Trey Gowdy

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time until such time as my friend from Michigan has closed.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains for both sides.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on this and so many other issues of significance on the Judiciary Committee. His steady hand and brilliant legal mind are without equal on our committee. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the family of Kate Steinle for the grace that they have shown during this time of unspeakable grief. Burying a child, Mr. Speaker, is what each of us who has ever been called Mom or Dad fears the most. After Trayvon Martin was killed, the President said, ``That could have been my son,'' Mr. Speaker. And when I see a picture of a beautiful Kate Steinle smiling, that could have been any of our daughters. And it still can be, because what happened to her, Mr. Speaker, can and will happen again if we do not get serious about enforcing the law. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, Mr. Speaker, had a quarter century's worth of lawlessness. Dating back to 1991, he committed local, State, and Federal crimes in five separate States, I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker. He was deported five times, and each time had so little regard for the law of this country that he reentered that border that we are supposed to have functional control over. His procedural history, Mr. Speaker, is every bit as disturbing. In May of 2011, this defendant was convicted and sentenced to 46 months imprisonment for illegal reentry again. At the conclusion of that sentence, he was released from the Bureau of Prisons to a known sanctuary jurisdiction for the ostensible prosecution of an old drug case. Of course, Mr. Speaker, San Francisco did not prosecute that old drug case. They dismissed it, which surprises exactly no one, and then they released this defendant. They did not return him to the Bureau of Prisons. They did not return him to Federal probation. They did not honor the detainer that had been placed by ICE. They released him, who was not supposed to be in the country in the first place, with this horrific criminal history. They released him so he would be free to walk around and shoot someone's daughter, which is exactly what he did. Mr. Speaker, we are given a litany of excuses. I have heard them this morning, Mr. Speaker, for policies like this. We are told that we need policies like the one in San Francisco so people will cooperate with law enforcement. I want you, Mr. Speaker, to consider just how utterly illogical that comment is. We need to release known criminals back into society so society will help us catch known criminals. How absurd is that, that we are going to release people that should be deported, that are recidivist felons, so other people will help us catch those who should be deported and are recidivist felons? For almost 5 years, Mr. Speaker, I have worked alongside Chairman Goodlatte, and I have heard a litany of phrases, with almost catatonic frequency, as if repeating something enough will make it true--phrases, Mr. Speaker, like ``functional control over the border''--but I have yet to hear how somebody can reenter five times if you have functional control over the border. I have heard we need citizenship for 11 million undocumented aspiring Americans, as if 11 million of any category can pass a background check. I have heard arguments against empowering State and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws, Mr. Speaker. Now, stop and think. We trust them to do murder cases, sex assault cases, kidnapping cases, narcotics trafficking. You even trust them to provide security, Mr. Speaker, at their own functions back in the district. But when it comes to immigration law, oh, no. No, sir. We don't trust you to enforce immigration law. Everything else, including our own security both here in Washington and back in the district, but God forbid we trust State and local cops to help us with immigration law. The President says we need immigration reform so folks will, to use his words, Mr. Speaker, come forward, get on the books, get right with the law. I want you to ask yourself, what in Mr. Lopez-Sanchez' background makes you think he would ever come forward? And why in the hell does he need to be on the books? He is in the Bureau of Prisons. You don't need him on the books. He is in the Bureau of Prisons. And you had him, and you let him go. Which brings me to my favorite phrase, Mr. Speaker, ``sanctuary cities.'' It has almost a Utopian sound to it, doesn't it? Well, as the Speaker knows, the definition of a ``sanctuary'' is a place of refuge or safety. And my question for folks in San Francisco and my colleagues who support this policy is: A refuge for whom? A sanctuary for whom? A refuge for Kate Steinle? A sanctuary for Kate Steinle? A refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal history? So the phrase sounds benign, but it was no sanctuary for her. It may have been for him, but it sure as hell wasn't for her. Mr. Speaker, my message to San Francisco would be simple: You won't honor our detainers, we won't honor your warrants. If detainers are too much trouble for you to handle, perhaps Federal money will be too much trouble for you to handle, too. If you can't honor our detainers, you are not going to get any more money.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following proclamation: Whereas, Mount Calvary Baptist Church was formed July 28, 1865, with 19 charter members led by Pastor I. L. West; and Whereas, after several name changes in 1915 the name was changed to its present name, Inman First Baptist Church; and Whereas, Inman First Baptist Church continues to be one of the leading churches in Inman, South Carolina, and under the leadership of Dr. Paul Moore the congregation continues to be active and enthusiastic members of our community; and Whereas, Inman First Baptist Church is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year and this anniversary celebration will draw former and current members to Inman, South Carolina, to participate in this momentous milestone in the history of their church; Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Trey Gowdy, do congratulate the members of Inman First Baptist Church in recognition of their 150th anniversary and thank them for their unwavering commitment, dedication, and contributions to Spartanburg County and to the Fourth Congressional District of South Carolina.