Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be voting soon on confirmation of Ms. Lynch to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. That office is a part of the President's Cabinet, but it also is the office of the chief law officer for America. The Attorney General is the top official in our government who is required to adhere to the law, even to the point of telling the President `no' if he gets it in his head, as Presidents sometimes do, to do something that violates the law--just as corporate lawyers sometimes do for the CEO of corporations. `Mr. President, you can't do this. This is wrong. Don't do this.' Some Attorneys General have been known to resign before they would carry out policies that violate the law. We are deeply concerned in this country about the President's Executive amnesty--the unlawfulness of it, the breadth of it, and the arrogance of it to the point that it is a direct assault on congressional power and legitimacy, a direct attack on laws passed by the People's representatives; we have a big problem. Ms. Lynch has said flat-out that she supports those policies and is committed to defending them in court against any complaint about them. I think Congress has a real role here. We do not have to confirm someone to the highest law enforcement position in America if that person is publicly committed to denigrating Congress, violating the laws of Congress, or violating even the wishes of Congress and the American people. We do not have to confirm anybody. It is a power Congress is given. The President is asserting powers he has never been given anywhere in the Constitution or by the American people, but if we don't confirm Ms. Lynch, we will be doing what we have a right to do, and what I think we should do. I am pleased that Mr. Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted some of the top terrorist cases in America as a former U.S. attorney or as an assistant U.S. attorney, is very critical and is very strongly of the belief that Ms. Lynch should not be confirmed. He says this: A vote against Ms. Lynch's confirmation is not an assessment that she has performed incompetently or unethically in her prior government positions. It is a vote against the President's blatantly unconstitutional policy and against Ms. Lynch's support of that policy. Senators are bound by oath to uphold the Constitution; Ms. Lynch's prior, laudable record as a federal prosecutor cannot overcome her commitment to violating the Constitution. We have a right to assert that. We are paid to make decisions about that. I think that Mr. McCarthy is correct. Congress was given certain powers as a coequal branch of government, not only to protect the Congress as an institution but to restrain other government branches from overreaching. One of those powers is the Senate's power to confirm or not confirm, and this check on Executive powers can be used as Congress sees fit. But it should not be abused, just as the President should not use his nominees to abuse the Constitution or to advance an unlawful agenda. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country. This is not traditionally a political position. It is a law position. Anyone who occupies the office must serve the American people under the laws and the Constitution of the United States. They are not above the law. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the President is subjected to the laws. It has always been the case and always has been a part of the law of the land. The Senate must never confirm an individual to an office such as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. We do not need to be apologetic about it. Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance the President's unlawful Executive amnesty scheme--a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year--according to the Congressional Research Service--and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered our country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The President has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation he supports that would allow this scheme to be implemented. He asked for it, Congress considered it, and Congress said `no.' President Obama's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive action nullifies current immigration law to a degree most people have not fully grasped. The Immigration and Nationality Act is the law of the land, and his actions replace it with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George III didn't have the power to legislate without Parliament. During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the President's unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the transcript: Mr. Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question--Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20 is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no? Ms. Lynch: As I've read the opinion,-- That is, the opinion of the Department of Justice, which would be under her supervision-- I do believe it is, Senator. Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one that she or the President wish existed. One of the most stunning elements of the President's scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants--taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants in our country at a time of high unemployment and low wages. Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities suffering from high unemployment. He says: Those citizens who are suffering from high unemployment and low wages have their rights undermined when the President ignores plain law that protects them from an excessive surge of illegal workers. So at her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of U.S. workers. By the way, Attorney General Holder, our current Attorney General, astoundingly, in comments he made some months ago, declared that there is a civil right to citizenship in America for people who enter the country unlawfully. How can this possibly be, that the Attorney General can get so removed from his responsibility to enforce the law that he says that if someone comes into the country unlawfully, they have a civil right to citizenship? That was part of the reason I asked her this question: Mr. Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who's here or a citizen--or a person who entered the country unlawfully? Ms. Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. So this individual would be the chief law enforcement of our country, and I believe that is a fundamentally flawed statement and comment. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a right to a job when the law says if you are here illegally, you cannot work. This Nation is--as George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified a number of times here, often called by a number of our Democratic colleagues, put it--at ``a constitutional tipping point.'' Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, nine months before the President announced his unprecedented executive action, and said: The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this President will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the Chief Executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point of our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this President leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. One of those means is the advice and consent power to approve or disapprove nominees for high office. It was created for just such a time as this. It is a legitimate constitutional power of Congress. It is not only appropriate but necessary that the Senate refuse to confirm a President's nominee when that President has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the President's nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the President's unconstitutional overreach--all through powers of the office to which they have been nominated. Mr. President, we have a number of problems with regard to executive branch overreach and executive branch failure to be responsive to Congress. When Members of Congress ask legitimate questions, we often don't get answers from the people who are paid by the taxpayers and who are authorized by us. I believe that is another matter we need to consider before we confirm people. The Department of Justice has been recalcitrant too often in producing information it should produce. I wish to go a little bit further because some of this goes to the core of the issues before us. Is this just a policy dispute between Congress and the President? No, it goes much deeper than that. The actions of the President are stunning--beginning with his so-called Morton memos. He had an underling carry out orders to achieve what he wanted done, which is often how he has proceeded with these unlawful activities. I will point out some of them. Beginning with the Morton memos in 2011--under the guise of prosecutorial discretion based on limited resources--the Administration began to flaunt clearly written provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such as section 235, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to place illegal aliens into removal proceedings to be deported once they are found. Section 235 requires DHS to do that, they do not have any discretion there. In direct contradiction of clearly written law, the Morton memos generally directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to refuse to initiate removal proceedings against certain aliens, and to administratively close or terminate such proceedings if they had been initiated. Thus began the opening salvo in the Administration's assault on our immigration laws. This is huge. Officers respond to the President's leadership. The following year, June 2012, the Administration created, through Executive fiat, a program that Congress consistently refused to enact into law--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. This program not only shielded certain illegal aliens from the threat of removal, but it also provided them with work authorization, the ability to travel outside of the United States without fear of being refused reentry through grants of advanced parole. It gave them a Social Security number and a photo ID. By the way, colleagues, this resulted in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers being so concerned at this radical reversal of the laws of the United States that they filed a lawsuit against their supervisors asserting that they were being required to violate the law of the United States rather than being allowed to carry out their sworn duty, which was to enforce the laws of the United States. The judge was sympathetic to the matter, but for technical and legal reasons, concluded that the case would not go forward, but I believe it is still on appeal now. This is remarkable. There are law officers--many of them have been in law enforcement for 10, 20, 30 years--who sued their supervisors because they were being ordered to violate the law instead of enforce the law. We ought to listen to them. They have repeatedly told us that what is happening is outrageous and they pleaded with Congress to stop it. But then in November of last year, after Congress refused to pass the Administration's preferred legislation providing amnesty to illegal aliens, the Administration created, through Executive fiat, a number of other programs that further eroded enforcement of our immigration laws. Notably, the two most visible programs are the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA Program, and an expanded version of DACA, both of which were blessed by the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Attorney General--wrong, unlawful actions blessed by the chief law enforcement officer in the country. Less visible are policies that prevent the enforcement of immigration laws against certain criminal aliens, such as the November 20, 2014 memorandum from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.'' That memo excludes from enforcement priority categories whole categories of criminal offenses defined in sections 2(a)(2) and 237(a)(2) of the INA. We have observed a decimation of law enforcement in this country involving immigration as a direct result of the President's determination to create an immigration system that he believes is right, but the People, through their elected Congress, have refused to make law. This is a direct threat to who we are. Professor Turley is so insightful about this issue. This is not some rightwing extremist. In testimony before the House committee, he said: I believe the President has exceeded his brief. The President is required to faithfully execute the laws. He goes on to say: This goes to the very heart of what is the Madisonian system. If a president can unilaterally change the meaning of laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes offline that very thing that stabilizes our system. I believe the members will loathe the day that they allow that to happen. There will be more presidents who will claim the same authority. When I teach constitutional law, I often ask my students, what is the limiting principle of your argument? When that question is presented to this White House, too often it's answered in the first person, that the President is the limiting principle or at least the limiting person. We can't rely on that type of assurance in our system. Madison knew no one can be given total power without limits. Professor Turley goes on to say: The problem of what the President is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid: that is, the concentration of power in any single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one, but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. When asked explicitly if he believed the President violated the Constitution, he said, as I quoted before, ``The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable. And within that system you have the rise of an uber presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty, and I really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated themselves to was creating this orbital balance, and we've lost it. . . . '' He goes on to say to Congress as a challenge to us: I believe that [Congress] is facing a critical crossroads in terms of continued relevance in this process. What this body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president. I think that's where we are . . . [A] president cannot ignore an express statement on policy grounds . . . [In] terms of the institutional issue . . . look around you. Is this truly the body that existed when it was formed? So he was sitting there in the House of Representatives and he was talking to Members of Congress and said: . . . look around you. Is this truly the body that existed when it was formed? Does it have the same gravitational pull and authority that was given to it by its framers? You're the keepers of this authority. You took an oath to uphold it. And the framers assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal and, frankly, ambition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch. I think we need to--without apology--defend the law, and I think this is in the Congress' interest. Congress should not confirm someone to lead the U.S. Department of Justice who will advance this unconstitutional policy. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the rule of law and itself as an institution and to stop the executive branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order--an escalating pattern of overreach by the President. Every day that we allow the President to erode the powers of the Congress, we are allowing the President to erode the sacred constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue to violate them. I will oppose this nomination and urge my colleagues to do so. I think we should see a bipartisan vote rejecting this nomination, and in doing so, Congress will send a clear message that we expect the President to abide by the law passed by Congress, not to violate it. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this legislation has not gone through the regular order in the Senate. It will add $174 billion to the debt. It is subject to seven different budget points of order. We have had a series of budget point of order votes where we have affirmed the budget and the responsibility we have to adhere to it. Let's do the right thing. Let's tell the House, which tried to send this bill over at 3:30 in the morning for us to pass right before we recessed after the budget votes, that, yes, we are absolutely committed to fixing the doctors' payments and in a responsible, long-term way, but it needs to be paid for in a responsible, long-term way. Upholding the budget point of order does not kill the bill; it sends it back to committee to make sure it is fully paid for. So let's not be afraid tonight. Let's say to our House colleagues: Colleagues, we agree with you on your vote, but we must pay for this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I need to make a budget point of order.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pending measure, H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, violates section 311(b) of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution by causing a net increase in the long-term deficit in excess of $5 billion in the 10- year period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 311(b) of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been a strong advocate and a believer that it is time for us to fix the physicians' payment method for Medicare and Medicaid--for the providing of health care by doctors--and put it on a permanent basis right now. We have 17 times passed last-minute legislation to avoid what now would be a 21-percent cut in doctors' reimbursement rates for doing Medicare work. That is not acceptable. We need to end that. They do not need to be worried every year whether or not Congress is going to cut their pay. In fact, they cannot do the work with a 20-percent cut. They will not do it, they can't do it financially, and it would be devastating to Medicare. I believe that, and I think all of us believe in that. The 17 different times when this issue has come up since 2003 we have paid for it. Republicans in particular have insisted that we will find the money through some sort of other reduction in government spending and move that over to pay for this critical need, without which Medicare would collapse. I thought now that we want to do it permanently, it should be done in a way that is financially sound and does not add to the debt and has good policy in it. Some of my colleagues have already talked about the policy that would be in this legislation. I am not prepared to be a big critic of that. I am sure it could be done in different ways. My focus right now is just based on my experience from the Committee on the Budget and the spending we are doing in Congress to try to get the thing done right. It must be paid for. The bill to be advanced today contains over 250 pages. It was rushed through the House of Representatives with the promises that ``it pays for all new future spending'' and ``it offsets all new spending.'' Well, both of those statements are not true. That is just not true. The bill is not paid for and it does not offset the new spending. Because of a desire to get this fixed, an attempt was made by the House so the Senate, on the night we completed work on the budget at 3 a.m. before recess, would pass this bill without even having a good official score--at least not one we were able to examine over a period of time--and without any knowledge of what was in the bill. Senator McConnell and Members of the Congress said: No, we are not going to rush this through--$200-something billion in expenditures over 10 years--at 3 a.m. in the morning with nobody having had a chance to look at it. We had some 700 amendments filed to the Budget Act so we didn't pass it that night. It has been moved forward now, and we have a deadline tonight. Presumably, if we don't fix something tonight, physicians will begin to see cuts in their pay. Of course, too often that is what happens around here. Too often a bill that is not sound financially is moved at the very last minute and Members are told: If you don't pass it now, then something bad is going to happen. In this case, doctors, whom we respect and admire and need, are not going to be able to get the pay they deserve and have been receiving, and they are going to be hurt by these cuts. Well, there are opportunities to extend this. We could pass legislation this afternoon, tonight, that would extend this for a period of time, if need be, but the reason we are at the end, the last minute, is because it was designed that way. Only days after passing the Senate budget, that we were proud to see balanced with a $3 billion surplus, we are talking about passing new legislation that would add $174 billion to the debt over the next 10 years. Another estimate shows that over 20 years it is a $500 billion addition to the debt of the United States--one-half of a trillion dollars. The bill violates the Budget Act. The Budget Control Act, which we passed in 2011, set a limit on how much spending could occur. There may be as many as eight--let me repeat, eight--violations of budget rules that are involved in this legislation. The Committee on the Budget is looking at this, and these are the numbers it may violate. One, it likely violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act by spending in excess of the budget allocation of the Committee on Finance for the next fiscal year, over the next 5 years, and over the next 10 years. Two, it may violate section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act by spending $7.4 billion in excess of the aggregate spending top line agreed to for fiscal year 2015--this year we are in. Three, it likely violates the Senate pay-go rules. The bill increases the on-budget deficit by $74 billion over both the 5- and 10-year budget periods, thus exceeding the balance on the Senate pay-go scorecard. Four, H.R. 2 increases short-term deficits. Over the 10-year budget window it would increase deficits by $141 billion. Now, $141 billion and $174 billion, what is the difference? Well, when you spend $141 billion more than you are supposed to over 10 years, financed by deficit spending, all of that money, every penny of it, is borrowed in order to be spent, which means you have to pay interest on the money you borrow. So it is not $141 billion, it is $174 billion. That includes the interest on the $141 billion over 10 years that has been accumulated and will continue to accumulate in the next decade and the decade after that. Five, the bill increases long-term deficits. Six, it may violate section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act by including language that falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget that has not been reported or discharged from the Committee on the Budget. Seven, it likely violates section 303(a) of the Budget Act by creating new spending in a fiscal year without a budget resolution. Eight, it may violate section 401 of the Budget Act by creating new entitlement spending during the fiscal year. We tried to contain ourselves, and one of the things we rightly did was to create a budget violation aimed to prevent the creation of new entitlement programs during the current fiscal year. So these are not technical violations, as it might appear to some. They are mechanisms by which the crafters of the Budget Act deliberately tried to contain the Senate from figuring out ways to gimmick and get around spending limits. They created all these steps, each one based on history, for the most part in order to stop abuses. So it violates these provisions because it spends more money than we are supposed to be able to spend and more than what we agreed to spend. So H.R. 2 increases long-term deficits. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's letter to Speaker Boehner, enacting this bill in its current form would increase the Nation's long-term deficits. Long-term deficits are those deficits created after the first 10 years of the current budget window. A lot of times they will write a bill so it looks as if it is OK for 10 years, knowing that in the future it will add to the debt. But nobody cares about that. So we made a budget point of order to try to identify long-term abuses--a good provision, I submit. About a month or so ago we had before the Budget Committee, a professor from Boston University, I believe, who talked about the real threat to America's financial condition. He said that we are on an unsustainable path, that we cannot continue on this path, and that it will result in financial dislocation and damage to America. And the most important thing to consider is this: What will a piece of legislation do to the long-term liabilities of the United States? Does it add to our unfunded liabilities or not? We need to be reducing our unfunded liabilities because they are so great--hundreds of trillions of dollars--and those unfunded liabilities financially threaten the very future of America. This adds to that. We need to be figuring out ways to reduce the unfunded liabilities. I thought that is what our goal was. That is why we passed a budget that balances. According to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis, ``taken as a whole, H.R. 2 would raise federal costs relative to current law in the second decade after enactment.'' In other words, it increases the deficit in the second decade. Some have tried to argue that in the second decade there is extra money coming in, in some way, and it will all be paid for--not so. So let me explain. In its report to Speaker Boehner, the report that was used by the House as it proceeded to vote on this bill, the Congressional Budget Office indicated that not only would H.R. 2 increase short-term deficits by $141 billion over the next 10 years but it would also increase long-term deficits over both, the first and second 10-year windows. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that this legislation would add a half trillion dollars to the debt in the next 20 years. Half a trillion is real money--$500 billion. We are struggling right now to figure out how we can permanently fix our highway bill so we have a long-term highway bill that is paid for. We need about $10 billion, $15 billion a year to achieve that. We are seeing a reduction in gasoline revenues. Congress wants to spend more than that, and we are looking for that money. This is over $500 billion over 20 years, and $174 billion over 10. These are huge sums of money. The Federal highway bill is now under $50 billion a year. Federal aid to education is about $100 billion a year. This is just indicative of how much we are overspending. The Office of the Actuary at CMS--the chief financial officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--is responsible for conducting and directing the actuarial program for CMS and directing the development and analysis of health care financing issues. On April 9, Mr. Spitalnic released a review of the estimated financial effects of this legislation. Analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation actuaries indicates that the drafters of the bill actually double-counted funds. While the bill anticipates higher premiums for Medicare Parts B and D and cuts to Medicare Part A, those savings would be $55 billion and $32 billion, respectively. Medicare Part A is the trust fund American working people's money goes into off their paychecks every week. So most Americans believe they pay for Medicare. And they do, for the most part, although we are now taking in less money than is going out to a significant degree. So what did this bill do? This bill cuts the expenditures for Medicare Part A, the trust fund part, and it claims that money--$32 billion and $55 billion, respectively--is now available to spend on the physicians to pay for their fix. But the physicians' Medicare part-- when you go to a doctor and Medicare pays for that--that is not trust fund money. That is general revenue Treasury money. So what has happened? They are cutting the reimbursements of hospitals and doctors. They claim it won't affect the benefits accrued to people who need health care, but it probably will. To cut the cost of providers of health care services, in effect, reduces the benefits that actually go to the patient. So how does that money get from the trustees of Medicare--who are supposed to manage this program and take the money in that