Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. President Obama announced Friday that he would not follow through on his promise to utilize Executive orders by the end of the summer to provide amnesty and work authorization for 5 to 6 million illegal immigrants who cannot work lawfully in America because they unlawfully entered the country or have overstayed their visas. That does not indicate he has in any way abandoned his plan to execute such an Executive amnesty. Indeed, the President directly said he understands that the American people oppose what he is doing--this authorization to work and create a legal status by Executive action. The American people oppose it by more than 2 to 1. So is he going to back off and honor the wishes of the American people? No, not at all--this is the point the American people need to understand. The President is now brazenly reaffirming in even clearer language that he will carry out his amnesty plan--but only after the election in November. This is an attempt to protect his Democratic Senate candidates. Just a few moments ago, his spokesman, Josh Earnest--Mr. Flack--said it would be wrong to inject this issue into the election. What I say to Mr. Flack at the White House, whose salary is paid by the American people, is the American people have one chance to have their voice heard. The President is talking about unilateral, illegal action contrary to American law to legalize as many as 5 to 6 million people and we should not inject it into the election. There are Democratic Senators and other Senators who failed to object to that-- should they now be protected from being criticized for allowing this to occur? Is that what we have gotten to in our democracy, that the President can make this decision and not involve the American people? They think they should stay out of this. That they should not talk about it in an election. Well, when should we talk about grave issues that are facing America if not during the election cycle? I think it is time for the Senate, and all Senators, to be heard explicitly. Where do you stand? Do you support the legislation that the House of Representatives has passed that would effectively--as we often do around here--bar the President from spending any money to execute such an illegal, unauthorized amnesty or not? Are you for it or not? Well, we know one thing. If it is left up to the Democratic leader in the Senate, it will not be brought up. So it will take a lot of Senators to stand up to Majority Leader Reid and President Obama and bring the legislation the House has passed that would bar the expenditure of any money to carry out an unlawful amnesty. The President cannot give work authorization--as he and his people have said he intends to do--to people unlawfully in America. The law says they are not eligible to work in America, and they are not eligible to be hired in America. The President cannot say, as he has already done for the young people through the DACA program: You are authorized to work. They are now talking about 5 to 6 million more people. One article correctly said there were 10 times as many adults-- many of them presumably have entered the country illegally only recently. I think we have to understand what is going on, and we need to challenge our colleagues to stand up and be counted--counted with regard to the legitimate authority of Congress, which has passed laws of this country that are due to be executed and carried out faithfully by the President of the United States. He is not authorized to just not enforce the law and not utilize the ICE officers and Border Patrol officers and block them from doing their work. The ICE officers have even sued the Administration, the head of DHS and the ICE director, because they have been blocked from following their oath to enforce the laws of the United States. No wonder this is an important issue. No wonder the American people's interest is rising on this issue, and they have every right to do so. Well, I am going to explain why this amnesty is unlawful, how it will hurt the American worker, and how it will eviscerate any hope of ever establishing a lawful immigration system in the future if it goes forward. First, let's look at recent events. The President stated at the NATO conference a few days ago that he will give legal status to persons who are unlawfully here by utilizing Executive orders. I say to the American people and to my colleagues that he cannot do that. Those individuals are unlawfully here. He has no power to reverse the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and declare someone lawful who is unlawful. It is a thunderous, dramatic abuse of Presidential power. He has made it clear previously that his amnesty will include work authorization, and he cannot do that either. It is plainly contrary to law. He has already provided executive amnesty and work permits to those who supposedly came here as young people, although the proof is very uncertain. ICE officers report that they are forced to take someone's word about qualifying for the amnesty. So they are certainly not very tight about verifying that. His advisers and allies openly boast about how broad this is going to be. They say you must go ahead, Mr. President, and do even more than you are saying you are going to do now under this plan. It is really all because of the opposition of the American people. By a substantial majority, the American people oppose this action, but the President is intending to do it. According to the news reports, Members of the Senate went to the President and said: Don't do this now, Mr. President. I know you promised to do it before the end of the summer, but don't do it now because that might hurt me in my election. I might have to block votes in the Senate that will stop you from doing this, and I will get criticized for doing it. Please don't do this now. Don't do it now. You can do it after the election, when I have secured my 6-year term. Do it then, Mr. President. No wonder Senator McConnell referred to that as a cynical act by the President. This was a dramatic event which occurred over weekend. This executive amnesty would include work permits for millions of people who illegally entered the United States or have overstayed their visas and they are here unlawfully. It is a violation of a sovereign, constitutional law passed by the people's representatives in the Congress. It wipes away the Immigration and Nationality Act's clear rules on who can enter the United States, who can work in the United States, and who can live in the United States. Don't we all agree that our Nation has a right to establish that? Shouldn't those rules and principles be established and followed? We are not against immigration. We have 1 million people come to our country every year legally. They apply, wait their time, and then they have the benefit of citizenship in America. We have one of the most generous immigration policies in the entire world. In addition to permanent immigration flows, we have a huge temporary guest worker program which allows people to come here and take jobs. The President wants to double the number of people who come here and take jobs, but the House has refused to do that. These rules are the bedrock of any Nation's immigration policy and sovereignty, and in reality the President is actually and truly proposing to wipe away what amounts to the few immigration rules that are in effect. Through executive action, the President is proposing to repeal the lawful protections to which every American worker is entitled. His action would allow millions of illegal immigrants to instantly take precious jobs from struggling and unemployed American workers by the millions in every sector of the economy. These are not just agricultural and seasonal workers. Under the President's plan, these people who are given work authorization would be entitled to take any job. They would be entitled to work at the county commission or the energy company or power company. They would be entitled to work at the manufacturing plants and drive the forklifts and heavy equipment. They would be eligible for good jobs--jobs that are good for America. This is at a time of high unemployment and falling wages. We are now talking about another 5 million people who will be rewarded with the ability to take the best jobs in America when millions of Americans are struggling and wages are falling and we have the highest percentage of people outside of the workforce in America since the 1970s. We have a higher percentage of people who are working part-time instead of working full-time. There are people who are on welfare. Food stamps have gone up fourfold. We need to get our people working first. Again, no one that I know of would say that the people who want to come to America and work are evil or bad people. We have a generous immigration plan. We are not saying bad things about them. We are simply saying that if you want to come to America, apply. If you don't qualify, we are sorry. We are not able to accept everybody who would like to come to America. We have rules and regulations to make sure we identify people who are likely to be successful in America and won't to be on the welfare rolls and won't demand health care from the government and will be able to pay their fair share of the cost of living in America. That is what any smart Nation does. I think what people need to know right now is that this unconstitutional action--this planned executive amnesty--has not gone away. It is only a matter of months now that it has been delayed-- unless the American people stop it from happening. The New York Times reported a few days ago on the timing of these actions. They said this: President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that taking action now could doom his party's chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday. Well, what does that mean? It was reported in a very neutral way. The New York Times, of course, favors amnesty. But how cynical is that? How cynical is it that the President is now going to take action on a different date than he promised repeatedly, because he is afraid that if he does it now, the American people will have an opportunity to register their opinion come November and members of his party will face election and they are going to be asked, Did they support and vote for this or not? He does not want that to happen. What is wrong with the American people being able to influence their government? Is the President above that? Has he reached such a high level of popularity he doesn't have to worry about what the American people say, think, or believe, and that he can advocate and carry out policy based on political deals he has made with big business and special-interest groups and politicians. Even when the American people don't support it and Congress won't pass it, he gets to do it anyway? Is this where we are in America today? What is particularly disturbing is our Senate Democratic colleagues apparently don't object to the President carrying out unilateral executive amnesty; they only prefer that the President implement it after the election, after their race is over, so they don't have to explain it to the people they represent. Politico reported one typical Senate Democrat office as saying: ``Obama should use his executive authority to make fixes to the immigration system, but after the November elections.'' After the elections. Don't let it blow back on me. Go ahead, Mr. President, we want you to do this fix, but don't do it now, do it after the election so nobody can hold me to account. I think the American people are getting tired of this. I think they are wising up. The politicians work for the American people; the American people don't work for the politicians. We held a vote in the Senate on July 31. I sought to block this action by bringing up a bill similar to a bill the House passed that would bar the President from spending any money to carry out this executive amnesty. Only one Senate Democrat--Senator Manchin--voted in support of allowing the bill to come up for a vote. And no one, to my knowledge, on the Democratic side has challenged Senator Reid and his blocking of the House-type legislation. It is a very serious matter that we are engaged in today. It is a very serious matter. The moral underpinnings, the integrity of the immigration law--already seriously damaged by the DACA action President Obama took--will be fatally wounded if he now legalizes 5 million to 6 million people unilaterally. How could we then tell anybody in the future they have to comply with the law? The President himself said at the NATO conference that if we do his executive amnesty, it will, as he said, encourage legal immigration. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rewarding millions more who have entered the country illegally--rewarding their illegal acts--is not going to cause more people to follow the law; it is going to be a further weakening of the law. And in the future, how will we be able to tell people who came across the border after that, that they shouldn't be given lawful status, rewarding them for their illegal act? It is that simple. We are going to have to confront this issue. Congress needs to stand up, affirm the rule of law, do the right thing. We are not against immigration. We are not against immigrants. We don't believe this country ought to be isolationist. But we have a right--and the American people have a right--to believe their government will create an effective, honorable system of immigration and see that it is enforced fairly and resolutely. That is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is what the American people have been demanding for 30 or 40 years, and the politicians have steadfastly refused. I think it is time for the people's voices to be heard. The American people are right on this issue. They are exactly right. We are failing the future of our country, the lawful system of our country, we are failing the American people, and we are failing American workers who are having a difficult time today finding jobs and seeing their wages decline. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. The facts are plain, colleagues. The immigration policies of President Obama are having a devastating effect on the classical American goal of a fair and lawful system of immigration, one that serves our national interest. He has directed the Federal immigration officers not to enforce plain law. He meets privately with pro-amnesty, open borders, and special interest business groups and promises to take even more actions in the future to erase plain law. Unfortunately, our fine law enforcement officers are excluded from the discussion. I have asked that they be involved for years now, and the President has flatly refused. The President's actions evidence no policy or guiding principle that is sustainable. Now the heretofore largely covert actions by the President are open and blatant, and he has announced them. He has told the world that with the stroke of his pen he will, by Presidential directive, by Executive order, provide legal status to 5 to 6 million people unlawfully in the country today--all this contrary to long established law. But there is more. He has said he will issue, in effect, legal identification cards and work authorization. Surely we know the President cannot make law. Congress makes law. As Chief Executive, the President executes, carries out, and enforces law. This we learned in grade school. This constitutional construct is not a small matter; it is the mechanism by which this Nation conducts its governmental business. Through this method, the people control their government. Allowing any President to nullify law is a threat to the future of our Republic and to the ultimate power of the people to control it. That is why I have urged the President to reconsider this point and to adhere to his plain statements, where he has expressly stated he did not have the power to do what he now--in a complete reversal--states he will do. On November 25, 2013, less than a year ago, he stated: ``If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws.'' On March 28, 2011, President Obama said: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. Again, on September 28, 2011, he said: I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. But we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. That is true. Every schoolchild knows that. But what is happening today? The President is saying something quite different. It is important for Congress to stand and resist the complete erosion of its powers--and even more significantly, the powers of the American people--and see that our laws are carried out effectively. I know this is a somewhat postmodern time where many believe words have no meaning except as they advance one's agenda of the day, but such approaches are wholly inconsistent with the founding concepts of America. We were founded on the belief that words do have meaning, that sound principles must be adhered to, and that truth is real and must be sought. While we debate many issues, and good people can disagree, surely we can all agree that at this moment we are in the Senate Chamber and that there is daylight outside. Those are not matters for debate or else we are, indeed, through the ``looking glass.'' Likewise, it is surely not a matter of debate--among Democrat or Republican--that the President cannot make or nullify law. He cannot do that. Thus, we must in unity call on President Obama not to go through with his stated desire which would eviscerate long and clearly established American immigration law. What law might the next President ignore, bend, or nullify? It is said that he has ordered his lawyers and officials to tell him how he may carry out such actions before the end of the summer. Apparently he did not ask them whether he had such power; he just ordered them to develop a plan to do that which the law does not allow. Mr. President, frustration and pique can result in hasty and unwise decisions. Please do not do this. To the officials and lawyers who have received this directive from the President, you must always remember that your first duty is to the Constitution and the Nation and its laws. There will be times when you have the duty to say no. Lawyers at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are going to be asked how they can carry out the President's plan that he previously said he had no authority to do. They are also challenged. Their duty is to say no. And sometimes you have to resign your office. Just imagine, this past Sunday--2 days ago--White House adviser Dan Pfieffer repeated the Obama administration's warning of an impending Executive action on immigration. Mr. Pfieffer said this action would come at ``the end of the summer.'' According to repeated and multiple news reports, these Executive actions could provide administrative legal papers and work permits for up to 5 to 6 million immigrants in clear contravention of Federal law. If these actions are taken, we will have effectively opened the borders of America. We are nearly there already. Consider that millions of people come every year to America on visas. Currently, if you overstay a visa, there is no legal consequence today. No one is going to come and get you. No one even clocks if you come in or if you leave. If you get a student visa and drop out of school, or if you come to work on a visa and it expires, or if you just come on a tourist visa and never leave, nobody checks, nobody asks these individuals to leave. The Congressional Budget Office said, in analyzing the Gang of 8 bill that came through the Senate, that as much as 40 percent of the illegality in America today is a result of visa overstays. They also projected that was going to increase in the years to come. If you get past the Border Patrol at the border and somehow get to the interior of this country, you are also allowed to stay under President Obama's policies, which are not to deport anybody unless they have been arrested for a serious crime, maybe even limited to a serious felony. As the President's former ICE Director John Sandweg explained, ``If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.'' In order to be deported from the interior, you basically have to commit a serious criminal offense. Otherwise, you are mostly free to enter illegally, work illegally, and even collect benefits like the additional child tax credit. The Treasury Department inspector general said that loophole should be eliminated, and we could do so, but Congress and the majority in this Senate have refused to allow us to do so. Chris Crane, the head of the ICE officers association--that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who do all the work on the interior of the country and help in other areas too--testified before Congress: Most Americans would be surprised to know that immigration agents are regularly prohibited from enforcing the two most fundamental sections of the United States immigration law. According to ICE policy, in most cases immigration agents can no longer arrest persons solely for entering the United States illegally. Additionally, in most cases immigration agents cannot arrest people solely because they have entered the United States with a visa and then overstayed that visa and failed to return to their country. Essentially, only individuals charged or convicted of very serious criminal offenses by other law enforcement agencies may be arrested or charged by ICE agents and officers for illegal entry or overstay. This is a very serious matter. This has not been the policy of America; it is the policy President Obama has directed through his top administrative officials down to the very officers on the street. Furthermore, if you show up at the border and simply turn yourself in, you are often released into the interior of the country. A recent newspaper in New Jersey interviewed a 27-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras. The newspaper wrote that he had ``arrived in Freehold Borough 15 days ago from Honduras.'' The article says he ``left behind his parents and 10 brothers and sisters,'' but ``he is hoping his family will join him at some point in the future.'' Once illegal immigrants have been released into the interior, they frequently do not show up for court hearings. The National Review reports that ``in one day at a Los Angeles immigration court last week, Judge Ashley Tabaddor heard the cases of nearly 40 illegal immigrant minors, but none of the children appeared in court, according to the Los Angeles Times.'' None of them came to appear in court. The article goes on to say: In each case, the illegal immigrant was thought to have settled elsewhere, and the judge reportedly decided not to deport the children in absentia. Instead, the judge--who declined to speak with National Review Online, citing Justice Department policy--reportedly issued change-of-venue orders in each case. That basically means nothing. If you fail to show up in court for a DUI or for a speeding ticket or for a reckless driving ticket, a warrant is issued for your arrest. That is what happens in America throughout this Nation, and that is what should happen. But when a person who enters the country unlawfully is released and asked to show up at a hearing at some date in the future, and then doesn't show up, the judge apparently transfers it to some other district on the assumption the individual has moved to some other place. How do they know where they are? And nobody will go out and look for them. There is nobody looking for these individuals. They are not even able to put a warrant in the National Crime Information Center because they probably don't even have their true name or any ability to identify them. It is a complete capitulation to lawlessness. But there are more ways, unfortunately, to get into the country illicitly. Our asylum system is plagued by fraud. The House Judiciary Committee reported this: Asylum approval rates overall have increased dramatically in recent years. Approval rates by asylum officers have increased from 28 percent in 2007 to 46 percent in 2013 and approval rates by immigration judges in affirmative cases have increased from 51 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2013. Combining both of these approval rates, the vast majority of aliens who affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their claims. The report goes on: This does not even take into account appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals or federal courts. At the same time, an internal Department of Homeland Security report shows that at least 70 percent of asylum cases contain proven or possible fraud. Our system as it is being run today is not lawful, it is not principled, it does not have integrity, and it has no ability to carry out the wishes of the American people--which has always been to have a system that is effective and lawful and serves the national interests. And remember, all of these entries are in addition to the huge flow of annual permanent immigration into the United States as well as work authorization. That is all in addition to the lawful flow that we have. Between 2000 and today, the U.S. Government issued nearly 30 million lawful visas for individuals and their relatives to either live permanently in the United States or to come to take a job. We are a generous Nation. We have a very generous immigration policy--more than any nation in the world. And the American people have the right to expect that our laws are enforced, that we don't have open borders. They have never believed in that, and no official, to my knowledge, will stand up publicly and advocate for that, although many of the policies being promoted would result in just that. Now consider what will happen to our system if the President goes through with his plan to provide work authorizations for another 