vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 55, the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of the treasury, john andrew koskinen of the district of columbia to be the commissioner of the internal revenue service. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion.

the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john andrew koskinen of the district of columbia to be commissioner of the internal revenue service signed by 19 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i mowf to executive session to consider calendar number 382. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in safer say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. reid: i send a cloture -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. mr. reid: i apoll jayce for jumping in. the clerk: brian j. davis of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. mr. reid: i ask that the clerk to report the cloture motion. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on brian j. davis of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida, signed by 1 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have t the ayes do have it. the motion is a agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar number 452. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: federal reserve system, janetl. yellen of california to be chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of jaanet l. yellen. signed by 1 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the nails be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion.

all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 455. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of veterans affairs, sloan d. gibson to be deputy secretary. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of shown d. gibson of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary of veterans affairs, signed by 17 senators

as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 445. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of vat state, sarah sewell of massachusetts to be an undersecretary of state. scried i ask that the cloture motion desk be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of sarah sewell of massachusetts to be under secretary of state, civilian security, democracy, and human rights signed by 17 senators as follows: mr mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 371. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the mom nation. the clerk: nomination,

department of the interior. michael l. conner of new mexico to be deputy secretary. mr. reid: i send a cloture noaghts desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of michael l. connor of new mexico to be deputy secretary of the tear teerks signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the nainls waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 457, i ask that it be in executive session. the presiding officer: question is on the mo motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of the treasury, sarah blame raskin of maryland to be deputy secretary. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of sarah bloom ras civment n to be deputy secretary of treasury. mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to

proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 356. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in sphaifer aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: jessica garfalo wraight of pennsylvania to be under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. mr. reid: mr. president, i send a k4r0e67 motion to the desk. -- a cloture motion to the desks. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of jessica garfalo wright of pennsylvania to be under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness signinged by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names not be necessary. officer without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to

legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 18 the. -- 189. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: chemical safety and hazard investigation board. richard j. engler of new jersey. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of richard j. engler of new jersey to be a member of

the chemical safety and hazard investigation board signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, it's my understanding that senator sessions tonight wants to speak for up to 30 minutes. that would be, everybody would be limited to ten minutes except him. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: it is. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i've spoken a bit earlier in relation to the nomination of jeh johnson to be the secretary of homeland security. and it's an important department. 240,000 people, including disparate agencies such as the coast guard, the secret service, the t.s.a. airport personnel. and i.c.e. officers who enforce immigration laws, our border patrol officers who patrol the border; customs and immigration service which evaluate and approve or disapprove people who apply for admission to the united states, and agency after agency. many of these are complex departments. i've watched it and i do not

believe it has been brought together to the degree it ought to be, and it hasn't had the kind of strong leadership it needs to have to be an effective producer for the american people. in addition to that, we've got the difficulty that this administration has basically told the immigration component of homeland security, one of its largest component parts, that they shouldn't do their job. they have been blocked and instructed not to enforce law to a degree that professor turley said it represents an unacceptable alteration of the madisonian of separation of powers. in other words, the president is charged with the duty to enforce law, to see that the laws of the united states are faithfully enforced. he's not given the power to

flatly direct his officers not to enforce laws of the united states congress. and so, mr. johnson i'm sure has many abilities. he's apparently a wall street lawyer, big political campaigner, raised a bunch of money, gave money to president obama, is a close confidante of president obama, was made the legal counsel for the department of defense, which he said he was president obama's man at the department of defense. but he's not had any kind of real leadership, and i would expect leadership in management experience. he shows no interest in or desire to seize control of this department and try to make it better and to honor the officers who are a part of it and who serve their country often at risk every day only to find that

high political appointees in that department undermine their ability to enforce the law and place their lives at risk. you say, jeff, that's an exaggeration. i'm going to talk tonight in some detail about just a list of some of the things that this administration has done to undermine, block and frustrate the ability of the fine law officers, i.c.e. officers, customs and enforcement officers, border patrol who serve our country on a daily basis at risk to themselves. and it's not good. a lot of people might not know, i was a federal prosecutor and attorney general of alabama. when i was traveling the state, i'd meet with law enforcement officers, and i would ask them, this was back in the 1990's, the mid-1990's, what happens when you apprehend somebody in

