a government that's lasted longer than any other form of government in the history of mankind. think about that. the issue before us is less about immigration and perceived amnesty or what the memo says or doesn't say. it's more about the crossing of a sacred line, a sacred line that delineates power and separates power in three branchs of the government. this document that i carry in my document spells that out there are powers that the legislative branch has. not the judicial branch. that we have. that's the power to make law. the legislative branch creates law, not the executive branch. that line has been breached. regardless of how we feel about the issue. in the past when the legislative branch disagreed with the executive branch, they used the power of the purse. only we have the power to appropriate money. that's why we're here on this

bill at this time on a cr or an omnibus or whatever. it's a funding bill. with the power of the purse, i think we owe it to our constituents and to the founders that wrote this document to say, no, mr. president, or no, executive branch, you can't cross that line. you don't have the power to do that. we're going to get your attention, because we control the power of the purse. i appreciate the analogy that the gentleman from arizona had. i hope we do have the fight in january, mr. chairman. i believe we will, because i have your word on it. i have the word of other leadership. i'm ready for that fight. i personally they we ought to have it today. i think it's that important. because our constitution and the separation of powers continue to erode. as a river erodes a bank, eventually that bank falls in. this constitution and this government lasted longer than any others. i don't want to see it go away.

i believe in it that much. i believe in this institution, the legislative branch and congress. i appreciate you giving me time. many would say we're wasting the time of the rules committee by being here on an amendment that is not going to pass rules committee and it's not going to be part of the funding bill and we're wasting time. no we're not, because it's that important. o set the stage for future fights or have the fight today. but the fight is coming. i appreciate the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, who showed leadership on this issue. i support the mulvaney amendment. i hope the rules committee will because it's that important. with that i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from wisconsin for a few minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you members of the committee. i'm going to go in a different direction here, mr. chairman. i really do appreciate the comments you made earlier. this american experiment that is over 200 years old has been viewed around the world as the

greatest example of democracy ever invented, ever created and ever followed. here we are at the center of the democracy in a place that's become known as the people's house. the one place where democracy ought to reign supreme is in this chamber here. >> gentlemen, i would ask that you please not leave the room. we have heard from you. i know we are rearranging. you have not been excused to allow the committee an opportunity. i respect -- i know you respect me for that. feel free to join in. i would ask that you stick around until we have had a chance to answer back to you. the gentlemen is raised. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was talking about democracy. i think it's really critically

important that we don't fear it. i ask this question rhetorically. what have we to fear of democracy? this afternoon, i have listed to various amendments, some accepted, some not. what are we afraid of? if an amendment is found in order, the members get>wkñ÷ to the card, like this one that belongs to the american people, and the 700-plus thousand americas that they represent finally get their say on the floor of this great institution. sometimes amendments pass and sometimes they fail. there should be no fear of either of those things happening. this country and this body have often had pieces of legislation fail on the floor of the house and then what did -- what did its members do? they went and found a different policy option. theyn4)[ changed things. they found a new compromise.

that's democracy. we should not be in a place here in the people's house of allge, where that very concept is squelched. there's nothing wrong with us having a chance to say and give our voice to the people that sent us here. what mr. mulvaney has done is offered up an amendment. what we're asking for is democracy to prevail and encourage you and committee members to not fear it. it is good for us and good for this great american institution. with that i yield back. >> thank you very much. recognize the gentleman from florida. >> we welcome to the gentleman to the rules. you spent a lot of time today in and around here. i'm delighted you are here with us. >> i enjoyed listening. i come with full respect and humility to this group.

i am troubled by the cromnibus. first of all, it's too long. and we don't have proper time tñ consider it. secondly, it funds a bad war that we shouldn't be in. and third thing i don't like about it is that it doesn't contain the amendment for an executive decree that i think is unfair to so many offo our works at the bottom of the food chain. so i would ask that we could consider the amendment and take more time so that we can have better consideration of the bill and more consideration of the american worker that's impacted by this decree. so, therefore, i support the amendment. thank you.

