws. However, the President has not 
done that. He has taken the attitude that he is above the law and is 
not required to obey it.
  Just in the last couple of years we have seen President Obama's 
complete disregard for laws passed by Congress. Rather than enforcing 
the Affordable Care Act, he rewrote the deadlines prescribed by law. He 
has not enforced the Controlled Substance Act in some States and, even 
worse, has allowed them to openly defy Federal law.
  He released five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo without first 
providing 30 days' notice to Congress as required under the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  He unlawfully made four appointments to executive positions without 
authority under the appointments clause of the Constitution. In that 
regard, he was even overruled by two members he appointed to the 
Supreme Court in that 9-to-0 decision that says when the Constitution 
says only Congress can decide when a House is in session, the President 
can't say on some basis that they aren't in session and proceed to make 
recess appointments. In other words, what the judges said is that what 
the Constitution says is what it says. So he took unconstitutional 
action in making those appointments.
  Lastly, he took the drastic step of changing immigration laws on the 
books without the authority or approval from Congress.
  When the President acts in contravention to the law, he erodes the 
rule of law. He sets an example for future Presidents who will expand 
on his precedent and actions on other laws and policies they don't 
agree with. By doing this the President sends the message that the laws 
as written by the legislative branch aren't important, thereby removing 
and reducing faith in the rule of law.
  The Founders understood the serious dangers of investing all powers 
of our government in a single body. They understood that because the 
Revolution was all about colonists being sick and tired of one man--
George III--making decisions. So under the doctrine of separation of 
powers, they wrote into the Constitution dividing the power among three 
branches of government so one person could not be George III. They gave 
all legislative powers to the Congress, all Executive powers to the 
President, and all judicial powers to the judicial branch. No body of 
government may exercise the powers of other bodies of the government.
  Separation of power then is fundamental to the Constitution of the 
United States, and the Constitution of the United States enshrines the 
spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that we are endowed by our 
Creator, not by government, with certain inalienable rights.
  Just last week during the nomination hearings of Loretta Lynch as 
Attorney General, we had an outstanding professor from George 
Washington Law School testify by the name of Jonathan Turley, and he 
said this: ``The Separation of Powers is the very core of our 
constitutional system and was designed not as a protection of the 
powers of the branches but a protection of liberty.''
  We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among 
them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers 
knew that if the same body had all the powers, that body, no matter how 
large or small, would be tyrannical, as was George III.
  However, President Obama has overreached the limits of his 
constitutional authority. He has blurred the lines of separation of 
powers.
  The executive branch action taken with respect to our immigration 
laws is only the most recent, if not the most pervasive, of legislative 
actions he has taken under the proposition that I have a phone and a 
pen and I can do almost anything Congress isn't doing that I want them 
to do. In effect, the President has thwarted the immigration laws 
Congress has written in order to implement the policy he wants. 
Contrary to the laws on the books, the President's action would give 
people who have crossed the border illegally the right to remain in the 
United States and many taxpayer benefits that are only available to 
lawfully documented immigrants, as well as the right to work.
  The President's action expanded a program he created without 
congressional approval, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--or 
DACA as it is called--and created a new program, the deferred action of 
parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents--or DAPA--as it 
is called.
  But under the Constitution only Congress has the authority to create 
these types of programs that grant a lawful status to people who have 
come here undocumented. Let me repeat: Congress has the responsibility 
of writing laws, not the President. I remind my colleagues that 
Congress considered a law that resembled the DACA Program, but it never 
passed that law. So what has the President done? In effect, he has 
enacted a law Congress rejected.
  The President justifies his actions by saying ``Congress has 
failed.'' However, that doesn't give him license to act on his own. I 
wish to again quote Professor Turley:

       Our government requires consent and compromise to function. 
     It goes without saying that when we are politically divided 
     as a nation, less tends to get done. However, such division 
     is no license to ``go it alone'' as the President has 
     suggested.

  The genius of our government is that it allows for the collection of 
ideas and opinions. It allows these different ideas and opinions to 
work together to find common ground. Once common ground is reached, 
then laws are enacted. The President doesn't represent that many 
different views in the country, but obviously Congressmen from all over 
this geographical area represent those views. Congressmen are elected 
by the people directly, and if there is a disagreement in Congress on 
how immigration should be handled, that means there is disagreement in 
the country on how immigration should be handled. The President cannot 
imagine that everyone agrees his plan is the best plan. It is the job 
of Congress to find compromises and solutions that most people can 
agree with and particularly in the U.S. Senate where it takes 60 votes 
to pass legislation. This is where consensus is built when there are 
only 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats. If we are going to get anything 
done, there has to be a consensus.
  The other justification the President is fond of using for his 
actions is the executive branch's ability to exercise prosecutorial 
discretion, but while the President does have the authority to decide 
when to prosecute or where to allocate resources, that authority is not 
unlimited.
  The President's actions with respect to immigration go far beyond 
prosecutorial discretion. Lawful prosecutorial discretion is exercised 
on a case-by-case basis. Lawful prosecutorial discretion isn't 
excluding entire categories of individuals in a blanket fashion and 
telling them that going forward the law will be applied to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. In addition, lawful prosecutorial discretion doesn't 
reward illegal behavior by conferring substantive benefits to those who 
have violated the law. Yet under the President's unilateral action, 
individuals who have entered without inspection or overstayed their 
visas unlawfully now will get work permits, Social Security numbers, 
driver's licenses, employment and education opportunities, and many 
other benefits only afforded to those who abide by the law.
  Further, the President argues that because the Department doesn't 
have sufficient resources, he has exercised his prosecutorial 
discretion by prioritizing the removal of the most dangerous aliens for 
better security of our country. Yet the reality of his

[[Page 1599]]

statement is that in fiscal year 2013, 36,007 criminal aliens were 
released. What is more, a report just issued by the Department of 
Homeland Security reveals that 1,000 of those criminal aliens have gone 
on to commit further crimes.
  So the President isn't even doing what he says he is doing. Instead 
of removing criminals from our country as required by law, he is just 
releasing them back into the community so they can continue to commit 
further crimes and jeopardize public safety.
  No matter how the President paints the picture, his Executive action 
on immigration is an abuse of constitutional duty to faithfully execute 
the law and an overreach of his executive branch authority under the 
separation of powers doctrine.
  Under the Constitution, the Congress has several tools it can use to 
check the President and rein him in when he operates outside of the 
Constitution. Among the tools Congress has is the power of the purse. 
Congress appropriates funds and has the authority to dictate where and 
how those funds may or may not be used. If the President exceeds the 
limits of his Executive authority to create an illegal program such as 
DACA or DAPA, Congress has the power to defund such a program.
  The Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill is a check on 
the executive branch. It is a result of the last election, and 
elections are supposed to have consequences. This bill is our way of 
showing to the American people we are carrying out a campaign promise 
to make sure the President doesn't act in an unconstitutional way and 
abuse his authority.
  So I ask my colleagues to take this under serious consideration when 
deciding whether to vote in favor or against proceeding to this bill.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________