comes off our paychecks and goes to Medicare--to paying for something outside of Medicare Part A? They take an oath to be responsible and faithful to the trust as trustees of Medicare. They don't give it to the U.S. Treasury. They loan it. There is a debt instrument. The money is loaned to them and the Federal Government pays interest. That is where we get the 30-some odd billion dollars in interest over 10 years--part of it. The money that is being used to fund the portion that they claim is actually paid for I say is not paid for. The Congressional Budget Office has told us this technique is double counting. The money cannot be used to benefit Medicare and, at the same time, fund a new expenditure. We really have to watch this. It is something I have come to realize is one of the biggest gimmicks the Senate uses. When ObamaCare was passed--on December 23, the night before it passed, we got a letter from the Congressional Budget Office at my request. I read it on the floor on December 24, the day the bill passed. It said, I think, there was $400 billion, $500 billion in double-counted money they said was available to fund the Affordable Care Act. Colleagues, we have got to be careful. A country goes broke by managing money this way--huge sums of money. Beyond this gimmick, CMS Actuary Spitalnic goes on to say that H.R. 2 raises ``important long-range concerns that would almost certainly need to be addressed by future legislation.'' When the bill's 5 percent annual bonuses in physician payments expire as scheduled in 2024--9 years from today--a major payment cut from most physicians would follow the next year, according to his report. The payment structure would also be troublesome in years with high inflation. So, in essence, by 2024, another round of doc fixes would be needed. In other words, not only does this bill add massively to the debt and engage in--I hate to say this--improper accounting, but it also fails to even provide the long-term solution it promises. It promises we are going to have a permanent fix of the payments of physicians. But this bill is not a permanent fix, and within 9 years we are going to be back in a situation that is unacceptable and has to be dealt with again by spending more money. By making these cuts in the outyears, the real costs are hidden. We have a proposal that provides increases for doctors for the next 9 years and then begins to show reductions, and it claims, somehow, that this is going to pay for it. But Congress is not going to allow those reductions to take place either, because we are not going to be cutting doctors 5 percent a year for any 1 year, most likely. It is not too late to make things right. The bill needs to go through regular order. It hasn't gone through our committee in the Senate. The House said the bill was going through the regular order. It hasn't gone through the regular order. It hasn't been through a committee where members have the chance to offer amendments. It is coming up on the floor. We are hardly having any amendments. I understand maybe we will have three amendments on each side. That is a pretty minuscule discussion when it supposedly has to be passed in a day. So the discussions will take place at midnight tonight. Colleagues, we have to understand the importance of what we are doing. This legislation adds almost $200 billion to the debt in the next 10 years. It breaks our past commitment and the precedent we have established to pay for these doc fixes. In fact, I have been most insistent that before we put the extra money for the physicians, we find a pay-for--some responsible reduction in spending elsewhere--so we can set priorities and pay for the doctors. This is substantially abandoned in this legislation. I think it disregards Congress's commitment to honest accounting, the principles that we have established about how to accurately calculate the cost of legislation. It breaks the budget we had agreed to in 2011--the spending reductions in the Budget Control Act--and it violates the budget the Senate just passed a couple of weeks ago. We need to think this through. I hate to object because I truly believe we need to take care of physicians' payments. It is absolutely wrong, and Congress has been negligent in failing to address this for years. It has been over a decade that we haven't dealt responsibly with this. So I salute the House colleagues for saying we are going to develop a bill that fixes this over time. Unfortunately, it is not a permanent fix, as I originally thought it would be, but, it is also not a responsible fix, a grownup fix. The kind of action for which the American people depend on Congress, and hope to see, is not occurring because this bill adds to the debt. We want to do something. We want to fix the doctors' problem, but we don't want to cut spending anywhere else. Faced with that difficult choice, this legislation--at least to a two-thirds degree--does what we too often do: We just spend the money, commit to spending the money, and then add it to our credit card. We add it to the debt that is $18 trillion now and growing dramatically, producing for us an annual interest payment of $220 billion and putting us on a path--according to the Congressional Budget Office--of an almost $900 billion interest payment in 10 years. I believe that is not good management of the people's business. I appreciate the opportunity to share these grim remarks and to lament the difficult situation in which we find ourselves. I do believe the Lee amendment will fix this. Maybe other amendments will, too. But we certainly need to step forward and make sure we don't continue down this path. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just add that this isn't just my opinion about these cost overruns in the legislation. Here is a Wall Street Journal article from a few days ago: ``Two-thirds of $214 billion cost would be financed through higher deficits. . . . '' That is the subheadline on that. The headline is: ``Senate Wrangles Over Medicare-Payments Fix.'' So I don't think there is any real doubt about that. The article goes on to say: The deal reached by House leaders would shift some of those costs onto Medicare beneficiaries-- So some of the Medicare benefits, such as Part C, are not part of trust fund money. It is not paid for when you have that withholding from your paycheck, and people with higher incomes probably ought to pay a higher percentage of the cost that they can reasonably afford, if they have a higher income, when they go see a doctor. I think we could use that. But at any rate, this bill would shift some costs to Medicare beneficiaries. The article continues-- while providers such as hospitals also would shoulder some costs. So they are paying for some of these costs by having reduction in payments to hospitals that are hurting this year. And the article states: The rest would be financed through higher deficits. No doubt about it. Forbes magazine comments here in an article by Stan Collender, saying that ``the procedural choices Congress is making all favor increasing the deficit rather than at least requiring it not get any worse.'' This is what the article says about the SGR--the physician's payment: ``The SGR change without a full offset is projected to add an average of around $14 billion a year to the deficit.'' Here is a headline from The Fiscal Times: ``Medicare `Doc Fix' May Be No Fix at All.'' Paul Winfree, an economic policy expert with the Heritage Foundation, said this: Rather than a permanent replacement to the Sustainable Growth Rate-- Remember, we have been promised this would be a permanent replacement-- it is much more likely that the House doc fix will be a shorter-term patch requiring another series of patchwork legislation just nine years from now. They also conclude in this article that the permanent fix would ``add $141 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years and could go as high as $500 billion over two decades, as previously reported here.'' I did want to emphasize it is really not $141 over 10 years, it is $174, because when you add up $141 billion in additional debt over 10 years, you pay interest on that. You borrow that money and pay interest, and when you calculate the interest that is paid, the increased interest is $174 billion added to the total deficit of America. Colleagues, our interest payment on our debt is staggering. The highway bill is about $40 billion to $50 billion a year. Aid to education is nearly $100 billion a year, for example. The interest we pay annually on the current $18 trillion debt, in spite of the fact we have some of the lowest interest rates we have ever had, was more than $220 billion-plus last year. The Congressional Budget Office, however, says that 10 years from now, with interest rates projected to return to the mean and with the deficit every year out for 10 years, we will be over $900 billion in interest in the 10th year. That is just in 10 years. We go from $200 billion to $900-plus billion. This is why the Congressional Budget Office Director, chosen by our Democratic colleagues, Dr. Elmendorf, a very capable, wise man, has said we are on an unsustainable path. This is a path of fiscal destruction. It is not responsible. So day after day, week after week, we in Congress are going to have to start saying, no, we don't have the money. Do you not understand? We can't keep digging the hole deeper. We are supposed to be trying to figure out a way to reduce deficits and balance the budget, not to pass more legislation that is going to cost more money than we have to spend on these things. The only way we will be able to honor that legislation is to borrow more. That is what we are doing. So I don't think there is any doubt about what I have said. If somebody can come down and prove this bill is paid for I will shake their hand and I will be happy because I want to do the doctors fix, and I want to be sure we do it in a responsible financial way. If not, we will have legislation, amendments will be offered that I think can fix it and that will require Congress to come up with the money in a proper way, do the assistance we need to provide to our doctors and not add to the debt. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to share a few thoughts as we head into this week, because we will be confronting the question of how to fix the payment to our physicians who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. If we do not take action, there will be a 21-percent reduction in the amount of money they are paid to do the work for the Federal Government. This is an unacceptable alternative, but it is what current law says. Congress needs to fix it. In fact, we have been dealing with this for 17 years. For 17 years, Congress has, in some way or another, fixed the doctor payment plan and raised their pay so that they do not take a cut. As years have gone by, the size of the cut that needs to be fixed has increased too, as I said, 21 percent today if we do not act. I think there is a uniform, universal belief that we should do that, and do it on a permanent basis so we do not have to have doctors calling Congress every year, saying: Are you going to change the law so I can continue to do Medicare work? If you do not change it and my services are cut 21 percent, I am out of here. I can hardly make a living now on what you pay me, and taking a big cut will not allow me to continue to offer Medicare services for people in need. It is a big issue and a real issue. I have favored a permanent fix for a number of years. I would offer, though, to my colleagues that many of us who have been concerned about the financial condition of our country have successfully insisted each one of those 17 times that the new money that is needed to pay the additional funding be paid for, that is, by finding wasteful spending or other spending somewhere else in the government of this country and use that money to make up the difference. We have refused to pass it by just borrowing the money. Remember, this is an entitlement. By that, it means once the government says what the rate will be, the doctors will go out and do the work, they will demand payment whether the government has any money or not, whether we are running deficits or not. If the government does not pay them the rate agreed upon, they can file a complaint and the government will have to come up with the money. What we really needed to offset this was a real finding of wasteful spending, or spending in other areas to divert that money to pay for this increase in pay for doctors on a permanent basis. It appears that Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi in the House got together and agreed on a bill. They passed it in the House with a big vote. Even most Democrats voted for the bill. It was sent to the Senate as we were voting, at that very time, that very day, on the budget resolution for the Senate. We were proud of our budget. It was not a perfect budget. I supported it. But it balanced. If we follow the plans put forth in the budget resolution that passed the Senate--if we follow those--we would be on a path to a balanced budget. We would be spending about $4,000-plus billion 10 years from today. We would be increasing spending all right, but not as much as has been projected, but we also see a $3 billion surplus in the final year of the budget window. So instead of having a deficit in the 10th year, we were going to have a $3 billion surplus. That is something to celebrate after decades of deficits, trillion dollar deficits, $1,000 billion deficits. I think we have averaged $1,000 billion deficits for the last 6 years. Unbelievable. We are committed to the American people to do something about it. The Budget Control Act and other efforts have reduced our spending from what it might otherwise have been. The House decided to send H.R. 2 to the Senate. They passed it with a big vote. This bill, over 250 pages in length, was sent to the Senate the same evening as our budget vote- arama. We had over 750 amendments under consideration that evening. We finished the budget process at 3 a.m. What many wanted us to do was just pass this bill at 3 a.m. with hardly any knowledge of what was in it and without a real understanding of how much it was going to cost. We were told by a number of people that it was ``paid for.'' ``Don't