Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits any of the funds used within this portion of the bill from going to cities that have passed and enacted what we call sanctuary cities or sanctuary political subdivisions. The section of the code that we refer to, 8 U.S.C. 1373, reads this way: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which would now be ICE, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. This is current law. We have multiple cities in the country that are violating current law, and they are doing so with impunity, and when we send funds out of this appropriations bill to those cities, it simply ignores an opportunity that we have to restrain these cities, which is for them to come back and comply with Federal law. I was brought up in a law enforcement family. I had the Constitution waved at me on a regular basis. It was expressed to me clearly that it is the supreme law of the land, and the enumerator powers in it, which this Congress does assert and defend, are included within 8 U.S.C. 1373. In other words, Mr. Chairman, if these cities and if these political subdivisions disagree with Federal law, they can come here and ask Congress to change the law, but to defy it and to do so with the level of impunity that they have cannot be accepted by the United States Congress. We have a responsibility to assert our constitutional and statutory authority. That is what my amendment does. It says any cities that have sanctuary policies and that implement those sanctuary policies are not going to receive funds out of this section of the bill, and the dollar figure we are dealing with here is from a fund of $1.235 billion. I would point out that, today, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, testified before the Judiciary Committee. He was speaking specifically of Secure Communities, the act that allows for fingerprints to be transferred back and forth between the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the NCIC. He said: Even with the Secure Communities issue, we have mayors and Governors pursuing laws that limit the effectiveness of Secure Communities. This addresses Secure Communities in this way, and it addresses sanctuary city policies, of which the Secure Communities policy, according to Secretary Jeh Johnson, is a very worthy one. So this supports at least the tone of the message delivered today in the Judiciary Committee, and it supports what this Congress has done multiple times in the past. I urge the adoption of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that these political subdivisions, particularly in the cities, are contravening and ordering their officers not to cooperate with Federal immigration officers, refusing to allow them to collaborate with or to transport or to otherwise cooperate with our Federal immigration officers. We simply cannot have a law enforcement structure in the United States where you don't have local and State and Federal officers cooperating with each other. It is not good for our communities' security, and it is not good for our national security. This is in defiance with and in contravention of Federal law that directs that they cannot do this. They write these ordinances anyway in defiance of the law, and this Congress must assert its primary authority over the funding that flows to those communities. If we fail to do that, we shouldn't be surprised if there are many other Federal laws that are contravened or defied, so I would urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, first, I would like to reiterate the statement made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and my appreciation for the service of Mr. Wolf from Virginia and the job that he has done for my years that I have been here for my years and beyond. As a member of the Judiciary Committee and this Congress, I very much appreciate Frank Wolf's contribution to the well-being of this country and the well-being of justice and compassion around the world that he has demonstrated. The amendment that I offer this evening, Madam Chair, is an amendment that calls upon the Department of Justice to use $5 million from the general administration fund to investigate the discretionary enforcement decisions of the Department of Homeland Security concerning their release of--and I will go through a series of these numbers that catch my attention and should alarm Americans: For 2013, potentially deportable aliens, ICE encountered 722,000, according to a report. They only charged 195,000. That means they released 527,000 potentially deportable aliens. Of the criminal aliens they encountered, they released 68,000 criminal aliens. That was 35 percent of the criminal aliens that they encountered. Roughly another 195,000 encountered; 68,000 released. That is with no charges, Madam Chair. Some will say that is under the DACA provisions. I will say that the President has no constitutional authority to create groups of people that are exempt from the law--DACA standing for Deferred Action for Criminal Aliens, in this case, Madam Chair. It is not prosecutorial discretion. Deportable aliens released on the streets now--they are on the ICE docket for removal, but they are on the streets--870,000; 36,007 criminal aliens released pending deportation--36,007. Of those are 88,000 convictions all together in a variety of crimes from murder to kidnapping, arson, sexual assault, extortion, robbery, burglary, assault, and many others. We know this: that for a long period of time, about 15 years on average, 76 percent of these criminals released do not show up for their final removal hearing. That means 27,000 of the 36,000 will abscond. The administration will say: Well, we had to release these criminals, these murderers and sexual assaulters and kidnappers, we had to release them because of a Supreme Court decision in about 2001 called the Zadvydas v. Davis decision. In that the Supreme Court held that we couldn't retain an individual who was being deported when the home country wouldn't accept that individual. But that is only 3,000 of the 36,000 that would be under the Zadvydas decision. That is 8 percent. The other 92 percent could have, and should have, been removed from this country--193 homicide convictions of the 36,000. So when the gentlelady from Wisconsin laments 1,000 deported today, there is about every other day--more often than every other day--there is a murderer released on the streets under this policy that we are getting out of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. So my request is that $5 million out of this administrative budget be directed to investigating the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and coming back with an analysis of what is going on and why that we have so many criminals released onto the streets of America: 193,000 murderers in 1 year alone; 426,000 who have committed sexual assault; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated assaults, on down the line; 16,070 drunk or drug drivers released. And here is the kicker, Madam Chair: 303 were released to have been convicted of flight escape. They had broken out of jail, convicted for breaking out of jail, put them back in jail, and released them again to save them the trouble of having to break out of jail again. These are the kind of things that I would ask the Department of Justice to take a look into because their mission statement says that they are to enforce the law, ensure public safety, control crime, and seek punishment for those who violate the laws. It is de facto amnesty that is going on in the Department of Homeland Security. It is very consistent with the Department of Justice's mission statement that they look into these actions. Let's protect the American people from criminals being poured loose on the street by the tens of thousands. I don't lament so much 1,000 deportations a day as I do 193 murderers turned loose in a year. I would point out to the gentlelady that if the deportations in this country exceeded the illegal entries, we wouldn't have this issue of illegal immigration in America. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding to me, and I want to also thank the efforts of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence for the broad and intense work they have done on this bill. The USA FREEDOM Act starts with the right concept, and that is that the civil liberties of Americans were at risk. Even though we have very few examples of people being victimized by it, there is not a level of comfort in this country. And so the move to block the Federal Government from storing metadata and still allow for them to be able to set up under a FISA warrant a query through privately held data is the right way to go. It is a conclusion that I drew early on in the many hearings that I have been to, both classified and unclassified hearings. I quizzed the witnesses, and I put my mark down on those committee hearings, but what happened was the process moved quickly, and over a weekend there was an intense job to write a bill that turned into a substitute amendment, and a debate in the Judiciary Committee referred over to the Select Committee on Intel. Both committees acted quickly. I offered an amendment before the Judiciary Committee. It was voted on. But I have to say that, in my opinion, it was not considered in a fashion that would have allowed for the full judgment of the Judiciary Committee to weigh in. My amendment is set up so it allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the telecoms--the telecommunications providers--for a period of time longer than is today required by the FCC. I think it is not possible for anyone who supports this bill to argue that it makes us safer. It protects our civil liberties more, but there is a window beyond the FCC requirements that I would like to see be available on something other than a voluntary basis. I wanted to come here to this floor and put my marker down on that concern, that we should not sacrifice the security in America and we should protect the civil liberties of Americans. We can do that at the same time. I think this bill falls somewhat short; although the underlying concept of the bill, I do support.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and I come to the floor this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to address you and bring up the topic of the dialogue that has been--I will say flowing forth on the floor of the United States Senate over the last few weeks. As I listened to that dialogue and listened to the way they have taken Saul Alinsky's ``Rules for Radicals'' and decided that they are going to implement them and deploy them on the floor of the United States Senate, it occurs to me that when, out of the mouths of people like Senator Schumer and Senator Reid and Senator Durbin come these allegations--and sometimes allegations that name and target Members of the House of Representatives, it occurs to me that, when I came to this Congress, Mr. Speaker, in 2003, there was a rule that existed here that prevented a Member of the House of Representatives from naming a United States Senator here on the floor. It was kind of a shield of protectionism, so that the Senators could not be directly criticized in the dialogue that we have here on the floor. My good friend and then-Member of Congress, Tom Feeney from Florida, read through the rules, as a good, honest lawyer, newly elected to the United States Congress would, and he saw that rule and wondered: Why can't we utter the name of a United States Senator on the floor of the House of Representatives? He could come up with no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that, and so he brought an amendment to the rules that struck that prohibition, and thereafter, thanks to then-Congressman Tom Feeney of Orlando, the rule is gone. It was amended, and that is a good thing because, now, I can actually name the people who are attacking me on the floor of the United States Senate, and let you know, Mr. Speaker, what is going on in that other body, that body that constantly calls for bipartisan work and bipartisan cooperation. This is what I get from Senator Chuck Schumer, New York, May 1, 2014, on the floor of the United States Senate. He decided he would target me and blame me for the things that he believes are failures of the entire House of Representatives. Here are some of the quotes that Chuck Schumer uttered on that day of May 1 from the floor of the United States Senate. He called me ``an extreme outlier on the issue of immigration reform.'' I would direct Chuck Schumer to the Republican Party platform. You will find there language in the Republican Party platform that supports the position I have long held on immigration, and that position that I hold is this: We need to respect the rule of law. We need to secure our borders. We need to have an immigration policy that is designed to enhance the economic, the social, and the cultural well-being of the United States of America. It can't be for the Democratic Party of the United States of America because they are so closely aligned--in fact, they have enveloped the entire Progressive Party. The Progressive Party comes to this floor on a regular basis and gives speeches and presents their position. Their position, at one time, could be found on the Democratic Socialists of America Web site, dsausa.org. There, socialism is celebrated. As Progressives celebrate socialism, they are wrapped up inside the Democratic Party. We don't adhere to that on my side. We adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution, a secure border, a sovereign United States of America, and a policy for immigration that is designed to enhance the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the United States of America. We have enough common sense, Mr. Speaker, to know that our country is limited in size and scope. It is a large country, but we cannot be the relief valve for all of the poverty in the world. There are 7 billion people on the planet, and if they all have good sense, they would all want to live here. We need some of them in those countries to rebuild those countries and establish American principles, so that they can enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy, reconstructed around first principles, in the other countries of the world. We need to lead the world. We don't need to necessarily bring all the world here to feed the world here in the United States. And so, an extreme outlier, not so. Chuck Schumer represents the extreme outliers, and they are socialists, Marxists, progressives, liberal Democrats. I am sure that one of those labels will be one that he has already embraced, Mr. Speaker. Second quote, Senator Chuck Schumer of me, Steve King: The rhetoric of Steve King is beyond the pale. I am certain that the majority of Republicans in the House have their stomachs churn when they see Steve King spew that kind of rhetoric. That is not exactly collegial dialogue, Mr. Speaker, to see that kind of thing. What I wonder is why would Chuck Schumer think that he would know when the stomachs of Republicans might churn. I think they might churn when they hear him say those things. Although, rest easy, Mr. Speaker, mine doesn't. I take this all with good humor because I understand that it is a tactic. It is an Alinsky tactic, and it is designed to bring out a goal. It is not necessarily to raise me up to the point where he assigns me with the full sense of responsibility and authority to determine immigration policy here in the House of Representatives. Oh, I wish it were so, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe it is so. Yes, there is some influence there. History will decide how much--not me, not Chuck Schumer. Here is his goal: I believe that Senator Schumer has concluded that he could taunt the leadership and the House of Representatives, and that includes our Speaker of the House, into bringing amnesty legislation to the floor of the House because, if it does and if it should pass, the Senate would conform with any amnesty legislation because they are controlled by Democrats. I have long known and long been restrained by people in my own party, Mr. Speaker, from laying out the argument as to why almost every Democrat I know wants open borders and amnesty and a never-ending supply of illegal aliens in the United States of America. It is a pretty easy formula to figure out, especially if you sit here for 10 or a dozen years engaged in hearings and debate on a weekly basis, you begin to hear the thread of their conversation and you begin to understand the real truth behind their motives. It works out to be this: Of course there are a large number of illegal immigrants in the United States. We have been using the number 11 million since we stopped using the number 12 million, but they didn't stop coming into America. I don't quite understand why we would think that there are fewer