from their letter. i have many letter to read but i shall pick a few and just read excerpts this one reads, and it's addressed to the honorable maxine waters, we are a small manufacturer in texas that exports thread and valve lubricants, primarily to the oil and gas industry. we have used export-import bank's export credit insurance for 13 year. -- years. during that time, our export business has grown by a factor of 15 because of the security offered by our policy with export-import. i shall go to the last paragraph which reads, please, emphasize to your colleagues that ex-im bank is not corporate welfare. this is a business. a business that has written this to us. or a charity of any kind. it facilitates u.s. exports especially for small businesses like us, while supporting

itself. please do not let them put our livelihoods on the chopping block for their own political gain. this is from southwest coast products, a texas business. i'd also like to read a letter from the greater houston partnership. the greater houston partnership is the preeminent chamber of commerce this my area. it is called the partnership because we do things differently in texas. and the partnership is also joined in this letter by a good many other entities that i shall name after having read an excerpt from this letter. it reads, the houston region continues to enjoy strong driven in large part by the export-import bank. in order to keep momentum, it is crucial that congress supports businesses to expand into new markets and to create new jobs.

the export-import bank of the united states is one of these tools and we ask that you support this legislation. the letter is addressed to me. and it goes on to add that small and medium sized businesses in our region also benefit directly from export-import small businesses account for nearly 85% of ex-im bank's transactions. further, these transactions -- transaction figures do not include the tens of thousands of small and medium sized businesses that supply goods and services to large exporters using the bank. this is signed by the bay area houston economic partnership, the bay town chamber of commerce, the brenham washington county chamber of commerce, the clear lake chamber of commerce, the greater beaumont chamber of commerce, the greater houston east end chamber of commerce, the houston northwest chamber of commerce, lake houston area chamber of commerce, league

city chamber of commerce, pear land chamber of commerce, west chambers county chamber of commerce, and the warden chamber of commerce. i close simply with these words. businesses are supportive of the ex-im bank. people understand the necessity for it. we but only need to have a vote on it to get it continued. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. waters: mr. speaker and members, you have heard about businesses and any number of districts that receive the support from the ex-im bank. i would like to read to you excerpts from a letter from chairman hensarling's district. this letter is about how ex-im bank helped save my business, he says. his name is gabriel, a president of the corporation.

and this is the excerpts i would like to read. during the past five years, we have grown our international cells from 15% to over 35% of our business. we now have major trading partners in over 30 different countries, including brazil, russia, india and taiwan. most recently, we exhibited our products at the international fair trade in germany. so what are they today? we're an american manufacturing of the best concrete ad mixers in the world and we sell them as far as canada and as far as south wellington, new zealand. we may be small, but we think big. in this age where everything seems to be made someplace else, we're driving here in the u.s.a. and in no small part due to the services provided by ex-im bank. lastly, i'd like to read excerpts from mr. mike boyle of best in new hampshire.

the c.e.o. and president of best is mr. michael boyle and he sent us a very good letter last week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. waters: we will enter into the record these letters that we're not able to read this evening. i thank you and we'll yield ack the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has yielded back. the time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, or 30 minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. one of my reasons for coming and taking some of this time this evening was around a frustration i've had and i think this may be for a lot of us who are from a border state who have been watching both the press and a lot of our brothers and sisters around this place,

about immigration, about the border crisis, and what's happening. if you're actually from arizona , this isn't a new issue for us . we've been bathing and living this for decades now. and i had that moment this last week where i realized maybe the awareness in this body is starting to change, to understand the impact of a border and what it means to communities. when i had one of my friends here from the midwest come up to me and ask me a number of questions because he had held a town hall and it was the first time he had had to face barrages of questions about immigration, about the unaccompanied minors, about the populations coming across the border, what were the potential threats, the disease, the drugs? and i realized, maybe i've partially had a misunderstanding. because when i go home, the

border is one of the key questions we talk about. because of the effects it's had on my home state in regards to education and incarceration and health care. and the amount of the burden that my citizens in arizona as taxpayers have had to take on that ultimately were the responsibility of this federal government. so i wanted to go through just a handful of things, a couple . mbers that we have found talk about some of the mechanics that may be coming at you us -- coming at us tomorrow. i know we're going to have different views on legislation, where it takes us, but i want to get some of the record straight here. do you remember over the last three, four years, particularly before the 2012 presidential race, we kept hearing how secure the border was.

i remember my former governor, janet napolitano, giving a speech, telling us the border's more secure today than ever before. do you remember the rhetoric that the president was bathing in in early 2012, allowing himself to be called the deporter in chief? well, as we later found out, and we found out sort of when many of the democrat-base activists started believing it and started protesting the president saying, you know, how can our democrat president be the deporter in chief, and all of a sudden the truth came out, and we found out that the obama administration had manipulated the way they calculate the numbers. previous administrations, if you had -- were mexican national, this is for the southern border, had been arrested within a couple miles of the border, you were captured, taken back, released back over the border, that did

not count in the deportation numbers. this president very conveniently apparently allowed them to redefine the math. and there becomes one of our great frustrations. we have debate here's on this floor -- debates here on this floor and we realize how manipulated so much of the math is. some of the underlying statistics that will come down here and quote -- we'll come down here and quote and we're holding the data and we realize, we've got conned, we got played. if you're going to build public policy, i don't care if you're on the left, on the right, you got to have an administration that's willing to play the data straight. you know, if you're going to make public policy on public data, give us honest data. and that becomes one of our great frustrations. because i will even have my hometown newspaper quote numbers that we found out

months ago weren't correct. were manipulated. they redefined the math. so just keep that in mind. just something that came across my desk just before i was walking over here. one of my county sheriffs, you have to understand in arizona we have only 15 counties, our counties are big, but arizona is a small state relative to the rest of the country. we're also the most urbanized state in the country. something that most people don't understand. most of our population lives in maricopa county and then the tucson area. so arizona's most urbanized state because the federal government controls the vast majority of our land. it's also why you have these incredible opportunities of a pours i border because you have distances whether there is no civilization. our now county sheriff was on the radio apparently today and -- a quote that we've had a

123,000 illegals arrested in the to youton sect -- tucson sector. i'm assuming that's over this last calendar year. i haven't been able to get a response from that one. but think about that. right now so much of the national attention is the discussion of what's happening along the rio grande, you know, in texas. don't forget arizona, don't forget what's gone on in our state for so many years. and i had an econ professor years ago that we actually had this discussion of, if you were ever to try to truly understand the math and how poris a border, how would you build an economic model to truly understand it? he had this brilliant understand and it still rings in the back of my head, because multiple times we've had this discussion of if we were going to build a border enforcement bill, before allowing anything else to move in this body, do you have the border state governors be the ones to declare the border secure?

