with asian energy consumption set to double by the year 2030, the conflicting claims in this region will likely grow more intense. beyond the region's vast energy resources, peace in the south china sea is essential for international commerce. each year, 5.3 trillion in trade passes through the south china sea. over $1 trillion of which can be attributed to the united states. with the fragile stability that is held in asia is now being threatened by china's ambitions and aggressive stance towards its neighbors. . . from its ramming of other nation's fishing boats to its

activities in iwan, they have raised the limits. china is pushing the limit on the high seas, motivated by potent nationalistic trends and the resources at stake. china's territorial stakes are a clear challenge to its neighbors and must not be allowed to go unchallenged. this resolution rightfully states that china's declaration has contributed to increased uncertainty and unsafe conditions in east asia. additionally, mr. faleomavaega's resolution calls for freedom of navigation, a bet rock principle of inter-- a bedrock principle of international commerce that dates pack semplingries, helping to ensure the continued flow of global trade. mr. speaker, given the importance of this region, i urge my colleagues to support mr. faleomavaega's resolution which puts the house on record supporting a peaceful process to resolve these disputes. with that, mr. speaker, i

reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from noverbing is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in p strong support of h.res. 714 and yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me start by thanking my colleague from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, for offering this resolution and let me also thank him for his many years of distinguished service here in congress. especially moving for me because eni and i were both elected to congress that first time on the same day and started to serve the first day, elected in november of 1988 and we both served starting january 3, 1989, and as the jargon is here in washington, we are classmates. and we've sat next to each other on the foreign affairs committee for so many years, all those years, and had good chance to travel together and to have our

families get to know each other, our spouses, our wives, it really has been a pleasure to be a friend and colleague of mr. faleomavaega's. we're going to really miss him but i know he will grace our presence and come back and visit. so this is really a tribute, this is an important resolution, it's important for substance, but it's also important because i look at it as a tribute to eni faleomavaega, my colleague, my friend, a really great human being, great american, great person representing american samoa for so many years. so thank you, eni. as both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee on asia and the pacific throughout the years, mr. faleomavaega was focused on u.s. policy involving the asia pacific region. he was focused on this policy long before anyone decide wed needed a pivot or rebalance to

the region. eni always knew and knows that asia is important and that the united states has a vital -- as a pacific power has a vital role to play. the measure we are considering today reaffirms our strong support for peaceful resolution to dispute from the south china sea and east china sea. it calls on all parties to reduce tensions, manage disputes peacefully and adhere -- adhere to international law and help expand their ability to keep an eye on their own maritime domains. the united states is a pacific power. we have a vital interest in freedom of navigation and overflight in these disputed areas which are vital to economic security and lawful commerce in the region. these are universal rights, i want to repeat that. these are universal rights. not rights granted by some

states to others. not rights that china thinks it can dominate and be aggressive in terms of claiming the seas as its own, even though many of those seas are literally thousands of miles away from mainland china. tensions in the east and south china sea have been stredstedly increasing for the last several years. provocations have become bolder and more freak and little progress has been made on a code of conduct in the south china sea to establish rules of the road among them. when i went there more than a year ago with chairman royce we were told by the government of the philippines and japan that they were very, very concerned with what china has been doing in claiming. but the united states does not take sides in these disputes. we believe that they should be resolved diplomatically, without

force or coercion. territorial claims and arbitration of those claims should be based in international law. there have been so hopeful signs. japan and taiwan worked out an agreement relating to fishing rights. china and vietnam have begun discussions on thousand reduce tension between their respective navies. in advance of the asia-pacific economic cooperation called apec, a summit and bilateral meetings, japan and china agreed to disagree on the issue of the santoku islands. they are now looking for other ways to ex-tand diplomatic and security ties despite their differences. in addition, the president announced during his recent visit to beijing that the united states and china agreed to arrange a maritime confidence building measures. we will continue working to expand this cooperation into air spissis -- air space next year. these developments are positive and should continue in earnest but they are not enough.