5 million people living illegally in the United States. What immigration law will be left, colleagues? The government is not enforcing visa overstays, illegal entries, illegal work, or asylum fraud. And now the President is just going to start printing millions of work permits for people illegally in the country--after Congress has loudly declared ``no.'' Congress has refused to pass his plan. What is the President's excuse for wanting to do this unlawful act? He says Congress won't act. But Congress acts when it refuses to do something the President decides. That is an act of Congress, and Congress has declined to provide amnesty in the method the President asked for and has been advocating for. Therefore, he is not given any power to ignore current law that he wishes to change and Congress didn't change. This is very serious. I say to my colleagues--Republicans, Democrats--this is more than a dispute over who should enter and what kind of amnesty we should have, if any; it is a challenge to the integrity of our constitutional order and a challenge to this Senate. If the President persists in his plan, anyone ICE officers come into contact with will simply assert protections and eligibility under this new Executive action. Now, get this. So we are going to give amnesty to 5 million or 6 million people. Well, if there are 11 million, 12 million people here today, what happens to the other 5 million to 6 million? If any ICE officer comes into contact with them, those individuals will assert they are entitled to protections and eligibility under the new Executive action. New illegal immigrants will flood across, as they did after the President's Executive amnesty for people under the age of 30 because they will believe--correctly, it appears to me--that if they can get into the country unlawfully, they will never be deported. They will wait until the President--this President or the next President or some other President-- gives them work privileges in the United States to take jobs that Americans need to be doing at a time of extraordinarily high unemployment, at a time when we have the lowest workplace participation rate since the 1970s. Illegal immigrants won't even have to wait for Congress to pass amnesty if this goes through. So I ask: What immigration law will be left? The President has simply decided--on his own, without Congress or legal authority--that the immigration laws protecting the jobs and wages of U.S. workers won't exist anymore. The President has taken it upon himself to decide who can enter the United States and who can work in the United States--by the millions--regardless of what laws have been passed. The President often talks of justice, but one of the gravest injustices that has been done is to deny the American people the protections of their laws. The laws on the books in America today are the laws of the people of the United States, and they protect working people from job competition at a time of high unemployment. My message to the American people today is this. You can stop it. We can stop it, together. We will not let this lawlessness stand, and that fight begins with a vote on the House-passed bill just last Friday to block this new Executive action the President would undertake. The Senate cannot be allowed to surrender to the President's lawlessness. It cannot. So I am calling today on every Senator to support this bill from the House and to demand that Majority Leader Reid call it up, and let's have a vote. Every American needs to know where their leaders stand on this issue. Let me share a message with my friends on the other side of the aisle. Each of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have to decide whether they work for Majority Leader Reid, whether they work for the President of the United States, or whether they work for their constituents. I remember in 2007 when President Bush got it in his head that we had to have amnesty, without being able to present any compelling reason for us to believe the lawlessness would end in the future--and that effort failed. Three-fourths, I believe, or at least well more than half of the Republicans, opposed their President on this. Why shouldn't Democrats now stand up and oppose President Obama if he is overreaching in his policies? So I will ask this. Will my Democratic colleagues protect the jobs of the American people? Will they protect the borders of this Nation and, in essence, the sovereignty of this Nation? Will my colleagues demand the Senate leader bring this House bill up for a vote? If my colleagues oppose these Executive actions, as some on the other side of the aisle have indicated they do, there is only one way to demonstrate it with integrity: Support the House bill and demand it receive a vote in the Senate. There is nothing in that bill that is wrong or unprincipled or improper. There are two bills coming over from the House--a good bill that improves the technical enforcement issues that are at the border today that are making it hard to enforce the law. They improve that in one piece, and they provide almost $700 million in funding to help improve that situation and take care of the humanitarian need there. But they passed a second bill that simply uses a traditional congressional power to bar the President of the United States and any of his officers from spending moneys of the United States to execute some amnesty or work permit program. Every member of the public--whether in a red State or a blue State or a purple State--ought to call their Member of Congress and Senators and ask them where they stand on this issue. Ask them if they support the House bill to block this executive amnesty that would be contrary to law, contrary to heritage, contrary to the President's own words on more than one occasion. Will your elected representatives demand that we at least have a vote in the Senate? You are a citizen of this country. You are entitled to a clear answer to the question. We work for the people, and I believe the people are not happy with us. I believe the people rightly believe this Nation should have a principled immigration policy, one that is enforced and carried out fairly and objectively, that serves the national interest, an immigration policy where a person in another country who wants to come to the United States can read the requirements and submit an application, and if they meet those requirements and meet the limits of our law can be admitted to America, and those who do not, are not. That is what nations all over the world have. There is not anything wrong with that. No nation, particularly any developed nation, can just open its borders to every individual who would like to come here. It just cannot be done. The American people have a right to expect that. That is what they have wanted, that is what they have demanded of their Presidents and their Congresses for 40 years, and that is what the powers that be, the masters of the universe, surreptitiously and openly and otherwise have blocked, refused to give them. They are entitled to that. I believe it truly, and I believe they will get it. This issue is not going away. We are going to confront it here in the Senate. I believe in the end the American people will be able to hold to account those who do not support a lawful system of immigration. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving my right to object, I appreciate Senator Boxer's leadership on this issue. She is a great advocate and a strong supporter of Israel, as I am, and have been consistently since I have been in the Senate. I would note for the Senator that the expansion of this program has been problematic for some time. I have been involved with the Visa Waiver Program for quite a number of years. So my concern is not based on Israel, it is based on trying to maintain consistency and effectiveness of the program. It is not a program that I think is operating effectively. Congress has declared that no more waivers be granted until after this biometric exit system has been completed. I believe our House colleagues are considering a bill that is very similar to what Senator Boxer and others are supporting but it does not include this provision. Based on that, I am not able to support this amendment and would object. Mr. President, if the Senator would allow me, I would say let's pass a bill without that provision in it. Let's get that done today, and I will commit to further research and digging into this to see if there is any legitimate way based on law and consistency and the integrity of the visa waiver system that I could support it. It might be. Israel is an educated country. We have a lot of people who travel back and forth between our countries. It is just so far the State Department has not approved it. The House does not have it in their bill, and I and the Members of the Judiciary Committee who have dealt with these issues for quite a number of years--I have resisted the expansion of this program contrary to the law and State Department policy. Regretfully I have objected.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the people of the United States have truly begged and pleaded with their lawmakers for years to create a lawful system of immigration--one that works, one that is fair, one that serves the national interest, one that we can believe in. They have been justly and rightly convinced of that fact, and they have demanded it of their elected officeholders to secure their communities and protect the integrity of our national borders. Some say there is something wrong with that. I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is the right thing. That is the moral thing. That is the responsible thing. That is the decent thing. That is what any great nation should have--an immigration policy that serves its national interest and is fairly and lawfully conducted. But these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Our border is absolutely not secure. It is in a state of crisis. Our communities are not safe. Preventable crimes occur every day because our laws are not being enforced and our sovereignty, at its base level, is not being protected. And, we have a President planning to issue sweeping executive amnesty in violation of law, in ways in which he has no power, and threatens the constitutional separation of powers. Congress passes laws; the President must execute the laws. The President is not entitled to make laws, to conduct actions contrary to plain laws. The President simply cannot say Congress didn't act, so I have to act. Well, Congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. They considered legislation, rejected it, and now he is going to--it appears from article after article--go forward and carry out an action anyway. It would be fundamentally wrong. This cannot stand. It will not stand. My position has been and remains that Congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful Executive orders. As an institution, this Congress has a duty to protect this institution and our constituents. Currently, the President has issued approximately half a million grants of administrative amnesty and work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. Now the President wants to issue another 5 to 6 million work permits to illegal immigrants of any age, despite a clear prohibition in the Immigration and Nationality Act. He is not entitled to do that. Plain law says you cannot employ someone in the country unlawfully. People think: Well, it is one thing to say you will not deport somebody. But, colleagues, what was done previously was to provide, under the DACA legislation, an ID card with the words ``Work Permit'' across the top, ``Work Authorization'' across the top. So the President is providing, in violation of plain law, the ability of people in the country to work who are not entitled to work, who will be able to take jobs from any American today. We have a lot of Americans today struggling for work. At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the President's plan is a direct affront to them--to every single unemployed American, to people around the world who have applied to come to the United States and have not been admitted, so they did not come unlawfully. What do we say to them when this happens? It is particularly damaging to those in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in America. So who is speaking for them? Who will give them a voice in Congress? Will Members hear? Will we hear their pleas? I have been shocked that we have not seen a willingness in the Congress to resist more effectively than what we are seeing today. So let's consider a bit more deeply for a moment what the President's Executive action would do to immigration enforcement in America. Let me say clearly, colleagues, we are not making this up. We are not having some idea that he might do something for 5 or 6 million more people. It has been repeatedly leaked from the White House--not leaked; they have discussed it. The President has promised it to activist groups like La Raza and the ACLU that he has been meeting with. He has told them he intends to do this. It is only a question of how and the time. The latest article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal--a big article-- said it would happen shortly after Labor Day. Well, this is not something we are making up. It is a direct threat, a direct promise, a statement, it appears, from the White House. I hope they will not go forward with it. Surely cooler heads in the White House will push back. Surely his Attorney General will say: Mr. President, you cannot do this. His legal counsel in the White House will say: Mr. President, do not do this. This is not lawful. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be saying: This would be devastating, Mr. President. How can we enforce any laws? Please do not do this. I do not think it is absolutely certain to happen. But it seems to me that by every indication it is an absolute intention right now of the President to go forward with this or they would not have had at least a half a dozen articles on it--the National Journal, Time magazine, and others. I have spoken many times with a great American by the name of Chris Crane, a former marine. He is also an ICE officer and president of the officers' ICE Council--the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council. He has explained how his officers are ordered not to do their job. They have even sued the Secretary of Homeland Security for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to enforce the laws of the United States of America. Can you imagine that? I was in Federal law enforcement for 15 years. I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sue their supervisor saying, in Federal court: Mr. Judge, my supervisor is ordering me not to do what my duty and my oath requires on a daily basis. That is a stunning development. Their morale for years has been one of the lowest in the Federal Government. Now I think it is the lowest because they have been demeaned and rejected in a duty they believe is worthwhile for them to carry out. One of the things Mr. Crane explained is that the President's previous Executive amnesty for the so-called DREAMers basically halted enforcement for anyone who asserted protections under that new administration policy. Mr. Crane would report that ICE officers would come into contact with individuals unlawfully present in the country-- individuals they would encounter in prisons and jails. They would be called by a local police department that they have arrested someone for a serious crime. They would tell the ICE officers. Routinely they are supposed to go and pick them up and deport them. They would encounter people in jail--that is one of the big jobs they have--and they would be forced to release them simply because they assert: I came here as a youth. Nobody is going to do any investigation on this. How do you investigate it? The effect is to demoralize and make it difficult, and almost impossible, to enforce the law. Now imagine, then, what would happen if the President expands this administrative amnesty and work authorization program to cover millions of unlawful immigrants of all ages. Everyone ICE comes in contact with will assert these protections: I am qualified under the President's amnesty. And any who fail the application will say they are eligible for this amnesty. So what then? Will the FBI open investigations, check when they entered the country or whom they entered the country with, and where they came from? They are not going to do that--of course not. The officers are going to be totally unable to resist false claims from applicants, who happen to be the people they have arrested. It is going to demoralize immigration enforcement officers. ICE officers will again be issued orders basically to stand down. No enforcement is going to occur. It will be the effective end of immigration enforcement in America, in my opinion. You cannot maintain an effective, lawful, consistent, fair immigration enforcement policy with these kinds of regulations occurring and these kinds of orders from the White House, who is the Chief Executive Officer of America, who is empowered and directed to ensure that the laws of the United States are carried out--not empowered to violate the laws of the United States. We have also heard from officers who have processed immigration applications. These are people who receive applications to come to the United States in a lawful way. These dedicated folks at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are people who have to process all of these millions of applicants if the President issues his order. So let me read at length from a statement from the President of the USCIS Council, who represents these CIS officers who have an awesome duty. He wrote last year--this is what he said: USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation. This is the officers saying that their bosses are pressuring them to just rubber stamp applications right now--not to investigate, not to ask questions--just approve them. He goes on: The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of any applications. USCIS has been turned into an ``approval machine.'' That is what the top CIS officer said in a statement last fall. They have been turned into an approval machine. No wonder the American people are unhappy with what goes on here. Does anyone really know how serious this is? It is amazing that we would undermine the very integrity, really, of the entire process, and that is why they have protested. That is why they have come forward. It hurts them. They feel bad to see the great laws of the United States being routinely eviscerated. He went on to say this: USCIS has created an almost insurmountable bureaucracy which often prevents USCIS adjudications officers from contacting and coordinating with ICE agents-- Who know something about these people, perhaps-- and officers in cases that should have their involvement. USCIS officers are pressured to approve visa applications for many individuals ICE agents have determined should be placed into deportation proceedings. That is a very serious charge, and that is happening. He is not making that up. It goes on: The USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens that, in accordance with law should be placed into immigration removal proceedings before a federal judge, are prevented from exercising their authority and responsibility to issue Notices To Appear. This is a notice to appear in court. They are being obstructed and told not to do it. He goes on to say: The attitude of USCIS management is not that the Agency serves the American public or the laws of the United States, or public safety and national security, but instead that the agency serves illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent them. While we believe in treating all people with respect, we are concerned that this agency tasked with such a vital security mission is too greatly influenced by special interest groups--to the point that it no longer properly performs its mission. What a devastating critique. Does anyone care? Has the President done one thing to respond to these allegations? Is the Senate bill that is offered by Senator Reid and our Democratic colleagues, with the blessings of the President--does it do one thing to fix one of these problems? No. They have no intention of fixing these problems. They do not want to fix these problems. This is their policy: to foment more lawlessness and to see that the laws are undermined in such a way they cannot be effectively enforced. It is just wrong, colleagues. Republicans and Democrats need to stand up to this. Don't we need to respond to the desires of the American people for a lawful system of immigration? Isn't that right and just and decent that they ask of us? Yet we go along in total ignorance and ignore these kinds of statements from our own enforcement officers, which anybody who looks at the border and sees what is happening could believe every bit of. And indeed it is true. It goes on to say: This agency is tasked with such a vital security mission is too greatly influenced by special interest groups--to the point that it no longer properly performs its mission. In virtually every article we see the President is meeting with some group, such as La Raza, which has very extreme policies on immigration--basically an open borders policy. They have opposed every policy of lawfulness. Another similar group, the ACLU, was commenting recently on what they thought the President had told them he was going to do about not enforcing the law. These are the kinds of groups he is meeting with. He is not meeting with the law officers. He never sat down with them to ask: Tell me what it is like on the border. Let's see if we fix this thing. Let's make this system work. He has never done that. That is very indicative. This legislation that would spend $2.7 billion, proposed by the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and totally blessed by the President. This is the President's bill and it does nothing to fix any of the problems. It just asks for more money. The President of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote last year: DHS and USCIS leadership have intentionally established an application process for DACA-- That is his first amnesty for DREAMers that the President issued. --that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained USCIS adjudications officers. These practices were put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement,-- He is saying that these practices were put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement. --and guarantee that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk. This is the head of the USCIS Officers Association. He is laying out event after event, action after action, that demonstrates we are dealing with an administration that does not want the law enforced. Can you believe these words? The president of USCIS goes on to say: U.S. taxpayers are currently tasked with absorbing the cost of over $200 million worth of fee waivers bestowed on applicants for naturalization during the last fiscal year. This is in addition to the strain put on our Social Security system that has been depleted by an onslaught of refugees receiving SSI benefits as soon as their feet touch U.S. soil. So the story that there are no Social Security benefits is not correct. The refugees who enter our asylum system through the refugee program are entitled to these benefits when they hit the soil. He goes on to say: Large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not effectively enforced for legal immigrants and visa holders, including laws regarding public charges as well as many other provisions as the USCIS lacks the resources to adequately screen and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants seeking status adjustment. There is also insufficient screening and monitoring of student visas. These are breathtaking reports from our top officers, from the front lines of law enforcement, from people who screen and review applications every day for the United States of America. Now think--just imagine what will happen to our system if the President goes forward with his executive action. It would overwhelm a system that is already buckling under the weight of massive illegality on our southern border. We must end this lawlessness. We can end this. We can do so. Let me repeat. I know it can be done. But to do so, we must first stop doing more damage. We must prevent the President's massive executive amnesty from going forward. The public, once riled to these issues, will not be ignored this time, in my opinion. They will not let the representatives of either party acquiesce to lawlessness. That is why I have said that Congress as an institution must not support any border bill that come forward that does not expressly prohibit the President's executive amnesty ideas that he has been talking about, and would block him from spending any money to execute an unlawful plan of this kind. How can we not take this position, colleagues? What basis do we have to say we will not take any action when we were being told on a daily basis what the President plans to do? Are we ready to go to recess for August having done nothing, said nothing, offered nothing to oppose the stated intentions of the President in this way? There is currently no legislation pending for a vote in either Chamber, House or Senate, which passes this test. Senator Cruz has offered language, but they are not willing to allow it to come up for a vote. As a result, both the House and Senate packages should not be supported. Congress should not adjourn until it has firmly stood against the President's unconstitutional and dangerous action. The American people are asking for us to help. They are pleading with us to help. We must answer their call. We must fight for the lawful and just system of immigration that we can be proud of. Let's put this into a bigger picture. Wages are down. Labor force participation is declining. The percentage of people in the working ages who are actually working has been declining steadily. Indeed, it has not reached a level this low since the 1970s. Since 2000, the Federal Government has lawfully issued nearly 30 million immigrant and foreign work visas--for people to come to this country to work--almost 30 million visas to legally work in the United States or permanently reside in the United States. During this time, the number of Americans with jobs--Americans with jobs--declined on net. On net, fewer U.S.