worry about it.'' ``It has been taken care of.'' So there was concern about that. Senator McConnell did not bring it up at 3:30 in the morning right before we did our recess. It was unseemly to have done that for a whole host of reasons. But we are coming right up to the deadline. The deadline was March 31, but I understand that there was a 14-day window whereby Congress could consider a fix before doctors were impacted. We need to get this taken care of. But we need to do it responsibly, in a grownup fashion. The House Members really did not have the bill to study. They just followed mainly talking points, which if you read their talking points, I may have voted for it, based on what they were telling their Members. The talking points said this: First, it told House members that the bill pays for all new future spending. To not have a 21-percent cut, but to pay them at a more appropriate rate, this bill is going to cost more money. But, they were told that all the new future spending would be paid for. Second, it said it allows ``Congress to go through regular order and legislate thoughtfully.'' So we were going to pass it at 3:30 in the morning without it having gone through a committee and without having a real, firm, long-term cost estimate from CBO as to what it would actually cost? Third, they also said in their talking points, ``It offsets all new spending.'' What that means, to Members of Congress, is that it would not add to the debt because somehow the increase in spending would be offset by a reduction in spending somewhere else. Fourth, they used the phrase we use around here, they claim it ``bends the cost curve,'' it would bring down costs. But this is not accurate either. So here are the problems: This bill is not paid for. Our own Congressional Budget Office said it would add $141 billion to the deficit. Over 10 years, you add those up, $141 billion. They said the net increase to the debt would be $174 billion. How does it get to be more than 141? Well, when you spend $141 billion more then you have, you have to borrow the money. When you borrow the money, you pay interest on the money. The Congressional Budget Office said it would add an additional $33 billion in interest payments just over that 10 years. Many promoting this legislation said: Well, there may be a shortfall in the first 10 years, but over 20 years, the reductions in spending we found somewhere are going to bring in enough money to pay for it fully then. So what did the Congressional Budget Office say? The Congressional Budget Office said this. ``It will increase budget deficits'' in the ``second decade.'' So instead of reducing the deficits or paying for the cost of this by changes now that benefit us 15, 20 years from now, it adds more. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--a fine, responsible nonpartisan group headed by Maya MacGuineas--did a study of this. They said over 20 years it would add $500 billion to the deficit. Those numbers, to my knowledge, have not been disputed. I think that is a pretty accurate figure. It is not going to reduce the deficit. In 10 years, it is going to add $174 billion--not going to reduce the deficit over 20 years, it is going to add $500 billion. So this violates the Budget Control Act that we passed in 2011 that is in law today. That is something we should not be doing. We need to adhere to that agreement which the President signed and we in both Houses of Congress agreed upon in a bipartisan way to hold spending down. It is not going to balance the budget, the Budget Control Act doesn't, but it helps a lot. We ought to at least adhere to it. So this violates the Budget Control Act and is subject to at least eight different violations--points of order, we call it, where you can object because it violates the budget. There are at least eight different ways in which this legislation violates the Budget Control Act and, of course, it violates the House and Senate budgets that we are just now in the process of adopting. The Senate has passed its budget. They had a $3 billion surplus in the 10th year. Listen, not paying down any of that debt except that $3 billion in the 10th year--but just not having annual deficits--it would take us 10 years to finally balance the budget, which we need to do. Experts have told us we need to do so because we are on an unsustainable financial path. So our budgets go further than that. The House and the Senate budgets do so. If we pass a bill that adds $174 billion to the deficit, it will be at least $17 billion in the 10th year. So instead of having a $3 billion surplus, we will have at least a $14 billion deficit. And the day we are celebrating the fact that we altered the spending course of our country and produced a balanced budget, that very day we were asked to pass a bill that would wipe out all of that. It is just not responsible, in my view. I am just not able to tout the fact that we passed a balanced budget. Maybe that is why they would like to pass this bill before the final agreement between the House and the Senate occurs in conference and we have a firm budget. We just now have a House budget and a Senate budget. Maybe they wanted to do that so the first thing we do isn't to bust the budget to which we just agreed. I wish I didn't have to say these things. I wish I didn't have to say this, but the truth is that this is not responsible. This is not maintaining faith with the American people who sent us to Congress. I think on both sides of the aisle--certainly on the Republican side--there were real commitments made to our constituents that if we were in Congress, we would do something about these deficits and we were going to bring this government under control and produce a budget--a budget that balances. In addition, it is claimed and asserted that this legislation represents a permanent fix--that we will not have to continue to come forward each year to come up with the funding or some legislation to keep the doctors paid at a reasonable rate. But it is not a permanent fix, either. It is not a permanent fix, as has been reported. It is only about 9 years, and there are huge, long-range concerns. There is another thing it does, and, colleagues, we have to understand this. Being on the Budget Committee, we went through it. It is so important. One of the greatest manipulations and gimmicks we are doing is in the way we are spending the taxpayers' money, why our deficits are so large and our debt has become $18-plus trillion--on which we paid interest--$220 billion last year, and it will grow every year, according to CBO. Why? We double count money. It is unbelievable. This is what they are going to propose. They are going to cut Medicare Part A in this legislation. That is the benefit that goes to doctors and hospitals. They will cut it about $55 billion--I believe the figure is--and then they will use this $55 billion to pay the physicians under Part B and D of Medicare--the non-trust fund money. So they are gutting the Medicare trust fund. That money is money that comes off of your paychecks every week and goes to pay for your Medicare when you retire. That money goes into a trust fund. It has trustees. If you cut the cost of doing business for Medicare, the sponsors of the bill say it will extend the life of Medicare 1 year. That is probably correct. If you cut what you pay to doctors or hospitals or medical devices or drug companies, you reduce what you pay, you could extend the life of Medicare, its financial solvency. It is becoming insolvent just as Social Security is becoming insolvent. So we need to do some things to help extend its life so our seniors don't have to worry about not having health care in the future. How is it double counted, Jeff? Well, they are using the money--the trustees. It is the trustees of Medicare's money that is being saved. How did it get outside of the Medicare trust fund and get spent for doctors in that part of Medicare? How does it get out of there? The trustees of Medicare loan the money to the U.S. Treasury. Now we have it, colleagues. The money that is used to pay the doctors that comes from Medicare cost reduction is borrowed money, just the same as if they had borrowed it from a financier in London or Beijing. Interest is paid to the Medicaid trustees. You cannot count the money twice. You cannot save the money here and say it improves Medicare--legally it does improve Medicare--but it provides no money to spend on new programs outside of Medicare, and the Congressional Budget Office has told us this. Yet they are scoring, I think, $55 billion they claim is going to pay for this new expenditure by double counting the money. ObamaCare did that, I believe--by about $500 billion. They cut Medicare expenses and used the money to fund an entirely new program. But the money didn't go directly to the U.S. Treasury. It went to the trustees of Medicare, who loaned it to the U.S. Treasury and double counted the money. If you would like to know why we are going broke, this is one of the big reasons this country is on a reckless course. Nobody wants to talk about it or confront it, because if you do, it reduces spending, and people around here like spending too much. By the way, I note our hospitals would like to see the doctors get paid more and have this problem fixed, but a big chunk of what is claimed of that portion of this new expenditure that is actually paid for appears to be $31 billion in cuts to providers such as hospitals. So we are cutting hospitals here to pay doctors, and our hospitals are struggling too. To conclude, this is why the American people don't trust Congress. Some of our Members get their feelings hurt when they go home and some tea party person or somebody else accuses them of wasting money, not managing well, and they are offended by it. I have to say the tea party got more right than wrong. This is another example of reckless, irresponsible spending. Before adjourning for our recess 2 weeks ago, in the middle of the night, at 3 a.m., we passed a balanced budget plan, and we were proud of it. We went home the last 2 weeks and told our constituents we were going to work to accomplish that balanced budget goal and try to make sure it becomes a reality. But what is the first bill we consider since adopting the balanced budget goal? What is the first bill? We are taking up a bill to dig us $174 billion deeper in debt in the first 10 years. The first major legislative accomplishment of our new Congress is going to be adding almost $200 billion to the debt over 10 years and then perhaps $500 billion or half a trillion over 20 years. It is not necessary. I don't see how we can look our constituents in the eye and say we are producing a balanced budget, when, if this bill passes, we don't have a balanced budget. Well, was the plan really to balance the budget, people might ask, or just to use as talking points, just a fun campaign claiming we have a balance? Our new Congress was sworn in only 3 months ago, and we are already shattering our promises to our constituents. I think it is fair to say we are acting irresponsibly. Not only are we continuing to allow the debt to explode, but we aren't really being honest with our constituents about it. Before they cast their votes, House Members were told this bill ``pays for all new future spending'' and that it ``offsets all new spending.'' But this is not accurate. It is not true. It adds to the deficit every single year. We are going to offer an amendment so that this bill lives up to the promises of the sponsors. A good amendment, a PayGo amendment that I think Senator Lee will probably offer which will put us on a path to ensure that this new expenditure is paid for. I think we need to have that vote, and I think it needs to pass. That would be responsible. Then we could honestly say we made choices. That is what you should do in this body. There is a limited amount of money and a virtually unlimited number of requests for good projects that we should spend money on. We are sent to the Senate to make choices, set priorities, do the right thing, and manage money carefully--that is why our constituents from all over the country sent us here, and they had their tax money extracted from them and sent to Washington--to be spent wisely and honestly, I suggest. One of the most amazing things is that we spend $3,800 billion a year now. We can't find $15 billion a year to fix the doctor payments? We can't find $15 billion in this whole $3,800 billion a year that we spend that will actually be able to fund the doctors in the way that we should fund them without adding to the debt? You bet we can. I have a list of them. Others have a list of them. There will be some suggestions as to how this could be done. We don't need to gimmick up this legislation, but it is legislation that undermines the promises we made that we are going to be fiscally responsible. We don't vote on talking points. We vote on legislation. Legislation can be studied, and it becomes law. Our Congressional Budget Office, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Maya MacGuineas and the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget can read and add the numbers. They have read them, added them, and they don't add up. This is legislation. We are not voting on talking points. Without change, it is a massive debt increase that puts a balanced budget even further out of reach. It means a lot to me that we, as a Congress, establish credibility with those whom we serve. One of the parts of doing that is to be honest and to say we do have a tight situation here. We are going to have to make some choices--but not brutal choices. We can find the money we need without doing anything but eliminating fraud, waste, abuse, duplication, and unwise spending. We don't have to savage children or the military to do so, but it is hard work. Every time you talk about reducing this program or that program, a group shows up and pushes back, but that is why we are here. As my wife says to me when I complain: Don't blame me; you asked for the job. That is what we asked for--to be in the Senate and make these tough choices. I hope, in the hours that are ahead, we will be able to have some amendments--and there are several that would fix this and would allow the doctors to receive the pay they are entitled to--and they are entitled to it--but at the same time would not add to the debt. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a lot of things have happened. We are on the path, I hope, to being able to pass a budget that balances in 10 years. It has some problems, but I think it would be a major change from the course we have been on, and so I will support it. I hope to be able to support it, although things could happen, I guess, between now and our final vote. One of the things I wish to share with my colleagues is simply that the proposal to fix the doctors' payments--the so-called doc fix, the SGR--which has been around for a long time is one of my highest priorities. It is, indeed, unreasonable and unjustified to require doctors to be uncertain every year as to whether they are going to get a 21-percent or so reduction in their Medicare payments. They can hardly do the work at that fee level. So we do need to fix it. However, on the same day that we are now declaring that we want to pass a budget that puts us on a financial path to balance in 10 years by a meager $3 billion--a balanced budget plan, a responsible plan; an idea and goal to achieve--we are also talking about passing an unpaid- for plan, and in my view it is not responsible, to spend and borrow another $141 billion, after the proposed offsets, to pay for the doc fix. This is what brings this Congress into disrepute. The same day we assert we want to have a balanced budget, and we lay out a plan that will get us there in 10 years, we are now considering passing an unpaid-for increase in spending that will add $141 billion to the debt. Colleagues, we just can't do that. To my physician friends, whom I talked to a lot about this and who are worried about it, let's all work together to lay out a plan that will pay for this expense. We can do that. Maya MacGuineas is at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a well-respected, bipartisan group. They have basically been shocked by this proposal. They submitted papers that said over 20 years it will add $500 billion to the debt. While, some have said that over 20 years, it will pay for itself. According to Maya MacGuineas' analysis, it won't, and we don't have official data now. So why would we allow this legislation to pass through so fast? I urge my colleagues, let's do a short-term fix again, but then let's do a permanent fix, one that is responsible, one that is grownup, one that is paid for, and not just one that adds more debt to the credit card of America at a time when we cannot do that anymore. I am so disappointed that we may not be able to let this legislation clear today because I don't believe it is going to be beneficial to us. We can come back and take action to maintain the appropriate payment levels. Let's do it the right way so we can be proud of it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the work my colleagues have done on this trafficking bill. It is an important issue that deserves debate and a vote. Lynch Nomination Madam President, I will say why I believe the Lynch nomination should not go forward. I think it is for a very important reason and, unfortunately, it is one that I think Congress has to address. In their wisdom, our Founders gave Congress certain powers as a coequal branch of government, and one of those powers was the power to confirm or not confirm nominees. Long before Ms. Lynch's nomination was announced, I said I could not vote to confirm any candidate for Attorney General who supported the President's unlawful Executive amnesty. That Executive amnesty presents big constitutional issues that we have to talk about and understand, and it relates directly to the powers of the executive branch versus the legislative branch. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in this country, and anyone who occupies that office, must have fidelity to the laws of the United States duly passed, and to the Constitution of the United States. It is that simple. The Senate cannot confirm any individual, must never confirm an individual to such an office as this--the one most responsible for maintaining fidelity to law--who would support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates congressional authority. No person should be confirmed who would do that. Congress makes the laws, not the President, and Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide amnesty, work permits, and benefits to those who have entered our country unlawfully. If you want to receive benefits in the United States, you should wait your turn and come lawfully. We rejected such proposals in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014. President Obama's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive actions nullify the immigration laws we do have that are on the books--the Immigration and Nationality Act--and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to enact. That is where we are. Even King George III lacked the power to legislate without Parliament. President Obama's Executive action provides illegal immigrants--those who come into our country contrary to the immigration laws of the United States, which are generous indeed, allowing a million people a year to come to our country--with work authorization, photo IDs, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, and tax credits of up to $35,000 a year, according to the Congressional Research Service. I think the IRS Commissioner has admitted that as well. The President's action has even made chain migration and citizenship a possibility, which he said repeatedly he couldn't do and wouldn't do. Despite those assurances, his action opens up these possibilities as well, it appears. And, again, all of these measures were rejected by Congress. I discussed these issues with Ms. Lynch. I asked her plainly whether she supported the President's unilateral decision to make his own immigration rules and laws. Here is the relevant portion of that hearing transcript, because I wanted to be clear about it. This was during the Judiciary Committee hearing when she was there as part of her confirmation process. Mr. Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question: Ms. Lynch, do you believe the Executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and constitutional? Yes or no? Ms. Lynch: As I've read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator. Well, first, we need to understand something. I served 5 years as a Federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice, and this is the way it works. The Office of Legal Counsel is a part of the Department of Justice. The Office of Legal Counsel is the one that has been credited with writing this pathetic memorandum that justified the President's actions. But the Office of Legal Counsel works directly for the Attorney General. The Attorney General is really the one responsible for forwarding to the President a memorandum that says the President can do what he wanted to do. The President said on over 20 different occasions over a period of years, ``I am not an emperor,'' ``I do not have the power to do this,'' ``this would be unconstitutional.'' He made similar statements over 20 different times. Then he changed his mind as we got close to an election, for reasons that I don't fully intend to speculate about at this time, and then he asked that he be given the power to do this. This puts great pressure on the Office of Legal Counsel, but that is one of the historic roles they fulfill--to analyze these things. They take an oath to the Constitution, and they are required to say no if the President is asking for something he is not entitled to do. They are supposed to say no, and the Attorney General is supposed to say no. The Attorney General could review the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel and take it upon himself or herself to write their own opinion and submit it as the position of the Department of Justice and say the President can do this if he so desires. So that is the way the system works. But what I want to say, colleagues, is the Attorney General played a key role in this Presidential overreach. It was the Attorney General's office that approved this overreach. And this nominee says she believes this is correct. She indicated her approval, and I am sure will defend it in every court around the country and advocate for it. Some say: Well, she works for the President. No, she works for the people of the United States of America. Her salary comes from the taxpayers of this country. Her duty, on occasion, is to say no to the President; to try to help him accomplish his goals, like a good corporate lawyer would, but at some point you have to say: Mr. Corporate CEO, Mr. President of the United States, this goes too far. You can't do this. But Ms. Lynch has indicated she is unwilling to do that. One of the most stunning features of the President's actions is the mass grant of work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants. These immigrants will take jobs directly from American citizens and directly from legal immigrants who have come into the country. U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow has discussed this issue and written at length about how allowing illegal immigrants to take jobs undermines the rights of U.S. workers--the legal rights of U.S. workers--especially African-American workers and Hispanic workers suffering from high unemployment today. At her confirmation hearing, I, therefore, asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the lawful rights of U.S. workers. Here is the simple question I placed to the person who would be the next top law enforcement officer for America. And in my preamble to the question, I noted Attorney General Holder had said that people who came to our country unlawfully and who are in our country unlawfully today have a civil right and a human right to citizenship in America, contrary to all law. So I asked her what she thought about this. Mr. Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country; a lawful immigrant who's here or [a] citizen or a person who entered the country unlawfully? Ms. Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here regardless of status, I would prefer they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. What a stunning and breathtaking statement that is for the top law enforcement officer in America--to say that a person has a right to work in this country regardless of how they came here. So people who enter don't have to follow the steps that are required? They do not have to establish that they have lawful justification to enter the United States and work in the United States anymore? If you can just get into the country unlawfully, then you have a right to work? And our current Attorney General Holder says they have a civil right to citizenship. This is not law. I don't know what this is, but it is so far from law I don't know how to express my concern about it effectively. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone who is in this country illegally has a right to a job. Make no mistake, we are at a dangerous time in our Nation's history, particularly for our Republic's legal system and our Constitution. I would like to quote now from Prof. Jonathan Turley, a Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar, and a self- described supporter of President Obama and most of his policies. He has been called as an expert witness on various issues by Senator Leahy and other Democrats over the years. He described the current state of affairs as ``a constitutional tipping point.'' He is referring to the Presidential overreach. I would like to take a moment to read from the testimony he delivered before the House of Representatives in February of last year--9 months before the President even announced this amnesty, but after the first DACA amnesty. This is what he said: The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term insular victories achieved by this President will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the Chief Executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this President leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. Now that is Professor Turley, a supporter of President Obama, and a fine constitutional scholar, who is warning the U.S. Congress of the dangers to its powers that have been eroded in the recent months. To stop it, he says that will require Congress to use ``every possible means to reassert its legislative authority.'' So stopping an Attorney General nominee--not voting to confirm an individual as Attorney General--is that a legitimate power of Congress? Well, of course it is. Should we feel obligated and required to confirm someone who has announced they intend to pursue and advance legally through the powers of their office an unconstitutional overreach, because the President nominates that person? Is that our duty? Doesn't Congress have a right to say: Oh no, Mr. President, we understand how this system works. You get to nominate, but you have overreached here and we are not going to ratify. We are not going to consent or approve someone who is going to continue to promote these kinds of unlawful activities. One glaring result of Congress's passivity is that executive branch nominees no longer feel the need to be responsive to congressional oversight. We are not getting sufficient answers from them. That is for sure. I think Congress has too often been quiet and slept on its watch. In the past, Members could perform their constitutional duty of advice and consent, for example, by withholding consent until a nominee provided information to which Congress was entitled. That is how coequal branches of government are supposed to function. Congress has a duty to demand accurate information from the executive branch before providing funds to that branch, and they have a right to insist on it. They don't have to fund any branch of government they believe is unworthy. When Ms. Lynch came before the committee, it quickly became apparent that she had no intention of being frank and providing real answers. That is a problem I think we have to confront. I think the most telling example of this concern was illustrated by an answer I was given to a straightforward question I asked, which goes to the very core of this debate that we are having in America about the President's powers and what we should do about establishing a lawful system of immigration--one that we could be proud of, one that is systemically and fairly applied day after day. The question I asked her was simply this: Do you believe that President Obama has exceeded his executive authority in any way? If so, how? She answered: As United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, I have not been charged with determining when and whether the President has exceeded his executive authority. But that was really not a good-faith answer or an attempt to answer the question. I will wrap up and just say, in conclusion, that we are dealing with huge constitutional issues. I wish it weren't so. It is not anything personal that causes me to complain about this nominee. But in truth, we need to use the means this Congress has to defend its legitimate constitutional rights, the power it has been given to legislate. And the President's duties, as the chief law and executive officer of the country, are to execute the laws passed by Congress. One of the key players on his team is the Attorney General, and the Attorney General in this situation has taken a position contrary to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, as Professor Turley has delineated with force and clarity. That being the case, I think Congress has a duty to this institution, to the laws and Constitution of this country, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles and, indeed, has asserted boldly that she would continue in violation of them. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a beloved American icon recently celebrated her 90th birthday. For more than one-half century, Phyllis Schlafly has been a leading voice in defense of our Constitution, our values, and our way of life. Fearlessly, tirelessly, Phyllis has championed the American family and American values. As a speaker, author, activist, and radio commentator, Phyllis has inspired and mobilized generations of conservatives. Her 1964 book, ``A Choice Not an Echo,'' took direct aim at the establishment class and helped pave the way for Goldwater and Reagan. Her advocacy presaged many of the political challenges we face today in ensuring that the voiceless have a voice and that the everyday worker, mother, father, and citizen is not drowned out by special interests. As one profile noted, Phyllis ``continues comforting the afflicted conservative, afflicting the comfortable Republican.'' I remember well reading ``A Choice Not an Echo'' while in high school and her arguments helped shape my political philosophy as it shaped the philosophy of many others. I also remember attending her speech at the University of Alabama dealing with the national defense issues she wrote about while I was in law school. Dynamic, smart, beautiful, and articulate, she played an important role in establishing a sound conservative philosophy. An unrelenting critic of big government, Phyllis has spoken out time and again on the need for the family--not the bureaucracy--to form the center of American life. She has explained that we cannot strengthen our financial system without also strengthening our families and our communities. She knows that no nation can be better than the people who make it up and that families, communities, and churches are vital to developing good people. The values Phyllis embodies are not merely traditional but enduring-- just as she is. Enduring values are a national compass, a guide for all times--always pointing true north in even the stormiest weather. Congratulations to Phyllis on her remarkable 90th year and her even more remarkable life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. William A. Meehan, who has served with great distinction and honor at Jacksonville State University for more than 40 years. I have known him since he became president in 1999, and my admiration for his leadership and for Jacksonville State University has only grown each year. Dr. Meehan is retiring from his post as president of JSU on June 30, 2015, where his extraordinary leadership and vision will be sorely missed. Dr. Meehan, along with his board of trustees, set a bold vision for Jacksonville State University. He inspired his team to put students first, to inspire their intellectual curiosity, and to nurture critical thinking, communication skills, and creativity in problem-solving. He led the creation of the university's first bold strategic plan that focuses on 21st-century skills. President Meehan set a course for JSU that would not only move the university forward but would fast-forward. Now, starting in the fall of 2015, 500 entering freshmen at JSU will have an iPad; these students will have global technology at their fingertips and be prepared for the rigors of their academic pursuits. Under President Meehan's leadership JSU has excelled in many pursuits. Research funding continues to rise, with more than $23 million in grants received last year, an increase of 515 percent. ACT scores of incoming freshmen have risen significantly over the past decade, housing occupancy rates have improved from 64 percent to 90 percent, and student-to-faculty ratio is a stellar 17 to 1 under Dr. Meehan's leadership. JSU now enjoys a wide alumni base of more than 60,000 in all 50 States and 95 countries around the world. President Meehan has focused the university on innovative approaches such as the creation of 12 interdisciplinary centers that yield practical applications and solutions to real-world problems. These centers concentrate on regional education, teaching and learning, security, applied forensics, disaster and community resilience, disease ecology, ecosystems, behavioral studies, economic development, emergency preparedness, environmental policy, and veteran support. Further, under President Meehan's leadership, JSU was just awarded a 10-year reaffirmation of accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission of Colleges, SACSCOC. JSU also enjoys significant program accreditations, attesting to the high-quality academics provided. JSU is also fierce on the playing field and lays claim to being the only school in the Nation to hold NCAA national titles in football, men's basketball and baseball at the Division I or Division II levels. President Meehan has a deep and abiding commitment to partnerships with K-12, community colleges, and the region in which he serves. He has extensive service with community initiatives and on education, economic development and community service strategic boards. His view of education is a seamless process flowing from kindergarten through graduate school, which results in a high quality talented professional workforce. In addition to his strong and lasting legacy at JSU, President Meehan prides himself with a loving family. He is married to the former Elizabeth Stevens and is father to twin boys Drew and Will and daughter Carol Grace. President Meehan is a devoted member of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, AL. On April 3, 2015, there will be a community-wide event to honor Dr. Meehan and his family. On a personal note, I have found President Meehan to be one of Alabama's best university presidents. He is a driving force behind Jacksonville State University's sturdy and solid growth in all areas, from strong increases in academic scores to building on the community's fine reputation. He has been a constant source of information and good advice to me and the State's congressional delegation. He is, as all know, deeply committed to this great university, whose unique character he has further developed. I consider him a personal friend and a valuable advisor. Please join me in thanking Dr. William Meehan for his tireless dedication to Jacksonville State University and the surrounding community. His exemplary service in higher education is an inspiration, and because of his leadership, JSU is one of the great jewels of Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on July 14 of last year, I wrote a letter to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle warning that the President was planning to issue an Executive amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens--people unlawfully in America. Congress was at the time considering a supplemental funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security. I wrote: Congress must not acquiesce to spending more taxpayer dollars until the President unequivocally rescinds his threat of more illegal executive action... If Congress simply passes a supplemental spending bill without these preconditions, it is not a question of if the President will suspend more immigration laws, but only how many he will suspend. Executive amnesty became a major issue in the election last November. Many Members of the Senate and House who had supported these immigration policies of the President didn't come back. They were sent home, and many returning on both sides of the aisle said during their campaigns that they opposed these policies. Still, on November 20, after a historic midterm election defeat, President Obama defied the will of the American people and Congress and issued his Executive amnesty for 5 million persons. This amnesty included not just the right to stay in America but an explicit photo ID, work authorization, work permits, Social Security numbers and Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, cash tax credits, and the right to basically take any job in America--at a time of high unemployment and falling wages, as economists have told us is happening. Each of these measures had been considered and explicitly rejected by Congress. It wasn't as if this was something the President just conceived. It had been considered and rejected. Congress acted decisively to oppose the President's legislation and to maintain in effect the current laws of the United States as codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama's Executive action nullified the immigration laws we do have and replaced them with the very measures Congress and the American people have time and time again rejected. Not even King George III had the power to act without Parliament. President Obama himself described such an action as being something only an emperor could do. Those were his words. Twenty-two times the President declared such an action would be illegal. President Obama ignored his own warnings and issued an edict that defies the Congress, the Constitution, and centuries of legal heritage that gave birth to our present Republic. The Founders, in their wisdom, gave the Congress the tools it would need to stop a President who overreaches. First, it gave the power to pass laws to the Congress, as every child in school knows. Congress passes the laws, not the President. This is a matter of great fundamental importance. Then it gave the Congress the tools it would need to stop a President because they anticipated Presidents may overreach in the future. Chief among those powers is the power of the purse, and that is what we are talking about today: Should Congress fund the President's actions that are contrary to law, contrary to congressional wishes, and contrary to the American people's wishes? That is the question. Let me now read from the Federalist Papers, Federalist 58, authored by the great Father of the Constitution, James Madison. He is talking about the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives now has funded Homeland Security fully. Everything that needs to be passed to fund the Homeland Security operations they passed. They simply said: You cannot spend money to provide amnesty and these benefits and these Social Security and ID cards. You can't spend money on that. We don't approve spending money on that. So what has happened in the Senate? Our Democratic colleagues have filibustered the bill. They will not even let it come up on the floor, not even to vote on amendments. Senator McConnell told them they would have amendments. It has put the Congress and the country in a very difficult position. This is what Madison said: The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse, that powerful instrument, by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. It is a complete power of the elected representatives by the people of America. First of all, the American people through their elected representatives rejected the President's policies on immigration. They chose to keep current law, but this did not satisfy the President. He asked Congress to change it, and Congress refused. They refused in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014. It has been rejected by Congress repeatedly. So that is where we are. Congress has no duty to do this. Congress has no obligation to fund those actions which it believes simply are unwise. It has an absolute duty, it seems to me, not to fund actions which are unlawful and unconstitutional. Congress cannot fund an action which dissolves its own powers. Congress shouldn't fund Presidential actions that are against the law, and Congress certainly cannot fund an action which dissolves its own powers. Congress cannot become a museum piece, a marble building that tourists visit to hear about great debates from long ago, but which now exists merely to approve that which the President demands. It doesn't have to approve one thing the President asks for if it is not a correct thing. So consider the precedent being established here: Congress passes a law, just as Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. A President proposes a new law to replace the current one. Hearing vast public opposition, Congress rejects the new law the President has proposed. Frustrated, the President then issues an edict eliminating the current law and replacing it with measures he has proposed but which the people's representatives had rejected. The President then demands Congress provide him with the money to execute his unlawful program. The Congress says no. The President then accuses Congress of shutting down the government for not funding his unlawful program. Congress surrenders, quits, gives up, and the President gets what he wants. Have the people of the United States been served in that fashion? Has the Constitution of the United States been served? Has the Congress of the United States not acquiesced in its own diminishment, violating its