h.r. -- h.res. 714 urges all parties to stay focused on this and continue working for a peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in areas that are vitally important in continued economic development, peace and security of the asia pacific region. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure and honor to yield five minutes to the representative of american samoa, mr. eni faleomavaega. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from american samoa is recognized for five minutes. mr. faleomavaega: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank my good friend from new york and the gentlelady from florida for their leadership and their support of this legislation. mr. speaker, i rise in support of house resolution 714, a

resolution i introduced calling for the peaceful and collaborative resolution of maritime territorial disputes in the south china sea and the east china sea. i thank my colleagues both republicans and democrats who have stood with me since 2012 on this issue. i want to especially thank again chairwoman rostrost and chairman steve chabot for their leadership and support and chairman ed royce and our ranking member engel for their support and help. and i thank you, mr. speaker, for agreeing to bring this bill to the floor for consideration. i am serious about this matter that i have introduced this language as a resolution, as a bill, and now again as a resolution in hopes that the house will take a stand in response to china's aggressive actions in the south china sea and the east china sea. mr. speaker, when it comes to china, i consider myself a fair

broker. but it is time for china to stop provoking its neighbors and pursue a course of peace. this is the last resolution i have introduced that the house will consider and i am proud that this resolution calls for peace in the asia pacific region. also a matter of observation, 2/3 of the world's population is in the asia pacific region. for years i have had a little sense of complaint that it seems our focus has been toward europe and the middle east, not that they're not important but the fact that issues coming out of the asia-pacific region should be given our proper attention. i have served in the house foreign affairs committee since i first came to the u.s. congress in 1989. as far as -- for as long as i have served, it has been and continues to be my belief that the united states should pay more attention to the asia pacific region.

and for now we should pay particular attention to the ongoing tensions in the south china sea. although the united states government is not a claimant in maritime disputes in either the east china sea or the south china sea, the united states has an interest in the peaceful, diplomatic resolution of disputed claims in accordance with international law. freedoms of navigation and in overflight and in the free flow of commerce, free of coercion, intimidation and the use of force. mr. speaker, i appreciate the leadership of vietnam in standing for peace. even when china violated its sovereignty by planting its oil ig h.d. 981 in the waters of vietnam's exclusive economic zone. i also commend taiwan and japan for peaceful -- peacefully

reaching an agreement to join the shared fish regular sources in their overlapping exclusive economic zones through the east china sea initiative which demonstrates that resolutions can be achieved through peaceful means. mr. speaker, i firmly believe that we should earnestly seek ways to promote peace. and i thank you for the opportunity that i have had to associate with you and our colleagues to carry out our responsibilities in this great nation. it has been my distinct honor to serve the people of american samoa in the u.s. house of representatives for the past 25 years. and i thank them for giving me the opportunity to serve them and to this great nation. i believe i did my best and i hope i will be remembered for giving all i could to american samoa and to our great nation. especially to the asia pacific

region a region that's been too long neglected by our national government. tomorrow the words of -- to borrow the words of gandhi, i hope my life will be my message. mr. speaker, we will meet again, hopefully, and i extend to each of my colleague misfontest aloha. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. faleomavaega: i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from guam, representative madeleine bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. bordallo: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in very strong support of house resolution 714, authored by my very good friend, representative

eni faleomavaega of american samoa. this resolution reaffirms the united states' interests in a peaceful and collaborativeres. rution of maritime and jurisdictional disputes in the south and east china seas. disputes over islands in the south and east china seas have broad economic and security implications to the united states interest in the asia pacific region. disruption in this region could cause serious problems across the globe. i strongly believe that the united states must take a leadership role in these disputes and work to support a peaceful collaboration to these issues. the resolution takes a step in the right direction. we cannot accept unilateral action by any of the countries involved in these disputes as it it further degrades security in

the region. here is a clear example of congress supporting the united states role in the rebalance to the asia-pacific region. in particular, we cannot allow recent aggressive actions by china to go unchecked so i urge all parties, like secretary clinton did new york 2012, to push toward finalizing a code of conduct that would establish a mechanism to resolve these differences. i believe that it is important for all parties to come to a resolution over these disputes and not allow them to fester any longer. theseties putes should no longer be used as -- these disputes should no longer be used as weapons to bolster national ism, helping to secure domestic power. we must do all we can to ensure continued peace and stability in the asia-pacific region and i am glad that the house of representatives is acting on