>> gentleman from kansas is recognized. the gentleman who spent a good bit of time with me. i enjoyed every minute of it. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to visit here today. i know there's been a lot of discussion about various pointsz like to touchi1yfw onh made. first of all, just a personal point. i don't know. i'm not aware of any of my other cl colleagues, i have two adopted children that we adopted. i tell you, i believe it's unfair the president's executive amnesty that for those that have followed the rules and followed the system, we're talking about millions of americans, not just adapted dads and moms, but they follow the rules. with this executive amnesty, those still waiting in line are all bypassed. i think that's unfair. i think it's also unfair to the

22.7 million americans looking for a full-time job. this executive amnesty gives social security numbers, as we understand that, if it's permitted to go forward, to up to 5 million or more americans. again, i think that's unfair to them. one thing i want to talk about, particularly this -- i appreciate the chairman making the pledge that we will talk this up in january. >> yield. promise. >> i appreciate that. the promise to take this up in january. what worried me is the time, the date that dhs will be funded through is february 27. the executive amnesty, the time line for the docket portion of that is february 18. it will be implemented. they will be moving forward as required under the order before february 27. try as we might, in january, sending that to the president, he with ill not have to sign, we will not have to do anything until february 27 in terms of the reason that we're moving,

separating dhs. february 18 versus february 27, i do not know -- i visited with folks. how do you bridge that gap? i appreciate the promise to take that up in january 6, 7, 10, 9, take your pick. february 18 is certainly before february 27. we have seen -- many of us have seen the folks at the agency have begun the process to hire 1,000 agents. that's going to continue, i believe. we're going to be funding that continued ability to implement this executive amnesty. i fear that that will be too late by next year. i appreciate that promise. the issue is fairness for -- i thinkconstituents. they would like a vote on this. our leadership has said tooth and nail we will fight this executive amnesty. the vote last week i don't think qualified for that. this is our opportunity.

win, lose or draw i will take the results if you would allow a vote on that in the next day or so. with that i thank you for your time and your promise to work with us. >> thank you very much. >> gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. it's an absolute pleasure. it's with a heavy heart that i come to talk to you tonight. here we have a 1,600 page bill. i heard the ranking member say as much. we have less than 72 hours to read this bill. there's no possibility that actually comprehend what we're putting in here. we slammed it down. we are rewarding a senate who has taken up no appropriation bills. this is sad. as my friend and colleague from arizona said, we're care takers of a position that we have been given. hopefully i'm holding that line to make sure that i'm handing it to the next person with the highest respect that's due to this job. but it's also a demand to come

forward to hold a president accountable for the disdainful action he took with homeland security secretary that despite looking dilly gently and trying to bypass the constitution. here is a gentleman who say constitutional scholar who pits us against each other. how sad. how absolutely sad. i can't -- i cannot go forward without asking that we have a chance to vote upon this predication. some people say he has the power to not prosecute. in this mass, no way. that's not possible. business has to change in washington, d.c. that's what america sounded off on in november. they want people to speak up for them. what's in it for america? what's in it for them? what's in it for their jobs, their communities? this is a whole lot of nothing. this is sad."pyx so i rise in support of

rtí)p'ey's amendment. i want to see us have the courage to take the courageous vote about where do weconstitut? we've been doing this too long. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thank you for the opportunity. i want to thank my dozen or so colleagues who have stuck around today to have their say. also thank the 67 colleagues who co-sponsored this amendment in a short period of time. will close by saying this. i want to say something to my democratic colleagues but to everybody here, i know we will be attacked for attacking the substance. i can assure you that there are men and women on this amendment who disagree vehemently about different pieces of immigration. ójsexl&÷.ts &1 conversations. .%ts about how tho ha

to handle this. there's a largeui[px spectrum o people on this amendment who have very different ideas about how we should fix our immigration. this is not about immigration. it is about the process. and i hope that we could all agree on a bipartisan basis that this is not a good thing for anybody of us. mr. salmon's analogy is not a red herring. it's the template. we know what the template is now. in the future, a president is faced with a division between the house and the senate that cannot get along and cannot work and stands up on television and says since the house and senate cannot act, i will. since i want to have tax rates at 25%, i'm instructing the irs not to collect taxes above 25%. my guess is you would be as upset about that as i am about this. i support that policy. if that were to happen when i would be here, i would be here

again making the same amendment because the process is wrong and the process is flawed. everybody agrees. it's not good for either party or the country to have that type of government. i hear the chairman and respect the chairman and accept the arguments regarding having this fight in three weeks or in three weeks -- or three months. i appreciate the political realities that we face, not having control of the senate on our party until after the first of the year. but if we do not take a stand now, even if we lose, doesn't our argument in three weeks or three months or three years get that much weaker? if we don't take the stand now, even if we lose, i think it hurts us as we go forward. whatever the message was, mr. chairman, of the november election -- i have heard from people across my district. some people tell me the message is we should get along better