-born workers ages 16 to 65 had jobs in 2014 than in 2000. Amazing. There are fewer people working today--even though the population has increased--than in 2000. The President's planned work permits for illegal immigrants is in addition then to the already huge flow of low- wage labor into the United States. We have a problem, colleagues, with Americans needing jobs. We do not have too few workers. We have too few jobs. I would contend that that is pretty clear because wages are down. If we had a shortage of workers, wages would be up. When you have a surplus of labor and surplus of workers, wages decline. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2007, a family income of 4 would amount to about $55,000, on average. It has now dropped to $50,000. That represents a huge diminishment of the wealth of America. Is it not time we did something for American workers? Who do we represent? Do we not represent the people of this country? Do we not know we cannot--while we believe in immigration, we respect and admire and love immigrants, we ought to have a lawful system. The number of people who come ought not to be so large that it destabilizes our labor market. Is that not the right policy for a great country to pursue? The American people have begged and pleaded for this system. I believe we ought to give it to them. Let me sum up one more time here. What we are seeing in the bill presented by the majority, and demanding that it pass the Senate today, is a bill that just provides money. It does not deal with any of the policy problems in any real way that would end the lawlessness and end the belief by people around the world that if they can just come to the United States, particularly if they come as a young person, they will be allowed to stay. We have not acted to end this belief in any effective way. It could easily be done. We do not need a law to fix that. We have looked at it. Some legal changes could help. But, first of all, the President needs to act. The House is putting up some money. They are saying it has got to be used for some of the things that would be beneficial to ending this flow. But even then, we have seen the President does not have to use it and does not have to comply with their vision to end immigration into America. So the President has set this up. He issued his amnesty documents, his policies, and encouraged more people to come to America. If he does this new Executive order amnesty, it would encourage more adults to come to America. It just will. It will weaken the moral authority of all our immigration laws. You cannot take these kinds of actions--as somebody who has been in law enforcement for a long time, you cannot take these actions and think there are not ramifications on them, that there are not impacts throughout the entire world and throughout the entire law enforcement community, for our ICE officers and our USCIS officers working every day dealing with hundreds of these cases. You have to have clarity. You have to have integrity. You have to have consistency. You have to mean what you say. You cannot say: I am for strong borders, and I am for legal immigration, and then present a bill that is going to do nothing to change the path we are on. It is something I hope our people will look at and pay attention to it. This bill is going to go down. It is not going to pass. It should not pass. It will be blocked. It will have no chance to pass in the House if it were to get out of the Senate. What I want to say to colleagues is: It is indicative of the lack of seriousness from the majority party when they produce such a poor piece of legislation. I wish to remind my colleagues of one more thing. The only way the administration can run out of money is if it refuses to spend the money that is currently available to it for the border disaster. There is no law, no regulation preventing the administration from spending money in the current fiscal year. Even the bill they submitted to us, when it was examined, showed it only asked for $25 million for this fiscal year, through September 30. So it is not the kind of crisis we have to rush out and pass a bill today, tonight, or the country is going to shut down. They can reallocate funds. But what we need is, and what Congress needs to do as a representative of the American people, is to say: We are prepared to provide some money, but we need to know, Mr. President, that you are serious. We need to know, Mr. President, you are going to let your officers do their duty and not block them from doing their duty. We need to know, Mr. President, you are not, in a few weeks, going to issue a massive administrative amnesty to millions of people who will be given work permits to compete in America for any job that is out there--any job. We need to know where you stand on this. We represent our people. We cannot just throw money at this problem, which is what this legislation does. Let me take a moment to go back and discuss how we got here. We have had the current law basically in effect for a number of years: 5, 6, 7 years. We did not see a spike in entries of young people until the President issued an Executive order basically legalizing people of youth--up to 30 years of age--who came to America. That was seen around the world as an invitation for young people to come. They have come in extraordinary numbers, overwhelming our system. In 2011, it was 6,000. This year it is going to be 90,000. What a huge surge that is. It should never have happened. Now we are reduced to being here in the Congress and having the President come to us demanding billions of dollars to fund this program and deal with the crisis his policies created. Because it is true, and has been true, the young people who come to America turn themselves in to the immigration officers, who then take them to the Health and Human Services officers and turn them over to them. They go out and find housing. That is why we have seen this all over the country. Find housing for them. Months go by, or, if anyone comes to pick them up, they are turned over to them. They do not inquire if they are legally here, those who come to pick them up. They expect no proof that they are related to the child. Maybe it is a 17-year-old. Most of them are older teenagers who pick them up, and they are released on a permiso or bail and they never show up. Nobody has the time or the numbers or the capacity to begin to go look and see why they didn't show up in court. But if we get a traffic ticket and don't show up in court in Alabama, California, Texas, somebody is coming after us. This is the way the system is being collapsed in America today. It is just a tragedy. It breaks my heart. The American people have never approved of this. So word got out and we had this surge, and now the President, without any real plan to fix it, comes forward and says: Give me $4 billion-- the bill here I think is $2.7 billion--without any clear commitment or proof that we have any plan or any commitment from his leadership to alter the dynamics of the situation we are in. This is not acceptable. The bill before us now is not acceptable. It will not pass. It will not become law. We need to insist--the American people will continue to insist--that this Congress and this White House do their duty to make sure we have good, sound immigration laws and then ensure they are faithfully and fairly executed to serve the national interests of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I just want to say how much I appreciate the work by all the Members who worked on the veterans bill. We had some difficulties of a very serious nature, and all of us wanted to fix that. I was not able to support the bill that came out of the Senate. We learned minutes before the vote that the average cost in the out years would be $50 billion a year if the program was funded, and there was no money to pay for that. It would really just be adding to the debt. It was sort of avoided by saying it would be a 3-year bill, but once you start these kinds of motions rolling, they never seem to end, and in the end we would be faced with a difficult situation financially. The conference committee went to work, and I salute all the people who worked on this legislation. It has some good policy issues in it. Senator Tom Coburn, who spoke earlier, was engaged in that conference. He is a doctor. He understands these matters, he cares about them, and he was actively engaged, as we all know. In Tom Coburn we have one of the Senate's finest, most committed Senators. He loves this country. Every day he tries to save us money and make us more productive. There is nobody here who works harder or is more effective in addressing that issue than he is, and he says we need to do better. He is not able to support the conference report because it will add at least $10 billion to the debt in 3 years. I will acknowledge that it is better than before. As a result, he will raise a point of order against it, and I have to say I will support that. Our doctors there do not carry the kinds of patient caseloads private doctors do. While we have some policy changes that are good, more are needed. We are going to have a new Administrator, and I am very impressed with him. He is a military academy graduate from West Point, spent 5 years in the military, and was a Procter & Gamble CEO. He has bipartisan support in the Senate. A lot of confidence and a lot of hope is being placed in him. I think the better action for us today is to not try to establish big policy changes that continue indefinitely at great expense. The better choice for us today is to wait a bit, see how effective this new leader is, and see how much he can save without reducing benefits. Maybe we can get some ideas from this top-flight, world-class businessman, who can help us develop policies that serve our veterans. We have an absolute commitment to serve our veterans and fulfill our responsibilities. I will support the budget point of order, but if it were to be sustained--and it probably will not be sustained because people want to go forward and do this--I am confident we would be able to work with the new Administrator and develop an even better plan for securing the benefits which our veterans have earned and to which they are entitled. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the problem we have at the border today is a direct result of the actions of the President of the United States. In 2011 we had 6,000 young people coming to America unlawfully. They were apprehended. Now we have 60,000. It was because of his DACA program and his open statement that was heard throughout the world as: If you come to America as a young person, you will be able to stay. That was exactly and I think to some degree remains the situation. If you come to America as a young person from Central America, not Mexico, and you turn yourself in, you will be released on a permiso or bond or promise to reappear. People come and pick up the children and they stay. This is no way to run a lawful system of immigration. You know, it was said: Well, we offered a comprehensive bill to fix it. That bill was flawed. I opposed that bill. It was rejected by the House of Representatives. I would say with great confidence that because the House of Representatives rejected the bill that Members of this Senate supported and that the President of the United States supported does not thereby mean the President of the United States can do what the bill says when it was rejected and did not become law. It takes both Houses to pass a piece of legislation. The bill would not have worked. It would not have been effective. The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, did not allow it to become law. I would point out that this administration amazingly has announced its intention to bypass Congress and to implement an executive amnesty by fiat. This would include, as has been widely reported, 5 million to 6 million work permits and legal status for illegal immigrants into America. This is contrary to Congress's decision. Congress has not approved that. But Congress has approved a law that says it is unlawful for somebody in the country, for example, to work if they are not here lawfully. They can't work in the United States. They are not approved for