do you really want to put that type of political pressure on my governor of arizona, the governor of new mexico? small states where, let's face it . so of the activist groups with their budget could manipulate our governor's races, elections? so what would be ac honest economic method? my one professor had this one saying, look at the price of drugs on the street. look at the price of certain types of labor. but he liked the drug calculation. because if illegal drugs that are being sourced in other parts of the world, and the price stays stable or is actually going down on the streets across the country, particularly in communities like phoenix, which is often a distribution center, you actually have an economic model to understand, is the border truly secure? and in conversations i've had with some law enforcement over the last year, apparently a lot

of the illegal drug prices on the streets in my community are stable or going down. but yet i had a president who was willing to stand behind microphones, had the head of homeland security willing to stand behind microphones, and declare the border more secure than ever. but the underlying facts, now we know, we weren't being told the truth. so on occasional we'll go home and we'll hold town hall meetings and discussion groups and the chambers and some of the activist groups will sit down with us and say, why won't you do this? , why won't you do that, why won't you except the gang of eight bill? why won't you do this? you turn and say, how would you hand that type of policy, that type of legislation, to this administration, do you really trust them? do you really trust the obama administration to keep its word? do you really trust the obama administration not to play

games on the math? because we already have multiple occasions here where i can demonstrate to you the math has been played with. so then i wanted to chase after something else that we came across. how many speeches here, how many discussions, how many press conferences, how many talking heads on, you know, evening cable have we seen over the last month saying, oh, the unaccompanied minor issue was a surprise to all of us. we never expected this, if we had just known. which is an amazing thing. because i have a few documents here and they're budget documents. and we all know what goes into starting to model and build budgets. here's one that just -- it's a newsletter from the united states conference of catholic bishops. and it was talking about some of the catholic services.

they do wonderful work, they do it actually at some great prices. but this was a newsletter from last november, so november, 2013, and on that one, department of homeland security estimates more than 60,000 unaccompanied minors could enter the united states in 2014 . . we came across other things that we found very interesting. here's actually from 4/13, over a year ago, a number of budget line items for the department of labor, health and human services in regards to unaccompanied minors. the original 2014 budget request they had been working on earlier $494 million and somehow on 4/13, well over a

year ago, they knew something was wrong and they added another $373 million to that budget line item. but yet earlier today, i watched a member of the other side get behind a microphone and tell me how surprised they were. so why don't we pull what we actually voted for this last january. unaccompanied alien children, line item, and this was would he haven into the continuing resolution we did last january, so you know the numbers had been worked up months before that. went from the 2013 estimate $376 million to $868 million. that's what we pushed out of here in january. so back to that whole trust conversation.

as we put forward policy in dealing with our crisis on our board, don't forget states like arizona that had to take this on for years and had to carry the burden of the costs, as those here in the federal government, here in this bubble that is washington, d.c., looked at a small state like arizona and said stop making so much noise, you are bothering us. stop telling us one thing in your speeches, but we can find documents that your underlying staff knew something very, very different. tomorrow we'll have a piece of gislation to deal with the border crisis. it's not a half of a loaf or quarter or eighth, but a heel, but it does a handful of things

that we have been demanding. i have a piece of legislation to put 10,000 national guards on the border. and having had a little fun discussion with a couple of members, i had one member come up to me and she was just outraged i would want to put that many troops on the border and i had to say, you supported this in 2006 and 2008 when we had operation jump start and at that time we put 7,000 national guard troops on the border as auxillary services to the border patrol. think of that 2006-2008, who controlled this body. it was the democrats, republican president and nancy pelosi was the speaker here. and it's fascinating now we are a few years later, that formula is flipped, we are proposing it and the very people who supported it a few years ago,

now all of a sudden think it's -- just appalled. the due policity around this place is stunning. one of the things that i do support that i will be voting on tomorrow is not just putting national guard troops if our governor so wills, the money behind it, the ability to pay for it. one more time asking states like arizona, texas and new mexico that if you are going to step up and take these responsibilities that belong to the federal government, you need to cover our costs. i don't think it's enough money that's in the bill, but remember, this is a short-term, what's going to run tomorrow is actually going to be between now and the end of the fiscal year and ends at the end of september. updating the 2008 language, we have heard a lot of discussions about this. he reality of it is, we have a

white house, department of homeland security, i believe it's already been manipulating the actual language. if you sit down and read it, it had to do with those who were being exploited and being brought across the border, traffic. this is a little different mechanically than someone who goes out and hires a coyote or a family who takes their children and hires the services, but nevertheless we have been told over and over if we don't update the 2008 law, their hands are tied by so many of our law enforcement on the border. we are going to do that. there are a couple of mechanics here. but i want to make it perfectly clear for many of us and hopefully i'm speaking for many of my supporters, friends and family in my state, this isn't enough. it may be just the beginning. i do hope we get the chance to discuss the one issue here that

bit of to be a friction. the president's deferred action -- many of our friends on the left try to tell us, well, that had nothing to do with what we are seeing at the border, but as we have just walked through the documents, once deferred action which is referred to as d ompcrmp arch, had gone into effect, they knew the numbers were coming. they were calculating them. we now have some charts that much of this crisis we had been watching for months finally just became overwhelming. immigration -- illegal immigration and legal immigration work on incentives and disincentives. we have created incentives, this president has created incentives to bake our laws. and until we step up with a number of policies that change

those incentives, i believe we are partially chasing our tail here. we'll do some good things. we need to step up the quality of our law enforcement and our border enforcement but we need an administration we can trust and an administration that will tell us the truth and an administration that will actually follow our laws. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair

recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: i appreciate the opportunity to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives in this most deliberative body that we have and are. and appreciate the comments and the position taken by the gentleman from arizona ahead of me. he is one who has lived along the border for a lifetime and know the issue and deal with it every day and every week. and it is one of the individuals that i look to to inform me and i have taken a real interest in it myself. even though i'm from the heartland, iowa, i have a great love and appreciation for the constitution and the rule of law and because of that, i have watched as a lawlessness has grown along our border and certainly in all the time that i have been in this congress and in the years building up to it and less so in the years prior to that. i take myself back to 1986 when

ronald reagan signed the amnesty act in 1986, i believe at that time that he would veto that bill because his reference for the rule of law would overcome all of the counsel that came from the house and senate and people around him. well he relented and signed the bill on the promise that we would legalize roughly a million people in exchange tore the enforcement of the law thereafter and there would never be another amnesty again so long as this country would live. didn't work out that way. one million became three million and the amnesties added up to seven. and here we are today having fought off this amnesty these years for more than a decade that i have been directly involved in the immigration policy and we are on the cusp of it again. and when the president of the united states stood up there in front of where your mr. speaker,

and he gave his state of the union address here on the floor of the house of representatives and essentially and figuratively waved his ink pen at us and said congress, you do what i tell you on imgation. i want comprehensive immigration reform. i want you to pass the senate dep gang of 8 amnesty act, that is not a direct quote of the president, mr. speaker, but a direct message that this president delivered. do what i tell you to do or i ill use my cell phone or ink pen to act in a unilateral, he didn't say it, but knows it, in an unconstitutional fashion. i can remember when our president spoke in front of you, mr. speaker and pointed down here to the supreme court and he lectured the supreme court on what they should do as if

somehow he were article 3, somehow he was the man that commanded the supreme court of the united states. and the camera was looking over at the justices as the president lectured them on the constitution and the rule of law as if the chief justice and the associate justices of the united states supreme court needed to get a lesson from an professor of the university of chicago school of law who taught constitutional law for 10 years in chicago. he should go to school with every one of those justices that sat there, mr. speaker and one of them, the television cameras repeated it over and over again until they read the lips and interpreted his lips to say, not true. not true. that seat that that camera was focused on has been empty ever since, mr. speaker. been empty ever since, because

that justice, and i suspect a number of other justices decided i'm not going to listen to that again. i'm not going to listen to a president that's oubds, a president who -- out of bounds, that he can lecture to the judicial branch of government and stand here as a guest of the house of representatives and wave his ink pen at us or his finger and announce we shall do in this congress as he commands or he will do so in an unconstitutional fashion. he said so sue me. he said i'm going to do what i'm going to do. i know that it's lawless and it's unconstitutional, so sue me. well, we passed today here on the floor of the house of representatives was a resolution that declares the house of representatives has standing to go before the court to command the president to take care that