this important measure to send a clear message to china and our allies in the region. want to especially close by saying that i am a close friend of congressman eni faleomavaega. i'm from guam he, represents american samoa, islands in the pacific area. i want to thank him for his leadership on this issue and his long and dedicated service in the house of representatives. i understand not just as an elected member but as a staffer as welsh serving here over 40 years. and as well as all the other issues in the asia pacific region that he has looked after. and i strongly again urge my colleagues to pass resolution 714. i yield back.

mr. engel: in closing, i would like to underscore the timeliness of this resolution. it is imperative this gets resolved peacefully. and anything less than this jeopardizes the interests of the united states and our continued economic development, peace and security of the asia-pacific region. i urge all my colleagues to support this important 714 and i h.res. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. faleomavaega: i would like to thank him for his most eloquent statements. i do want to thank him and i do want to know also it is my honor to serve with him and my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle very well, affairs affecting our national interests, our government, the gentlelady from florida will note that i have a relative that lives in her district. and his name is duane johnson and if you haven't seen his it.st movie, you should see but i do want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. engel: we all have relatives that live in her district and if we don't, we want to go to her district in the wintertime. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i would like to point out that duane johnson, the rock, is a university of miami murks alum. but thank you. mr. speaker, over the past several years, i have noticed, we all have noticed a worrying

trend in asia. what we have seen is it is gradually shifting away from economic prosperity to security concerns, where nations used to focus on trade and commerce. provocative easing behavior. and in the south china and east china sea. we need to work towards the shift and promote a peaceful resolution. this resolution of mr. aleomavaega encourages that. i thank him for his lifetime of service and i know for mr. royce

and all of the members when we say thank you, mr. faleomavaega for your service to your country during the vietnam war and thank you for the cause of peace and the decades of peace that followed that conflict. we are better institution for you having seved here. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and gee to house resolution 714 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. sfrop the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition.

ms. ros-lehtinen: i move the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 2673. the clerk: senate 2673, an act to enhance the strategic partnership between the united states and israel. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days and to include extraneous material on this resolution. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: this has been a long time coming but i'm pleased that we have an opportunity to send to the president's desk the bill before us, the you-israel strategic partnership act. i authored the original bill

along side mr. deutsche of florida and we introduced it in the house almost two years ago. chairman royce, ranking member engel and their staffs were supportive in pushing this bill through and we passed the house veering, h.r. 938 in this body in march, with an overwhelming vote of 410e-1. i want to thank our colleagues in the other chamber, senator boxer and senator blunt, for introducing the companion bill in the senate. today is a significant day in the history of the united states-israel relationships. our bill takes the already strong bond between our two countries and makes it even stronger. in the aftermath of this summer's gaza conflict in which we saw hamas fire thousands of

ockets into innocent israeli civilian populations and with the alarming rise in terror attacks in jerusalem these past few weeks, now is the time for us to make this bill a law. our bill is as important strategicically as it is symbolically. it shows the world how deeply merica has its relationship. affording the unique label of major strategic partner of the united states. at a time when many around the world seek to test our resolve and our commitment to our friend and ally, passing this bill will reaffirm an unwavering commitment to israel to defend her right to defend herself and

make sure that israel maintains a military edge over its enemies. israel has many enemies like hamas. hamas is planning its next assault. hezbollah, another enemy, which may be preoud in syria but has not forgotten its desire to wipe out israel especially when the iranian regime continues to violence. the people are continued to under the the p-5 rue to reach an agreement, this supreme leader is calling for all palestinians in the west bank to take up arms against israel. and while the administration

continues to extend and negotiate a very weak and dangerous iran nuclear deal, it is important that we in the united states congress send a signal to could mainy and all of them in iran that the united states congress will not undermine our ally israel for a regular yeem that cannot be struss trusted and is a state sponsor of terrorism. and this bill will do that, mr. speaker. it will do that and much more. and i'm so honored that i led the charge with mr. royce, mr. engel and mr. deutch numb getting this bill to the desk. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wre serves the balance. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i rise in support of the u.s.-israel strategic