and work harder together. some people say we should push back harder against the president. my guess is it's different things to different people. the message was not my goodness, we need government by executive authority. what i want folks to know and what i think everybody who has cosi-signed on this amendment -i think what people need to know is that we hear folks back home. the message was not we need more executive authority. we hear that. we are as angry as they are. that's why we offer the amendment. that's why we come here today. that's why we sat here for three and a half hours, to make this argument. we hope we have that chance to take that stand as early as possible and as aggressively as possible. we hope you see fit to give us that opportunity tomorrow. if not, we will take it in january when we come back. >> i would like to let you know

that perhaps mr. gomer intended to join us. he has come in here. if the gentleman would wish to be a part of that, the gentleman -- >> actually, i have an amendment of my own. >> i thank the gentleman. thank you for each of your testimony and you taking time to be with us today. i will say back to the group, not saying anybody said it, but at no point did i say if you do i will. you may do what you choose. i've told you what i'm going to do. so it was always a straight up deal. mr. salmon's acknowledging that. this is true. i would like to just without asking you questions -- i don't think that's what i'mp;kf tryi accomplish. i would like for you to remember that the american people did elect nine new senators and a bunch of new house republicans. they take office january 5th. that's the process.

january 6th. i may be early. i'm so fired up about this. i will get here a day before, and i thank the gentleman for reminding me. i'm fired up about that. but that's the process. whether we like it or not. we knew before the election it would be sometime in january. that's when it happened. secondly, it would be unfair for anyone to characterize your vote -- regardless how you voted, but that if you voted yes that you were voting for this amnesty program, because in fact, until the house, the senate and the president all come to an agreement, the government could be shut down tomorrow. and that would continue. that is not even impacted in here. so i would love to encourage

you, know no matter what happens, you are not voting for that, even if you vote for the bill. number three, i respect a group of people, including new members and perhaps a member had a may not be coming back, but still who is fired up, michele bachman, about what she believes is her duty to come and petition the rules committee. have i tried to make sure any member that wanted to come up here could come up here. i ask that you respect us all. we'll respect you. but i would like for you to respect us. but i want you to know that this is a difficult position, because as a process guy -- that's what the chairman of the rules committee is. that's what mrs. slaughter was when she was the chair woman. she looks at all the legislation, not one piece of the legislation, all of it. and huge pieces of this have been handled by the rules

committee and voted on the floor. so there may be some bit of pages that have not been vetted. but it would be unfair to say the whole bill we didn't have a chance to look at or vet or know or understand. because i believe a lot of it we have. that's not against you. that's just what i believe is fair. and last part is, we are, whether we like it or not, on a timetable. i work for a big company for a lot of years. there were times when there were time frames and sometimes you could slip them and sometimes you can't. this is the lawyer. we're given until tomorrow night in the united states senate couldn't begin to turn around our understanding of what we're asking us to do if we do something that is extraneous to the process that's been agreed to. you can vote the way you want. i'm not going to try to talk you into it or out of it. what i want you to know is we

have a timetable. i will make sure and i have talked to the gentleman, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy. he came up to the office earlier today. he looked at the rules committee and he noticed the conundrum we're all in. we all support the mulvaney amendment. the success of a rain dance has a lot to do with timing. we're after this being successful, not after fighting a fight that we will say later, we can't go back to that. if the government -- if something happened where the government got shut down as a result of this because it was never going to be successful, then we might not come back to it. we might not be able to prevail on the issue, because the time before we should have learned our lesson. this is like putting your hands on a hot stove. i believe what the president did

is wrong. but there is a process to go through. and the way you get it done, in my opinion -- i have expressed to you, is to follow a process where you stand a better chance of making it happen. that will be a chance that is next year when nine new senators and a bunch of our colleagues are here. so this is where i am. and the committee is looking to your viewpoint here and my viewpoint, because they're going to have to make a vote here, too. and i have looked at the committee and told them that i forthrightly listened to you and tried to do the things and i've tried to talk what i believe are common sense principals and that is if we want this to happen, i will guarantee a vote next year in the first two weeks we're back. we can follow a process and the success will be -- stand a better chance.