illegal aliens in America today than there were 10 years ago. I believe there are more. If they come across the border at the rates that the witnesses from the Border Patrol and other witnesses in the hearings have been testifying, they will say that they will stop perhaps 25 percent that try. When I go down to the border and ask them, they will say, well, 10 percent has to come first. It is probably not 10. Some will say, with a little smirk, 3 percent is maybe what we stop. If I take the 25 percent, 25 percent effectiveness on our border and you look at those whom they do interdict on the border and you do the calculation, that turns out to be a number that is equivalent to 11,000 a night--on average, 11,000 a night coming across our southern border. That would be at some of the peak levels that we have, Mr. Speaker. I would think it is more objective for us to dial that number back down to somewhere in the neighborhood of about half of that. So half of 11,000, 5,500 a night is pretty close to the last reliable information that I found on how many are coming across our border illegally. Well, so I asked this question: What was the size of Santa Anna's army? About that, about 5,500 or 6,000. So it gives you a sense, the size of Santa Anna's army coming across our southern border every night, on average. I don't say day and night. Most of it is at night. I have sat down on the border at night multiple times. I have traveled the border and done multiple trips down there to monitor what is going on on our southern border. It has gotten a little better in Arizona, and it has gotten worse in Texas. We don't have control of this border, but that doesn't trouble most Democrats, because they recognize that the millions of people that are coming into this country illegally are counted in the census. And so, if you would go to a district in California like Maxine Waters' district, she only needs about 40,000 to 50,000 votes in her district to get reelected to the United States Congress. If you go to my district, it is well over 120,000 votes for me to be reelected to the United States Congress. The difference in that is two things. One is I have a very, very high percentage of real American citizens that do vote in my district; she has a lower percentage. And I have a higher turnout of people who are responsible enough to vote; she has a lower percentage. Illegal aliens are counted in the census all over America, and when new district lines are drawn, those district lines treat people the same as citizens. The Constitution doesn't say count the citizens and then reapportion; it says count the people. And so Democrats are happy enough to see the country filling up with people that they get to count when they do a district, because they get a Democrat district that is another vote here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. They want to turn this country into a single-party country. When you think of what happened in California, they are trying to bring about the same kind of transition in Texas. If they can turn Texas from a red State into a blue State, there will never be another conservative elected to a national office in this country again. They know that. That is why they have thousands of their operatives working in Texas, trying to turn Texas over into a blue State. They know that illegal immigration is an essential key. Back in 2007 or so when they bussed in tens of thousands of demonstrators, many of them self-professed illegal aliens in America, many of them wearing identical T-shirts that were issued to them apparently on the bus, then-alive Senator Teddy Kennedy stepped out to the west lawn of the Capitol and stepped up to the microphone and, through an interpreter, said to that group of people, who was interpreting to them in Spanish, he said: Some say, report to be deported; I say, report to become an American citizen. That was the Democrats' clarion call, the call out to illegal aliens in America to migrate toward the Democrat Party, to those that are outside of America to come into America and migrate towards the Democrat Party. They operate in those neighborhoods doing voter registration drives and signups and organizations, a lot of it funded by Federal dollars that matriculates down into their organizations. They do know what they are doing. They have built a cultural edifice around much of the minority community in America, and much of it has been because, Mr. Speaker, they have been telling them lies. They have been telling them lies about the political opponents of the leftists that are engaged in those neighborhoods; and we have seen this flow, Mr. Speaker, as far as the White House. The divisions that have been driven between Americans, divisions driven down the line of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, prosperity, those wedges have been driven in a calculated way for the political gain of the people that sit over on this side of this Chamber. I have seen too much of it to believe that I could be off by 1 degree in the statement that I have made, Mr. Speaker. I am continuing onward, Senator Schumer of myself: Steve King, a far right, way out of the mainstream outlier doesn't just spew hatred; he calls the shots. Hmm, I don't think that he could point to any hatred that I have spoken to and identified as spewing. Calling the shots? No, I hear the wisdom of the Republican Conference. I have to hear what they say and what they think and where they anchor their thoughts. We have coalesced on this, Mr. Speaker: whatever we might do to change immigration law, we can't trust the President of the United States to enforce anything he doesn't like. It doesn't just have to be immigration law; it can be anything. The President of the United States picks and chooses the laws that he will enforce. He essentially tells us: I am not going to enforce this series of laws because I don't like them, and I am not going to enforce these series of laws because I don't like them. It is not just immigration; although, that was some of the first examples and some of the most egregious examples, Mr. Speaker. And we saw them come through as the Morton memos, and I will circle back to that in a moment. We saw the President, by executive edict, not always in executive order, sometimes a third-tier notice on a Web site of the United States Treasury, sometimes a verbal statement that he makes before a press conference in the Rose Garden at noon on a Friday. The President of the United States will step up and say, for example, when he was speaking to the churches who objected to their religious freedom being taken from them, their conscience protection that was to be assured to them, written into the ObamaCare law, after they took that religious freedom, conscience protection away from our people of faith, and in particular the Catholic churches that filed multiple lawsuits, and other religious organizations did the same, the President was taking 2 weeks of heat and criticism as the faith communities rose up, and he decided to put an end to that. So he held a press conference at the White House at noon on a Friday, and with the Presidential seal in front of the podium, he stood there and said: I am going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations in America, and now I am going to require the insurance companies to provide these things for free. Well, these things were contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations. Contraceptives, Mr. Speaker, we understand what they are. Abortifacients are pills that bring about the abortion of a little, innocent, unborn baby. Sterilizations are those things that might come with tubal ligations or vasectomies. Those were the things that were in ObamaCare that are particularly egregious to the principles of the Catholic church. And so the President decided he would make an accommodation written in the rules, by the way--not the bill, but in the rules. The President said: I am going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations, and now I am going to require the insurance companies to provide these things for free. He repeated himself. He said: Provide these things for free. For free. I thought, hmm, how is it that the President can step up and give a press conference and change a law or change a rule that has been published by Kathleen Sebelius' Health and Human Services? How does the President have the authority to simply speak and make those changes? Surely there must be a rule that is amended. Surely there must be a bill that has been introduced that has a lot of responsible cosponsors, that has a prospect of being passed. Maybe he has got an agreement with our Speaker and majority leader here and Harry Reid over in the Senate. So we went back and scoured the rule, Mr. Speaker. The rule didn't change, not one i dotted differently, not one t crossed differently. There was no change in any written document, the written document that required the religious organizations to provide contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations. The President said now the insurance companies have to do this for free. Not one word changed in print anywhere. The insurance companies stepped up to that verbal directive from the President of the United States. That should be appalling to any American citizen that took an eighth grade civics course to understand that the President doesn't write the laws. The President doesn't have the authority to change them. Congress has granted to the executive branch the authority to write rules, an Administrative Procedure Act that directs how those rules that are proposed by the executive branch are published for open public hearing. There is a process they must go through. The President is not the king. The President doesn't get to issue edicts verbally from the podium and have the force and effect of law to change that policy without any print being changed anywhere in a rule or in the Federal Register or in the Federal Code. That is what he did with that particular case, Mr. Speaker. I use that as an example to tell you how far this President has overreached from his constitutional authority. So the President has first imposed contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations on our religious organizations, then lifted the imposition verbally by telling the insurance companies: Now you are going to have to do this for free. What did they do? They complied. They listened to the President's press conference and decided, okay, we are going to do what he tells us. They didn't go back and check the text--well, maybe the text of the press conference, maybe the text of his speech, but there was no rule. There was no law. The President also suspended welfare-to-work. The temporary assistance to needy families was written that required welfare-to-work. It was written so that then Bill Clinton couldn't circumvent it. It was written tightly and with the idea that a President would stretch it. What happens? This President simply suspended welfare-to-work under TANF. What else happened? How about President Bush's No Child Left Behind on education? President Obama has now issued so many waivers that No Child Left Behind no longer exists. These were acts of the United States Congress nullified by executive acts of the President of the United States. We will accept it if the court over across the street will nullify a law that is passed by the Congress and signed by the President, if they rule it unconstitutional. Most of the time we accept that. Sometimes we reject their judgment because we take an oath to the Constitution too, Mr. Speaker. But we should be appalled at the constitutional violations of the President of the United States, who has continually overreached on immigration, on education, on welfare-to-work, on ObamaCare itself: the bill with his name and his signature. There are more than 30 changes that the President has brought about on that. Some of them are clearly unconstitutional. Most of them are difficult to litigate to a successful conclusion. Who calls the shots here? Well, I make recommendations like anybody else does. Each Member follows their own conscience. It is nice to get the assignment--Senator Schumer, he says: They listen to me. Well, yes, and we listen to each other. Here is another quote from Senator Schumer. He said that I am winning: Steve King has three wins, the rest of the Republican Party and the rest of America is winless. Good for him, terrible for us. King is in the driver's seat of immigration reform and as long as he sits there, things will continue to be stuck in a rut. Stuck in a rut, in the driver's seat, the rest of America is winless. No, the rest of America is winning each day that we can protect the rule of law, each day that we have something left that we can use to secure our borders, each day that we can deploy some type of law enforcement at the local government, State government, and the Federal Government too, out on the streets of America, that at least slows down this influx of illegal immigration that we have. America is not winless when that happens. America would be wiped out from a perspective of the rule of law and the future and the destiny for our country if we allowed people like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin to set the policy for immigration. If they did that, the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, would be destroyed, be gone. We couldn't reconstruct it again in our lifetime. Not just our lifetime, Mr. Speaker, but the lifetime of this Republic. I would ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Has anybody read the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill? I have. I have read through that entire bill, and I come to this conclusion. They have sent to us from the United States Senate a bill on immigration. It is expansive. It covers all kinds of things. But it is this: it is instantaneous amnesty for almost everybody that is in America illegally, instantaneous amnesty. It is prospective amnesty to the extent that it does not address how we might address people who get into America after the bill might be enacted. So the prospects are that it would be the next wave of those who would be, according to their description, living in the shadows. So if we are not going to enforce the law in the future or if we are going to pass a Senate version of the bill--and we are not, but the Senate version of the bill, if it becomes law, doesn't do anything to bring about enforcement for those who would violate our immigration laws in the future, nothing. It may do something on the border. A $40 billion Corker amendment blows the budget substantially without a guarantee that it is going to be functional. But is instantaneous amnesty for those that are here. It is prospective amnesty for those who would come here. And, Mr. Speaker, it is retroactive amnesty. And that means it goes back to those who have been deported in the past and says: We really didn't mean it. Why don't you apply to come back to America, you all come back now, you hear, because we really can't have deported you in the past and let people stay in America under the same conditions that we deported you in the past. That is the Senate version of the bill. It is ludicrous from a commonsense heart of the heartland middle America viewpoint, where we respect and love the rule of law. So Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, went on: He called for my expulsion from the Republican Party. I am pretty sure they are not going to listen to Chuck Schumer on that. He says: They can show some courage and say that the Steve Kings in the world can say whatever they want, but they have no place in a modern Republican Party. Imagine a leftist activist, deploying Alinsky tactics on the floor of the United States Senate, who would tell the Republican Party that they should expel me, who in a lot of ways has stood with the entire platform consistently for a long time. I would have to go change the platform first. It would be easier just to become a Democrat. However, their ranks are not swelling as fast as ours are. Commonsense is prevailing, and we are seeing Republican majorities in the States, a likely Republican majority expanded here in the House of Representatives, and a real good shot at a Republican majority in the United States Senate. What does that say about who is calling the shots in America? It is not Chuck Schumer, it is not Harry Reid, it is not Dick Durbin. So he continues. Two weeks later--he hadn't had enough--two weeks later he comes to the floor of the Senate again and goes through a series of some of the same things, which I will skip down through a little bit more quickly: Far-right extremists, such as Congressman Steve King. Another: What has the House actually done on immigration these past 2 years? This is Chuck Schumer: Nothing. Look it up. This is what Steve King wants, he wants the House to