the laws be faithfully executed. had multiple hearings before the judiciary committee in the united states house of representatives. we had excellent constitutional scholars come forward. there hasn't been a one that could carry water for the president's position and hold his own under the scrutiny of the constitutional lawyers and other scholars that we have on the judiciary committee who take them apart one by one, argument by argument and piece by piece. and yet, the president of the united states persists in asserting that he can be article 1, the legislative branch of government, the united states congress, and he can be article 3, the judicial branch of government and the sole commander of the executive branch, article 2. he is the commander in chief of our armed forces. he leads from behind. step back and followed the french into libya and waited for the british to go before the house of commons and vote down

david cameron's initiative to go into syria. and the president of the united states, leading from behind is the very definition of following, the president of the united states then offers to congress through trial balloons through the press that he would like to have congress endorse military action in syria. where's our leader? where's our commander in chief this well, he's off in the never-never land of advancing administrative amnesty calling together his smartest leftist lawyers and saying put your think tanks together and find the best brains and see if you can come up with a strategic plan that i can grant some administrative amnesty to the maximum number of people, because lord knows there aren't enough undocumented immigrants.

where do they come from? well, they come across our southern border primarily they come in other ways. and democrats in here, when the thoudent says to congress, shall pass the bills i tell you to pass or i'm going to use my pen to unconstitutionally, and act executive edicts regardless of whether it has the support and will of the people. when the president said that, however, he is going to enact those immigration -- excuse me, immigration unconstitutional executive edicts, i saw little less than half of this chamber rise in upon tan tainyouse ovation, enthusiasm for the president's statement. it reminds me of the democrat who said, i'm marching for

abortion rights because my mother didn't have that opportunity. who would say that? your mother didn't have an opportunity to have an abortion, you want to march because you wish she would have, then you wish you hadn't been born. a bunch of democrats over here cheered the president when he said i'm going to usurp your article 1 authority and i'm going to write legislative law with my pen the way i see fit and they cheered. these are the same people that stood here on the floor of the house a year ago last january and took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, so help them god. and they say, well, we were glad when the president decides he's going to roll over congress, roll over to the house, roll over to the senate, roll over the judicial branch by intimidating them into, some say, a decision on obamacare that would not conform with the constitutional trecktifics that they have -- directives that they have. we're in a mess, mr. speaker. we're a mess and we have the president of the united states

poised during august, when this congress has every year been out of session, because our founding fathers in our early, early leaders recognized -- and our early, early leaders recognized that washington, d.c., gets to be a hot and humid place in the month of august and you need a little break to get out of the circle of the beltway that causes poe tomorrow ac fever, d.c. at that tomorrow ac fever, took -- potomac fever, to go back to our districts and look at your constituents. some people complain that members of congress go home. i say the other way around. if we didn't go home we'd hear a lot of complaints. it's important that we go back to our districts and go out and hear from the people that we have the honor and privilege to represent. and we'll do that. maybe as early as tomorrow, mr. speaker. but the president is poised to follow through on his threat to

issue an edict, not a lawful act, not a lawful depeck in-- executive order, an edict that he would give a lawful status to five or six million illegal aliens, many of them, maybe most of them, probably not all of them criminal aliens. he's issued orders to the department of justice, to examine how they can get an early release for people who are in our prisons, who have been sentenced. that's hundreds of thousands. as many as 400,000 felons that the president would release on the streets of america. he has released criminals to the tune of 36,000-plus out onto the streets. that's in one category. there's another category of tens of thousands more. and he's opened up our borders by signing the daca documents and the moreton memos -- morten memos, not physically signed, he had his subordinates do

that, and they say we're not going to enforce the law against people who didn't commit a felony or aren't guilty of these three mysterious misdemeanors and they say that if you came into the united states illegally, theoretically through no fault of your own, if you did so before your 18th birthday, and did you so before december 31 of 2011, then you get to stay for the duration of this permit that he manufactured lawlessly out of thin air. and then he manufactures a work permit so that these people can compete for jobs against american citizens and naturalized and natural-born american citizens and green cardholders who likely did it the legal way. and because he gets a political kick out of this, a political bonus out of this, because he's bringing in undocumented democrats, and they have a plan to document them so they can vote, we have a situation here where the constitutional

underpinnings of america are in crisis mode. the employment in america is at great risk and under great threat. the security of our border is very weak. i went down, mr. speaker, last weekend, down to the southern tip of texas, down to the mouth of the rio grande, planet of -- planted a flag right there at the southern tip where the waters of the rio grande flow out into the sea and then followed the river to brownsville and went through the ports of entry at brownsville, the facilities in brownsville, and on up into mcallen and to the ports of entry there, to the border patrol centers there, to resettlement center there, and on up all the way to laredo. and what i saw and what i heard from our border patrol, from our custom border protection, from the department of public safety in texas, and others, are good people, a lot of them with uniforms on, that are doing a good job, doing the

best they can with what they have to work with. when we have a lawless order from the president, daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals. which is more accurately daca, d-a-c-a, deferred action for criminal aliens. daca has become the magnet that the coyotes have used to advertise throughout the central american countries, in particular el salvador, honduras in also guatemala -- and also gat ma'ama, to get people -- gatal mahan, to get people who are often already in the united states, to save up money, send to down to central america, to the tune of the lowest number that i pick up is $4,000 a head, on up to $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $,000, maybe even $9,000, for the coyotes toness transport an illegal alien into the united states. and they are coming into america in the southern tip of

texas and rio grande valley sector of the border and numbers that work out this way. the unaccompanied alien children, u.a.c.'s as they are known as and referred to sometimes as unaccompanied juveniles, unaccompanied alien juveniles, number this way, this fiscal year from october 1 until june 15, 57,000 u.a.c.'s, unaccompanied alien children, 57,000. that number is surely grown to over 60,000, probably over 70,000, predicted to go to 90,000 for this fiscal year. the peak of this thing seems to have passed behind us. we're either in a temporary lull or we've seen the peak behind us. but in any case, when we think of numbers in the area of 60,000 unaccompanied alien children coming into the united states, that's only 20% of the overall population coming in. so we're at 300,000 or more. but of those roughly 60,000

number that we've surpassed, here's how they break down. 80% male, 20% female. the 80% male and the 20% female also needs to take into account that these are not kids that range from age 1 day to 1 day before their 18th birthday, mr. speaker. these are unaccompanied alien children that have a demographic breakdown that works like this. 80% male, 83% between the ages of -- that are eelingter the ages of 15, 16 or 17. once they're 18 they're no longer qualified as u.a.c.'s. 83%. so i do the simple math, mr. speaker. %, i say, .8, 80%, times .83 15, 16, 17 years old. that means that 66.4% of these unaccompanied alien, quote, children are young men ages 15,