i would like to not accuse you of anything. i would like for you to not accuse me of anything. of nothing being fair or anything else. but that's my viewpoint. i would yield to the gentle woman from north carolina for any comments she would choose to make or any questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you have done an excellent job of presenting to our colleagues the position that members of the rules committee are in and what i think is a way to move forward successfully. and i appreciate you taking the time to do that. i appreciate all my colleagues. i agree with the chairman. i'm not in favor of what the president has done. i've spoken against it. i have written against it. i agree completely with the

concerns that you have. but i do believe that there are processes we can go through that will make us successful, and they are processes we can go through where we will fail. and i'm much more in favor of success than i am in failing. and when i see a way to go forward successfully, then i want to use that process. i appreciate all of you being he here. i want to say, i look for us to have success in this effort. and i carry a copy of the constitution with me, too, everywhere i go. i cherish it as much asmjy[y an in here. and i am not going to do anything i believe that is going to diminish the role of that

document in our country and in our lives. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you. i would like to associate myself with the gentle woman ae's comments. we have been placed in a position to think a lot about this over the last couple of hours. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i don't want to prolong this. but i do want to say to my friends here that -- it should come as no surprise that i disagree with you on the substance. if people wanted to do something on immigration, we could have passed a bill and done something, whatever it was, i'm sure i would have had differences with it. while i disagree on the substance, i don't disagree on the process. this should never be acceptable under any circumstances, no matter who is running the house of representatives. i have no idea what's in here. every minute i find out a new tidbit. but this is not a process that i think anybody should want to endorse. number two, i think that it's --

i think it's important as we're all talking about -- everyone is holding up the constitution. remember that one of the responsibilities that we have cops with the issue of war. we are at war again. we have not authorized -- we have not passed an aumf to go to war. i have tried in this committee on numerous occasions to allow there to be votes on house floor so we could vote whether to authorize this action or not, to do our constitutional responsibilities. and have been routinely shut out. but what frustrates me about this conversation is that all of you have voted for the rules. so i think this is a place where % e deba debated. but we should be consistent here. there ought to be a move that we

move into the next congress to appreciate that sometimes you have to support amendments to express a point of view you may disagree with. i agree with the president. i'm glad did he what he did. if you want to debate it, that's fine with me. i'm worried we're going on recess and we have 3,000 troops deployed in iraq and every utterance i hear is we're getting closer to a combat mission and we are going home. i just -- i couldn't let this moment pass without making that observation. i think we ought to have a more open process. as we end this session, this is the most closed -- we have the most closed rules in the history of congress in this session. that's the distinction. i don't think that that's something we want to repeat in the next congress, even with you in charge. i yield back my time. >> gentleman yield back his

time. i appreciate the gentleman for his polite comments. the gentleman from -- the gentle woman from new york? does not. gentleman from oklahoma, the chairman is recognized. >> thank you. i want to make two points. first my friend on the other side of the oiaisle, we agree ts is not where we want to be. let's be clear, we are here because the united states senate, under democratic control, did not pass a single appropriations bill this year. not one. we cannot conference, we cannot do things if they don't do their job. we gave them seven different chances to pick up a bill that this body had passed, often in bipartisan fashion. and they didn't do it. that's why we're here. that's why our friends are frustrated. i yield to my friend. >> to give us a week to read it.

it would improve -- >> i didn't get to pick reclaiming my time. if my friend needs more time, i'm more than happy towu to him. a lot of this is not new. a lot of it was in the bills we passed. my friend raises a legitimate point. let's recognize why we're here. the other body didn't do their job. we tried to again and againyéqw again -- on a bipartisan basis. this is not a democratic failure in the house. this is a leadership failure in my view in the united states senate. that's why we are here. that's creating problems for all of us. my friends who have testified -- i apologize, i had another meeting to go to. i think the know the gist of the testimony. we had the opportunity to visit( generally. i'm going to recall a number of incidents in my misspent youth, which was badly misspent. some would argue my adulthood was misspent, but my youth certainly was. i learned if you are going to start a bar fight or be in a bar

fight, make sure you got as much of your friends in the bar at the same time as possible. i would suggest to you that in january, we have more friends in this fight that have the same point of view and the same concerns. i just think we will be more successful. i respect what you are doing. i do. i think the fact that we're having this discussion is helpful. the fact that people have different opinions, can express them is fine. i don't have any problem with that. at the end of the day the committee is charged with making a tough decision. think we will see what we do. but at the end of the day, i know one thing, as a republican, as somebody that has the same concerns about the presidential overreach that i know you have, it's got more help in january than i have in december. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you very much. my take away from this is i wish that i had been a fly on the wall as the republican

conference. there has been an active discussion, which i appreciate. i would like just to correct the record of mr. chairman, with no offense, when you began your remarks, you commented that all of the members of the rules committee had spoken with you about the amnesty measure that you claim is what the president has done. and i just wanted to make it clear that i think you were talking about all of the republican members. >> in fact, you are correct. i have spoken a number of times with mr. polis and i was not trying to reference -- that would be the republican members and the gentleman is correct. i thank the gentleman for his kindness in pointing that out. >> i yield. thank you. >> one point i also want to make is that we can blame the senate all we want. the senate has nothing to do with whether we in the congress