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Madam Speaker, I thank his honor. President Obama announced one of the largest extraconstitutional power grabs ever by a Chief Executive. He declared unilaterally that almost 5 million undocumented aliens will receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of ``prosecutorial discretion,'' Madam Speaker. Not only that, not only escaping consequences, he has decided to bestow benefits such as work authorization and immigration benefits-- this, Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the very same President over 20 different times said he lacked the power to do what he just did, and he repeatedly said he is not a king. Now, Madam Speaker, his position may have changed after the election, I hasten to add, but the Constitution has not. That document is clear, time-tested, and true, and it says that this body passes laws, and it is the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Madam Speaker, to make sure that those laws are faithfully enforced. If this President's unilateral extraconstitutional acts are not stopped, Madam Speaker, future Presidents will no doubt expand that power of the executive branch and threaten the constitutional equilibrium. But, Madam Speaker, this is not a fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is not even a fight over immigration reform. This is a fight over whether this branch of government will ever find the courage to stand up for itself. The same document, the same document that this and all Presidents swear to defend, gives this body certain tools, tools like the power of the purse. It is about damn time we used that tool. I would ask you to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. There is a hunger in this country, Madam Speaker, for things that bind us together. Americans agree the IRS should never target citizens. Americans agree the government should tell us the truth. The IRS has offered eight different explanations for targeting our fellow citizens. If we, Madam Speaker, changed our story to government eight different times, we would be called inmates. We can't lie to government. Therefore, government should never be able to lie to us. We agree no President should ever prejudge the outcome of an investigation while that investigation is ongoing. No President should ever say there is not a smidgeon of corruption while an investigation is ongoing. We agree government should play by the same rules that we play by. We have to keep our emails, we have to keep our receipts, we have to keep our records. Why should it be any different for the IRS? Finally, Madam Speaker, if we want something in this country that unites us and binds us together, expecting more and better from the IRS seems like a really good place to start.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by recognizing and thanking my friend and chairman, John Kline from Minnesota, for his leadership not just on this bill, but on the whole jurisdiction of Education and the Workforce. I want to also thank the folks on the staff, Mr. Chairman, of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Miller, and especially my friend Peter Welch for working with me on this amendment. The underlying bill, Mr. Chairman, as you know, seeks to support innovation in higher education by reenvisioning how regulators and institutions have measured student progress and student aid. This bill, Mr. Chairman, sets up demonstration projects to study the effect of competency-based education. Our amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply permits participation of dual enrollment programs to be included in the demonstration projects created. As the chairman knows, many students--in fact, I am reluctant to cite statistics, but I think it is well north of 1 million students across our great country--have benefited in dual enrollment classes. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I live with a student that has benefited back home in Spartanburg, both at Dorman High School and, I know, Spartanburg High School. Probably other high schools have partnered with institutions of higher learning to prepare, Mr. Chairman, our children, number one, to be able to gauge the speed of the pitches in college--the pitchers pitch a little faster in college sometimes than they do in high school--but more significantly, and particularly for my daughter's friends, it enables them to go ahead and start getting college credit and reducing both their caseload and, more importantly, the cost when these children decide to matriculate. The dual enrollment programs are widespread, and they deserve to be considered as part of the demonstration projects. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. In summation, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank, again, the chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota, for his willingness to entertain other peoples' ideas for his hard work and the full book of business that they do on Education and the Workforce, and particularly the women and men who work so hard on the staff, and my friend from Vermont who is always open to areas of consensus and agreement and working across the aisle. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank Mr. Kline and all the hardworking folks on Education and the Workforce, the Members and especially the women and men of the staff. The Upstate of South Carolina, Mr. Chairman, is home to several higher education institutions, public and private, large and small, and the issue of education affordability is front and center. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, families are struggling trying to be able to plan for their kids' future. I know that, both because I have the benefit of representing these families and I hear from them and I also know it anecdotally, Mr. Chairman. I have a 17-year-old daughter, and while she is blessed in many ways compared to her contemporaries, lots and lots of her friends come to the house from time to time. We preach to people that the road to prosperity is paved with hard work and education, but when this road is riddled with potholes called ``unsustainable debt,'' I don't know how we can expect them to get to the end. You figure out what the cost of education is. In many of these instances, these children are the first ones in their family to try to go to school. And so they are looking at me. They have done well in high school. They have done everything we have asked them to do, and they are staring, in some instances, at massive amounts of debt just so they can do what we promised them that if you work hard and you get an education, the pathway to prosperity will be paved for you. So against that backdrop, my friend from Vermont and I decided let's look at regulations and what impact they may have on the cost of higher education. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, you may conclude that a regulation is worth it. It may cost money, but it may still be worth it. That is fine. That is a separate analysis. But there really is no reason to not study the regulations themselves to see what impact they are having. So I give a lot of credit to the gentleman from Vermont who approached me with his idea. I think it is a solid idea. I can't imagine any reason not to form a task force or a working group to study regulations and what impact, whether wittingly or unwittingly, those regulations are having on the cost of higher education. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, in summation, reasonable minds can and I am quite certain will differ as to the propriety of certain regulations. I get that. I understand that. That is part of the beauty of our country. What I would think that all reasonable minds can concur on is that we ought to at least look at them and see what the numbers are. That will instruct and inform the debate as to whether or not the benefit is worthy of the cost. So again, I want to thank Mr. Kline and the folks on E&W, and I especially want to thank, again, my friend from Vermont for always being willing to listen to other people's ideas. And usually the ones I have he improves and makes them better. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.