16 and 17 years old. they come from the most violent countries in the world. the six most violent countries in the world are south of mexico. it's not mexico. it's south of mexico, mr. speaker. and eight of the 10 most violent countries in the world are also south of mexico. and it is a fact according to the united nations data that of all -- of the most violent countries in the world, only honduras is more violent than the city of detroit. and yet there are those in this congress that are convinced because the central american countries have a high degree, degree of violence, that the people are leaving those countries because of the violence and they're scared and they're running off. well, if that's so then one would think they would be running out of detroit at a pace similar to the pace they're running out of guatemala and el salvador and

other violent countries down there. probably run faster out of honduras than they are out of the other countries, than they are maybe out of detroit. as i said in the judiciary committee hearing, in response to the witnesses' testimony which was there, if we are going to bring these kids to the united states because they're afraid where they are, we'd better not take them to detroit. because they'll be more dangerous there and unless they came from honduras. those are the facts and those are the data. and yes them can come from violent countries. and they come from countries that are controlled in a high degree by drug cartels. but here's what's happening. the families that are sending people here usually have one or more members in the united states now, they may have left their kids back in their home country in hon curious -- honduras. they will send money down there, they might borrow money and then locally they will usually locally hire a coyote that's going to smuggle them up into the united states. and then the family most often, not 100% of the time, but most often, whoever is in custody of

this young girl that might be 12 or 13 or 14 or on up to 17 or older, they go down to the local pharmacy where a prescription's not required and ey buy a monthly supply of contraceptives, birth control pills, and they take them back and start giving those birth control pills to the girl and then send her across 2,000 to 2,500 miles of dangerous central america and mexico, to get on the train of death, it's called the beast, and ride that train up as near the rio grande as possible and then that child has to get off of there and make their way to the rio grande river and then pay a coyote to get a ride across the river and then submit themselves to the u.s. facility -- the u.s. authorities. we went to center after center, we talked to people after people that had been working with these unaccompanied alien

children and we asked them, how many of them are sexually assaulted? how many of them are raped? and the answers came back, i guess about a range, a range between 30% and 70%. think of it, mr. speaker. think of having a daughter, living in el salvador, and deciding, i want to send her to her mother in the united states or her aunt in the united states, or being an aunt in el salvador and you want to send your niece to her mother in the united states, you get a wire that sends you down $5,000 or $6,000, and you go out into the neighborhood and you solicit coyote and then you say, i want to send this niece or my daughter up to america, why don't you wait a few days because i've got to buy biferingt control pills and make sure she's ready for the trip because i'm pretty confident she's going to be raped along the way. that's what's going on, mr. speaker. it's not going on now and then. it's going on from 1/3 to 70% of the time for the girls and

they told us that the numbers of boys were equivalent to the numbers of girls who were sexually assaulted. that was a question that was repeated over and over again. and so, this president has done real damage and destruction to the rule of law. and the result of that is, america is flooded with illy the rate, unskilled people -- illiterate, unskilled people into the job categories that have the highest available employment, the highest ratios of unemployment, the double-digit unemployment exists in the lowest skilled jobs. there's no metric out there that suggests that we should be bringing more unskilled people in, more people who are illiterate in their own language into america, thinking somehow that that's worked -- that's work that americans won't do. there's no work that americans won't do. there's been no work that i won't do. i've done some of the toughest, nastiest, most difficult and some of the dangerous jobs that the country has to offer.

and i haven't come close to doing the jobs that the united states marine corps does on a regular basis. and what's the most dangerous job that we ask an american to do? how about rooting terrorists out of places like fallujah? how about taking on radical al qaeda extremists in places like afghanistan? when the marine corps goes into fallujah for the first or second battle, and we've seen what's happened since then, what do they get paid to put their lives on the line? if you figure it at 40 hours a week, something like $8.49 an hour, mr. speaker. that's back then when i calculated it. when we had operations going on then. you can pay a united states marine $8.49 an hour to lock and load and go into a place like fallujah, you can't convince me that there's work that americans won't do. especially if it pays an appropriate wage and we respect the work that gets done.

and so, we have a president who has decided he's going to defy e rule of law, he's going to manufacture laws, he goes and creates work permits out of thin air. and when we see this calamity of the huge hole in our southern area, the house of representatives decides it wants to react to the president of the united states and since they're afraid that they will somehow get the blame, if nothing gets done in the month of august, they've decided to bring a piece of legislation here to the floor. this legislation was written by a staff person was once of that john mccain and brought for immigration policy. it's been very troubling to deal with the legislation he has

supported, but i have this in my hand here on the floor, mr. speaker. doesn't do what it's advertised to do. doesn't do what needs to be done, but it grants this. if there is an unaccompanied child -- here's the consequences for failure to appear at a hearing. quote, any alien who fails to appear at a proceeding required under this section shall be ordered removed but if the government establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien was at fault for their absence for the proceedings. no evidence can be admitted into that proceeding after the fact and it can't be admitted if they don't anticipate there's not going to be an appearance of the alien and that means the government has to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that it was the able yep's fault

that they didn't show up. if you had a video camera on them and they are sitting on the couch. this is a wide open hole that grants a pass under that provision. then says in general at the conclusion of the proceeding under this section, the immigration judge shall determine whether an child is likely to be admissible to the united states. they get a new hearing under section 235 and new hearing andp of the evidence indicates they might reseff asylum and then 50% plus one is preponderance, likely is 50% plus one, 50% of 50% is 25% are the odds that they need to claim in order to receive a hearing for asylum. if you have a one in four shot at it, you are going to get an asylum hearing and if you are turned down you get to go to a removal hearing, those are three

bites at the apple. six different bites of the apple. no such thing exists for mexican unaccompanied alien children. the determination is made by the law of 2008 by the border patrol whether or not they go back to mexico. they purport that this bill treats the other than mexican unaccompanied alien children the same as the existing law creates unaccompanied alien mexican children. mr. speaker, if it does, there's language in here that then diminishes our ability to send the mexican kids back. that's what we have. we have a bill that is whipped to be something that it is not. i offered a amendment to the rules committee there was a long debate and discussion on it, mr. speaker. my amendment said this. e have to fix the 2008 language. that by way, no republican voted

for that, not one. it was introduced on december 9 of 2008 and taken up by unanimous consent request after everybody left town on december 10 of 2008. it was passed by voice and the house sent to the senate, the senate passed it by voice to the president. we didn't see that bill. it became a component of what they have utilized as an open door and coupling the bill with the expansive reading of the asylum language is what is bringing these tens of thousands unaccompanied alien minors were which are 0% of the group that is coming. there are family units, usually mothers with child or children. there are individual males coming in in significant numbers. we have imported at least 40,000, 15, 16, 17-year-old, prime gang recruitment age and doesn't give you the data on

those 18-31. and those are just the ones covered under da crmp arch. i offered an amendment that would have cut off funding to daca. it is good language and should be part of this bill. it's not, by the information i have, mr. speaker. the 2008 fix that i wrote over a month ago that needs to be part of this bill, it's not by the report i'm getting from the rules committee. and i don't know if there was a vote on it up in the rules committee. there is asylum language offered by bob goodlatte that fixes some of the expansive utilization of asylum that is allowing for people to be distributed all over the united states at taxpayer expense. that's not part of this bill, mr. speaker. we don't have a deliberative process in this congress because they aren't going to allow a legitimate vote and the language out here is bad. i will vote on this bill that's come before us and i'm going to

have to consider what i do on the rule, but if this house sends a message to support cutting off all funding to enforce or implement da crmp a, that will be constructive because it will say to the president that these are the republicans that have a chance that stand up against you if you decide that you are going to function in a lawless and unconstitutional manner in august or any other month in regarding expansion of the lawlessness you have seen to date. with that, i yield back the balance o

helps. but think about this. they have announced they will sue me for taking executive actions to help people. they are mad because i'm doing my job. i've told them, i would be happy to do it with you. the only reason i'm doing it on my own is because you are not doing anything, but if you want it, let's work together. i mean, everybody recognizes this is a political stunt. but it is worse than that, because every vote they are taking like that, a vote they are not taking to help you. ton they had taken 50 votes