have a vote to authorize a war or not. we can do that on our own. >> all right. i thank the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? p r(t&háhp &hc% my favorite people in the congress testified here today. i think this is the beginning of something very different for us as a conference and for us as a congress. i think it bodes well. i think it bodes well for your commitment to make this happen, not to talk about it, not to put together a study group on it, not to enlist counsel on it. i'm grateful for that. i would like to ask mr. mulvaney, because i'm hearing from constituents, talking to a lot of folks, the tool we have had in our toolbox for the last four years that you and i have been here in congress has been to defund something. when we don't like it, we cut off the funding for it. that's what defund has come to

mean. if we shut down the department of homeland security tomorrow, do you think that will prevent the president from doing what he is doing? >> no. in fact, i'm certain that it won't. >> i share that concern. if there is something -- again, powerful coming out of what you are doing here, i think folks are having that conversation, at least back home in georgia for the first time in a long time. i thought congress had the power of the purse. i thought they could turn off the spigot. you have to do more than that, which is what the mulvaney amendment does. it changes the law apart from that. >> if your question is would a government shutdown accomplish anything that you and i would like to accomplish, the answer is no, it would not. i don't think anybody is here promoting a government shutdown.

i think if you wanted to get into the tactics of it, the argument would be that this is a must-pass piece of legislation for better or for worse. since that vehicle is so often to use things -- used to pass things that conservatives don't like, it might be nice to use it to pass things that conservatives like such as defunding the executive amnesty. your point is well taken. i recognize the political realities of not being in control of both houses and the white house. but i also at some point believe that there is value in having a fight for the sake of having a fight. generally. >> that's the other thing that comes out of this conversation. so often, as the chairman knows, we're in conversations don't take to take a tough vote, i don't want to be put on the hook for that. what this group is saying is sometimes, in fact, what

democracy demands is a vote. you win that vote, you lose that advocating to round those votes up. but that having the debate on the floor of the house and losing is not losing. it's a victory for democracy. it's a loss, but whatever the bill of the day was. but for the 700,000 people we represent back home, we call that victory that the process has worked. >> many of us here tonight have taken the position either to our conference or to the larger body in the past that we would be more than happy to vote for things that are less than perfect as long as we could participate in the process. i can't imagine a single member in this room of any party, either party who ran for office under the mantra, vote for me so i don't have to take hard votes in washington. >> you may have heard the gentleman from florida say it earlier. he said a broken process is going to create a broken product. that, yes, a flawed process -- flawed product, thank you.

there is opportunity here -- not here. but here to do that differently. again, what i saw happen here -- it wouldn't have happened without mr. mulvaney's leadership. it wouldn't have happened without folks willing to say i'm going to do it. it wouldn't happen without your leadership, either. but it's different from what i have seen in four years here that having a process that lets you get from here to there isn't something, it's absolutely everything. having a vote and an opportunity to vote isn't something that, t everything. i think about when we got here in 2011. i think it was january 2012 the first time the president said i don't care what the constitution

my appointees to the national labor relations board anyway. we would have had conversations among of the ourselves now about how it is that we're supposed to stop that. here we were 26 months later, we hadn't been able to do a thing. we couldn't get a defund national relations board bill across the floor of the house. we couldn't get that done amongst ourselves. it took the supreme court unanimously to step in and solve that problem for us. and shame on us that it takes the court to do it, that we didn't stand up and do it, that we didn't stand up and do it, not the republicans here but all of the folks who serve. i will close with this. it's mr. byers' opinion, he said the appointments clause was not designed to overcome friction

between the branchs, that friction between the branchs was an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. when folks are taking the shortcuts that erode that friction, they're not solving a problem, they're creating one. i'm grateful to these members for doing everything that they can for it not to happen on our watch. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> thank you. we had some of this debate last week with regard to the executive actions. at that point i submitted to the record the opinion of the office of legal services. the president asked whether this was legal. it was determined it was. a letter from over 100 legal scholars. i think it's -- this was not the preferred approach of this president. this was not the preferred approach of the democratic

party. apparently it's not the preferred approach of the republican party either based on people being upset with the discretion. the preferred approach was a legislative one. that's the only one that can provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have been here illegally. but the president has specific statutory authority to engage in prosecutorial discretion. congress is forcing the administration because there's 1 million people violating our law. congress hasn't given law enforcement or president the ability do enforce that law. so the president has to use the enforcement resources we have. it can be determined by field offices or it can be determined according to some reasonable scheme that focused on criminals, which seems to be a reasonable way to prioritize. but it's not anything that anybody wanted to do. and it will be up to the

republican majority in the house and senate to fix our immigration problem, as long as there are 11 million people here illegally -- in my state there's 450 people beds. there's no other alternative to pry prioritize. the senate did pass a bill. the house unfortunately did not pass a single immigration bill. that will be the real opportunity in the next congress, to address this issue. any president is going to do the best they can under impossible circumstances using their statutory authority. that's what the president did here. so i sure hope that the discussion in the next congress is what can we do to address our broken immigration system, restore the rule of law. i hope the conclusion is similar to the senate immigration bill which mr. chair i will be offering one last time.