do nothing. He is winning and America is losing. Well, no, the House has done something. In the appropriations bill last year, June 6, 2013, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I brought an amendment, an amendment that shut off all funding to implement or enforce the President's unconstitutional actions and exert constitutional actions that had to do with DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and for prosecutorial discretion known as the Morton Memos. The President's action is unconstitutional. He has no prosecutorial discretion to identify classes or groups of people and then exempt them from the law. Prosecutorial discretion must be on an individual basis; it cannot be on a group. They violated that. They know it. I read their material and debated with them and initiated a lawsuit. We are somewhat sidetracked right now on that. It is the nature of the thing. My amendment passed this Congress 224 to 201. That is not nothing. That is restoring the rule of law and the Constitution immigration policy after it has been violated by the President of the United States. We sent that out of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. We set it on Harry Reid's desk, and there it likely went into his drawer and he took no action on it. So it is not that the House isn't doing anything, it is that the Senate did something really illogical: the Gang of Eight's bill for instantaneous, perpetual, and retroactive amnesty. And then we have the number three-ranking Democrat in the Senate trying to taunt the Speaker of the House into doing something equally as foolish: bring amnesty to the floor of the House. This place would blow up and the American people would arrive here in short order because they love the rule of law. Not only natural born Americans, not only naturalized Americans, green card holders that come here to achieve the American Dream. That means from any country they came from and every country they came from, those who came here to love America and respect and appreciate the American Dream. But what is happening is it is being eroded by destruction of the rule of law for political motivation on the part of people like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin. There is another quote here by Chuck Schumer that says: Enough is enough. We will not let our party be hijacked by extremists whose xenophobia causes them to prefer maintaining a broken system over achieving a tough, fair, and practical long-term solution. Xenophobia. I had to look that up when we came to this Congress. We don't use that in the streets where I come from, but I have known its definition for a long time: being afraid of something that you don't know. Well, I don't often get accused of being afraid of anything, so when I am I pay a little bit of attention to that. I would say this. Chuck Schumer is not like me. I am not afraid of him so it is not xenophobia. Harry Reid is not like me. I am not afraid of Harry Reid, so that is not xenophobia. Dick Durbin is not like me. I am not afraid of him. That is not xenophobia. What xenophobia are they talking about, Mr. Speaker, is my question? So if we are going to have some kind of a challenge of rhetoric bouncing back and forth between the House and the Senate, let's do it face to face, let's do it eye to eye. Let's have that duel, not like Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton--I would be the one standing on the high ground on that--but let's do it like real men do it today, not dueling pistols at 50 paces, let's do this with microphones within arm's reach, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we could get to the bottom of this and we could determine who exactly had the xenophobia. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time to address the subject of this rule. Mr. Speaker, this House is considering a combined rule. It is a rule that addresses the NDAA and it is a rule that addresses the USA FREEDOM Act wrapped up together. Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate the point that we are addressing a combined rule between the National Defense Authorization Act and the USA FREEDOM Act. The first component that I would like to address with the time that I have is an expression of appreciation to the Rules Committee for going through all the amendments of the NDAA, taking a look at that and coming down with a rule that recognizes that the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee is immigration policy, not Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for the decision that they made on the NDAA. Even though there were dozens and dozens, actually scores of amendments to consider last year, there was an amendment that addressed the immigration issue that was made in order on the bill. That brought about a debate and a discussion here on the floor. Instead, that debate took place this time in the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee declined to approve essentially amendment number 58 that dealt with the immigration issue. It is the proper jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Additionally, it was bad policy. So I rise to thank the Rules Committee for that decision and transition into a discussion about the USA FREEDOM Act, which I am troubled by; and that is the process of regular order in this Congress, and the idea that, as the Congress put together a bill that blocked the Federal Government from collecting metadata on telephone bills, there was a negotiation that took place over the weekend, a substitute amendment was delivered, announced at 12:35 p.m. on a Monday, we took up the bill I believe the next day quickly, no amendments were accepted, we didn't have an opportunity to have a serious discussion about the national defense, national security implications of a bill that addressed the civil liberties. I support the underlying bill, I support the effort to protect the civil liberties of the American people.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. The amendment that I offered, even though it was voted on, the debate really didn't consider this proposal that the head of an element of the intelligence community may enter into an agreement to compensate for retaining call detail records for a period of time. What the underlying bill does in section 215 is it limits the amount of time that we can get a FISA warrant to do a query of existing records in the private hands of the telecommunications companies to the 18 months that is required by the FCC. We need to have the opportunity for this Commander in Chief, the intelligence community, or a subsequent Commander in Chief to be able to expand that period of time while still protecting that data within the possession of the private sector companies, which we have confidence in. That is an issue that I would like to see before this Congress. It is not going to be voted on in this bill. I am troubled by the national security implications of it, which brings me to the floor. I will support this rule. I do thank the Rules Committee. But I wanted to make that point that when national security issues come up, somebody has got to put the marker down. I urge all to consider the point I have made here today.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be recognized by you to address you here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I appreciate this privilege to do so. It is something that I would encourage a lot of the Members to participate in and express the wishes of their constituents and their opinions here on the floor so that not only you can turn an ear and listen to this presentation here tonight, but also so that it inspires dialogue all across America. We will remain a free country and we can remain a constitutional Republic if we have open debate and open dialogue and if the values of the American people remain consistent with our roots. I would first, Mr. Speaker, start out with listening to the dialogue of the gentleman who spoke ahead of me, and I would note that his statement that there are people that went ahead of him and his family that are blue collar, it seems to me to be maybe a generation removed from the real America that most of it is blue collar. And I think it is important to note that this country that we are is not going to continue to prosper unless we have people whom people respect and honor and who produce goods and services that have a marketable value here at home. For those that get paid to pontificate--I, among them, okay--that is an important function also. For those who get paid to sit on the couch, that is not so important a function. But those that produce goods and services that have a marketable value here and abroad are the ones that grow our economy. In the private sector, it allows us to be competitive with the countries around the world. I think of my neighbors, many of whom are engaged in agriculture and how we compete with the most competitive economy in the world and we compete in a favorable way and we set the pace. We set the pace in productivity. We set the pace in efficiency. We set the pace in quality and in food safety. That is the circle around my neighborhood that you can see in any direction looking out from my house. I am proud of those neighbors who produce those goods and services that have a marketable value here at home. A lot of that, most of it is the kind of thing we would call blue-collar work. I am impressed by the professionals that come here to Congress. I came from the construction world, hands-on, in the ditch, shovel in hand, grease gun, wrench, steering wheel, yes, pencil and calculator from the lowest guy on the totem pole to the guy who started a company to now a second-generation King Construction Company. We have been engaged in this economy for I believe this will be our 40th season that we are engaged in now. You see the flow of the economy, and you have respect for those who put their hands, their back, and their mind to work every day. I appreciate, also, a great deal these values of America, the roots of who we are as a people. I was observing this morning, as I was getting ready to leave my place, that there was an individual who was interviewed on FOX this morning in their morning show by Steve Doocy, and it was Mallory Factor, an author I happen to know, an individual I count as a friend. He laid out the four principles of conservatism, and I thought it was a useful thing. I took the notes down and put them in my pocket because I believe he is exactly and succinctly right that this country needs to be rooted in those principles of conservatism. Without them, we are cast adrift. Here are the four principles that he laid out: The first one is respect for the tradition and wisdom of our past generations. That is a fairly succinct way of saying our Founding Fathers got it right. They laid down a foundation, a foundation in faith, free enterprise, and fidelity that has been the foundation for America becoming the unchallenged greatest Nation in the world. And if we are to stay that way, we need to remain respectful to the traditions and wisdom of past generations. The second one is a rule of law. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me speak often and consistently about the rule of law. Lady Justice is often portrayed as blind. The statue of Lady Justice is of her holding the scales of justice, perfectly balanced scales of justice, weighed equally on either side. But Lady Justice is blindfolded because she doesn't see class or race or ethnicity or sex. She sees simply here is a human being before the court to be treated the same as any other human being, regardless of where they might sit in the social stratification by wealth, by race, by ethnicity, by sex, whatever the qualities might be. Whatever the qualifications might be, Lady Justice is blind, and the rule of law must apply to everyone equally. That is number two. The third one is the belief in an individual freedom and liberty. And I will go a little further than Mr. Factor in that these rights come from God. Our Founding Fathers understood, articulated, and wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men--and that means men and women in the vernacular--are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. It is an individual belief, the belief in individual freedom and liberty--not a freedom that is granted to you by government, not one that is bestowed upon you by the sovereign or the king, but this God- given individual liberty that comes from God that we then entrust from the people to the government. We loan our sovereign rights to the government to organize our society. Government doesn't have the power. It is we the people that have the power, and we loan that to government. And if it is the other way around, if government grants rights, then government can also take those rights away. If that is the case, we would be similar to many of the other governments, many of the other civilizations, and we are not. We are the United States of America, founded upon four of these conservative principles. All of these principles are conservative principles: the respect for tradition and wisdom of past generations, the rule of law, the belief in individual freedom and liberty, and the fourth thing is a belief in a law higher than man's law. That is God's law. Mr. Speaker, those are the four principles of conservatism. A little tidbit of wisdom that came out this morning--and I made a little note and slipped it in my pocket--I think it is important that we here in this Congress reflect upon those values that made America great and what it is going to take to strengthen those values, restore those values, and carry America to the next level of our destiny. When this Congress deviates from those principles, when this Congress deviates from the Constitution, when the Congress deviates from individual rights, and when the Congress decides they can tax some people and transfer that wealth to other people and somehow be a leveler or some kind of a wealth transfer that resolves this class envy issue, then America is diminished because what it does is it diminishes the vitality of our people. If you get out of bed and go to work every day and you know that Uncle Sam is going to get his share, the minute you punch that timeclock, Uncle Sam's hand comes out; and when he gets what he wants for the day, it goes in his pocket. Then the Governor's hand comes out, and he puts it in his pocket. Then you have some other taxes to pay along the way, and when that is all done, some time in the afternoon, you get to actually work for yourself and your family. Well, that is a little bit depressing to think you don't get to work even in the morning. If you go to work at 8 in the morning, you are taking your lunch break before you are getting anything for you and your family. Now, what if the government is sitting there taking it all? What if it was we are going to confiscate all of the money you earn? Then we will deal it out to these other people, and you will get your government welfare check just like everybody else; and we will all have the same resources to work with. We are all going to have the same amount of food, clothing and shelter, and recreation. We are all going to have the same health insurance policy. We are all going to drive an equal-value car, but some have to work, and those who don't want to don't. Think about that. I have heard that. I have heard that debate on this floor. People will say--from over here on the leftist side of the aisle, they will say those that want a job should have a job, which implies that those who don't want to work shouldn't have to. So if they are able-bodied and able-minded, then they should be contributing to this economy or have earned and stored up the wealth to sustain themselves, not tax the other person that is punching that timeclock or going to work for that salary because what happens is, pretty soon, the one who is being taxed to fund the one who is not working figures out that it doesn't pay so much to work. It happens in the margins, so people start moving across from one side to the other; and over time, you will have good, smart, productive people who are smart enough to figure out that it doesn't pay for me to do this any longer, so they will drift over into maybe a part-time job, maybe work under the table, maybe some black market stuff, or they will tap into some of the 80 different means-tested Federal welfare programs we have in this country and take their standard of living up above that they might have if all they did was work. That is where this country has gone. The welfare program has grown so great that it has discouraged some of our most productive people. It is a disincentive. It discourages me that, if we are maybe a generation removed, as I listened to the gentleman from the Hudson Valley, he is a generation removed from blue collar, I would like to think that we are