duty to ensure that every dollar spent by the Government of the United States is spent on policies that are appropriate? Well, is this to be the new normal? Congress must provide the President with the funds he wants for any project he dreams up, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional? Is the power of the purse now a historic concept never to be used again when it is needed most? There is no more basic application of congressional power than to establish where funds may or may not be spent. Indeed, that is the very definition of an appropriations bill. There could never be a more important time to exercise such a power than when free government, our republican heritage itself, is at stake. We cannot let this Congress go down in the history books as the Congress that established a new precedent that we will fund any imperial decree that violates established American law. And this is not a minor constitutional violation; it is an explosive violation. It threatens our very sovereignty, the extent of which exceeds anything I have ever seen in my time in the Senate. I cannot imagine and cannot recall one in the past--so blatant a violation. Essential to any sovereign nation is the enforcement of its borders, the application of uniform rules for exit and entry, and the delivery of consequences for any who violate those rules. But the President has suspended those borders, erased those rules, and replaced consequences with rewards. People who have entered unlawfully, stayed here unlawfully, are being rewarded with work permits, Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, ID cards, legal status. He has arrogated for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who comes to the United States. That is, in effect, what it is. He gets to decide unilaterally who can stay and live in the United States and who works in the United States. At this very moment, he continues--despite a court order--to allow new illegal immigrants by the thousands to stream across the border, to violate their visas, and to wait for their amnesty too, which they expect will occur sometime in the future. Why not? Every officer and expert in the Border Patrol and USCIS has told us if this stands, it will encourage more illegal immigration in the future. I cannot vote for any legislation that funds this illegal amnesty. There must be a line in the sand and a moment where people say: This is where it stops. That is why I will oppose the legislation if these amnesty restrictions are removed from the House bill. I will support the House bill, but I cannot support the bill if the restrictions are removed. I will urge my colleagues to do the same. Look, the American people are right and just and good and decent people. They have asked of Congress, begged of Congress, pleaded with Congress for years for our laws to be enforced. They want us to have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interests, one they can be proud of, one that people can rely on when they apply to come to the United States. They have demanded--and Congress responded and has passed laws over the years to protect the jobs and the wages of the American people. They have elected lawmaker after lawmaker, however, who has pledged to do this and make this system work, and to end the lawlessness. But each time their will has been nullified. Each time their laws that have been passed have been ignored. Each time the special interests, the open-border billionaires, the global elites, get their way. In the simplest of terms, here is where we stand now, truly: Six of our Democratic colleagues need to switch their votes and end the filibuster of the House bill. Six Senate Democrats are standing in the way of the interests of 300 million Americans. Six Senate Democrats are keeping from protecting American workers and American borders. They are uniform, in lockstep, blocking the consideration of the House bill that funds Homeland Security but does not fund the unlawful actions of the President. So we will have to take this case to the American people and see whether it is indeed possible these Democrats are able to defy the hopes, dreams, and sacred rights of every law- abiding American citizen.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am excited about an event today. I had the honor--Senator Booker was on the floor earlier today. He is a cosponsor with me. We celebrate today the passage of a gold medal bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 24, S. 527.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this marks the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that historic event in Selma, AL, in March of 1965. So this bill, I believe, is a fitting honor that recognizes the courage and determination of the civil rights marches at Selma 50 years ago. The Selma-to-Montgomery march was a pivotal event in the drive to achieve the right to vote for all Americans, a right which was being systematically denied in that area and other places in the country. This action was historic. It dealt a major blow to deliberate discrimination. It produced a positive and lasting change for Americans. Those who stood tall for freedom on that fateful day deserve to be honored with the Congressional Gold Medal. It is a rare thing. We do not give it out often. But this is a very special occasion. I think these courageous individuals are greatly worthy of this high recognition from the Congress. I would note that two Alabama Congresswomen, new, younger Members of the House of Representatives, Martha Roby, a Republican, and Terri Sewell, a Democrat, introduced similar bills in the House of Representatives, which passed unanimously, 420 to 0. The Senate bill today that Senator Booker and I have moved out of the Senate banking committee, which my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, chairs--it moved out of that committee unanimously. It now has been passed through the Senate. It was a very historic day. It marked an alteration in the history of America. It changed an unacceptable abuse of American rights, the right to vote, and it created a more positive world, country, and region. I grew up not too far from there. I was in high school or junior high school when that happened. I remember reading about it, thinking about it, but I do not think I fully understood the significance of it until time had gone by. I think this is a very fitting honor. I am pleased it has passed today. I am pleased for those who will receive the honor. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, a number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. There has been a lot of spin that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word obfuscation, I suppose, or disingenuousness. The truth is the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It has provided the level of funding the President asked for. It has kept all accounts in Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says: Mr. President, we considered your bill--this amnesty bill--that would provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits, and Social Security benefits, and you can't do that. We consider that and reject it. So we are not going to fund that. Now, the President has already told us and the staff they have across the river in Crystal City where they are leasing a new building, and this building is going to house 1,000 workers paid for by the taxpayers of the United States as part of Homeland Security. Are those 1,000 workers going to be utilized to enforce the laws of the United States? Are they going to process applications for citizenship or visas? No, those 1,000 people--costing several hundred million dollars, in truth-- are going to be processing and providing these benefits to people unlawfully in America. So Congress said: Wait a minute. We didn't authorize money for that. You can't spend money to fund exactly the opposite of what we have enacted. So we are just going to put some language in the bill--the normal bill that funds Homeland Security--and say you can't spend the money to violate the law. You can only spend the money to enforce the law, as it was created to do. The bill then comes to the Senate; and what spectacle do we have? We have Democratic Members in lockstep unity blocking even proceeding to this bill, contending we are not funding Homeland Security. Can you imagine that? Now, my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the Democratic whip, came down a couple of weeks ago and said: I am trying to figure out what is blocking this bill. So I took the floor and I said: Senator Durbin, you and your filibusterers are filibustering the bill. That is why it is not being passed. Does anybody want to dispute that? The Republican Senate has repeatedly brought up this bill and filed cloture to move to the bill so we can fund Homeland Security, and the Democrats are relentlessly and unanimously filibustering it, blocking even moving to the bill. Although Senator McConnell said if we did move to the bill, he would allow them to have amendments. So this is the situation we are in. Colleagues, this goes to the core of our constitutional principles about who controls the money in America. Congress is a coequal branch. It is not subordinate to the President. If anything, the legislative branch, through the Constitution, provides maybe even more power to Congress than it does to the Executive and more than it provides the courts. And the most powerful power of Congress is the power of the purse. Congress is not obligated to pay for anything it believes is unwise, and it has an absolute duty not to fund anything that is unconstitutional or illegal, which is what we are dealing with here. So Congress--the House of Representatives--acted wisely and properly in funding Homeland Security and not allowing activities to be carried out that are unlawful and that Congress has rejected. This is so fundamental, so basic. How my colleagues have the gall to come to the floor and have a press conference this afternoon and blame Republicans for shutting down Homeland Security is beyond me. I don't believe the American people are buying it. Now, there are some, even on the Republican side, who say: Oh gosh, the President will blame us even if it is not our fault. So we might as well cave in and give him what he wants. But what he wants is something he can't be given. What he wants is for Congress to capitulate and erode its powers and responsibility. He wants Congress to violate its duty to fund something that is illegal and contrary to Congress's wishes. He can't demand that. He has no right to demand that. Congress cannot fund--cannot and must not fund--an illegal action in hopes that another branch of government will intervene. Now, I say that because some have said: Well, a court in Texas has ruled that a part of this action by the President is unlawful. The court was narrow in its decision. It fundamentally said something similar to: It looks like a regulation to me, and if you are going to pass a regulation, you need to go through a process. And the President didn't go through a process. It is not lawful. It is not legal. You can't enforce it. The judge issued an injunction barring the President from carrying out these plans, he announced, which is plain law, it seems to me. They didn't even go into some of the other ideas of the constitutionality and separation of powers. He just blocked it on that basis. So we are hearing it said that we can fully fund Homeland Security without any restrictions, allowing the President to do this, because the courts stopped it. I think that is unwise for a number of reasons. The first one is we don't know what the courts are going to do. This Congress has a duty to fund only things it believes are appropriate and lawful. So Congress shouldn't fund it on that basis, period. We should stand up for Congresses in years to come--for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren--and defend the power of the purse and defend the integrity of this Congress. We know how this country was founded. It was founded on an understanding of the British Parliament, and the British Parliament wrested from the king the power of taxes and money. That was a huge historical development, and it has been part of our tradition since, that Congress has the power of the purse. The Executive can't do it. So we replaced the king with the President, and we adhered in our Constitution to that great tradition of restraint on the Executive by the legislative branch--by the Congress, by the Senate. In the Texas court's injunction, let me go further and note the reasons why I think it is unwise for Congress to say that we, the Senate, have no duty to speak on this issue. The House has already spoken and said we are not going to fund this. But the Senate needs to ask what its position will be. I would point out that the Texas court's injunction addresses only a part of Obama's lawless actions and could be lifted at any time. So the injunction could be lifted at any time. It only covers a part of his actions. If Congress relinquishes the power of the purse, then nothing will be able to prevent the lawlessness or amnesty from going forward. As the Texas court noted in issuing its injunction, ``This genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle.'' That is absolutely true. He is evaluating whether to issue an injunction. Sometimes you don't have to issue an injunction because there is not anything much happening right then. But he says, correctly, that: If this goes forward and millions of people are given amnesty, you can't put that genie back in the bottle in any practical sense. It would be a nightmare to try to do that. Let me point this out: One, the Texas court's injunction only addresses a small part of the President's recent Executive actions in November. The Texas lawsuit challenges only the President's November 20 unconstitutional Executive action. And of that, the injunction prevents the administration from implementing only deferred action for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. The Texas court injunction does not address the problematic enforcement priorities encompassed in the President's Executive actions. He set all kinds of priorities that Congress disapproves of and that are bad--unless you don't want the laws enforced, in which case