alabama that you identify as illegally in the country. and their answer was nothing. we let them go. that we're told by the federal officials who only -- who are the only ones that can deport anybody, we're told by those officials that if you don't apprehend at least 15, don't bother to call us. and so we just don't do it. people are shocked at that. i would have town meetings and i would ask people what happens if your local police officer, local sheriff apprehends somebody. they think they turn them over to the federal government for deportation. not happened. hasn't happened in a long time. but it's gotten worse than that. the argument was, well, what we would do is we would enforce

workplace, and we would enforce people to keep them from getting a job. and if they didn't have a job, they wouldn't come to america, and we're going to enforce that. and that's never been effectively enforced either. that's just talk. it's not happening. at a time of extraordinarily high unemployment, at a time when wages for working americans are sliding downward, not going up, every month that goes by we're seeing large numbers of people hired part time rather than full time. and all of us this is happening while we're totally unwilling to take any action that would stop illegal workers from getting jobs that americans need to be taking. i mean, we just do. we've got american people that are hurting. we've got american people unemployed.

we've got children and grandchildren and grandparents and mothers and daddies unemployed or only in part-time jobs. and over the last five or six years the number of people who have gotten jobs in america is about 1.9 million over that period. that's how many immigrant workers entered the country. so the net improvement in immigration in a mathematic sense has all gone to foreign workers who come to america legally or illegally. and so i guess i'm saying we need to be serious about this. we need to ask ourselves, don't we have an obligation to the american people to faithfully enforce the laws and to end the lawlessness and to create a good immigration system that serves the interest of america and american workers.

i think we do. i think that's what the american people want. i think they're entitled to that. and i want to show tonight how far away from that we are today. and the reason i'm talking about it is that we're about to confirm jeh johnson as the secretary of homeland security, and he's a political confidante of the president. the president has no intention of enforcing the laws, and he's created a circumstance that's not good for this country. and mr. johnson, ph -- in my brief conversation with him, seemed like a nice enough gentleman, but he -- but i just asked him why do you want this job, mr. johnson? you say you believe in law and you believe the laws ought to be enforced. if you take this job, you're not

going to be allowed to enforce the laws. you just need to know that. i asked him would he be willing to confront the president and tell him, mr. president, you can't do this. i'm a sworn officer here. i've got thousands of officers working for me out there on the streets, out there dealing directly with people in violation of american law. and i can't keep telling them not to do what they're required to do. i don't have the ability to deny them the right to enforce the laws of the united states. and as i indicated earlier, this issue was defined early in the obama administration. president bush was slow, but president bush, after it failed, immigration reform, comprehensive reform in 2006 and 2007 seemed to get it finally;

very slow. and so he called out the national guard, which made a positive difference. he stepped up enforcement. we finally began to build some fencing, and he began to have some workplace enforcement. pretty good bit. they raided some chicken plants in georgia. they did this, that and the other and found hundreds and hundreds of people illegally here working. what happened in georgia was they had to raise pay to get nonillegals to come to work. what's wrong with that? pay is too low in america. we need higher wages. mr. president, i see the majority leader. i'd be glad to yield to him. thank you. so, what happened when he took office? well, the people during the campaign that had been interfacing with the obama

administration obviously had a deal. they were told they were going to stop these kind of enforcements and they weren't going to do them anymore. and they complained. and it was completely justified enforcement action in washington state, so they complained, and as a result the secretary of homeland security who mr. skwropbg son will -- who mr. johnson will replace, secretary napolitano, vowed that she would get to the bottom of this problem, close quote. an article in "the washington times" quoted a homeland security official as saying the secretary is -- quote -- "not happy about it. and instead of enforcing the law, the secretary conducted an investigation, and she investigated the law officers who were simply doing their duty apparently in response to some demands of advocacy groups that had been pushing them during the campaign. then esther oliveria, deputy

assistant secretary of homeland security said on a phone call with employers and proamnesty groups that -- quote -- "we're not doing raids or audits under this administration." close quote. we're not doing raids or audits. so this decision, this statement seupl pwolzed the -- symbolized the end of workplace enforcement in america and it is in violation of law. workers are not entitled to work illegally in an american factory or plant. where did this come from? how did it ever get to be the idea that americans have their jobs taken from people illegally in the country and you can't ever do an investigation or enforcement action and remove people who are illegally here and not authorized to work.