partnership act and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first thank representative ms. ros-lehtinen: and mr. deutch, the ranking member of that subcommittee for offering the house version of that veer which passed by a vote of 410-1 on march 5 of this year. they have worked tirelessly, ms. ros-lehtinen and representative deutch with senators boxers and blunt to send this bill to the president. this legislation would reaffirm our support for the u.s.-israel relationship at a time of unprecedented threats. in the north, there is a civil war that has killed upwards of 2,000 people. and the al qaeda-affiliated front sitting right on israel's

border, they have kidnapped u.n. peacekeepers. rom jordan, typically, a quiet ally, we have seen ugly attacks. ey seized a synagogue, the jordanian parallelment praised them for perpetrating this attack. this summer's war against hamas and gaza left the public aware of their vulnerabilities. for years, towns have said they have heard digging underneath their feet that kept them up at night. hamas was digging tunnels in order to kidnap soldiers to perpetrate attacks in some of israel's large-scale cities. i stood with chairman royce with

one of those tubble tunnels. along with mr. rohrabacher and we looked at those tunnels. and they were solidly constructed and geared. i can't help but wonder if ham .ause put into building schools but they didn't. they made them terror tunnels. what a waste. hamas is a political actor and uses violence to gain terror. nor its victims nor its human shields and we passed a resolution condemning the hamas use of innocence civilians as human shields. d yeam faces the threat of iran and its nuclear weapons

program. en as talks continue, tehran continues to support international terrorism that will targets jews in israel and other parts of the world. israel is a bright light in a very dark region. the only democracy in the middle east and valued ally of the united states. that is why we are considering this bill, to strengthen our relationship with the state of israel and to send a clear and unmistakable message and that message is america stands with israel. this bill would build on our robust defense cooperation. it would ramp up u.s.-israel collaboration on cyber execute and expand energy cooperation and reaffirm our commitment to israel's military edge. this legislation names israel as and oy strategic partner

it is not assistance based. our relationship is based on shared, cultural, societal and historical ties and engrained in the ties we holder. beneficial. we under stood why america stands with israel. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. its is very important and very important that we do this. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: now my pleasure to give three minutes time to the gentlewoman from new york who is the ranking member of the

appropriations subcommittee which deals with all of these nita ant issues, ms. neat lowey. mrs. lowey: i thank all the ought thors of this bill for your important work and i appreciate you bringing these issues once again to the attention of my colleagues and all those who are watching us his evening. i rise in strong support of the united states-israeli strategic partnership act. excuse me. during a period of tremendous turmoil of the middle east, passage of this important legislation sends a strong signal to our steadfast ally that the united states congress remains fully committed to its security. this bill, which i co-sponsored, supports greater u.s.-israeli

cooperation on a number of fronts including energy, cybersecurity, homeland security, and agriculture. it also extends the authorization for u.s. weapons to be stored in israel in case they're needed by either of our countries to respond to an emergency. additionally, this bill provides for greater congressional oversight of israel's qualitative military edge over its neighbors, a status that remains absolutely critical to israel's ongoing security needs. lastly, this bill encourages israel's incluelings in the visa waiver program and includes greater work with israel on meeting the requirements. i remain committed to making it easier for young israelis to travel to the united states. as i've said before, our visa policy should reflect the unbreak nl bond between our

nations and people. supporting israel, our strongest ally, and the only democracy in the region, remains a vital component of protecting u.s. national security interests. as ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations, i will continue to fight to provide israel with the resources it requires to secure its borders and protect its citizens and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue toe reserve. is the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to one of the authors of this resolution, the gentleman from florida, mr. ted deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. today the house is taking up the senate version of the u.s.-israel strategic partnership act, a bill that passed this aim aim -- chamber