work. The President is saying he is going to give them legal status and permission to work contrary to plain law. This is very serious. This action would be in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would be an executive nullification of our laws and the protections that American workers are entitled to. Congress must not surrender to such lawlessness. It has been in half a dozen papers. The Wall Street Journal 2 days ago: Millions of people by executive action of the President--it is unbelievable to be so open and bold about this, as if he thinks maybe this would intimidate Congress to force us to adopt legislation Congress has rejected. We have the power--the power of the purse--to stop it. That is the appropriate response of Congress. When the President proposes something that is improper and outside of law, when we have powers as coequal branches of government, we can respond, and we should use the power of the purse. Senator Cruz has filed an amendment to this bill that would prohibit the executive expenditures by the President of any funds for administrative amnesty or work authorization for unlawful immigrants. However, the majority leader, with the support of his conference, has blocked all amendments to this border supplemental. If we do not stop this Presidential action, we will ensure that the border crisis continues a catastrophe. The President's planned action would also represent a total breach of our constitutional system, and it would be a hammer blow to millions of unemployed American citizens. We do have the power to stop this. We ought to stop it. We have a duty to Congress, we have a duty to the rule of law, and we have a duty to the Constitution. What we can do today by voting yes on my motion to clear the amendment tree and to consider and pass Senator Cruz's amendment would fix this problem. It would say: Mr. President, you are not authorized to utilize any money of the U.S. Government to spend on a program to grant amnesty and work permits to millions. The vote we are about to have will be a vote on whether to support the President's illegal amnesty or to block it. It will be a vote to allow us to vote on it, because right now the tree is filled and we can't vote. I am going to be asking to table what is on the tree and clear that amendment out so we can vote on this amendment, and we will have a vote on it. Everyone in this Chamber will cast a vote before this whole Nation and reveal whether they stand for our laws, for our border sovereignty or whether they stand in support of the President's illegal activities, in truth. A number of cosponsors support this amendment. I think it is the right thing to do, and we will be asking for that later today. Colleagues, in addition, the administration has announced its intention to bypass Congress, according to the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and others, with as many as 5 million to 6 million of these work permits. Unfortunately, the bill before us is merely a blank check to perpetuate the failure of this administration to fix the problems at the border. This can be done, colleagues. It is not impossible. It is not hopeless. We simply need a President who wants it to happen. He has been sued by his own ICE officers, saying that they are being blocked from doing their duty. They asked a court to give them relief and tell their supervisors to quit telling them to violate the law and not enforce the law. That is amazing. Their morale is in the tank. The current crisis on the border can be attributed to specific actions taken unilaterally by the President. After his 2012 Executive order, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border jumped from 7,100 in 2011 to nearly 15,000 in 2012, and now we have already hit more than 57,000 heading to 90,000. Estimates suggest approximately 32,000 unaccompanied minors are projected to cross the border in the remaining months of this fiscal year. We have this egregious funding supplemental before us that would equal more than $110,000 per child who is coming into the country.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues. We do have good colleagues here, and we have great robust debate, and I appreciate the chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski. Moreover, this border supplemental provides the Department with unlimited transfer authority of $1.1 billion--an unlimited ability of up to $1 billion. It becomes, really, a slush fund in that sense. They can use it for anything. Finally, the border supplemental would provide an additional $1.2 billion to the Department of Homeland Security. So I am raising a point of order. And I am sure a motion to waive will be heard. But make no mistake. A vote to suspend the budget rules and to block our point of order is a vote for the President's amnesty; it is a vote for continued chaos. I urge my colleagues to sustain it. The bill before us today is in clear violation of the budget. All the money is borrowed money, it violates the budget, and I raise that point of order.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have not raised it at this point, but I do intend to. I thought we had an understanding so we could make the votes occur at the agreed-upon time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would raise it later.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a $2 billion bill, all the money borrowed as a result of a crisis the President has created at the border, money this country does not have, and there are zero policy changes in it. Republicans on the floor today have filed and argued for a number of amendments and attempted to offer those that are focused on critical policy changes to strengthen this legislation and make it more effective. Unfortunately, the parliamentary maneuvering has been executed, the amendment tree is filled, and we have been prevented from offering any amendments at all that are necessary to establish a lawful system of immigration that works and that we can be proud of. So I move to table the Reid amendment on the tree, 3751, for the purpose of offering the Cruz amendment. That amendment would prohibit the President of the United States from expending any funds to unilaterally provide amnesty and work authorizations for millions of people as has been reported in the press. The Cruz amendment is No. 3720. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pending measure, S. 2648--a bill providing emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2014-- contains a number of provisions in violation of the Budget Act and spends in violation of the Budget Act. Specifically, it contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that was not reported or discharged from the Budget Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I respect the remarks of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but I would note that every penny of this bill is borrowed. None of it is funded through any offsets or other sources of income. This country has to be more careful. The bill needs to go through the Budget Committee. It did not get approved properly there. I would note, again, it is all borrowed. It does not make any policy changes. I think we all should stand firm to reject this bill, and to sustain the point of order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today's Wall Street Journal has an article that should send shivers through every Member of this body. The article reports on what the President is planning to do with regard to executive amnesty, using Executive orders to do that which Congress has refused to do. The article says this: For months, President Barack Obama said there were limits to his power to protect people living illegally in the U.S. from deportation. Now, he is considering broad action to scale back deportations that could include work permits for millions of people, according to lawmakers and immigration advocates who have consulted with the White House. The President has been meeting regularly with immigration activists and he has been promising them things that he has no power to promise. He has promised them things that constitutionally he is not able to do, and this Congress needs to say no to that. We can do that by simply barring the expenditure of money in the future to execute such a scheme. Congressman Blackburn in the House has offered legislation, and Senator Cruz in the Senate has offered legislation, which would do just that. But it is not in the bill we are being asked to provide cloture on that will come up in a few minutes. The article goes on to say--just to stress the stark nature of what is being considered-- The shift in White House thinking came after House Republicans said they wouldn't take up immigration legislation. . . . So the President is saying: I have legislation and the House will not pass it, therefore, I am going to do it myself. It is one of the most pathetic excuses for abuse of power by a court or a President that you can imagine. Congress considered his legislation. He promoted it strongly. Members of both parties have advocated for it. But the House considered it and rejected it. That is an action. That is a decision by the House of Representatives. The President has no power to go beyond that, and I think this Congress--this Senate--has a responsibility to speak to that question and to avoid an issue. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say: An announcement is expected soon after Labor Day, an administration official said. They are going to announce this within weeks. The article goes on to say that it could involve 5 million people or more, and the President said himself he would ``fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress''--without Congress. I will just use my pen. I will just order my officers, who work for me, you know. The Border Patrol, the ICE officers, they work for me. I will just tell them to do A, B, and C. We will just not pay any attention to the fact that plain law, section 274 of the INA, says that a person in the country unlawfully is not entitled to work. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. SESSIONS. He will just do that on his own. So we are now being asked to move forward on legislation that provides no opportunity to even get a vote on this issue. Certainly its text does not fix this problem. Let me be plain, colleagues. There are times when we have to rise above politics. Maybe somebody believes in amnesty, and they would like to see this happen, but we cannot acquiesce in having the President unilaterally do so in an unlawful fashion. The truth is that the people who are refusing to bring language up of this kind and fix it--what they want is to see the President do this. They are for it, they are supporting it, and they have rejected any action, so far at least, to defend the rule of law, defend the Senate, defend the entire Congress's legitimate powers. It is just breathtaking to me. So let me again say, colleagues, we need to take action. This Congress needs to speak. We cannot allow Executive orders to be issued by a President who eradicates plain law. To do so is wrong. The American people are watching this. They are not going to be happy that the Congress did not take action. Expressions of concern among Senators are not enough. We need to bring this up. But Senator Reid, I predict, is not going to allow that to happen, and he is going to be supported by every Member of his Democratic Conference. And every Member of the Democratic Conference, every Member who supports him in this plan, will be, in fact, involved and supportive of the President's plan. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is proper that we note the death of an American patriot who served the U.S. government with dedication for many years. The Nation lost Wayman Gray Sherrer, 86, on March 12, 2014. He graduated from the fine Howard College, now Samford University, where he was senior class president, and the University of Alabama School of Law in the class of 1956. Before college, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Following law school, he served 6 years with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after which he was elected county solicitor (district attorney) for Blount County, AL. In 1969, he was appointed U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and served ably in that position for 8 years. During that time, I served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and came to know him. We maintained contact over the years and were able to talk over those special times. He served his county and country with distinction, was active in community and civic affairs, and as a member of the Lester Memorial United Methodist Church. Wayman loved his country and served her with fidelity. I was proud to know him.