it is good. And we have some who believe in open borders in this country. They deny it when challenged, but they vote that way every time. On November 20, 2014, the memo revised the administration's enforcement priorities which do not encompass certain criminal aliens nor do they encompass all aliens deemed to be subject to mandatory custody under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fact, these new priorities effectively gut the enforcement of our immigration laws for all but a few select criminal aliens. Congress passed the law that requires the deportation of persons involved in criminal activities and convicted of those activities. The President eviscerated large portions of that in this order, and he should not be allowed to do so. The judge did not address it. Indeed, in response to the ruling, Secretary Johnson stated that the Texas court's order does not ``affect this Department's ability to set and implement enforcement priorities.'' Well, that is a big deal. They set priorities that violate statutory law, and they should not be allowed to do that. We can't effectively eviscerate law by prosecutorial guidelines. According to a February 18, 2015 email from Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske regarding the injunction, he said: Officers and agents should continue to process individuals consistent with the enforcement priorities announced by the Secretary in his memorandum of November 20, 2014, titled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants. It deals in large part with criminal activities, people convicted of crimes who are supposed to be deported. The funding bill the House passed would do much more to stop President Obama's unlawful Executive actions on immigration, so the administration does not intend to change its course as it is still actively preparing for its rollout of Executive amnesty. On February 17, just a few days ago, the President told reporters that the administration is still ``doing the preparatory work because this is a big piece of business.'' He said: The Department of Homeland Security will continue in the planning because we want to make sure as soon as these legal issues get resolved, which I anticipate they will in our favor, that we are ready to go. So he is telling the Department of Homeland Security to spend money now to be ready to move forward and immediately process his Executive amnesty--providing Social Security numbers, photo IDs, Medicare and Social Security benefits for people here unlawfully. He says go ahead and do it. The Texas court injunction is only temporary and could be set aside at any time. The administration has already filed for a stay of the injunction in the district court and has announced its intention to appeal. Indeed, as I just read, the President said he expects to win. I don't think he will, but it is a technical part of the ruling. The judge still has many more that he could deal with that could overrule the President's action. He just chose one of them, and that one is rather technical. So who knows for sure what a court might rule. In addition, the ruling does not address the substance of the case. It will take many months to resolve this litigation, and during that time there is a reasonable chance that some court will lift the stay and allow the President to begin implementing the amnesty pending a final ruling on the merits of the case. But Congress can stop it and has a duty to stop it in its appropriations bill. In addition, Democrats refused to fund the lawful functions of the Department of Homeland Security. And this is important: The House- passed Department of Homeland Security funding bill funds all of the lawful, statutorily authorized functions of the Department, including the immigration law enforcement component of the agencies that, under the Obama administration, has been prevented from enforcing the laws. Colleagues, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--now, I guess, 2 years ago--filed a lawsuit against their own supervisors declaring that they were being forced to violate their oath to enforce the laws of the United States. I have never seen that. It is so bad that the ICE officers have filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from ordering them to violate plain law. Let me note that the President has already shut down the Department by ordering immigration officers and agents to violate the laws and sabotaging enforcement in a number of ways. These are direct orders of this administration, dismantling systemic enforcement of our laws. So I think the Senate Democrats and the President must answer why they believe funding Executive amnesty and unlawful immigration policies would make this country safer. They say: Well, you won't pass a Homeland Security bill like we want it. You are not making America safe. I say their policies eviscerating law enforcement are making America less safe, as the Immigration and Customs agents do, the ones who process the applicants. Ken Palinkas, the President of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, has written that: This amnesty executed by the President will make us less safe. His amnesty makes us less safe. Passing a bill that stops his amnesty will make us more safe. As a matter of fact, he said that more than one time--a number of times. He is very concerned, as his officers are, that if they carry out these policies, the American people are going to be less safe. In fact, they have said explicitly there is no way they can carry out in any effective manner the unlawful orders of the President of the United States. Is anybody listening to the people who do the work every day? Does anybody care what they think? Apparently not. So they are going to come to the floor and accuse Republicans in the House and on this side of the aisle of not making America safe when their own officers say the President's policies are making America less safe. They say there is no way they can effectively process the individuals they are asked to process. They can't process the numbers today, much less what will happen under this bill when they have to process another 5 million. It is just a very unwise thing. So what did the courts say? I think this is an important quote from the Texas court. A Federal court found that the President had overstepped his bounds. That is what the court fundamentally declared, stating: It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has the power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration. That is absolutely true. It is in the Constitution. As he said: It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has the power under the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration. So after the President issued his order and his Department issued orders of amnesty on November 20, 2014, the President, amazingly, said this: ``I just took an action to change the law.'' Don't we know from elementary school that Congress passes the law? The President doesn't pass the law. He said 22 times that he didn't have the power to do this, but now he has moved forward and admitted he is changing the law. Well, some of our colleagues think: Oh, if we resist this, the President is going to accuse us of not funding Homeland Security, not protecting the Republic.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. But I don't think that is so. They say: Well, the press is unfair. Well, not always. I think sometimes we Republicans are right to complain but not always. This is what the headlines are today. The headlines aren't saying Republicans are blocking the bill. Politico: ``Democrats filibuster Department of Homeland Security bill.'' The Hill: ``Shutdown looms as Dems block DHS bill.'' McClatchy: ``Filibuster continues as Senate Dems block DHS funding bill.'' CNN: ``Senate Dems block Homeland Security funding bill again.'' Washington Post: ``Senate Democrats block DHS spending bill targeting Obama's immigration actions.'' Associated Press: ``Dems Block Action on DHS-Immigration Bill.'' New York Times: ``Senate Democrats Block Vote on Homeland Security Bill.'' Politico: ``Dems filibuster DHS bill.'' Well, that is absolutely true. We are bringing the bill to the floor. We are not blocking it. We want to fully fund Homeland Security. We want the laws enforced. We don't want to spend money from Homeland Security to eviscerate the law of the United States and undermine immigration law in America, and we don't want to fund an unlawful action by the President. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the measures that took place in this Executive amnesty that has been too little commented upon since the President signed these orders in November is another program which has not been authorized by law which would add several hundred thousand new workers to our country. This is the headline from an article today: ``DHS Extends Eligibility for Employment Authorization to Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses of H-1B Nonimmigrants Seeking Employment-Based Lawful Permanent Residence.'' The H-1B program was set up for certain individuals to come and work for 3 years and then extend maybe another 3 years only, to take a job in those industries and fields where there is a shortage of workers, and it does allow the spouses to come. But since its beginning it has barred spouses from working; otherwise we would be doubling the number of workers. So this bill now just up and approves spouses of H-1B workers to work. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, estimates that ``the number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years.'' This is a very large addition to the workforce. One might say: Well, it is good that spouses can work. Well, what if your child wants a job? What if you want a job? What if your spouse wants a job and is looking for a job? Now we will have another 250,000 job applicants, contrary to law. There are many other aspects of the President's Executive order that have not been given attention. I think this one is worth commenting about. There has been no sense at all by President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, the Democratic Members of this Congress--no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green card holders, and native-born Americans. We have high unemployment and the lowest percentage of Americans in the working age group actually holding jobs in America that we have had since 1970. Wages are down. Professor Borjas at Harvard documents that excessive immigration pulls down wages. Since 2007 wages of median-income families are down $4,000. I would say to colleagues that the first thing we should do is focus on getting jobs for Americans who are unemployed. Are we going to keep Americans on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we have Americans ready and willing to take those jobs? They like to suggest these guest workers are doing farm work. They are not. The overwhelming majority of guest workers admitted to the U.S. are not farm workers, but are taking jobs throughout the economy. A farm worker program, with temporary labor, if properly managed, is a good program. I do not oppose that. People come and work for a period of time, and if they return home and come back the next season and make enough money to take care of their families maybe for the whole year, that can work if properly managed. But look at this. The H-1Bs are people with high-tech degrees, high-tech skills. They are competing against college graduates who have computer skills and other skills. This is what we get. This is how it is working in this country. A bunch of companies got together and they signed a letter to Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, asking for immigration reform back in September 2013. They said they needed more H-1B workers, and they pushed for that. I would just note this: Byron York from the Washington Examiner has written about this, and this is what the facts are. They are not hiring people. They don't have a shortage of workers. They are laying off workers in very large numbers. Hewlett-Packard had 29,000 job cuts in 2012--29,000. They signed the letter. Cisco Systems eliminated 4,000 jobs in August 2013 in addition to 8,000 cut in the last 2 years. They signed the letter asking for more H-1B workers. United Technologies cut 3,000 jobs in 2013; American Express, 5,400 jobs in 2013; Procter & Gamble, 5,700 jobs in 2012; and T-Mobile, 2,250 layoffs in 2012. These are companies that are asking for more foreign workers. This is another report that was in the Los Angeles Times just a few days ago: ``A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs.'' Since last summer, [Southern California] Edison-- The biggest utility company in California-- which serves nearly 14 million customers, has been firing its domestic IT workers and replacing them with outsourced employees from India. . . . The pay for Edison's domestic IT specialists is about $80,000 to $160,000 not including benefits. Good pay. The two Indian outsourcing firms providing workers to Edison, Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys, pay their recruits an average of about $65,000 to $71,000, according to federal filings. They are laying off hundreds and requiring the California Edison employees to train the H-1B workers who shouldn't be coming into America unless there is a job need that is unfilled. How can you say we don't have qualified people? They are doing the job, and they are expected to train them. This is the kind of thing that is out of control. Somebody needs to defend the legitimate interests of middle America. We need to ask ourselves: Does this make sense? Should the President be doubling up on it with his Executive amnesty that would add 179,600 new workers in the first year of his order and 55,000 more annually on top of the H-1B flow? We have legislation that has moved in this Senate that would more than double the number of H-1B workers coming into the country when the evidence indicates they are not needed. It might make businesses happy; they can pay half the salary of what they would otherwise be paying. But it would not be good for Americans who invested in education, trained themselves, worked themselves into a good job, and have it pulled out from under them. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.