i will offer hr-15, the senate immigration bill as an amendment to this appropriations bill here today. will speak to that later. i wanted to say that's the real answer to this. will yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'm not trying to take the gentleman on at all. but we did pass a border bill. we did pass a border bill that dealt with immigration before we left in august. >> with regard to the -- was that the one are wawith regard >> we did take action. i'm not trying to take you on at all. >> a minor piece. >> i'm trying to suggest we did take the issue up. >> there was one. >> awesome. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to yield about 30 seconds or a minute or whatever it takes to mr. woodall. >> i thank the gentleman. i say to my friend from colorado, who is one of my four

 this committee, every time you site the office of legal counsel for why the president is doing what it is doing, it was that same office of legal counsel that told him unquestionably, undeniably, he could make those recess appointments any old time that he wanted to. as you know from the lawyers that you hire, if you don't have a lawyer who tells you what you want to do you fire that lawyer and get you another one who will tell you that. it's not the president's responsibility to sort out constitutional questions. when it comes to article 1, it's not the supreme court's responsibility to sort that out, though they do it in the failure of us. it's our responsibility, not the majority's responsibility, not the minority's responsibility but our responsibility. it is precisely that kind of cavalier conversation about what happens at the white house that

bringso s out the passion that are seeing here tonight. it doesn't look like we're on the precipice of solving this. it looks like the divide is getting further. if i can't get what i want, i will count on my president to do it alone. i think that's dangerous. i thank the gentleman from thank you. we have done so many things -- i want to go back to what the chairman had mentioned earlier. because we believed that the president has overstepped his bounds on numerous occasions. and so has the rest of the executive branch. that's why we held holder in contempt. that's why -- i brought those pieces of legislation through the rules process to the floor. but also in regards to litigating against the president, brought that to the floor. u.s. freedom act. all those things are about an overreach of the executive branch. we have had that discussion. i have invited my democratic colleagues to say, it's not just

about a democratic president. it's about any president or administration that oversteps their bounds. the constitution is pretty clear in rars to acceegards to separa powers. i tried to say, listen, if it's democratic president this time, it could be a republican president next time. what are we going to do? because past precedents have been that presidents have been able to use executive orders to really scircumvent this body, when do you say enough is enough? that's what we have been saying all along. now i think we will get help that we have so desperately needed in the senate to do a lot of things that we should have gotten done with the help of the senate. i want to let you know, all of us at least on this side of the aisle are pretty upset with the executive overreach of this president and the executive

branch. and we're going to continue to do the right thing as we move forward. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and thank those that are here today. >> back to the gentleman from orlando, florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know exactly what to say. i feel that -- i hope we're not over promising anything. i feel like, you know, we failed in the past. we're going to fail again. but this is a body that i believe should operate including the senate. we should do what we believe to be is right. and then whatever happens, happens. but to -- it disturbs me that when we thwart the process we have here, because we're sent here to file bills and offercif amendments and make speeches and so forth. and we do it within the context

of this particular body. we take votes. some of them are tough and some are not so tough. but we came here to vote. somebody showed his card. it's got his signature on it, picture and, of course, it's borrowed for two years. the only thing that all of us have is a vote. that's it. i remember -- i would suspect mr. hastings remembers a speech that the longtime chairman here -- if i can remember his name from new york who chaired the -- yeah. anyway, there was a great speecj given about what do you got in your hand. it was a vote. that's it. that's all we got. and i just -- i'm disturbed that we can't always exercise that vote. it does bother me a lot. i don't know exactly what to do about it. i don't want to be a pessimist. i'm a very optimistic person

about everything. but i would say that i'm not so sure that any of that's going to change. and so just as mr. king four years ago offered an amendment on a bill in the first week of session after we gained a majority and were told we can't do it then, are you back for the same one? i don't know. it's been four years. we still haven't done it. so i hope that's not the case here. i do. i really hope we can take our cards, pull them out and use them every chance we get for as many amendments as we offer. i have said over and over again, let's just start at 8:00 in the morning and work until 6:00 every night and work until we're done and take up every one of these issues every time we get a chance. don't leave the most important issues to the end. take them up first.