always going to need blue-collar people. We are always going to need for this country to have a middle class, a middle class that is growing in numbers and increasing in prosperity in relation to the productivity that they are putting out, and this country is always going to need to compete with the other countries in the world. We can't just collapse down into the idea that we are going to be an economy that has professionals that live in gated communities that hire servants at a cheap rate, and then they will have the people that are a diminishing middle class and the unskilled and the low skilled that will make a meager wage, always keeping that meager wage down by a refueling of legal and illegal unskilled immigrants coming into this country that can only compete in the unskilled jobs. The highest level of unemployment that we have--the double digit unemployment in this country are the people in the lowest skilled jobs. So how is it that almost every Democrat and a pretty respectable number of Republicans can leap to this conclusion, which is we need more unskilled workers, we need more of these workers to come in because it will grow the economy? Well, just because you have somebody, if you bring in 1,000 people-- and we know that we are going to have to educate the children especially and the youth, we will have to provide health care and housing and nutrition, the food, clothing, and shelter--as I said, 1,000 people could come in, and if one of them does a day's work, that contributes to the GDP, the gross domestic product. So if the day's work of one in 1,000 contributes to the GDP, they, by their definition, say the economy is growing. The economy will grow if you have more and more immigration, and they don't say unskilled. Well, we have an opening here for some skilled people to come into this country. We have an oversupply of unskilled. We have 101.4 million Americans of working age who are simply not in the workforce--101.4 million, that is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The numbers total this: those 16 and up who are of working age, plus those who are on unemployment today--officially signed up on unemployment--add those two numbers together, 101.4 million. A third of our population is of working age and not in the workforce. Yes, some are retired, and some are handicapped, and some are homemakers, and some of them are in school; but a whole lot of them could actually be recruited to come into the workforce and produce that good or service with marketable value and increase our GDP. What is the cost to our society for putting more of the people--the 101.4 million that are not in the workforce, what is the cost to our society? What if we called 10 million in? What if we called 20 million in? What if we brought 30 or 40 million of the 101.4 million in and put them in the workforce? What does that do? Well, a significant percentage of them are on welfare and unemployment, so they are off the welfare and unemployment rolls. That reduces the burden for the taxpayers. When they go to the workforce, they are in the productive sector of the economy. They take their wage. They pay their own payroll tax. That means they are paying their Social Security and their Medicare and their Medicaid, so we get a twofer. We reduce the welfare rolls. We get more and more taxpayers. We bring Social Security into balance just simply by virtue of more people going to work, and we have less of a deficit in our entitlements--Medicare and Medicaid--because they need less of it. That is what happens if you get this country going at the right direction. There are a number of ways to do that. You can't do it with a President who doesn't believe in work, for one thing; and when they learned, according to the CBO score, that ObamaCare would cost this economy the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs, in other words, 40 hours a week times--and that is 40 hours, not the 30 hours that are in ObamaCare--40 hours a week times 2.5 million workers, that is the reduced amount of productivity that comes because of the disincentives to work that are associated with ObamaCare. That is the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. What does the administration say? They say: well, that is going to be a good thing because, if you are a homemaker, now you get to make more home. If you are an artist, you get to paint more paintings. If you have hobbies, you get to pursue your hobbies; and if you are a parent, you get to spend more time with your children. This is the first time, I believe, in the history of this country, that a President of the United States and his administration have taken the position that less work was good for America, which just goes to show you that human beings have an almost indefinite capacity to self- rationalize, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened with the Obama administration. They have exercised their almost infinite capacity to self-rationalize on piece after piece of this. They moved their socialist agenda, and then they self-rationalize along the way, and now, we are watching as ObamaCare has been a mess. It has been a debacle, and we are watching these numbers. The administration says we got 7.1 million people to sign up. That was their goal of 7 million. Miraculously, they overshot it by a little bit. What we don't know is how many of those 7.1 million were insured before ObamaCare; how many decided that they would opt out of their existing policy and into an exchange policy; how many of them lost their insurance because of ObamaCare and had no choice, if they wanted to remain insured, but to opt into an exchange under ObamaCare; and what percentage of the 7.1 million were actually uninsured without affordable options and found their way onto an ObamaCare exchange and purchased insurance. Once you go through all that, how many of them were not subsidized out of the 7.1 million? What would be the point, Mr. Speaker, and if we look at a society that supposedly had 48 million people without their own health insurance policy, I really wasn't alarmed by that because I don't know where the right comes from to own your own health insurance policy, but we provided health services to everybody in this country, at a minimum, to those who show up at an emergency room. So somehow, they twisted this around to everybody has a right, everybody needs to own their own health insurance policy. I stood on this floor 4 years ago or so and made the argument that, of the 48 million--when you subtract from that those who qualify for Medicaid and, from that, those who make over $75,000 a year and presumably could buy their own health insurance, those who qualify, those who are unlawfully present in the United States, and you subtract from the 48 million, down to the number of those who are uninsured, your 48 million became 12.1 million, which is 4 percent of our population in the entire health care system of the United States, the insurance system and the delivery system, is entirely redirected, transformed under ObamaCare, to try to get at that 4 percent number. Meanwhile, it looks to me that we will have more people uninsured, not less. By the way, if you want to sign up in the rest of this year, sorry, you are out of luck; you missed the signup deadline. Now, except for some narrow conditions, you will not be able to get insurance in this country. It is a calamity. It is one of the calamities. Another one of the calamities, in the time that I have remaining, is a reflection upon the hearing today where Attorney General Holder came before the House Judiciary Committee. His testimony comes about once a year before the Judiciary Committee. It is our job to have oversight over the Justice Department. We have done that for a long, long time. As each of the members of the panel questioned Attorney General Holder under oath, here is how I reflect upon this: I asked Eric Holder if he still held the position he did when I last questioned him, in that the Department of Justice is an independent department that doesn't take directive from the President, and his job is to provide equal justice under the law. He agreed with that statement. I think it is a proper way to frame the job of Attorney General, but to argue that the Attorney General is not politically influenced by the President of the United States is a pretty tough argument to make when you think of this, Mr. Speaker. I take you back to 2008. This was in the last weeks--or, actually, the last months of the Bush administration. Senator Ted Stevens, for 40 years, represented Alaska in the United States Senate. There were charges brought against him that were evaluated and investigated by Federal officers of the FBI. On October 27, 2008, Senator Ted Stevens was found guilty of charges of corruption brought against him. Eight days later, he lost his election to now-Senator Begich in Alaska. In October of the following year, former-Senator Stevens was killed in a tragic plane crash, but here is the modern news, Mr. Speaker: on March 27 of this year, it is announced, in a little news story that hardly got any play, that at least one of the FBI agents, Mary Beth Kepner, has been severely disciplined, and that discipline has been imposed for--let me say violations during the investigation and the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. Now, he is dead. He can't speak for himself. He was convicted in a trial that took place and was concluded 8 days before his election. He narrowly lost the election in Alaska. This prosecution, if it was investigated and operated in the fashion that would be reflected when you see the language that Mary Beth Kepner, one of the FBI agents, was severely disciplined, and that discipline has been imposed, what is the discipline? What did they do? Do we think Eric Holder is prosecuting, now, Mary Beth Kepner for her involvement in the prosecution of Ted Stevens, which may or may not have, but likely did bring about a change in the election of the United States Senate, so that it gave the Senate a 60-vote Democrat majority, and they were able to cram through components of ObamaCare that they would not have been able to cram through otherwise? This, you would think, would be worthy of at least a comment on the part of Attorney General Eric Holder to look into and see: Is it worthy of, now, investigation and prosecution? Or could you at least release a statement as to the acts that she committed and the investigation that you did? If the case is closed, tell us. When you have FBI agents improperly conducting themselves to the extent that the Holder Justice Department severely disciplined them, you have to wonder if it didn't change the course of history. You have to wonder, if the FBI had not conducted themselves in that fashion that brought about the severe discipline, would Ted Stevens have been reelected? Would that have changed the results in the United States Senate? Would we, maybe, perhaps, not be living under ObamaCare today if those actions had not taken place inside this Justice Department? You would think the Attorney General would look into that or at least have a comment. That is number one. The second one would be the very aggressive overreach of the investigation of Aaron Swartz, and that topic is something that brought about his suicide, and there has been much dialogue in this country about that. Another one that I brought up to General Holder is this: the investigation and prosecution of Conrad Barrett. Now, we have all, Mr. Speaker, heard about the knockout game in this country. It is when youth, generally speaking, will go pick someone and decide, I am going to punch them and knock them out in the street, and see if I can do it with one punch, and my buddies are going to see me do this. Sometimes it is videotaped, and we see this on television. In the cases that I have seen and in the cases that have been reported, it is almost always black on white crime. The knockout game appears to be black on white crime. I fought against, as well as did Louie Gohmert of Texas, the hate crimes legislation because that just turns into a tool, and when you punish someone for what you think they think rather than for the overt act that they commit, you are getting into an area of law that allows for a lot of discretion on the part of the prosecution, and it may or may not result in more justice. I believe we ought to severely punish the people who are committing the overt acts, but we should not have gone down the road of the hate crimes legislation because that becomes a tool that can be used now to divide people against each other based upon whatever particular minority group we might be in. You would think, with a country full of black on white crime and with a knockout game--something that has been all over the news for months now--that Eric Holder could find a way, if he wanted to prosecute a hate crime, to pick one of those African American youths who has gone in there and slugged and punched out someone on the streets who was targeted because of their difference in race. Instead, the Justice Department picked Conrad Barrett, a white guy who punched an African American, in order to play his side of the knockout game. If he is guilty of this, of course that is wrong, and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We have States that can prosecute those kinds of assaults and violent acts, but it strikes me that the others didn't fit the profile of the Holder administration, so they went after the one example of the white guy and the African American victim instead of all of the white victims and the African American alleged perpetrators. That stands out to me. The next one is the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza, who did the movie ``Obama 2016.'' Yes, that hurt the administration. It brought some things out about where this administration is going, the Obama administration. He is no friend of the administration's, but it is alleged that he directed $20,000 through friends to be given to a U.S. Senate campaign in New York. That is alleged. I don't know if it is true, but that is the allegation. Yet it must be true that there are thousands of Americans who have done a similar thing for a lot more money. The Holder Justice Department couldn't find them, but they found Dinesh D'Souza to target for prosecution. They also targeted for Federal prosecution Governor Bob McDonnell, in Virginia, who has five former Virginia attorneys general who have vouched for the language of the law and who have said they believe the Holder Justice Department has stretched the limits of that. We shall see how that comes out. Governor Chris Christie had a problem with the traffic being closed on a bridge, and it created a national furor, but within a week, the Holder Justice Department was investigating Governor Chris Christie for his use of the funds for the Sandy relief fund. Now, how is it that the Holder Justice Department isn't going to look into the FBI's transgressions in the Senator Ted Stevens investigation, which brought about, I believe, a change in the result of that Senate election and a change in ObamaCare? How is it that they are not going to look into the overzealous prosecution of Carmen Ortiz and Aaron Swartz? They are going to prosecute Conrad Barrett for a hate crime, and they are going to continue to prosecute Dinesh D'Souza, but it is just a coincidence that he produced ``Obama 2016.'' They are going to continue to prosecute Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and Republican Governor Chris Christie while they let people off the hook, like the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia; James Clapper, who contradicted himself under oath, which would be, if proven, a perjury charge; Governor Jon Corzine, a Democrat from New Jersey, while there is $1 billion missing in Global Crossing, and we can't find a way to investigate him; Lois Lerner, who is manipulating the IRS to persecute the President's political enemies, and the investigation has to take place by subpoena, in contempt of Congress, because the Holder Justice Department has turned a blind eye because the President has said there is not a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS; and exempting entire classes of people from prosecution, like illegal immigrants who haven't committed serious crimes. They are exempt from prosecution and removal, and with marijuana, huge companies are exempted even though it is Federal law. With DOMA, Attorney General Holder has refused to defend DOMA before the Court. Voter fraud instead, by the way, they prosecute. They bring action against States like Texas, which simply want voter ID, and they allege that Texas is imposing a poll tax and that it is a racist plot. That is what we have, Mr. Speaker, in the Justice Department today. It is hard to call it justice. It is going to be hard to take this country to the next level of our destiny. These values that I have brought out in the beginning--these values of respect for tradition and wisdom of past generations, the rule of law, individual freedom and liberty, and a belief in a law higher than man's law--we must restore in this country if we are to restore the pillars of American exceptionalism. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. We are constantly confronted with agendas and issues, some of which are good for the country, and some of which are bad for the country. That is why we debate here in this Congress. I would like to think that anything that passes off the floor of the House of Representatives enjoys the full support of at least a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. I would like to think that is also the case with the Senate. I would like to think that when we disagree, we come together in conference and we produce a conference report that can achieve and enjoy the majority support of the House and the Senate of the conference report and go on its way to the President's desk, where it is either signed into law or vetoed and sent back to the Chamber of origin, as the Constitution directs. There are also tactics and maneuvers that go on in this Congress, and this more than two centuries of the structure of this great deliberative body has developed a system within our committee process to define jurisdiction committee by committee. More committees have been created over the years, some committees have been abolished over the years, but it is designed to function so that this constitutional Republic--which is guaranteed in our Constitution, by the way--brings the best judgment of the people in America through their elected representatives. There are 435 House districts and 100 Senators from the 50 States. The good ideas that come from our neighborhoods need to go into the eyes and ears of their Member of Congress, and we need to bring it here and bring those best ideas forward and compete. Put those ideas together in a competitive fashion so that as we sit down and first we draft a bill, that bill gets assigned to the committee of jurisdiction where the people have accumulated expertise on the topic are seated. There will be hearings for them to get better informed about the bill in question itself, and then in the subcommittee, a markup of the base bill that allows every member of the subcommittee to offer an amendment, any series of amendments, that are germane to the topic and the subject of the bill, which is assigned to the committee because of the jurisdiction of the committee, and then that subcommittee acts, in which case then the bill goes to the full committee for a similar process to the broader committee. If it comes out of that committee improved in theory--and actually improved in practice most of the time--then that bill goes on the calendar here on the floor, where in which case it is subjected to the amendments that might come from all of the other Members, the Members that are on the committee of jurisdiction and the Members who are not on the committee of jurisdiction. When this Congress is set up to function accurately, when we are defending, protecting, and respecting the jurisdiction of the various committees, we get the best product because we have the people on the committees that have--at least in theory--the most knowledge about the topic that comes before the committee. Some have years and years of expertise accumulated, some not quite as long, but they might bring that interest from their private life into the committee, as well. I get very concerned when I see a bill come to the floor that didn't go through the committee process, that didn't have a legitimate hearing process, that didn't go through subcommittee or the full committee and comes to this floor because someone decided that it was so urgent that we act on a subject that we didn't have time to go through regular order. That concerns me a lot. I get concerned when there is an expectation that we will have a full debate here on the floor on a bill, and it is brought to the floor and voice-voted on a weekend, going into a weekend, without the knowledge of most of the Members of Congress. I get concerned about regular order. I have had my conversations with our leadership regarding that. I am not yet satisfied that this is the last time. However, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to address a different kind of regular order, a kind of regular order that is this: if we have committees that are not committees of jurisdiction of a subject or a topic and that subject or topic outside their jurisdiction is slipped into a must-pass piece of legislation from another committee, now they have usurped the jurisdiction of the committee that actually has that jurisdiction, and they have placed a topic into a subject matter that must pass, and the people who have allowed that to happen on their watch, at least in theory, don't possess the expertise that exists within the committee of jurisdiction. Now, all of this gibberish that I am talking about now, this technical explanation of what goes on here in this Congress boils down to this, Mr. Speaker--and I want to speak specifically to this issue. There is a bill that is floating around this Congress that is referred to as the ENLIST Act. I can't read for you the name of this bill because it is about as accurate as the Affordable Care Act is to naming ObamaCare; but it is one that grants amnesty to people who come into the United States--are unlawfully present in the United States. Many of them committed the crime of unlawful entry. A good number of others may have overstayed a visa or come into America on a visa waiver program. In any case, they are unlawfully present in America. They might sign up for the military. If they do that, they are defrauding the Department of Defense. We don't recruit people into our military who are unlawfully present in the United States. They have to have a green card, at a minimum; citizenship, better. Now, one might presume that we are having trouble recruiting people to come into the military, so therefore, we should bring in mercenaries from outside the United States and take the oath to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution and go out and defend the liberty of Americans. That actually happens, but when it happens, it is a violation of the law. If they take that oath of office, illegal aliens into our military have to misrepresent themselves in order to be accepted into the military, so that is fraud. It might well be document fraud. This bill called the ENLIST Act would reward them for doing so, for defrauding the Department of Defense and, yes, putting on the uniform and, at least in theory, defending America. They take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They salute our flag. They may mean it; they may not mean it. But we know the very act of entering the military was a dishonest act on their part. So why would we accept their oath to have more value--the oath to defend the Constitution, to have more value than their word that they gave when they misrepresented themselves to join the military? In any case, this ENLIST Act bill rewards people who broke our immigration law by putting them on a path to citizenship, giving them a green card. The only qualifications you need is you are unlawfully in the United States, you enter into the military, you misrepresent yourself to do that because we are not taking them into the military if they are unlawfully present. Then they have to assert they were in the United States continuously since before December 31, 2011, which happens to be the date that is in the Gang of Eight's bill, and they have to assert that they were brought into this country or came into this country by the time they were 15 years old--they might be in their 30s when they sign up for the military, who knows--but those have to be the assertions. Then if they are in the military at the time, then they have to be either honorably discharged or on the path to honorable discharge, and they will then have a path to citizenship. I think this is a misguided bill. I think it is misguided to think that we need to reward people for breaking the law. It is misguided to believe that Americans will not sign up for our military. We are shrinking our military. We are not expanding our military. We have high-quality Americans who are lining up to join in all of our branches of service. Yes, I am sure there are recruiters who would like to do a little more, but this is not an expanding Department of Defense budget; this is a shrinking Department of Defense budget. It is not an expanding military; it is a shrinking military. But that, Mr. Speaker, isn't so much the point as it is what is right and what is wrong, what is justice and what is equity and what is not. I understand there are people who have sympathy, and they say: this pulls on my heart strings; I think, if they are willing to defend America, I think we ought to give them a path to citizenship. I understand that, but do the advocates for this ENLIST Act, do they understand that it is a reward for lawbreakers? They are not just someone who came across the border illegally or someone who overstayed their visa. They are the ones who misrepresented themselves to get into the United States military; we would then trust them with perhaps military secrets and the security of Americans and American installations around the world? It is not that I don't trust them. I just don't believe that we should be rewarding people who have already proven they have broken the law. If they take the oath to the Constitution and if they are not on a path to citizenship already, if they are unlawfully present in the United States, then they violated the law already, and we are supposed to accept their word for it. I think it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I look at some of the press that has come out on this, the tactic and the effort that seems to be that they think they can slip a provision into the NDA bill, the National Defense Authorization bill, a provision in there that would legalize people who illegally entered into the United States military and reward them with a path to citizenship for their trouble? There are many countries in the world where you are a lot better off in the United States Marine Corps than you would be, say, on the streets of many cities in the countries of the world. That is true. So this would put out the advertisement, this bill, this ENLIST-- badly named ENLIST Act would put out the advertisement, which is sneak into America, sneak into the military, and that is going to be the most expeditious path to American citizenship and the whole smorgasbord of benefits that comes from American citizenship. Citizenship must be precious, not handed out like candy in a parade. We don't ride along and throw out citizenship like you do M&Ms or Tootsie Rolls or whatever it is that we are tossing out in our parades. Citizenship must be precious. The rule of law is precious. It is the center core argument on the immigration issue, the rule of law. We can't grant amnesty to people because our hearts tell us we have sympathy for individuals. I have sympathy for individuals. In fact, if I am ever declared a liberal, it is because of how I deal with some people individually, because I see something in their eyes and hear something in their voice and see how they carry themselves. I see something in how they conduct themselves and what they do that convinces me that this is a good person, and I want to invest in them, whether it is my capital, my time, my trust, or recommendations that others do the same. I actually do that on occasion because I have faith in an individual. But when you set policy--policy for the United States of America because your heart tells you to have sympathy for some people you know, keep in mind there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people that are impacted by that decision, and you have to say: I trust every one of those people the same way I trust the individual or the individuals that I know that bring the sympathy from my heart. We aren't charged with having sympathy here in setting foreign policy or setting our national policy because of the sympathies of our heart. We are charged with providing justice and equity, and that is laid out in the Constitution. To me, it is a clear charge; so when I take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend this Constitution, I mean it. It is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and it is the foundation for the rest of the laws. Congress passed a law that says we are not going to bring people into our military that are unlawfully present in the United States, and when I hear from let's say other Members, in particular an individual Member that says Steve King is dead wrong on this issue, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that. I am right with the rule of law. I am right with current law. The policy is right because, otherwise, you fill our military up with people who may and likely do and some certainly will have foreign interests. It is not to the interest of the United States to replace on our ranks, our troops, people who are American citizens or people who are on a path to citizenship, replace them with people who came into the United States illegally. How poor would we be as a people? How empty our soul as a people if we say: Well, that is another job that Americans won't do? They don't want to put on a uniform and go defend our country, so we will have to reward illegal immigrants, if they will just lie to us, we will let them in the military, and we will give them a path to citizenship. That is what the ENLIST bill does. It does damage to the rule of law. It is misguided, however good the hearts are of the people who advocate for this. I think this is an important debate, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't belong on the defense authorization bill. This debate doesn't belong in the Defense Committee, the Armed Services Committee. This debate belongs, if it is going to take place at all, in the committee of jurisdiction, the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, where it ought to have--if it deserves any debate at all, it ought to have witnesses who agree with people like me. I have seen these hearings come out before, even in our Judiciary Committee, where someone gets the idea that we ought to grant a path to citizenship to several million people who are unlawfully here, and I have seen the committee, even there where there were four witnesses, no questions, another round of four witnesses, now the chairs and the ranking members get to ask questions, 90 minutes after the beginning of the hearing, the first voice of dissent might be heard. That is not a very good committee, in my opinion; but at least it was in the committee of jurisdiction. I would like to expect that the subcommittee chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee would defend the jurisdiction of his committee and reject the idea that they sneak this bill into the defense authorization bill. I would like to see that the chairman of the full committee defend the jurisdiction of the committee, as he did so effectively last year, and deny this end round that they are attempting to run this poorly named ENLIST Act around an end run of the Judiciary Committee and to slip it into a must-pass piece of legislation that would come to the floor here under the National Defense Authorization Act. Our country will be stronger. The security of the country will be at least as strong. The heart of our country will be just as strong. We can still have sympathy for people without turning them all into Americans, and our defense will be stronger because we will have more American citizens step up and actually qualify to get into the service. Just think, across this country, you go to work, whether you punch a timeclock, whether you are on salary or whatever it might be, you walk into that workplace, and you are there, and let's just presume you are on a production line making an American car. Let's call it a ``Hord.'' On your right hand is someone working who is unlawfully present in the United States and can't work legally in the United States. On your left hand, there is somebody who fits that same category. Do the workers standing there realize that there are two good, well- paying jobs that Americans aren't doing, not because they won't, but someone else who is unlawfully in the United States has stepped into their stead and taken that good-paying job, that job that actually pays taxes and contributes to the benefits of people who aren't working? So if you look on your right and you look on your left and you see somebody working who is unlawfully present, and you say, I like him, I enjoy working with him, he is efficient, probably that is true. But what is it doing to America? What is it doing to the soul of America? And what is it doing to the rule of law to reward people who break the law while this Congress borrows money every year, 42 cents or so off of every dollar we spend from places like China, Saudi Arabia? And with the bonds that are out there, about half of our debt to the American people that so far are willing to reinvest in the debt we have, what does that do to America when we are borrowing money to fund the more than 80 different Federal welfare programs that are there? We have a population of some 316 million Americans. 