in march with a vote of 410-1. our vote today will send this piece of legislation to the president's desk and i'm grateful to my colleagues on the house foreign affairs committee, notably chairman royce, ranking member, my friend eliot engel, for helping ensure this legislation's passage, the senate sponsors, senators boxer and senator blunt, and my friend, chairman, and stalwart hampion of the u.s.-israel relationship, chairman emeritus, ileana ros-lehtinen. i would like to thank the staff who work sod hard to bring this bill to this floor at this moment this critical bill enhances the broad cooperation between the united states and israel on a wide spectrum of issues and reflebts a simple truth that our bilateral relationship stands not only shared security intests but shared values. this bill was crafted with

particular consideration of the heightened security situation faced by israel today. this summer's operation protective edge reminds us just how vital and strong u.s. support for israel can be. as the iron dome missile defense system saved tens of thousands of lives by taking down hundreds of hamas rockets aimed at civilians and as the u.s. aws able to quickly assist israel in the resupply of defense articles so it could defend its citizens from brutal terror attacks. the united states-israel strategic partnership highlights israel's strategic contributions in agriculture, water and other issues by expanding collaborative efforts and recognizes that the united states is strengthened by these joint efforts with israel to tackle shared problems and to advance shared interests. through dire security threats and unimaginable hostility from outside actor the state of israel has managed to life of

the as an open and free democratic society. and has prosper intd a global leader of research and development in countless fields. this bill, the u.s.-israel strategic partnership act sends a clear and bipartisan message to our ally israel and to the rest of the world that the u.s.-israel relationship runs wide and deep, that our commitment to the lasting safety and security of israel is and will be unbreakableable, and that our work together not only in security but this agriculture, cybersecurity, water and energy advances the interests of our nation as well as that of our great ally. i urge my colleagues to support the u.s.-israel strategic partnership act and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: in closing, let me say i'm very proud to help send

this bill to the president's desk. this is really significant and important. the united states stands with israel during these challenging times and deepening our ties with israel will only help strengthen our mutually beneficial relationship. let me say that, mutually beneficial relationship. it benefits both countries to have the kind of relationship we have with israel. it benefits both countries because we have shared values and care about democracy. it benefits both countries because we share intelligence and do so many things together as closest allies. this is a very important piece of legislation and i urbling everyone to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: it is in the national security interests of the united states to strengthen our relationship with our strongest ally, the democratic

jewish state of israel. our two nations share more than just a strategic partnership. we share the same values. we share the same ideals. the united states and israel are both freedom loving and democratic nations that serve as a model of our free and open societies can work and can thrive. but it is also our belief in these ideals that has made us a target by those who seek to oppress their people, to impose strict laws that govern their everyday lives and restrict their freedom of expression and their freedom of religion. the citizens of the united states and of israel speak openly and we live honestly. but our enemies hate everything that we stand for and they will stop at nothing ho harm or destroy our way of life. and that is why, mr. speaker, it is so important that we continue to strengthen our relationship

with israel and support its right to defend itself and her citizens and that is exactly what we'll be doing when we pass this bill. and i'd like to say to my florida colleague, mr. deutch, that it's been a joy to have joined him in our recent trip to israel and i have greatly enjoyed also our florida road trip as we speak around the -- around our great state about the strength and the vitality of the u.s.-israel relationship. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 2673. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid n the table.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. aderholt of alabama for today and mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced thecy of january 3, 2013 -- gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. woodall: thank youing -- thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate you being down here with me tonight. i i -- i've got a heavy heart because i feel like in just the short time you and i have been if this body, we have seen the same story play out more than once. you'd like to think we learn from our mistakes in this body and i don't fault any of my colleagues who make mistakes. i am one of the folks who is guilty of having made a mistake before, i'm not going to put you in the same box. but i have made a mistake before. the question isn't whether you make mistakes but what do you learn from your mistakes. as we go down the road oaf executive action, the conversation the country is

having, i feel like we have been down the road before. i want to try to connect the dots for folks tonight. you can't see what i have here, it's something near and dear to your heart, article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution. the president shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen in the recess of the senate by grantings commissions which shale expire at the end of their session. you wonder why this is important, it's just one paragraph in a relatively lengthy and really meaty constitution. the answer is, because it defines the relationship between the article 1 congress and the article 2 white house. and it says white house if you want to make appointments to positions of great power, great authority in the united states government, you must do so with the advice and consent of the united states senate. that the senate must confirm all