okay, then in 2010 the administration began implementing its plan to dismandating the immigration law enforcement system as we know it. here's what happened. on may 19, 2010, in an interview with the chicago tribune, then-director of i.c.e., john morton, announced that i.c.e. may not even process or accept illegal aliens transferred to the agency's custody by arizona officials. arizona, of course, is facing a very, very serious crisis. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator yield? mr. sessions: i'd be pleased to yield. i know the leader has many, many challenges and would be pleased to allow him to take the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my friend, the junior senator from alabama, is always so courteous aeupbd appreciate it very much -- and i appreciate it very much. i ask his statement not appear interrupted in the record. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration

of s. res. 322. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 322, to authorize the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., that is, december 17. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, mr. president, the first vote will be at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with respect to the budget agreement.

if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of the senator from alabama, senator sessions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank senator reid. he is always courteous and has always treated me fairly. except we don't always get amendments. to continue, mr. president, on may 27, in 2010, an internal i.c.e. email revealed that top officials declared that the low-risk immigration detainees would be able to have far greater visitation rights with visitors staying an unlimited amount of time during a 12-hour window, which can really make maintaining order in the detention facility difficult,

and also that they would -- the detainees would be given access to unmonitored phone lines. the mayor of your town is in jail over tax evasion. he doesn't get unmonitored phone line use, but apparently illegal aliens, noncitizens do. they get email, free internet calling, movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training. all of these are for people who have been apprehended illegally in the country and really should be on a fast turnaround to be turned to the country from which they came. on june 25, 2010, the national i.c.e. council -- that's the union that represents more than 7,000 fine i.c.e. officers -- cast a unanimous vote.

they voted no confidence in the director of -- their director, john morton. according to the union, the vote reflected -- quote -- "the growing dissatisfaction among i.c.e. employees and union leaders that director morton had abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing united states immigration laws and enforcing public safety and has instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies relating to amnesty." close quote. that's a big thing. i have been here in the senate now for going on 17 years, and i'm not aware of a major governmental employee union voting no confidence in its boss. particularly when it deals with the simple policies of law and enforcement, not even relating

to some workplace rule or complaint. so in august of 2010, top i.c.e. officials begin circulating a draft policy that would significantly limit the circumstances under which i.c.e. could detain illegal aliens, limiting the circumstances. in effect, i.c.e. agents were no longer authorized to pick up an illegal alien for illegally entering the country. an i.c.e. officer not able to pick up someone for illegal entering the country or for possessing false identification documents. fraudulent documents. well, you go to the bank, you go to get on an airplane, you use a false document, somebody's going to prosecute you, but if you're apparently a noncitizen who entered the country illegally, you are just given immunity by the administration policy from using false documents. why? because they don't want to see

the law enforced. that's the reason. they basically have made that decision. so now illegal aliens could only be detained if other law enforcement agencies made an arrest for a specific criminal violation unrelated to immigration. so this was the beginning of what would become known as administrative amnesty. then in december of 2010, a "washington post" article on internal i.c.e. emails and communications reported that i.c.e. had padded its deportation statistics. many of you have heard that i.c.e. claims to have -- and the administration claims that they have deported far more people than before. therefore, they should be applauded for being effective law enforcement officers. but it appears -- not appears. it's a fact. those numbers were padded and

exaggerated. according to "the washington post" article, i.c.e. included 19,422 removals in fiscal year 2010. there were actually removals from 2009. now, we have had a problem in this country, and there is a growing concern about this administration not telling the truth, and their philosophy seems to be we say whatever is convenient at the time, and when we get called about it, we just don't worry about it. we just keep right on going, and our friendly press or something will just ignore it. but it's beginning to bite now. people are getting tired of this. this is a deliberate 19,000 misrepresentation of the number of removals. the article also described how i.c.e. extended a mexican repatriation program beyond its operation date, adding 6,500 to

the final removal numbers. again, making them look better than they were. in a march 2, 2011, memo, i.c.e. director morton outlined new enforcement priorities and encouraged agents not to enforce the law against most illegal aliens and to only take action against those who meet certain priorities. on july 17, 2011, i.c.e. director morton issued a second memorandum further directing i.c.e. agents to refrain from enforcing the law against certain segments of the illegal alien population, criteria similar to that under the dream act. despite having no legal or congressional authority to do so and despite the fact that congress had explicitly rejected the dream act three times.