101.4 million of those 316 million are of working age and simply not in the workforce, and some of the biggest reasons are right there in the list of the 80 different means-tested welfare programs. So what should we do in this Congress, Mr Speaker? We should have policies that increase the average individual annual productivity of our people. Each one of us should get out of bed and go forward to contribute to the gross domestic product that day. That means we come in an hour or 8 hours or 24 hours, if you can. You are contributing to the GDP. That will increase your income. You can pay your share of the taxes. When you make that contribution, you are helping pull the load. If you are sitting, though, and you are one of those people that has taken this safety net that we offer that I support and turned it into a hammock for yourself and you are riding here when you should be contributing off of somebody else's labor, it is wrong. We need more Americans going to work. We need a higher percentage of Americans working. There is no work that Americans won't do, including putting on a uniform, going into basic training, being trained up in AIT or wherever you might be assigned to go and step up and defend our country. It has been done with honor. It has been done with dignity. It has been done gloriously by Americans since before there was an America, and it needs to be so for the duration of this Republic. Mr. Speaker, I would say, furthermore, the idea that there are jobs that Americans won't do, I looked at this and I thought: what would be the toughest, dirtiest, nastiest, most dangerous job that Americans are ever asked to do? When I think of this, I think, I bet I know somebody that is an authority on that, and that would be one of the gentlemen in my Conference from Colorado that served in the Marine Corps. The toughest, dirtiest, nastiest, most dangerous job we ask Americans to do is how about rooting terrorists out of a place like Fallujah. What does that pay? How do we get Americans to do that if we can't get Americans to cut meat or pick tomatoes or whatever it might be? How do we get them to do that? I went back and ran the numbers on that. So a marine in the streets of Fallujah in the line of fire, if you figure him at a 40-hour week, instead of about a 70- or 80- or 90-hour week or more, at a 40-hour week, they were getting paid right at about $8.09 an hour. If a marine will go into the line of fire for God and country for $8.09 an hour-- and God bless him--I bet we can find some Americans for $20 an hour to go out there and cut meat and $20 an hour that might go out and pick lettuce, as the Senator from Arizona used to talk about during his Presidential campaign. So here is my point, Mr. Speaker. I think this Enlist Act is misguided. I think the press that has spilled out on this has illuminated a deft maneuver to try to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I reject that. I am here defending the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I think that those who have a heart that tells them, ``I want to pass some legislation because I have sympathy for individuals that I know who will make good Americans,'' I understand that. I have some sympathy for individuals I know that will make good Americans, too, but I am not about--I am not about to usurp and undermine the rule of law, because I didn't run for office telling my constituents my heart is going to overrule my head, my heart is going to overrule human experience and human history and the rule of law and the Constitution. We should know better. We are here to be analytical, to lead and not let the emotions drive us. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I remember a display at the National Archives as I was waiting some years ago to be able to walk up there where the Declaration of Independence is on display. There I see they had the display of the Greeks who had demagogues in their communities. They had the pure democracy. They found out that there were demagogues that could get the masses all ginned up and they would storm off in a direction that was bad for the city-state of Greece. They couldn't control the overheated rhetoric of the very effective and persuasive demagogues, so they had a system to blackball them. If three of the members of the city-state--men of voting age in those days-- dropped a black ball into the pottery that was the voting one and discarded a white one in the nonvoting one, then they would banish that demagogue from the city-state for 7 years. But that was emotionalism. Our Founding Fathers understood we didn't want to form a democracy here. We created a constitutional Republic. It is guaranteed in our Constitution. And it has done so because it charges each of us to have a cool head. And I owe my constituents, as everyone here does, my best effort and my best judgment. That includes listening to my constituents, all of them. But it includes also, step back, take a look at it from 10,000 feet; analyze the policy; understand my oath to the Constitution and the supreme law of the land; and act accordingly for the long-term best interest of the United States of America. This Enlist Act is not in the long-term best interest of the United States of America. It is not in the best interest of America that we circumvent the jurisdiction of the committees. That is not either in the best interest of America. What is in the best interest is we preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the rule of law and recognize that this immigration debate is driven by emotion on their side. The open borders, amnesty people are driven by emotion, and there are others that stand here and say: We are going to protect the rule of law. So here is what I would submit, Mr. Speaker. If they are successful in passing a Gang of 8's bill in this House or bringing it to the floor and trying to get it passed, if they are successful in eroding the rule of law with regard to the Enlist Act, if they are successful in getting passed what they call the DREAM Act, that also erodes the rule of law. Anything that rewards people for breaking the law is a continuation of the Amnesty Act that was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. We are debating the results of the signature on that bill today. It was passed this way. It said we are going do legalize a million people who are here illegally because we don't know what to do, and then the promise is we are going to enforce the law hereafter and there will never be another amnesty so long as anyone shall live. That was the promise of the '86 Amnesty Act, and Reagan was honest about it. So we live with that, but they are pushing on the other side. We never got the enforcement. The 1 million became 3 million plus. The enforcement didn't come, but the implied promise of amnesty exists, and that is what they are pushing on. If any amnesty is passed now, that perpetuates the promise that there will be another amnesty, which turns up the current end of the huge electromagnet that draws people to come into America, the promise that they will receive citizenship, a path to citizenship, some kind of amnesty. We have to restore the rule of law, the respect for the rule of law. If there is a provision that is an amnesty provision that passes, then that promise exists in perpetuity that there will be another one, which means we will not be able to restore the rule of law in this country-- at least with regard to immigration--again. I don't know that I can say ``ever,'' but I can say never again would we see the rule of law with regard to immigration within the duration of this Republic, not as long as I shall live or as long as we shall live, not until death do us part. But until the death of this Republic, we will not be able to restore the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration. And the argument goes to the next and the next and the next, Mr. Speaker. So this is a critically important issue. I am happy to debate this with the colleagues from my Conference in any State where they would like to take this up, be it California, be it Colorado, be it anyplace else around the country. This debate is one that is important. We need more American people that are aware that our hearts cannot overrule our heads. We cannot allow the rule of law to be torn asunder because we have sympathy for certain people. Let's have sympathy for Americans first. Let's understand that America can be defended by Americans, and if people want to come and join and defend and help protect America, go get in line the right way. Because the advocates for this kind of legislation will tell you, well, they go to the back of the line. Except this bill isn't the back of the line. It is we create a new line and you are in the front of it. They are not going to allow them to go to the back of the line. They don't really believe it. They will just tell you that. They will say there is work Americans won't do. Defending America, then how is it that marines will step in the line of fire for $8.09 an hour? How is it that we have Americans working in every single job and profession that is listed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site? Americans are doing every work there is to do in this country. They just need to be paid what the work is worth. The wages are being suppressed by elitists who are making millions of dollars off of the cheap labor that is subsidized by the taxpayers who are backfilling and funding these households with the 80 different means tests and welfare programs, and we are borrowing the money from China to do it. So let's have that discussion. Tell me how we get this budget back to balance. How do you do that while you are rewarding people for not working and you are rewarding people for breaking the law? What kind of country do you want? I think the advocates for this bill that I so oppose actually want the same kind of country that I want. I just don't think that they see what they are doing to erode the progress that we need to be making. I think that when they declare that I am dead wrong, the real result is, if they get their way, there will be more Americans that eventually are actually dead, because there is not a day that goes by in this country that there isn't at least one American citizen that dies at the hands of someone who is unlawfully present in the United States. Whether it is an act of homicide, whether it is an act of willful manslaughter, whether it is an OWI on the streets of America, hardly anybody has gone through the last 10 years and doesn't at least see that show up in their local newspaper, if it doesn't show up in their neighborhood. So Steve King is not dead wrong. Let's keep more Americans alive. If I need to go to those States and have those debates, that is what I will do. But I call upon our committee chairs especially to defend the jurisdiction of our committee. If you are chairing a subcommittee or a committee in the United States House of Representatives that happens to be the Judiciary Committee, the rule of law and the Constitution are essential. I also expect and call upon those who have that special charge to renew their vigorous defense of the rule of law, the jurisdiction of the committee, and the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, also, Mr. Young for his authorship of this bill. It changed dramatically what I had to say when I came down here when I heard that the Republican endeavor to reestablish the 40-hour workweek, which is a practical thing that is good for people, is a fraud. A fraud? People that have been the advocates for ObamaCare are using the word ``fraud''?

Mr. KING of Iowa. No, I won't yield. I heard what the gentleman had to say.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I might have?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, the gentleman used the term ``fraud.'' It is ironic that ObamaCare itself has been so misrepresented to the American people that, for the top three things that were stated by those who advocated for ObamaCare--if you like your policy, you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and, by the way, we are going to save these families $2,500 a year. There is not a single family in America that that promise has been kept for, and yet I hear the word ``fraud'' from the other side of the aisle. It is not very far down to Mount Vernon where, at least by legend, it is alleged that George Washington was asked who chopped down the cherry tree. He said: I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree. Well, calling the Affordable Care Act the ``Affordable Care Act'' is not true. George Washington could not utter these words. He might be able to say the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' because that is technically the name for it, but to utter those words and try to tell the American people it is affordable by anybody is not true, and I don't think George Washington could state that. So we are watching here as people have jobs where they get paid overtime, 56 hours a week, 45 hours a week. They are getting paid time- and-a-half over 40 hours because that is the standard workweek, and now we see ObamaCare dropped it down to 30. Employers did the rational thing, and we are hearing that that gap between 30 and 40 cancels insurance policies. It doesn't cancel any insurance policies. Instead, it gives people an opportunity to work, work longer, earn overtime, and for the employers and the employees to keep their contract with each other. I strongly support this bill, H.R. 2575.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and for pulling this Special Order together here and bringing out this case as something that all the American people aren't going to realize what is taking place here, if we don't have this discussion here. It takes leadership in this Congress to do this. I appreciate the strong voice of Mr. Perry and Mr. Weber. I look back at it this way. On my first trip to Israel some time more than 10 years ago, I looked across at what was taking place from Israel proper and West Bank, the Palestinian area. I went through the briefings and saw the data of a culture of people that raise their little girls to put on these fake suicide vests in order to make sure that they entrench deeply in them a multigenerational hatred towards Israelis and Jewish people. Now, why? It is not a rational thing for a culture and a civilization to be so full of hate; yet all they really need to do is accept the existence of Israel, and a lot of us, this resistance we have within us would start to dissipate. It wouldn't be gone because you don't just accept somebody's word who has such a history of doing what they have done. The hatred goes deep. I think of Congressman Gohmert of Texas, if he were standing here tonight, he would say: you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll hate you for free. So all these billions of dollars--$5 billion since 1988, as Mr. Yoho just said, the idea of trying to trade off land for peace, and what you get back is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, in a more violent and a bloody and a brutal way. You see that there is a fundraising mechanism worldwide that pours dollars into the Palestinian Authority, and they then use it to pay the payroll of people that are sitting in a prison for crimes against--let me say it this way, crimes against humanity, not necessarily the technical definition of the convictions that they have--who get a payroll check for demonstrating hatred, acting on it, in a kinetic fashion, being locked up to protect the rest of society, and then being paid in reward for that. This is an appalling circumstance, tapping into the United States of America where--we have to think about this--if we want to pay people that hate Israel, who are prisoners for committing crimes, and we grant that over to the Palestinian Authority in our foreign aid package or whatever particular line item it might be, so we have to go to China: Will you loan us some money, so that we can run it through our Treasury, so we can funnel it in to go in to pay people that have been--in any measure of decency, what they are committing is wrong? They need to have their hearts softened. They need to raise their children to love their neighbor as they love themselves. They need to understand that there is a good functional government going on in Israel proper and still likely the only place in the Middle East where an Arab can get a fair trial is in Israel, where Arabs serve in the Knesset, where they serve in the supreme court, where they have the rights of land ownership. That is the way you run a country that has a multidimensional ethnicity and religion in it.