repeal the affordable care act, that was time that could have been spent working constructively to help you. [applause] by the way, you know who's paying for the suit they will file? you. you're paying for it. it's estimated by the time it is done, i will have already left office. so it's not a productive thing to do. >> we would like to know what you think about the lawsuit against president obama. we are asking, should suing president obama ba house priority. let us know what you think on facebook and twitter. many of you have commented. tim writes -- kim says --

you can add your comments at facebook.com/cspan. house has passed a resolution approving a lawsuit against president obama over --eged abuses of implement executive power in intimating the affordable care act. no democrats voted for the measure. here is the debate. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss the unwarranted ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch. under president obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the constitution . in fact, in a number of instances, the president's actions have gone beyond his article 2 powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon

article 1 powers of the congress to write the law. mr. speaker, we're still -- i ask for you to have regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are here today because at the beginning of this congress, every member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to, and i quote, support and defend the constitution of the united states, end of quote. at the beginning of each presidential term, the president takes note to, and i quote, faithfully ex culet the office of the president of the united states -- execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of their ability preserve, protect and defend the

constitution of the united states, end of quote. while these oaths are slightly different, the object of each oath is the same. the president and members of congress have an obligation to follow and defend the constitution. the text of the constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separate powers for each branch of the federal government. article 1 puts the power to legislate, that is to write the law, to the hands of congress. article 2 on the other hand requires that the president, quote, take care that the laws are faithfully executed, end of quote. the difference is important. mr. speaker, the house is not n order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to take their conversations off the

floor and out of the aisles. on the majority side, please take your conversations out of the aisle. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. the difference is important. the founders knew that giving one branch the power to write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of the american people. they separated these powers between the branches in order to ensure that no one person or no one particular person, whether it be president or a body of congress, could trample

upon the rights of the people. my fear is that our nation is currently facing the exact threat that the constitution is designed to avoid. branches of government have always attempted to exert their influence on the other branch. but the president has gone too far. rather than faithfully executing the law as the constitution requires, i believe that the president has selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and in a few cases unilaterally attempted to change the law altogether. these actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and toward the executive. they have undermined the rule of law, which provides the predictability necessary to

govern in a functioning and fair society. by and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law and this tilts that balance. by circumventing congress, the president's actions have marginalized the role that the american people play in creating the laws that govern them. specifically, the president has waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed immigration laws, released the gitmo five without properly notifying congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of the affordable care act. we have chosen to bring this legislation forth today, to sue the president over his selective implementation of the affordable care act, because it is the option most likely to

clear the legal hurdles necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches intended by the founders. this administration has effectively rewritten the law without following the constitutional process. when the executive branch goes beyond the constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branch of government play its role in rebalancing this important separation of powers. after all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges engage with the constitution and enforce those limits. my friends in the minority do not seem to believe that judiciary is up to their role in rebalancing the separation of powers.

i disagree. yesterday at the rules committee, members of the minority argued that this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. they argued that if this litigation were to go forward, that it will lead to countless lawsuits between the branches of government. what my friends in the minority might fail to tell you, but i will today on the floor, is that they were for suing the president before they were against it. eight years ago, in 2006, some members of the minority, including the ranking member of the rules committee, the gentlewoman from new york, were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by congressional democrats against then sitting george w. bush. that's right. eight years ago my friends across the aisle filed a lawsuit against the president brought by members of one half of the congress. the democratic ranking member of the judiciary committee, the

gentleman from michigan, who was also a plaintiff, argued that he was alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by a president who shrugged about the law. after consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation, he said he had determined that there was one group of people who were injured by the president's lack of respect for checks and balances, the house of representatives. i want to echo one line he argued at the time regarding the separation of powers, and i quote, if a president does not need one house of congress to pass the law, what's next? perhaps this makes sense. mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an editorial from "the huffington post" on april 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, titled, "taking the president

to court" in which he made a compelling argument why members of the house could in fact have standing to sue the president. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be part of the record. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, the litigation considered think about resolution is a lot different and a lot stronger than litigation filed by my friends on the other side against a previous president. the majority of these lawsuits were brought by a small group of legislators or individual members. today the house as an institution will vote to authorize the suit which gives this case, i believe, a far better chance in court than previous attempts. my friends in the minority at the rules committee yesterday claimed that this is all about politics. but republican members of this committee repeatedly insisted that we disagree. the issue is not about partisan politics, it is not about republicans and democrats. this lawsuit is about the

legislative branch's standing -- branches standing up to the laws that have been passed and signed into law by the legislative and signed by the executive of this great nation. republicans are motivated to stand up for the constitution, the separation of power, and the rule of law. any person who believes in our system of government should be worried about the president's executive overreach. the president, as well as future presidents, from either party, must not be allowed to ignore the constitution and to circumvent congress. both republicans and democrats have stood up for the legislative branch in the past. in fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in federal court. of the 41 filed by plaintiffs rom a single party, nearly 70% were democrats representing the

body. i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an editorial by kimberly straussle from the "wall street journal" dated july 17, 2014, that further explains why the democrats were suing the president before they were against it. and i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for congress and to defend our constitution against the executive branch. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the article will be in the record. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, throughout this lawsuit, the united states house of representatives took a critical and crucial step in reining in the president, to defend the constitution, so that it will endure for yet another generation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. speaker, across the country conservative thinkers and legal scholars are discrediting this

lawsuit against the president. they're exposing it for what it is, a political stunt timed to peak in november as americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections. for example, harvard law professor -- professor and former assistant attorney general under president george w. bush wrote, and i quote, the lawsuit will almost certainly fail and should fail for lack of congressional standing, end quote. even supreme court justice scalia, joined by chief justice roberts and chief justice thomas, wrote that the frase framers of the constitution emphatically rejected a, quote, system in which congress and the executive can pop immediately into court. in their institutional capacity, whenever the president implements a law in a manner that is not to congress' liking, end quote. .

andrew c. mccarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is a, quote, classic case of assuming the polls of meaningful action while in reality doing nothing, end quote. heaven's to betsy, how much more do we have to hear that this will not work? a recent poll by cnn found that 57% of americans oppose the lawsuit. yes, the american -- majority of the american people recognize it for what it is, political theater. they recognize this lawsuit as not only distraction from the real problems that plague our nation but it is designed to appease radical republicans clamoring for impeachment. the rules committee, which i am ranking member, was the only committee to consider this lawsuit. under regular order of the house, -- under regular order, the house administration committee would have also held hearings and a markup because they are the money committee

that handles the house's internal accounts. but they were not given a chance to do so. over the past three weeks, the rules committee heard testimony from constitutional scholars, debated the merits of the lawsuit and offered several amendments. the minority on other committee offered nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along party lines. democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this political stunt be funded from the benghazi select committee's budget, another political stunt. after the 14 investigations of benghazi tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a nonexistent scandal. we offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists

trying to influence us at the same time that they represent us in court, a clear conflict of interest. we even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of which programs and budgets in the federal budget will be reduced to pay for the lawsuit. would the fund comes from the veterans' affairs committee, the house armed services committee? we don't know because the majority has refused to tell us. before they vote today, members of this house deserve to know exactly which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this folly. otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote? we focused our amendments on cost because how important cost it is, it is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. republicans have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone, passing ver $700 billion, with a b, of

unpaid-for tax extenders on this house floor. republicans took $24 billion, b, out of the economy when they shut down the government to deny health care to millions. and according to "cbs news," the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50 votes from the house floor to dismantle, to undermine and repeal the affordable care act. where in the world does it stop? when republicans defended the discriminatory defense of marriage act and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit, we believe this will have, it cost the american taxpayers $2.3 million. we learned their lawyers hour, $520 an hour, an at that rate they would have been paid $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. so what will this lawsuit cost, mr. speaker? that's what we want to know.