and this is a matter of serious constitutional import, as i will discuss later as cited by prominent legal scholars. on june 17 of 2011, i.c.e. director morton issued a third memo instructing i.c.e. personnel to consider refraining from enforcing the law against individuals engaged in a protected activity related to civil or other rights. so if you're in the country illegal, for example, -- illegally, for example, union organizing or complaining to authorities about employment discrimination or housing conditions, you can be protected from being deported. anybody who is in a nonfrivolous dispute with an employer, landlord or contractor seems to be eligible to avoid the consequences of being in the country illegally.

on june 23, 2011, the i.c.e. agents and officers' union again expressed outrage over director morton's actions, noting that since the administration was -- quote -- "unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, it is now implementing it through agency policy." close quote. that's exactly what they did. everybody that knows enough about what's going on knows that's what they did, but somehow like the frog and the ever-warming water, we are oblivious to the consequences to our separation of powers and to our constitutional structure when an executive branch declares a law and directs a law to be enforced and carried out that was never passed and in fact rejected in recent years three separate times.

the action of the ice officers also association accused the political appointees of working -- quote -- "hand in hand -- close quote with the open borders lobby. they see this on a daily basis, while executing its own -- while excluding its officers, the i.c.e. officers from the policy development process. in effect, i.c.e. officers allege that the political appointees at i.c.e. were advancing the agenda of those here illegally and maneuvering against their own law enforcement officers trying to do their duty. to enforce the law and end the ill legality in america. that is exactly what they said was happening and that is exactly what is happening, colleagues. it just is. on june 27, an internal

memorandum revealed that i.c.e. officers attempted to publicly distance themselves from the administrative amnesty policies and deny that they ever existed. that's the top political appointees tried to distance themselves from these policies and deny they existed. after "the houston chronicle" exposed the department of homeland security directive to review and dismiss valid deportation cases in process. on august 1, 2011, the justice department filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop alabama's law that was designed to assist the federal government in identifying in moving -- in bringing forth to the federal officials, not to deport people who were in the country illegally. on august 18, 2011, secretary napolitano announced that d.h.s. was reviewing all pending and

incoming deportation cases to stop proceedings against those illegally aliens who were not d.h.s. priorities. on september 28 of 2011, at a roundtable for amnesty advocates, president obama -- at a roundtable with advocates, admitted that his deportation statistics were misleading. quote -- "the statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we have been doing is apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. that is counted as a deportation even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours." now, that's pretty interesting. so the president is now meeting with amnesty advocates, and he's admitting to them but not to the

american people. he told the american people they had an enhanced number of deportations but when he met with the amnesty people to assuage their complaints that too many people were being deported, he said that the numbers weren't correct. i -- you know, we need the president of the united states to look the group in the eye and say if you come to america illegally, expect to be deported if we apprehend you. i mean, what else should he say? he is a chief law enforcement officer of america. he is charged with ensuring that the laws of the united states are faithfully executed. on october 12, in testimony before the house judiciary committee, director morton admits that cecilia munoz, a former national council of laraza senior vice president and

then-assistant to the president and director of the white house domestic policy council, assisted in the preparation of the administrative amnesty memorandum. la as rasa has been awfully aggressive on these issues and they have every right to be aggressive, but i have to tell you their positions are nowhere near anything that comes close to being an advocate for a lawful system of immigration in america. they want the lawlessness to continue. so on october 18, 2011, i.c.e. refused to take any action after the santa clara county, california, board of supervisors voted to stop using county funds to honor i.c.e. detainers except in limited circumstances. let me tell you about this. i have been an attorney general and u.s. attorney. a detainer is a very wonderful

law enforcement tool that's critical to harmonious relationships between various agencies. so if somebody arrests somebody and they are serving time for drug dealing or burglary and another jurisdiction has a charge against them, they place a detainer against them at that jail, and as soon as they finish their term, they are not released, they are repaired over to the agency that has another charge pending against them. so the santa clara county board of supervisors voted not to allow the federal government to place detainers on people in their jail who are here in the country illegally and voted in effect not to turn them over as all law enforcement officers do and have done for decades and maybe -- in maybe 100 years or more.