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Well, I think they will view us as a foolish country that doesn't understand our priorities and doesn't understand where the money is coming from or where it goes. I would say this call out: Mr. Netanyahu, why don't you just ask us to take that money and give it to Israel instead? Give it to the people that are promoting peace, the people that are surrounded by enemies throughout, the people that had to stand there and face the all-out attacks over and over again. They are a democracy in the Middle East, a stabilizing force in the Middle East; and if we allow them to be weakened--sometimes by the willful actions of this administration--if we allow them to be weakened, if they collapse, so does a lot of freedom in the Middle Eastern part of world. It threatens Europe, and in the end, it threatens us. So our safety and our security is tied together. We need to protect our brethren who believe in freedom, who believe in a form of democracy, and we need to encourage that everywhere in the world. There are good people in the Palestinian lands. They need to have good leadership, and if we give them the right incentive, they are going to perhaps produce good leadership. But if we pay them to hate people, there are going to be more people hating people. I think we should turn that money back around and reward the people that don't, those who need to be defended.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the honor and privilege to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and to follow my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert, in this presentation here tonight. I have been watching forward with increasing concern about some of the potential decisions that might be made here in this House of Representatives. We have been through some long immigration debates in this saga of what happens to the future and the destiny of the United States of America. It is something that goes back, I will say, in the modern era, to sometime January 5, 2004, when then-President George Bush gave his speech that launched their effort to advance ``comprehensive immigration reform.'' Mr. Speaker, I had my discussion with the President's west wing at that time, meaning west wing of the White House. I advised them--I should say, I advised him that what you have described here is amnesty. However you want to redefine it, however you want to try to call it comprehensive immigration reform, in the end, amnesty is amnesty. The American people will know what amnesty is, and they will reject amnesty because it is bad policy for our country. Well, since that time, I will say that that has proven to be true in each one of these national debates that we have had and these waves of national debates that we have had. That debate that took place in 2005--excuse me, 2004 into 2005 and beyond, when there were, at times, tens of thousands of people, often coming in on buses wearing identical white T-shirts, pressing Congress to suspend the rule of law and give them a special path to citizenship. Through that, this discussion has pivoted on what I called, at the time, the scarlet letter A, called amnesty. The definition of ``amnesty,'' it comes in different forms. Black's Law has one. There are a couple of other definitions for ``amnesty.'' But the practical definition that applies in this political arena that we are in, this cultural American arena that we are in, Mr. Speaker, is this: to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. Now, the objective of their crime--and in most cases it is a crime. It is not necessarily someone who is unlawfully present in the United States or necessarily guilty of committing a crime, but it is true in most cases. In any case, we don't always know the objective of their crime, whether it is to come into the United States to get a job and seek a better life and take care of their family. If they cross the border illegally, that is a crime. If they come in legally and overstay their visa, then that is a violation, a civil misdemeanor. And yet, if they go to work in this country, they have to fraudulently misrepresent themselves in order to legally work, then in that case, it is often document fraud, and that is also a crime. So the objective of their crime may have been a job; it may have been a home; it may have been what is planned to be and often is a better life; and it might be someone coming in here with a different kind of intention. We know that coming across our southern border we have had, I will say, scores of people, at a minimum, who are persons of interest from nations of interest. Now, that is the verbiage that gets used in our security personnel. If they are from a nation of interest, that is a nation that is in the list, having been a nation that spawns terrorists. If they are a person of interest, they are a person from that nation that is a nation of interest that spawns terrorists. So you have got kind of a double marker here. Somebody shows up coming across our southern border and they are from Yemen, for example, they are going to be a person of interest from a nation of interest, which means we should pay more attention to that because they are a risk to the security of United States because that is a place that terrorists come from in the records that we have and the data that we know. It doesn't mean that everybody that might come across our southern border from Yemen is a terrorist. It means, though, just what the definition is. This happens on a regular basis. When anyone is interdicted, apprehended, coming across our border who is a person of interest from a nation of interest, they are turned over, as soon as possible, to the FBI. That act immediately closes the case as far as public discussion is concerned because now it is classified. So, if they are continually classifying the reports and any prosecutions and how we handle persons of interest from nations of interest, that means, Mr. Speaker, that we don't know how many people have been caught coming into the United States with ill will towards us or suspicion of ill will towards us. That is classified. What I know is I know of seven cases where we have interdicted a person of interest from a nation of interest. And the reason I know about them is because, having spent time on the border, been down there when a person of that definition is interdicted and I gain knowledge of that circumstance, same business day, early enough in the day and close enough to the incident that they can tell me about it before that individual or individuals are handed over to the FBI where the case becomes classified. This Congress doesn't seem to be aware that this circumstance exists at all, so they whistle through the graveyard. And it may be a more appropriate explanation than I had actually thought when I started to say it, whistling through the graveyard here on what could be going on inside the United States when people come across the border who are from sources that we normally identify as sources for terrorism. That is one piece. Another is, 80 to 90 percent of the illegal drugs consumed in America come from or through Mexico. It isn't all their fault. One is that some of those drugs are produced and smuggled into Mexico and then into the United States. Another is there is a huge demand in the United States for illegal drugs. The value of that marketplace in this country could well be over $60 billion. That is 60 billion with a b. But even the Drug Enforcement doesn't know that number, and they aren't comfortable producing that number. That number actually comes from a media report. In any case, so we have persons of interest from nations of interest. We have 80 to 90 percent of the illegal drugs coming from or through to Mexico. It is a threat to our country, a threat to our society. And on top of that, we have a border that remains porous. We have a President whose administration has been announcing that he has been deporting record numbers of people, but when you look at the numbers, you find out that he is double counting and he has changed the definition of ``removals.'' He is counting those who are turned back at the border, those who are caught crossing the border that do a voluntary return to avoid it going on their record so that they can avoiding being subject to the 3- or 10-year bar and double-counting some of those that are turned back. So here are the real numbers, and it is this: That the lead deportations that actually took place in our modern era under--not the George Bush administration, Mr. Speaker--but they took place under the Bill Clinton administration in the year 2000 when there was some number above 1.8 million removals from the country. And we have a President now, under Barack Obama, down around 450,000 removals from the country, a long, long ways from being what they sometimes accept the definition of him as being the Deporter-in-Chief. No President has taken the position that this President has, that he picks and chooses the laws that he wants to enforce and ignores the rest. No President has so broadly gone out there and violated the limitations in article two of the Constitution. Just within immigration itself, when the Morton Memos came out--and those are the memos that created DACA, which is the executive amnesty that was produced and signed by Janet Napolitano, then the Secretary of Homeland Security, who came before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, and alleged repeatedly that they had prosecutorial discretion, that they don't have the resources to enforce every law, therefore, they have to enforce with the best effect of the resources that they have, and stated: We have prosecutorial discretion, and it is on an individual basis only, an individual basis only. She repeated it in her testimony under oath before the Judiciary Committee, and I had in front of me at the time the document that describes this, and in a page and about a third of single-spaced 12-point type, it said, used the term ``on an individual basis only,'' by my count, in memory, seven times. Now why would this administration remind Members of Congress, especially members of the Judiciary Committee, that they were executing prosecutorial discretion by waiving the application of the law to hundreds of thousands of people altogether under this definition of ``on an individual basis only''? We know they didn't deal with them on an individual basis only. When you read that report and you go through and draw a couple of x's and o's, you come to this conclusion: that Homeland Security, under the Morton Memos of ICE, created four different classes of people, and they are broadly exempted from the law by the definitions of the classes of people created in the very memo that says, seven times ``on an individual basis only.'' This was what I thought was a lame effort to try to cloak themselves in prosecutorial discretion when there is no such thing. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this. There is no such thing as prosecutorial discretion outside of an individual basis only. It only can be applied on an individual basis. It cannot be applied to classes or groups of people because everyone that is paying attention to law, the structure of law, knows that the law defines classes and groups of people, and the exemptions under prosecutorial discretion have to be justified, justifiable, and on an individual basis only. This administration didn't adhere to that, and they know it. And, Mr. Speaker, they strategized around it so that they could grant what is the equivalent of executive amnesty to hundreds of thousands of people. Now Senator Jeff Sessions has released a report a little over a week ago, and I want to thank him and his staff for the work that they have done to dig the details out of this network of regulations and rules and executive edicts to come down to this point: that the application of the law almost completely exempts the law, itself, which requires those encountered by immigration officials who are unlawfully present in the United States to be placed into removal proceedings. That is the law. It is real clear that the DACA documents, the Morton Memos, direct ICE to violate the very law that they have taken an oath to uphold, and that is the requirement that they place into removal proceedings those whom they may encounter who are unlawfully present in the United States. The President has ordered that they not do so, which violates their oath to the Constitution, their fidelity to the law, and their fidelity to the rule of law, and it usurps the directive from Congress, which sets up immigration law here in the United States of America. This is an appalling assault on our Constitution and on the rule of law and on the separation of powers, and the administration knows it. And I am not drawing this as an assumption, Mr. Speaker. I am drawing this from this understanding. The President has told us on a number of occasions that he taught constitutional law as an adjunct professor at the University of Chicago's School of Law for 10 years. Ten years of teaching the Constitution means you can't avoid coming across these constitutional requirements, and you can't avoid addressing the separation of powers that are distinct between articles one, two, and three of our Constitution. And if we wondered if somehow the President could have taught con law for a decade and not run across the separation of powers concept, or the authority that is granted to the Congress: All legislative powers shall be vested in the body of the United States Congress, the legislative body in article one. All powers, all legislative powers. The President had to have taught that for 10 years. I don't think you can take con law and not encounter that principle. And he didn't. He didn't avoid that principle. In fact, he was teaching it as recently as March 28, 2011, when he was speaking to a high school class at a high school here in Washington, D.C., when he said to them: You want me to enact the DREAM Act by executive order. But I am here to tell you that you have studied this, and you know that the Congress doesn't allow that. I don't have the authority to implement the DREAM Act by executive order because--and he said this this way--Congress writes the laws; the judicial branch interprets the laws; and my job is to enforce them. It is a very compact and succinct and, I think, a clear understanding of the three branches of government embodied in articles one, two, and three. So it is clear not only did the President teach this very principle for a decade, but he--and I don't want to say ``lectured,'' but he gave a speech on it to a high school class and said, I cannot implement this by an executive order or fiat; it is exclusively reserved for Congress. Some months later, though, apparently the idea was stuck in the head of the President of the United States, and by executive fiat, he did do just what had he said publicly he didn't have the authority to do. That is just on the immigration piece. We could go on through ObamaCare--the 38, 39, or more different changes that have been applied to ObamaCare. Now, I don't assert, Mr. Speaker, that they are all unconstitutional moves on the part of the President, but some of them are so clearly unconstitutional that it cannot be argued with a straight face if you know anything about the Constitution whatsoever. The clearest, the starkest was, the directive in ObamaCare that the employer mandate shall be implemented in each month after December of 2013. That is real clear. But the President announced months ago, we are going to delay the employer mandate for another year. They are going to add another year to the implementation date. So it is as if the President--you know he said he had a pen and a cell phone. It was as if the President took his pen, went to page whatever it is in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare, and went in there--it would be a red pen, not a blue one--and drew a line through the number that said 2013, and in each month after December of 2013, drew a line through that and just changed the number 13 to the number 2014. Now, the President does not have the authority to do that. If he does, then the work of this Congress is meaningless, and it would never have a relation to anything, except we would be a debate body here. So we could be in the business of deciding whether we side for or against the President without any power whatsoever. If the President continues to exert this authority--it is unconstitutional, it is a violation of his constitutional