the minority requested this said a ion and they lawsuit is a, quote, small price to pay, end quote. we could be investing in our education system, making to easier for our children to go to college, even build some high-speed rail. we are the only country after the war that doesn't have any. addressing climate change. we had a terrible flood in my district next door where they lost sewer systems, water systems. we could be doing so many other things than simply throwing this money away. the idea of fiscal tightness is absolutely decimated in just what i have already said at this time. the money wasted here with nothing for it when the needs are so great and the population cries out for relief. but instead of investing in our country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that if

successful will do opposite of everything they have been trying to accomplish since 2010. yes, after years of rallying against the affordable care act, not a one of them would vote for it as it passed the house, voting to derail it, working against it, believing -- pay attention here. they are suing the president for not implementing it fast enough. if that makes no sense to you, you are not alone. we don't understand it either. not only is this logic upside down and inside out, it's directly against the feelings of members of their own party. a recent poll from the commonwealth fund found that 77% of people were pleased with their new coverage. republicans themselves have a 74% satisfaction rate with the new plans that they bought. now, before us we have a lawsuit that's been ridiculed and railed against by conservative thinkers and

progressives alike. it's a deplorable waste to taxpayer funds and goes against everything that republicans have been working for for four years. the republicans i worked with in this congress when i first came here would not even think of this. and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the judiciary committee, chairman goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the rules committee, for his leadership on this issue. without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy. we in the house of representatives who face re-election every two years under the constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. and while there is at least one

political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means of which we can successfully avail ourselves. when the president fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the congress has appropriations and other powers over the president. but none of those powers can be exercised if a senate, controlled by the president's own political party, refuses to exercise them. nor will the exercise of those powers solve the problems at hand because they will not actually require the president to faithfully execute the laws. and of course, the most powerful and most available means of solving the power at hand, in the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

earlier this year, i joined with representative gowdy to introduce h.r. 4138, the enforce the law act, to put a procedure in place for congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. but while that legislation passed the house with bipartisan support, the senate has failed to even consider it. so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation by the house to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law. although the case law standing may be murky, one thing is absolutely clear. the supreme court has never closed the door to the standing of the house as an institution. as president lincoln said, let reverence for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. it is the court's duty to to uphold reverence for the law and it is the specific duties of the courts to call fouls when the lines of -- fowls when the lines of constitutional

authority under the separation of powers established by the constitution have been breached. a lawsuit by the house of representatives would grant no additional powers over the judicial branch over legislation. indeed, what a statute says or doesn't say would be ineffective but it would be the appropriate task of the for the courts to determine whether or not whatever a statute says a president can ig or or alter it -- ignore or alter it under the constitution. the stakes are high. the lawsuit will challenge the president's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the white house. what provisions of obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular and what provisions the president has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal election. how convenient for the president. yet, how devastating to accountability in our republic. imagine the future in this new

unconstitutional power of the president if the president is left to stand. presidents today and in the future will be able to treat the entire united states code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. the current president has even created entirely new categories of businesses to apply his unilaterally imposed exemptions. in that future, if a bill a president signed into law was later to be considered bad policy and potentially harmful to the president's political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more litically opportune time, if at all. they wouldn't have to stand -- candidates wouldn't have to stand on their records. sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to give the young chairman

one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it, repeat until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. we should all support this resolution today as it aims to unite 2/3 of the federal government in delivering a simple message, congress writes the laws and the president enforces them. our own constitutionally required oath to support the constitution of the united states requires no less. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. it is somewhat ironic that the republicans want to sue the president for enforcing -- not

enforcing a law that they want to repeal. how ironic. but it is frankly a demonstration of their frustration that they had been unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. and they therefore repair to the wasting of time by this congress and the wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack against the president. one that is meant to distract from the pressing issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising the minimum wage or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for those seeking jobs. while the majority of americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, house republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of

acting on those policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the american public do support, make it in america jobs bills, export-import bank re-authorization, terrorism risk insurance, voting rights act amendments, continuing resolutions and appropriation bills. all of these the american people want to see us do, but in polls they show they don't want us to be doing this. they think it's frivolous. they think it is without merit. they think it should not be done. all the bills that i referenced they think ought to be done. how sad it is that we come here and do things the american people thinks are a waste of time while not doing things americans think are very important. none other -- i tell my friend

from texas, and he is my friend, none other than justice antonin scalia said that the judiciary traditionally hear cases of political disagreement between the other two branches. in fact, he said in united states vs. windsor, and i quote, a system in which congress and the executive pop immediately into court in their institutional capacity whenever the president implements a law in a manner that is not to congress' liking. . scalia felt that was not justified. we believe this legislation is not justified. we further believe that the american people do not believe this legislation is justified.

we do believe that the base of the republican party that tried to defeat president obama in 2012 voted against him in 2008 and disagreed with him on the issues think this is what is available to them. it is wrong. it is a waste of time. it is a waste of money. it is a distraction from the important issues so important to our people. this lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the republican base and for some , for some, it doesn't go far enough. under president clinton, republicans' playbook was shut down and then impeach. under president obama said that if the affordable care act were not repealed, not that they wouldn't sue him, they said they would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. they didn't get their way and they shut down the government.

could i have one additional minute? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: they threatened to shut down the government and they shut down the government and the american people said that's not what we want done. again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve through their political process the ends they seek. they have voted over 50 times to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. they do not want it implemented. now they want to sue the president because he's not implementing it fully and now they are suing and refusing to say that impeachment is off the table. in fact, their newly elected whip, mr. scalise, declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four separate

occasions last weekend. my friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what might follow, congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here to do, reate jobs, invest in an economy where all of our people can work hard and make it in america. reject this waste of time. te no on this unjustified, impractical, losing proposition. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we heard revisionist history, but i will answer the question, the answer is years back we did impeach william jefferson clinton because he lied to an f.b.i. agent and lied to a federal

grand jury and violated the federal law which was a felony. oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony while in office of a sitting president. in this instance, the president of the united states is not faithfully executing the laws of the country and that is entirely different process and for the gentleman to suggest that is going to lead to that is simply not true. i will tell you that president clinton violated the federal law as a felony and we believe that our president is not executing the laws and everybody can figure that out. i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, member of homeland security and natural resources committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i remind my colleague from maryland who just spoke that in

my hum nl opinion harry reid shut down the government. let me explain to everyone watching at home across america what the separation of powers doctrine means. we study in school and since our president doesn't seem to get it and needs to be explained again. mr. duncan: our constitution says the legislative branch, this branch, we write the laws. the president executes the laws and the courts settle any dispute. we write the laws and the president executes the laws and the courts settle dispute. our constitution says that the president doesn't get to write his own laws. our founding fathers knew that kings wielded power. they understood that too much power in one group or one person would lead to tyranny. as christian men of the day they understood that man has fallen and that fallen man, once they

have a taste of power, they will always go after more. they knew that power crupts and absolute power crupts absolutely. the understanding of fallen man, there was a system of checks and balances and clearly delineated and separate powers divided among three equal branches of government. we write the laws, the president executes them. should be simple, right? we are here today because the president has failed us in two directions. he failed to execute the laws we have written. he has rewritten the laws on his own and i believe that this is a breach of his oath of office to uphold the laws. so we are gathered here as the first branch, the legislative branch, to seek the judicial branch's help in bringing an out of control executive branch, plain and simple. we are here to bring legal action against the president of the united states to stop him from rewriting the affordable care act. that is a misnoemer.