so on october 19, this is -- so i.c.e. didn't do anything about it. they still send them federal money for law enforcement. they have things that they could do. they just went along with it because i guess they -- they don't care. on october 19, i.c.e. refused to act after the district of columbia, d.c., mayor vincent grayish you'red an order to -- gray issued an order to prevent the d.c. police from enforcing u.s. immigration law. among other things, the order prohibits all public safety agencies from inquiring about an individual's immigration status. they can't even inquire about it. or from contacting i.c.e. if there is no nexus to a direct criminal investigation other than immigration. on october 31 of 2011 -- well, you know, the district of columbia knows better than that.

and i can't imagine this. as much money as the taxpayers all over america pump into this city. and -- and the guys say they won't even -- their officers can't even inquire to see if somebody is illegally in the country. that's really a stretch. that's really unacceptable and we ought to cut off funds for cities that refuse to at least conduct minimal cooperation with federal law enforcement. october 31, the justice department filed a suit against south carolina to block their immigration law designed to help the federal government enforce immigration laws. they got plenty of time to sue states and other entities who want to help them enforce the laws. they've got plenty of time also to meet with amnesty groups, but not -- no time whatsoever to meet with these law officers and

find out what their concerns are or to draft policies that would help us be more effective. on november 7, 2011, uscis issued a memo -- that's the citizenship and immigration service. they're the ones who deal with the applicants of people who want to come here lawfully under certain limited circumstances and they have to prove certain things before they're admitted. so the uscis officials, political appointees, issued a memo stating that uscis will no longer issue -- quote -- "notices to appear in immigration court to illegal aliens who do not meet administration priorities," a major step backward. on november 22, the justice department filed suit against utah's immigration enforcement system. got plenty of time to sue utah,

who would like to help them enforce the law. on november 22, i.c.e. refused to act after mayor michael bloomberg signed a measure ordering all new york city jails to ignore certain i.c.e. detainers issued to deport illegal aliens from those jails. so the mayor of new york issues an order not to honor the detainers placed there by federal government. the united states government. and mr. bloomberg is spending millions of dollars of his hundreds of thousands -- i think millions -- of his billion-dollar wealth to lobby the house to pass an amnesty bill. it's his money. i guess he can spend it where he wants to. but just because he's made a billion dollars, i don't think it suggests to me that he has any better idea about how to run

the immigration system of the united states than i do, who spent 14 years dealing with federal law enforcement. on december 15, 2011, d.h.s. rescinded the mayo copa county, arizona's cooperative agreement where local law enforcement received training in identifying and apprehending illegal aliens and handling them in a way perfectly consistent with law and beyond law, being very careful in how we treat people who are detained in a decent and very fine way. the 287-g program is a very fine program. it really is good. and it's a great disappointment to me that this administration is basically -- has basically killed it. i remember alabama was the first state in the nation that participated in in 187-g.

a certain number of officers, not a huge number, came to our training center for several weeks and were trained on how to be of valuable assistance to the federal officers bs, to maximize their ability to be effective. this has been canceled. it's basically ended under this administration. director morton cold the county attorney that i.c.e. will no longer respond to calls from the sheriff's office involving traffic stops, civil infractions or other minor offenses. d.h.s.'s legal reasoning is unclear given that federal law requires the federal government to respond to inquiries by law enforcement agencies to verify immigration status. in other words, local officers, they apprehend somebody. they make an inquiry as to whether this person is lawfully in the country and they have a right to be responded to. apparently they've chosen not to

respond to that basic law enforcement request. december 29, 2011, i.c.e. announced the creation of a 24-hour hotline for illegal alien detainees to be staffed by law enforcement -- the law enforcement support center, the same organization that i.c.e. had already stated was understaffed to keep up with the immigration status check request from state and local law enforcement. they were getting lots of requests from statuses on people on whether or not they were illegally here from local law enforcement. they don't have enough time to do that. now these officers have been given the extra duty of having a 24-hour hotline for illegal alien detainees. who are we serving here?