authorities and the separation of power. There are multiple lawsuits that are working their way through the courts, and I think that the administration has done a calculation of, they are not going to catch up with us before the President's term is over and he goes off into his happy perpetual golfing land, that he might. But this immigration issue sets the destiny for America. It is not a policy like ObamaCare, which is the largest social movement in my adult lifetime, social piece of legislation, social engineering piece of legislation. It is a takeover of a huge percentage of our economy, some say as much as 17 percent of our economy. It is a directive that orders American citizens, for the first time, to buy a product that is produced and specified by the Federal Government or be fined and punished by the Internal Revenue Service. That is where we are with ObamaCare. That is what it does to this God-given liberty and says, You shall be a subject of the State, and you will buy a product that is approved by the Federal Government. And if you fail to do what we have told you to do, ordered you to do, then we are going to fine you and punish you, and we are going to use the Internal Revenue Service to chase you down and dun you for that money. Now, that is an appalling thing to a free people. But we should think of that in the context of, first of all, if the Federal Government can order you to buy an insurance policy, they can order you to buy an automobile, they can order you to buy a washing machine, they can order you to go to the grocery store and buy broccoli. They can forbid you from buying--let's just say butter, or whatever it is that the First Lady might think is not the healthy diet for the American people. By the way, they are already dictating the calorie limitations to our kids in school. This country has become not so much the land of the free any longer. It has become a land where they seek to micromanage every aspect of our lives. It has started. It is going down that way. But if the White House can configure a bill and pass it through this Congress by hook, crook, and legislative shenanigans, and, in the process of making the deal to get the votes to get it passed, promise a Member of Congress--let's just say a Member of Congress from Michigan-- that, never fear if the language that you would like to have doesn't become part of the law, the President will sign an executive order to amend ObamaCare after the bill is signed if the agreement that they make here doesn't follow through in the final piece of legislation that comes from the Senate. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the very idea that the President would promise to amend a bill? He has no authority to amend any bill whatsoever. He has no authority to amend any legislation whatsoever. He has no authority to amend existing U.S. Code of any kind whatsoever. Now he can influence the executive branch to pass a rule, to publish that rule and take it out for comments. And through the authority granted to the executive branch through the Administrative Procedures Act, they can have the force and effect of law. But they can't change law. They can't amend law. And they cannot write a rule that changes the directive language that is part of the law. The law is the law. The Constitution is the foundation for this Republic, and the laws that are passed by it are supreme, not the President. So we have this usurpation of congressional authority from the President. We have an ObamaCare piece of legislation that is a taking of American liberty. And we have a President that changes it willy- nilly at will. And not an ability in this Congress to put the brakes on that. But maybe, just maybe the American people will go to the polls in November and bring it around the other way. In 2016, there will be a new President elected. That President must run on adhering to, respecting, and reverting our country back to this Constitution. But this country, the bedrock underneath our Constitution is free and fair elections, confidence that they are free and fair and legitimate. The foundation is the Constitution. The Declaration is the promise; the Constitution is the fulfillment. As we sit here in this most blessed country in the history of the world, Mr. Speaker, we are watching it be taken apart by executive fiat and executive edict piece by piece. ObamaCare changed 30-some times. Immigration changed five or six times. And a President who threatens to go out and do that again, one who suspended Welfare to Work when it was written specifically to tighten up, that a President couldn't suspend the work component of Welfare to Work. And No Child Left Behind, suspended by the application of waivers that go on because he didn't agree with the policy and he thought he had a better policy, but he didn't want to come to Congress because Congress might not think it is a better policy. This President doesn't negotiate with this Congress. He doesn't work in a cooperative fashion. He imposes the whim of the White House on the American people. This Congress went through a government shutdown to assert its will and came in to second place on that because not enough Members of this Congress had the will. We watched the Constitution be eroded because of that lack of will. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I see coming is an effort to grant more amnesty through the legislative process instead of, this time, the executive fiat or executive edict or executive overreach process, and the President threatens to use his pen more to grant more amnesty if we don't pass it here in the House. We have some misguided people on my side of the aisle that ought to be better thinkers than they are. I understand why Democrats are for amnesty almost universally because they get the big political benefit from it. They have been discouraging me for years from bringing up this topic, that Democrats have long known, Mr. Speaker, that a significant majority, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 5 to 1--there are even statistics out there of 8 to 1--that newly arriving immigrants, if given an opportunity to vote, are going to vote in those kind of statistics at least 2 to 1 for Democrats. Here is a King axiom, Mr. Speaker, that newly arriving immigrants will assimilate into the politics of the locale where they arrive because they don't know what party they are when they get here. They will simply associate with their neighbors, their friends, and their family. When they go to political events, if they go, they will go with them, encouraged by them, and when they go to the polls, they are going to take their first advice. I look down through my neighborhood. We have fourth generation FDR Democrats that by heritage are Democrats, by philosophy are Republicans, but they don't change, necessarily, their voting stripes. If someone thinks I am wrong about this, they could go to Boston, and they could find me an Irish Catholic Republican. I am sure one of them exists. I understand there are two. But the heritage of inheriting the politics of the locale where you arrive as a newly arriving immigrant is a big part of this. That is what drives Democrats. It is not about truth, justice, and the American way. It is not about justice and equity. It is not about fairness. It is about political power, and it is about Democrats seeking to expand the dependency class in America because that expands their political class and their political leverage at the expense of the Constitution, the rule of law, safety in the streets of America, and at the expense of the destiny of our country. We need to think this through much more deeply. We need to look ahead, Mr. Speaker. We need to see that, if we make an immigration decision in this Congress, we are going to live with that decision and our children and our grandchildren. Every succeeding generation lives with the decisions that we make here on immigration. It is different than ObamaCare. ObamaCare is bad. It is a horrible usurpation of God-given American liberty. It can be repealed. It can even be, in components, diminished in its negative effects by some tweaks that we could do, and I have got some on the books that I will be advancing here in the upcoming week; but we could repeal ObamaCare. We could undo it. We could recover. We could even somehow struggle through a massive amendment of it and come out with a product that the American people could live with and still have a measure of freedom; but if we get the immigration question wrong, there is no going back to repeal. There is no going back to change. There is no going back to undo what would be done by the colossal mistake of amnesty. Whatever you think about demographics, whatever you think about political power, and whatever you think about economics, there is an essential pillar of American exceptionalism that we can't do without and still be a great country. It is called the rule of law. The rule of law means that the law has to treat everyone equally. Justice must be blind. Lady Justice stands there with the scales in her hands, balanced, and most of the time, you will see her with a blindfold on because Justice needs to be blind and treat everyone equally. If we lose the rule of law, we will never be able to restore it again. If we sacrifice the rule of law in a misguided idea that, somehow, our sympathy for people that want a better life--and by the way, there are some 6 billion of them on the planet that want a better life--if our idea that our sympathy for people that want a better life is more important than our fidelity to the rule of law, then we have sacrificed the core of the greatness of America because our hearts overruled our heads. I am not surprised when Democrats do that. That is what they are in business to do, is have their hearts overrule their heads; but we can't let that happen on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, not even--not even--for someone who came into the United States illegally, misrepresented themselves to get into the United States military, put on a uniform, took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and maybe, just maybe, risked their life in a performance of that duty. They have already violated our laws, they have already misrepresented themselves, and they have already defrauded the Department of Defense. Any bill that might be attached to a National Defense Authorization Act or comes to this floor in any form that rewards someone who has defrauded the Department of Defense or the United States--whether or not they have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is a false oath because they have given their false word--any bill like that needs to be met with the full rejection of the full vigor of the rule of law here in the floor of the United States Congress. That includes those things that are coming out now in the press today. We don't need to have an intense fight over immigration. We have an election coming up in November. We have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have defended it, generally, from this side of the aisle and not exclusively, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to defend that rule of law, preserve the sovereignty of America, and refuse to reward lawbreakers. If we reward lawbreakers, we get more lawbreakers. We need fewer lawbreakers, not more. I will defend my oath to this Constitution and the rule of law, and I will encourage and challenge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chair of the Constitution Subcommittee, for yielding to me. I rise in support of this act. I am a little bit astonished by some of the debate and the dialogue that has taken place here throughout this day, especially on the topic matter that is Executive overreach. We have had extensive hearings in the Judiciary Committee. It should be clear to all that, when the liberal constitutional professors are concerned about our country, a tipping point in our Constitution, it is time for maybe a little bit more of an open dialogue here and I think more of an objective dialogue. I would bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, some language that was in The Wall Street Journal today. It was in support of the Faithful Execution of the Law Act and then the reporting act that we are talking about. It is a perfect example of why this bill is necessary in a report in The Wall Street Journal. It says, in today's issue, describing yet another ObamaCare delay that flies in the face of the statutory text: This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials, or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week. Madam Speaker, this is not the way Congress should be informed of the President's failure to faithfully execute the law or his utter defiance of the law or his executive endeavor to amend the law outside the bounds of his article II constraints. Madam Speaker, when the President or any other Federal official adopts a policy of failing to enforce a law or refusing to enforce a law, it should immediately inform Congress in writing, so the duly elected representatives of the American people can respond appropriately. To have to find out in a newspaper article or find out on a Web site or, worse yet, in one of the earlier unconstitutional overreach efforts of the President to amend the ObamaCare law, we found out on a third- tier U.S. Treasury Web site. Now, what of 316 million Americans responsible to know what the law says and do our best to comply with it can be cruising around on a third-tier U.S. Department of Treasury Web site, to see if the President has gotten up that morning or gone to bed late the night before, maybe a little bleary-eyed, and issued some kind of an order that there is going to be another change in ObamaCare? ObamaCare, it has his name on it, Madam Speaker, the President's name, ObamaCare on the top and his signature on the bottom. We had a constitutional review meeting this morning with constitutional scholars, and I said: Is it 31 times that the President has, by the stroke of his pen or the word of his mouth, amended ObamaCare? They corrected me. They said: no, it is 38 times. I don't have that list. I hope I get that list because I would like to examine some of them that I am missing, but the President of the United States has no authority to amend ObamaCare. Yes, there is executive discretion on the implementation of it, but the starkest violation of the Constitution and the starkest amendment to ObamaCare is the one that people agreed with, and it is this: that the President announced that he was going to delay ObamaCare, the employer mandate, for an extra year when the bill itself says the implementation of the employer mandate shall commence in each month after December of 2013. Now, I don't know how the gentlelady from California's dialogue gets around that very, very strict language that was written into ObamaCare. It doesn't say if the President changes his mind; it doesn't say if Democrats are vulnerable. It says shall commence in each month after December of 2013; yet the President decided he would just simply delay that for a year. Now, there are, what, 30 or 37--pick your number-- different times the President has done this? I remember criticism from last summer when I was asked by the press and the public and the demand from people on the other side of the aisle, ObamaCare is the law of the land, so we are obligated to fund it through the appropriations process. That was a big debate here on the floor of this House. I said, then, we don't know what the law is because the President has so stirred the pot with his executive orders, his executive pen, his cell phone, his ink pen, or his press conferences, that no one today knows what ObamaCare is or says. Even if we think we knew, we would have to be a contemporary scholar of the bill, and we couldn't go to bed tonight thinking we knew what it would be tomorrow morning because it is likely to change again. That is what is going on, simply, with just ObamaCare. By the way, I would add conscience protection, when we were assured-- and it was to be written into the bill--that the conscience protection would be there for those folks who had a concern.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. I want to make a point. The President even amended ObamaCare by press conference, which is completely outrageous. Not to get to the immigration components of this, there is nothing in this that deports anyone. The things that we did with my amendment addressing the DACA language are also the President's overreach; and by the way, the prosecutorial discretion says on an individual basis only seven times in that order, but it creates entire classes of people-- four classes of people--encompassing hundreds of thousands of people. You can't describe hundreds of thousands of people of being individuals. They are groups created unconstitutionally by the President.