nothing affordable about the affordable care act and the american people know about it and that's a discussion for another day. from the individual mandate to businessman dates to h.h.s. regulations that were struck down by the supreme court to the decision just last week to exempt the u.s. territories, how many is that, four million people are exempt from obamacare with just the action of the president's pen. time and time and time again we have seen this president rewrite the law. but rewriting obamacare isn't only one of the ways he has abused this power. look at the mess on the southern border, a mess of the president's own making thanks to his own making and the attempt to rewrite the law. last week, i sent the president 21 tweets which laid out the things that he could do to stop this mess at the border that are within the law and his purview and still he continues to

operate outside the law and not just the border, it's d ompmmp a and nlrb and back-door cap and trade legislation and war on coal and waters of the united states, regulation after regulation, administrative action after administrative action and no basis. this administration has chosen repeatedly to try to rewrite the laws without going through the legislative process which our founders set up. get a copy of the constitution and look at the separation of powers. this congress must use every power to restore balance to our government and uphold the rule of law. we voted repeatedly to use this power of the purse to cut off funding for unconstitutional activities within this administration. we have voted repeatedly to overturn bad regulations. we paced the rains act and i co-sponsored other efforts that

repair our broken system of checks and balances in order to stop the overreaches of this administration. we must act today and we must continue to act until this administration and the president relent and gets it right. i thoroughly support this bill and take this president to court. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i extend the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: i believe we need to take whatever steps are necessary to bring in this administration and hold them accountable to the united states constitution and to the citizens of the united states of america. the founding fathers gave us this recourse to restore the balance and uphold the rule of law. that is why this is so important. and for us to reassert our authority to make the law so he can entors the law. may god continue to bless this body and the men and women that serve this country and may god continue to bless the united states of america.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i thank the gentlelady. and members of the house, as the former chairman of the house judiciary committee, i rise in strong opposition to house resolution 676, which would authorize the speaker to file suit against the president of the united states for failing to enforce the affordable care act, which has been attacked more than 51 times unsuccessfully in the house. now, why? why do i oppose this serious, flawed measure? one, the fact that it addresses a nonexistent problem.

two, that it violates constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power principles. and three, that it diverts congress from focusing on truly critical matters that require prompt legislative responses. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to include in the record a letter received only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to house resolution 676 is likely to fail. without objection. the letters will be part of the record. mr. conyers: h.r. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent problem because the president has, in

fact, fully met his obligations o faithfully execute the laws. allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program even where the statute mandates a specific deadline is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. indeed, in the case of the affordable care act's employer mandate, the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to it by the congress. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise today in support of h.res. 676, a

resolution to authorize the house of representatives to initiate litigation against the president or any executive branch employee for failure to act in accordance with their duties. specifically, this resolution deal with the president's failure to implement the employee mandate required by his own signature law, the patient protection and affordable care act. while the scope of the litigation authorizes is narrow, it is symbolic of a much larger problem, the president's continued refusal to execute the congress'ing to usurp constitutional right to legislate. simply because congress chooses not to be the president's rubber stamp does not bestow upon him the power to circumvent the law. conversely when the president says it might be politically

perilous, he can't simply choose to ignore it. mr. speaker, this is not about party politics, this is about the proper role of government as defined by our founders. the federal government was intentionally designed with three branches, each with their own separate powers and the ability to serve as a check and balance on the other two. yet the president, as a former constitutional law professor, refuses to recognize his proper le and unilaterally enacting policies or ignoring the law at will. i took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution as a member of this institution. and i have taken that oath seriously every single day. unfortunately, i believe the president's actions undermine the very same oath that he has twice taken. so i urge my colleagues, join me

in this step to uphold the law and protect the balance of power by supporting the resolution. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise this evening in strong opposition to this resolution that would propose to have the house sue the president of the united states. with only a few hours left before congress adjourns for the august district work period, we have a full plate of responsibilities left unfinished. when i go home, i doubt constituents will be running up to me for congress passing a resolution to sue the president. i know what i will hear. why hasn't the house passed come prepares i have immigration reform? why hasn't congress raised the

minimum wage so people who work full-time don't repain in poverty? why haven't we renewed unemployment insurance for 3.5 million americans including veterans and the only answer i will be able to give them is that republican leadership cares more about scoring political points than they do about helping middle-class families. this is a question of priority. the american people sent us here to face the pressing needs. it should be a given we would use our time to focus on the most important issues. instead, we waste time on suing the president of the united states while failing to address commonsense measures to ensure economic security for every american. not only does this resolution reflect a different set of priorities than the majority of americans, we are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars like the $3 million defending the unconstitutional defense of marriage act and billions of dollars shutting down the

government. it is unconscionable when this do-nothing republican congress decided to do something, it is suing the president for doing his job when they refused to do theirs. i have heard too many in the republican majority raise impeachment. wastedopposition to this resolution and join democrats and address the serious challenges facing our nation. with that, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank my colleague for yielding. i also want to thank the whole house for its work on -- to address the american people's concerns about jobs in our economy. all told we sent the senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a bipartisan

way. from the first day of this congress, i said our focus would be on jobs and it has been. but on that first day, you may recall i addressed the house about the importance of our oath of office. i know that the same oath we all take that makes no mention of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. the oath only refers to the constitution and our obligation to defend it. i said that with moments like this in mind, i said that knowing there would be times when we would have to do things we didn't come here to do. we didn't plan to do and things that require us to consider interests greater than our own interests. i have to think this is why on several occasions members of the minority party have taken a similar step. in 2011 some of them filed litigation against the vice

president. they took similar steps in 2006, 2002, 2001 and so forth, because this isn't about republicans and democrats. it's about defending the constitution that we swore an oath to uphold and acting decisively when it may be compromised. no member of this body needs to be reminded what the constitution states about the president's obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our nation. no member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust that have been frayed or the damage that's already been done to our economy and to our people. are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our founders have built? think not only about the

specific oath you took but think about how you took it, as one body standing together. that's all i'm asking to you do today, to act as one institution, to defend the constitution on behalf of the people that we serve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on ways and means, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: well, republicans oday are choosing lawsuits over legislating. they're choosing to sue the president rather than pursuing legislation to support american families. and there's no shortage of legislation awaiting action. immigration reform, a

bipartisan senate bill held up by the speaker who has just spoken. unemployment insurance, a bipartisan senate bill has never gotten a vote in this house, held up by the speaker. the employment nondiscrimination bill, the senate bill not brought up here, held up by the speaker. paycheck fairness not brought up. a minimum wage bill not brought up. -- im controversial controversy. highway bill, another patch. the inability of house republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill. and a voting rights reform bill sponsored by a senior republican held up by the speaker of this house and the conference of the republicans. so the republicans in this house are suing the president

because they coninjure -- conjure up what the republicans think is the correct implementation of a law they have tried 50 times to destroy. it is the house republicans who should be sued if that were possible for their lack of responsibilities to the people of this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. rice from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. rice: mr. speaker, my favorite piece of art in this capitol is a picture in the rotunda of our founding fathers gathered together to sign the declaration of independence.