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are entering a momentous week. Congress must face the reality that President Obama is moving towards a decision whereby he would issue Executive orders in direct contravention of long-established American law that would grant administrative amnesty and work permits to 5 to 6 million persons who are unlawfully in this country. This is after Congress has explicitly refused demands to change the law to suit his desire. The current law is plain. Those who enter this great Nation by unlawful means, or who overstay their visa, are subject to removal and are ineligible to work. Indeed, I will read one portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274, which makes employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful. ``In general, it is unlawful for any person or other entity to hire or to recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.'' That is the law of the United States. It is plain. Those who enter by unlawful entry are subject to removal and ineligible to work. That is just one of the provisions, and it is our law. Our law is right and just, and it comports with the laws of civilized nations the world over, and if followed, will serve the honorable and legitimate interests of this Nation and her people. The National Journal, Time magazine, The Hill, and others, are reporting that by the end of summer President Obama--sore at Congress, and by implication at the American people--plans, by the stroke of a pen, to do what the law expressly forbids: to provide amnesty and work permits for millions. This would be in the contravention of his duty and his oath to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully enforced, and it would be a direct challenge to the clear powers of Congress to make laws. Congress makes law and the executive branch executes those laws. It is that simple. The President's actions are astonishing and are taking our Nation into exceedingly dangerous waters. Such calculated action strains the constitutional structure of our Republic. Such unlawful and unconstitutional action, if taken, cannot stand. No Congress--with Republicans or Democrats in the majority--can allow such action to occur or to be maintained. The people will not stand for it. They must not stand for it. Mr. President: My petition is that you pull back. It is utterly unacceptable for you to meet with special interest groups, such as the National Council of La Raza and others, and then promise an action to them that is contrary to law. Such actions would be wrong. It would be an affront to the people of this country which they will never forget. It would be a permanent stain on your Presidency. I urge you to make clear you will not do this. I am not suggesting negotiations or any parley or any compromise. There is no middle ground on nullifying immigration law by the President. Some of your people--maybe bright, young staffers--think the President can intimidate Congress, that the Chief Executive can make such a threat and the lawmakers will just cower under their desks. That is wrong, sir. You cannot intimidate Congress--or the American people who sent them here, for that matter. Simply put, that which you desire is beyond your lawful reach. This is the time for administration officials to urge restraint within the White House. It is critical that the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House legal counsel do their duty and give the only advice they can give: ``Do not do this, Mr. President.'' ``You cannot do this, Mr. President.'' That is what they need to say. They know that is the right answer, and they should stand up and say no. Some of the best work advisers can do is to head off a disaster before it happens. CEOs, business types, politicians, Governors, and mayors get headstrong sometimes. In those instances, to avoid disaster, their advisers need to stand up and be counted. Just as the unlawful DACA amnesty for young people created an unprecedented and unlawful flow of more young people, that initiative has now, it seems, encouraged the President to take even more unlawful action for millions of adults this time, the papers say, by a 10-fold increase. If millions are given amnesty by Executive order, we can be sure that the result will be that even more adults--by the millions-- will be coming here unlawfully in the future. It will collapse any remaining moral authority of our immigration law and undermine the sovereignty of our Nation. If you don't have a legitimate, lawful system of immigration that you can enforce and abide by, then you have undermined the very sovereignty of your Nation. It amounts, in effect, to an open borders policy that has never been the policy of any developed Nation that I am aware of and has been rejected by Congress and the American people repeatedly. In effect, the President is preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in America: Well, I'll just enforce what I wish to enforce, with the absolute power to determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says--by the millions. Our response now is of great import. It will define the scope of executive and congressional powers for years to come. If President Obama is not stopped in this action and exceeds his powers by attempting to execute such a massive amnesty contrary to law, the moral authority for any immigration enforcement henceforth will be eviscerated. Anyone the world over will get the message: Get into America by any method you can and you will never have to leave. We are almost there, but it is not too late. I have studied this issue. It is absolutely not too late for us to restore a lawful system that treats applicants who come to America fairly and serves the national interest. This can be done; we just need a Chief Executive who leads. Let me state a warning. For the more purely political in Washington, the results of the recent primary elections show that the American people are being roused to action and, once activated, their power will be felt. They will not be mocked. They have begged and pleaded for our Nation's immigration laws to be enforced for 30 or 40 years. The politicians have refused-- refused, refused, refused. They have defeated amnesty after amnesty after amnesty, and they will not sit back and allow the President to implement through unlawful fiat what they have defeated through the democratic process. They must not yield to this. There is one thing that powers in Washington fear, and that is being voted out of office. Before a Member of Congress acquiesces to any action of this kind, they should consider their responsibility to their constituents. No Member in either party--Republican or Democrat--should support any border legislation that moves through this Senate that does not expressly prohibit these planned executive actions by the President, and that prohibits any expenditure of funds to implement them. There can be no retreat on this point. We simply need to say the Chief Executive of these United States cannot expend any money to execute a plan of amnesty. Surely that would end it. All of this is grim talk, but the situation is stark. Congressional action this week to bar unilateral, imperial action by the President is surely the best course to head off what could be a constitutional crisis. It will be good for the President because it will stop him from taking a step that will permanently mar his Presidency and the office of the President. It will avoid a major governmental disruption at a time when the Nation faces many threats. It will protect the rule of law and the constitutional order whereby Congress makes laws and the President executes them, whether he likes them or not. We have heard it said the President must act because Congress refused to act. Well, that is not so. Congress considered his proposal, they looked at existing law today, and Congress made a decision. They did not pass what the President proposed. They decided to stay with current law. So I would say that is a decision and a clear action by Congress. And his statement that Congress doesn't act; therefore, I can use my pen to act--it is not correct. It is absolutely false and contrary to our constitutional traditions. Pulling back at this time will avoid a major governmental disruption at a time when we are facing threats all over the world. There is much instability. As someone said, the wheels seem to be coming off in every area of the globe and at home. The last thing we need is a major, intense, internal battle with the President over illegal actions he would like to take. It will also help reestablish the constitutional power of Congress to make laws and perhaps mark the end of this Congress's acquiescence to executive overreach. Professor Jonathan Turley has expressed amazement that Congress has been silent in the face of some of the most imperial Presidential actions ever, and he explicitly considers President Obama's actions on immigration to be one of those. But there are a host of others. It will stop millions of work authorizations for those who would then be able to take any job in America at a time of high unemployment and falling wages. In this way, standing up to the President's action would protect American workers. We have the largest percentage of working-age Americans who are unemployed since the 1970s, and people need to know that a lot of the recent job numbers that are cited with such positive spin include unprecedented numbers of individuals on part-time work. These are not full-time jobs, many of them. An unprecedentedly high number of those jobs are part-time jobs. We are not doing well. This country does not have a shortage of labor. It just does not. It has a shortage of jobs. And recent immigrants--Hispanics and others who are coming to America--are having a hard time getting jobs too. Would it help them to have millions more competing for the limited number of jobs out there? Would it help poor working people all over America? Would it help African Americans? The experts tell us absolutely not. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that if this kind of mass amnesty were to be adopted, wages in America would fall for a decade. So let this clearly be known: The Congress of the United States and the President of the United States are given only limited powers by our Constitution. They are not unlimited. Neither the President nor Congress can do anything it wants to do. It was set up that way from the very beginning. Mr. President: You work for the American people. They don't work for you, and they will not accept nullification of their law passed by their elected representatives. The American people are not going to accept it. They are going to fight this. I am confident they will. They will resist. Every Member of this Congress--Republican or Democrat--will face a time of choosing this week. Directly or indirectly, every Member will be asked to support and cosponsor legislation that would stop these actions by the President. It is not hard to do. It will be a simple choice that people will remember: Do you support and approve the President's proposed actions? For those who cosponsor legislation to stop this illegality, their answer will be clear. For those who refuse to take simple action to stop it, they will have voted to enable what the National Journal has rightly called ``explosive action'' by the President. ``Explosive action.'' And, indeed it is. This immigration debate is important. People have invested time and energy and heart and soul into it, on both sides. Good people have debated it. Congress has made a decision. The President is not now entitled unilaterally to assert his position. Indeed, he told some of these activist groups not long ago that he did not have the power to do what they were asking him to do. Now he suggests he does before the end of the summer. So I am calling on all Members of Congress today to stand up to these lawless actions and sponsor legislation that will block them. I am calling on all Members of Congress today to oppose any border supplemental that does not include such language. I am calling on every person in this body, and in the House of Representatives, to stand and be counted at this perilous hour. I am calling on the American people to ask their representatives: Where do you stand on this, Senator? Where do you stand on this, Congressman? All of us were elected by American citizens to serve them and to serve and honor their Constitution that is our birthright. Will we answer that call? Where will history record that each of us stood at this important time? I believe the answer should be clear: We stand for law. We stand for the Constitution. We stand for an honorable, lawful immigration system that treats everyone fairly and serves the national interests of the people of the United States. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Texas. I think what he is saying is reflected in what Professor Turley said. It is almost like a plea to his colleague, maybe his Democratic colleague, his friend. He said: ``The President's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge.'' In other words, his ability to get away with it; that Congress acquiesces in it. Let me say this the President is not going to get away with a unilateral amnesty. We are going to take this to the American people, and at some point this Congress will be held to account if he does so. Remember, every Member is going to have to vote and be responsible for allowing a President to run roughshod over the law of this country, the people's representatives, and, in effect, the people of the United States. His plan for amnesty, under the circumstances he advocated them, has been rejected. Congress is always available to consider any issue and make any decision it chooses, but it has, under the circumstances driven in this body, been rejected. He has no power to go forward and beyond that, and we are not going to allow it to happen. It is wrong. Whether we agree or disagree about how amnesty should be given, it is wrong for the President to unilaterally execute such a policy, as Professor Turley said and as the Senator from Texas has said, the former solicitor general of the State of Texas. He understands it is law, and this matter is not over. We will continue to advocate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas because it, indeed, is the face of amnesty. He has documented for us, I think indisputably, that this surge of immigration was a result of the amnesty provided for these children by the President of the United States. I think that has been shown. I think we have never had a clearer analysis of it. I am reading now further in the National Journal article about what the President plans to do next. The concern we have is about the future. I am not making this up, colleagues. This is a very real action the President is considering, as I read from that chart on amnesty. He would execute, contrary to law, what would give legal status and work status to 5 to 6 million people, 10 times the number that he has been provided for in this action. What did the National Journal report? Well, I am quoting here. The President also told a group--This is the group of La Raza and other activist groups that are demanding amnesty and, really, open borders. He told them that Boehner, the Speaker of the House ``urged him not to press ahead with executive actions because that would make legislating more difficult next year.'' In other words, Speaker Boehner said: Do not use this executive amnesty in the future, Mr. President. So now the President is talking to the group, these activists that have been pushing him and demanding things. This is what the article says. Obama told the group, according to those present, his response to Boehner was: `Sorry about that. I'm going to keep my promise and move forward with executive action soon.' It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck as a former Federal prosecutor in Federal court for almost 15 years to have the President say this. The article went on to say: In the room, there was something of a collective, electric gasp. The assembled immigration-rights groups had been leaning hard on Obama for months to use executive action to sidestep Congress and privately mocked what they regarded as Pollyanna hopes that House Republicans would budge . . . Obama told the groups what they had been dying to hear--that he was going to condemn House Republicans for inaction and . . . provide legal status to millions of undocumented workers--all by himself.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I am not. One of the things I think the American people do need to understand is when Majority Leader Reid, in conjunction with the President of the United States, blocks even amendments up for a vote, where does he get his power? He gets his power from every Member of his conference. None of them are breaking in and saying: This is not right. Senator Cruz's bill would deal with this future danger, that the President might do this again. I think--and we have looked at it hard, our Judiciary staff--we both serve on that committee--and have said this will actually work to ensure that we don't have another rogue action, unlawful, by the President of the United States, directly contrary to deciding the will of the American people and congressional action. The President is happy that Congress doesn't pass his law, and he says: They won't act, so I will. But, colleagues, when we don't act, we act. That is an act. It is a decision as sure as if we had passed a law. A decision not to act is a decision. The President of the United States can't simply go around and say: I can do anything I want because Congress won't act. How ridiculous is that? A National Journal article calls this policy explosive, and I believe that is a direct action. One more question. Senator Cruz, I know, is a student of the Constitution, and Professor Turley at George Washington University has testified numerous times before Congress. I think he considers himself a Democrat, a liberal, but he is deeply concerned about the future of our Republic because of the President's overreach and exceeding the lawful powers given to the President. Is some other President going to expand it further and very soon Congress becomes nothing? I would ask if the Senator shares this concern, because he was very active in the attorney general's office in Texas. Professor Turley said: The President's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid . . . What we're witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that members of this body will face. . . . It has reached a constitutional tipping point that threatens a fundamental change in how our country is governed. Does that cause the Senator concern and does he have any thoughts about that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are dealing with a very disturbing crisis on our borders. The situation that has developed is unbelievable. It is unbelievable how rapidly it has developed, but it has, indeed, been building up for more than a year. It is a direct and predictable result of the President's policies and not enforcing the laws of the United States when it comes to immigration. It is a very sad day, and it can only end when the President stops suspending laws and starts enforcing laws. The President is the chief law enforcement officer in America. Every Border Patrol officer, every ICE officer, every Coast Guard officer, every military officer, every Department of Justice employee, and FBI employee works for him. He supervises them and directs them. He has been directing them not to enforce the law rather than to enforce the law. The evidence of that is undeniable. The law enforcement officers--the ICE officers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--sued their supervisor directly appointed by President Obama for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to enforce the laws of the United States of America. There is a Federal court case that is still ongoing, and the judge found, at least at one point in his order, that the President has no right to direct officers not to comply with the law. We now know that we are facing an exceedingly grave threat of an unbelievable expansion of his unilateral Executive orders of amnesty that go beyond anything we have ever seen in this country and which threatens the very constitutional framework of our Republic and the very ability of this Nation to even have borders, it seems to me, and certainly to create a lawful, equitable, consistent enforcement in our country. The respected newspaper National Journal, which is here in Washington, a nonpartisan and respected organization, reported on July 3--and a lot of people have missed this, and we need to know what this is saying. We need to know what it means, and we need, as Members of Congress and this Senate, to resist it. We cannot allow it to happen. We will not allow it to happen. The American people, when they find out what is being discussed, will not allow it to happen, in my opinion. Congress needs to be directed by the people--I hate to say--to resist it. It says: Obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to the limit. He gave quiet credence to recommendations from La Raza and other immigration groups that between 5 million to 6 million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for the so-called Dreamers in June 2012. The DREAMers being the young people. Five to 6 million would be given legal status in the United States of America when they have entered contrary to law or are in the country contrary to law and are not entitled to work in America. The article goes on to say: Obama has now ordered the Homeland Security and Justice departments to find executive authorities that could enlarge that non-prosecutorial umbrella by a factor of 10. Senior officials also tell me Obama wants to see what he can do with Executive power to provide temporary legal status to undocumented adults. What we know is with the children's group, they were provided with an ID card that at the top of it, in big print, says, ``employee authorization card.'' This is exactly what is being talked about here, what the President of the United States is saying. Remember, the Congress has been asked by activist groups and certain business interests to provide an amnesty for people who are here. The Congress has declined to do so. It has been fully and openly debated and has not passed into law. That is the decision of the Congress. That is the decision we have made--the duly elected body that passes laws. As such, they not having been given amnesty, the President of the United States is not entitled to do so. By declaration of duly passed law, people aren't entitled to come to America unlawfully, to come to America and stay unlawfully. They are not entitled to do that. How simple is this? They are not entitled to be able to take jobs if they do. They are not entitled to certain government benefits if they come illegally. Of course they are not. Of course they are not able to work and take jobs and get benefits if they came into the country illegally. So when this first got talked about in more general terms, 22 Members of the Senate wrote President Obama and questioned what we are hearing. The Senators wrote this: These policies have operated as an effective repeal of duly enacted federal immigration law and exceed the bounds of the Executive Branch's prosecutorial discretion. It is not the province of the Executive to nullify the laws that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have chosen to enact. To the contrary, it is the duty of the Executive to take care that these laws are faithfully executed. Congress has not passed laws permitting people to illegally enter the country or to ignore their visa expiration dates, so long as they do not have a felony conviction or other severe offense on their record. Your actions demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens and legal residents. Our entire constitutional system-- The letter goes on to say-- is threatened when the Executive Branch suspends the law at its whim and our nation's sovereignty is imperiled when the commander-in-chief refuses to defend the integrity of its borders. You swore an oath-- The letter says to the President-- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We therefore ask you to uphold that oath and to carry out the duties required by the Constitution and entrusted to you by the American people. The President is limited. He is not all-powerful. He is entrusted with certain limited powers by the people of the United States of America. Now we understand he intends to go even further. In the response we got back, he never addressed it at all, except for his Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. He announced that, yes, he is indeed, at the order of the President of the United States, conducting a review of how many other people he can provide this amnesty for and work authorization for. So last week one of our able colleagues, Senator Ted Cruz--a former solicitor general for the attorney general's office in Texas who has argued cases in appellate courts in the country--identified this problem and proposed I think a legislative fix that every Member of this body should sign. Some may say, Well, the President, I don't think he is going to do this. OK. Why not bar him from doing it? Some say, I don't think we should sign it. Why not? He basically said he has already done it with the younger group, and he said it is going to be a tenfold increase in the 5 million to 6 million people who are suggested to be legalized by the President's unilateral Executive order; represents about 10 times the number of people who have already been given lawful status, in effect, by the President's unlawful Executive order. At this time perhaps it would be appropriate, and I would appreciate it, if the Senator from Texas would explain his analysis of this issue and how his legislation would be effective in ensuring that we don't go down this illegal road any further.