i remember one time i learned my lesson about how legislative bodies work when the state of florida, the first bill they took up, was the naming of the state pie. there is an important issue. and after midnight on the last day of session, we passed a budget, we passed a rewrite of the welfare laws, we dismantled the department of commerce and created a department of health after midnight with two minutes of debate. but we did name the state pie. it was the key lime pie. i don't know. i hope that we're headed in -- i hope mr. woodall is right, that we have a group here that have made a point and i hope that point sticks. i do. and i hope that it is a change in the future that these type issues, when they come up, we

get a full opportunity not only to debate them, discuss them but pass them. i hope it comes up early. chairman has promised and i appreciate that of taking this issue up first. i think it's a very important issue. and i think we should discuss it before we get into any other things. i'm hoping it will change. like i said, i'm optimistic about that it will. but i will have to prove history wrong, because history tells you it's not going to change. so like i said before, power and principal cannot coexist. we either operate off principals or we operate off power. the question is, which is it going to be? yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. i won't take long. i want to associate myself with mr. webster's remarks. i think they were very much to

the point, probably wouldn't differ on the choice of pie. but it has been frustrating the past two years. it seems like we debate with ourselves until we can somehow intu it what we be acceptable to the other body. i do hope that a new day is dawning with the swearing in of next congress. i very much look forward. whether or not i'm still on the rules committee at that point or not, i very much look forward to that day. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. our panel has now heard from you. sounds like you have heard from us. i want to thank each of you for taking time to come by. i know you spent a lot of your day being here. i pray for your success and want to thank you for taking time to do it the way you have done it. i think you have brought credit on not only each other but upon this body and the idea that you are trying to get done. i thank each of you very much. you would now -- this now ends this panel.

we will call next panel up. thank you. mr. deutsche if you would come on up. mr. king, mrs. bachman and judge gomert. i'mgomer. i'm going to go, if i can -- we may have to clean some of those glasses off there. i don't know if we need any more water for anybody. if we do, i'm sure you'll notify me real fast. we're still operating the same rules that we did that we always have, and that is i welcome you to the rules committee, each of you, for your thoughts and ideas. and the reason why you're here, i would also say if you have anything in writing, without objection it will be entered into the record. mr. deutsche, we're going to try and take you all the way through the process. i know you've been here a long time. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you, chairman sessions, ranking member slaughter and fellow members of the rules committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify before you today in support of my

amendment that i introduced along with congressman mcgovern, congressman edwards, congressman sarbanes, congressman hastings as well to strike division and section 101 from this omnibus spending bill. the provision in question would allow the wealthiest donors in america to contribute an additional -- an additional $648,000 to the national political party and congressional parties every single year. indeed, this measure invites a tiny sliver of the american population to donate an additional $1.5 million per two-year federal elections cycle. that's the amount per person that this bill would allow the wealthiest few americans to inject into our political system. now, this provision increases the amount an individual donor can give to political party committees by over $1.2 million. an outrageous and exponential increase.

the limits done away with by this provision were a centerpace of the mccain/feingold bill in 2002 to address the widespread perception of corruption in our political party system. now, i believe that most americans would find it downright appalling that congressional negotiators saw fit to chip away at these landmark reforms in the middle of the night without debate and without even fair warning. now, i know you've heard from many of my colleagues today who were disappointed with how we arrived at this bill. members on both sides of the aisle. regardless of your views on the policy of these riders, the agreement in question today was struck in the middle of the night without public debate, without hearings, without a markup and now without apparently an open rule. one explanation provided by some of my colleagues on this committee is that well, you know, the bill's not perfect. that's compromised. there's some good. there's some bad. that's just the way we need to

work together to get things done. i respectfully but deeply disagree with the suggestion that this is just a compromise. it's not a compromise. this congress was not engaged in a debate over campaign finance issues that could potentially lead to a compromise. this was, quite simply, a sneak attack on our campaign finance system. it's a sneak attack on the american people at a time when poll after poll after poll shows that our constituents are losing faith in washington's ability to put their needs ahead of well-connected and deep-pocketed special interests. if this house ever once hosted a debate on which of the mccain/feingold reforms to toss out, which donation limits for millionaires and billionaires should be lifted, which money in our election should be disclosed to the public, i'd have been there. jim mcgovern would have been there. donna edwards, john sarbanes, walter jones would be there, every member of congress who has worked to restore faith in our democracy in the aftermath of the citizens united case would