a document that they knew when they signed it they were signing their own death warrant. their own death warrant if they were caught and tried for treason. they felt that strongly that they wanted to escape the bonds of a monarch and pursue freedom. our forefathers fought a revolution against the greatest military power on earth to escape the bonds of a monarchy. at the end of that bloody revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king. they wanted freedom. to protect that precious freedom, they designed a government of, by and for the people based upon a separation of powers. the legislative branch makes the laws. the executive branch enforces the laws. president obama has decided that he is not bound by the separation of powers.

he has bragged that if congress will not accept his priorities, he has a pen and a phone and he will make the laws himself. he may have a pen, but the people have the constitution. left us by our forefathers. our forefathers recognized that one man that both can make the laws and enforce the laws is a king, not a president. thomas jefferson once said that freedom does not disappear all t once but is eroded imperceptively day by day. the prosperity of our great country sprang from our freedom. our form of government set in the constitution by our forefathers has protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years. my friends across the aisle worry about the price of a lawsuit to protect our freedom.

our forefathers paid dearly for that freedom. many gave all they had, even their lives. our freedom is in peril, my friends. we cannot stand by and watch the president shred our constitution. i stand in support of house resolution 676. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this resolution. the constitutional question raised by this measure is whether the house has standing to sue the president over what

he is in essence -- over what is in essence a policy difference. standing is a constitutionally defined status and requires the plaintiff, among other things, demonstrate a legally recognized injury. the house would also have to show that there is no other remedy. on both of these counts, this lawsuit fails. the house cannot speak for the senate, which doesn't agree with its position, and therefore cannot represent the legislative branch. even if it could, neither body has suffered a recognizable injury merely because some members of the congress do not like how the president has interpreted a law passed by a different congress. moreover, this congress has a remedy. if it doesn't like the way the president implemented the affordable care act, it can change the law. that would be a far better approach, one more consistent with our separation of powers, than this expensive and

ill-conceived lawsuit. i urge the house to reject this effort and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reservices his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. the speaker does not have a good record on wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. when the supreme court said the domedome could not be wasted -- they lost in the supreme court. now the speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on the meritless lawsuit against the president for not, quote, taking care that the law be faithfully executed. what did the president? in implementing the affordable care act, which the republican-led house has voted to repeal 50 times, he postponed one provision by one

year. so now they want to waste money to go to court to say the president had no power to postpone this provision for a year although no one opposed president bush when he postponed implementation of a provision of the medicare drug act for a year. it is well settled it is within the discretion of presidents in implementing a law to postpone implementation of part of it in order to get it done right. but this leads to another absurdity of the case. let's assume the republicans get the house to go into court and somehow overcome the standing question, which they will not, what is the remedy, they seek? by the time they got to court, the provision in question will have been implemented. so they want to waste $5 million of taxpayers' money and say, judge, please let the president already what he implemented. tiles ridiculously. what do we got? we have a congress that passed no highway bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay for equity for women bill, no action to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to

make sure that women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the supreme court's hobby lobby decision, no action on all the emergencies that face the american people. we are going to waste money and time on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, simply serve a single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the house republicans want to continue to ignore. this is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. more wasted money for political purposes. a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has four minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has eight minutes remaining. mr. sessions: we'll reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady very much. nd i rise to oppose h.res.

676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue the president for doing a duty and following the law. the underbelly of this resolution would in essence put fire, fire in the hearts and minds of americans when we find out that this legislation is to undermine the president and any of his officers and employees from doing their job. this is a failed attempt to impeach the president. i'm willing to say that word, because the president has been following the law. the law passed that gives him discretion to interpret the affordable care act, to make it best work for the american people. as has been stated, if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the house. but in actuality, this resolution smacks against the constitution which says there are three equal branches of government. therefore, the executive has a right to perform his duties.

i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a failed attempt of impeachment and it undermines the law that allows the president to do his job. a historical fact that president bush pushed this nation into war and had little to do with apprehending terrorists. we did not seek an impeachment of president bush because as an executive he had his authority. president obama has the authority. and i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to in essence provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the american people, improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness and stop undermining the authority, as indicated by the constitution, that gives equal authority to the three branches of government. we can pass laws. we have the ability to pass laws. and citizens have the right to go into court on their independent standing. the courts have often said that the congress has no standing. the house of representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases we have

already taken to court and determined that congress has no standing. the doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirement derived from a case or controversy provision in article 3 and prudential consideration, which are jew dishally created and can be modified by congress. that dictates on how you gain standing, and i would say the constitutionally based elements require the plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury, in fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court. let me be very clear, we in congress can make no argument that the president has injured us. we can make no independent argument of that, and so i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept a veiled attempt of impeachment when our president is doing his duty and following the law under the constitution of the united states of america. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: for one minute. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my good friend, the the gentlewoman from new york for yielding. this resolution is a waste of time and money. we are sent to congress to make progress on behalf of the people of this nation. yet house republicans spend all of their time and energy fighting this president. why? republicans need to jump off the bandwagon of political attack and come together to jumstart the economy. while americans are unemployed,

they did nothing to put them back to work. when people are losing their homes, they did little to protect them from foreclosure. while hunger and poverty are on the rise in this country, they have hardly mentioned the disappearing middle class. from the first day in office, the republicans in this house has never supported this president. every olive branch he extended was broken. but today, mr. speaker, they have reached a low, a very low point. this resolution to sue the president just goes a little too far. it is a shame and a disgrace that we are here debating the suing of the president. the american people deserve better. we can do better. we can do much better. i urge each and every one of my colleagues --

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. ms. slaughter: i give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. lewis: i urge each and every top oppose lleagues this insulating resolution. it has no place on the floor. let us get back to work that we were elected to do. thank you. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to speak within the allocated time. the gentlelady from new york has 5 1/2 minutes left. time.ssions: i reserve my the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, ranking member of the judiciary

committee. mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time. i find it interesting that this is all about president obama engaging in executive overreach. look at the statistics. during president obama's first term and compare him to previous -- similar presidents. president bush issued 173 executive orders. president clinton, 200, president reagan 213. president obama, only 147. and during this part of president obama's second term, he has thus far issued only 36 executive orders while president bush during the second term issued 116, clinton, 164. and reagan 168.

so i ask you based on the statistics, is that overreach? no, it's underreach. it's underreach. mitch mcconnell said upon president obama's inauguration, the job was to see that this man wasn't re-elected. now the job seems to be to see that the attack on the president can be such that the republicans take the senate and hopefully set the stage for 2016 for the presidency. this unquestionably is impeachment. it is an attempt to put the president in a situation in a lawsuit that if successful, which i find hard to believe would be the foundation for impeachment. this president has done nothing that is impeachable, nothing that merits this type of action. nothing that merits this type of disrespect. he should be respected as our president and supported and we

should work to create jobs, pass an infrastructure bill, pass a minimum wage bill and extend unemployment insurance. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from from texas, dr. burgess, member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the chairman for yielding the time. there are plenty of places in the affordable care act where it is full of drafting errors and stuff that wasn't ready for prime time. but you know, mr. speaker, there is no ambiguity over this issue. when the president delayed the institution of the employer mandate on july 2, 2013. he couldn't are have been clearer. let me give you an example, the effective date of the individual mandate as written in law for the individual mandate, the amendments made by