i.c.e. then revised its detainer form to include a new provision that says i.c.e. should consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction, closed quote, of an offense. it just completely ignores the fact that presence in the united states of america illegally is a criminal offense. entry into the united states illegally is certainly a criminal offense. on january 3 of 2012, a report by the inspector general revealed that uscis officials, top political officials, pressured the employees to approve applications that should have been denied and that employees believe they do not have enough time to complete the interviews of appea applicants - quote -- "leaving ample opportunity for critical information to be overlooked."

the 9/11 commission said people should be interviewed face-to-face and this has been collapsed today totally. on january 10, 2012, the president promoted cecelia munoz to be the new director of his domestic policy council. she previously served as senior vice president of la raza and took very extreme views, frankly. she should not be the person. we need an objective person in that position, not an advocate for really undermining a law. goodness. on january 7 -- i'm not saying that this is a bad person. she's a perfectly legitimate to be an advocate for amnesty or open borders. it's a free country. but they ought not to be put in a top position where the duty is to enforce the law. on january 17 of 2012, d.h.s. stopped the rollout of the

secure communities act in alabama, according to a d.h.s. e-mail, because the administration disagrees with alabama's immigration law. they just quit cooperating on a basic event. on january of 2012, i.c.e. attorneys in denver and baltimore recommended the agency voluntarily close 1,600 removal cases resulting in the release of illegal aliens already in proceedings without consequence of their violation of immigration laws. on january 19, 2012, the president issued an executive order from the president waiving certain screening safeguards, allowing those applying for nonimmigrant visas, people to come here to work only, to obtain them more easily from china and brazil. and on the same day, the state department announced it will waive the long-standing

statutory requirement of in-person interviews by a consular official in brazil or china or -- or yemen or wherev wherever. on february 7, 2012, i.c.e. announced the creation of the public advocate who is to serve as a point of contact for aliens in removal proceedings, community and advocacy groups and others who have concerns, questions and recommendations they would like to raise about the enforcement of laws and amnesty efforts. 2012, the president revealed his budget -- in his budget a proposal to cut funding for i.c.e. and the 287-g program, effectively gutting that. on april 17 of 2012, the administration announced it would reduce natural -- national guard troops stationed at the border from 1,200 to 300.

just one more. just one more action. is this the action of an administration that seems to be interested in seeing that we have a lawful system of immigration that we can be proud of, a legal system that promotes the interest of the united states of america? are we at a point in time where we're undermining law? well, i got about half of these done so far and i could contin continue. continue. it goes on and on and on and on. and it's a consistent trend and agenda. and it's basically, if you don't grant amnesty, congress, i'm not going to enforce the law.

just forget it. i'm going to direct my officers to do what i want them to do, not what the law of the united states requires them to do. it's a deep and fundamental challenge to the very integrity of the american constitutional order. you say, jeff, you're exaggerating. well, let me just tell you about a recent house judiciary hearing that was held on the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. chairman goodlatte summarized the reason for the hearing as follows -- quote -- "the obama administration has ignored the constitution's carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. this raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the executive

power granted to the president and specifically violates the constitution's command that the president is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the president's encroachment into congress' sphere of power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. as english historian edward gibbon, "decline and fall" author, observed in his "decline and fall of the roman empire" book, noted that the principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is dominated by the executive. so from obamacare to immigrati immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. so this is correct.

i believe chairman goodlatte is discussing an important issue. and what about the testimony of the witnesses at that hearing? it was really stunning. one witness, professor jonathan turley, well-known throughout the country, writes a lot in publications and legal journals, who is the professor of public interest law at george washington university law school and nationally recognized constitutional scholar, said he is a supporter of president obama's policies and voted for him. i want you to hear this, colleagues. professor turley at the hearing said this -- quote -- "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to