have been there. the american people deserve such a debate. now, the argument that i heard earlier today, that these changes to our campaign laws getting rid of these limitations and increasing the amount that can be contributed, that they're necessary because presidential election campaign funds have been diverted to pay for pediatric cancer research, those arguments are disingenuous, and they are offensive. if the majority would like to restore public funding for conventions, then we should have -- we should consider that legislation on its merits. we've got the time. the next conventions won't be held for roughly 18 months. if funding of nominated conventions is a priority for the majority, then bring it to the floor in january. let's have a debate and let's figure out how to do it. the american people already feel excluded from the legislative process. the integrity of our elections already suffered enormous blow in 2014 when the supreme court

ruled in mccutchen that wealthy individuals have a constitutional right to exert more influence over elected officials than the people who elect them. we are witnessing an all-out assault on what was a bipartisan system of rules to reduce corruption and ensure that big money was not able to dominate our democratic institutions. when we arrive at campaign rules that are the product of secret bargains, it not only substantive contributes to more dominance by wealthy donors, but it proves our point. and finally, mr. chairman, you said earlier that because of the timing, we can't do things that are extraneous in this bill. i would submit that this entire process shows us that the system is broken. and i think that the people -- the people's house should vote on whether or not they want to make it worse. >> i thank the gentleman for his time. is there anyone on the

democrats' side? >> i don't have any questions, but i'm a co-sponsor of the measures offered by mr. deutsche, and he has spoken for me. >> thank you. any member of the republican side? >> mr. deutsche, your time was well spent. i know you spent a lot of time waiting over here, and it took us a long time to go through this today. your time that you spent with us was well spent. if you please make sure whatever you have in writing, we'll enter it into the record. >> i appreciate it. >> thank you, gentlemen, you can spend the night here, do whatever you want, but we're going to move on. if the gentleman excuses to excuse himself, he may. >> mr. chairman, members. >> yes, sir. >> mrs. bachman, welcome to the committee. we're delighted that you're here and with us tonight. please make sure that that green light is on for you. and the gentle woman is recognized. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and also the members of the committee as well as the ranking

member. it has been absolutely a pleasure to be here tonight and to listen to the thoughtful discussion regarding the mulvaney amendment as well as your timely remarks and those of everyone on this committee. it's very clear to me that this committee is highly concerned with upholding the constitution of our country as well as making sure that every member is heard. and i appreciate that. i appreciate that message. i'm here tonight for one simple reason. and it's because, as i wrote just a few notes down, if you don't mind if i can read them, i think it's very clear that in this committee, i think this is one of the most important committees that we have in this congress. that rules do apply to everyone including the president of the united states. it's my opinion that the president will hurt the american people by his unconstitutional granting of work permits. and i think the president himself recognizes that, that

timing is everything. and the time i believe to stop the president is now. which is why i'm urging this committee to allow the vote on the mulvaney amendment, on the gomert amendment and the king amendment. these are all good amendments. and i think the president demonstrated that he understands the importance of timing because i think we saw that this fall in that he cynically waited until after the election to announce his work permit order after the election results were in. he knew the american people were not in support of his actions, and that's why he chose that timing. timing is everything. the president's also chosen not to deport law breakers. criminal aliens on american streets. and now he will not only give away coveted, valuable work permits, but we understand that he's also opening access to our financially vulnerable social

security system to illegal aliens. you see, timing does matter. we talked about the vote. and if there is a vote in january on either the gomert or the king or the mulvaney amendment to defund unconstitutional work permits, my question is this. will the bill also include rescinding all of the work permits that the president will have already granted? will it go backwards and pull those work permits into the net? that's why we're here. again, because of timing. why not?d$md publicly state now why not?d$md publicly state fod in january? because, as we all know, guaranteeing a republican form of government, the public must have rule by law, not rule by whim. because as everyone in this room believes, i believe democrat and republican, the rule of law matters in january, but it also

matters today in december. it matters today because mr. king and mr. gomert and mr. mulvaney seek to prevent the unlawful distribution of unconstitutionally granted work permits. why? because the common man in this country and the common woman in this country, the american worker, will be the ones who are hurt by this granting of 5 million-plus work permits. i want to thank you for what you're doing tonight. this is tough. but the president's actions were no surprise to any of us in this room. not one. we've known now for months that the president planned to audaciously take action to authorize these 5 million-plus work permits in his own hands without the legal process. and so, again, i urge this committee to take under advisement the issue of timing. whatever this committee does, if the committee ch