of those individuals that the president wishes to place in these positions of great power. well the president, back in 2012 , 2011. had some folk he is wanted to appoint to positions of great responsibility. one of those was national labor relations board. you'll recall this, mr. speaker. the president made some nominations and the senate said no, this isn't going to fly. now the president could have gone back and said you know what, if you don't like these nominees, this is an important job, important responsibility, i'm going to appoint some different nominee, put some different napes out there, i'm going to work with you to try to find some folks that we can agree on as the constitution requires. that's not what the president did. in fact, there's a pattern of that not being what the president does. what the president did instead of working with the senate, what the president did instead of working offering some different name, what the president did instead of trying to find common ground, was he went to this

article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution and said, i have the power to fill these spots without anybody else's advice or counsel, without anybody else's consent as long as i do it during recess. and he woke up one morning, he declared the senate in recess and he made those appointments. that would be all well and good, mr. speaker, if the senate had in fact been in recess. but the senate wasn't in recess. i have here on the -- on a chart, mr. speaker a yet from senate majority leader harry 2007, vember 16, 2007, when president bush was still president of the united states he, too, wanted to make some nominations. the senate then new york 2012, disagreed with those nominations and didn't want to appoint those people. and senate majority leader harry reid said, the senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions

during the thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments. my hope is that this will prompt the president to see that it is in our mutual interests for the nominations process to get back on track. hear that, mr. speaker. senate majority leader harry reid said to then-president george bush, i don't like the folks you're trying to nominate. i disagree with you on those nominations. and so i'm going to keep the senate in, in pro forma session, to prevent you from nominating those folks in a period of recess, prevent you using article 2, section 2. i hope that will encourage you to come and work with us together to find folks who are mutually agreeable for these positions. november, 2007. harry reid kept the senate in session, these pro forma sessions, all through the thanksgiving hol di. -- holiday. i bring you to december 19, 2007. later that same year. again, senate majority leader harry reid says this, i could be a grinch.

i could tell the president that i would not move any nominations, given his demand to make controversial recess appointments, but i'm not going to do that tonight, mr. president. i'm not going to meet intransigence with intans jens. we'll confirm those appointment this is evening and i will keep the senate in pro forma session to block the president from doing an end run around the senate and the constitution with his other controversial nominees. hear that. getting ready to head home for christmas, senator harry reid said to then-president george an i will not let you do end run around the constitution by nominating, nay, appointing, individuals to these powerful positions across the government without the consent of the senate. i will not let you do it. and i will prevent you from doing it by keeping the senate in pro forma session during the hol days.

pro forma means you're in once every three days, that's how the law defines it. come in once every three day, doesn't count as a recess. harry reid knows this. he does this to prevent george bush from doing, and i quote, an end run around the senate and the constitution. i found it fairly persuasive, mr. speaker. in fact, president george bush found it fairly persuasive. and this ended the argument. because no president has a vested interest in making an end run around the senate and he constitution. but president obama didn't see things that same way in january of 2012. faced with the exact same circumstances, mr. speaker, faced with the exact same

circumstances, a senate in pro forma session designed specifically to prevent recess appointments, the president woke up one morning in january and said, the senate is in fact in recess. they say that they're not, but they're wrong, they in fact are. i'm going to make four appointments today. you would think having just read what we read from senate majority leader harry reid that the senate would have melted down with defenders of article 1, standing up and saying, mr. president, we may agree with your politics and your policy, but we disagree with this end run that you're making around the senate and the united states constitution. it's what would you have expected. it's what you would have hoped for. but it's not what you got. senator tom harkin, when asked about those appointment, said the president acted responsibly in making those appointments. he acted responsibly.

this is a national labor relations board we're talking about so of course the afl-cio commented and said, the president was exercising his constitutional authority to ensure that crucially important agencies protecting workers and consumers are not shut down. the labor secretary. one of those members that had to be confirmed by the united states senate, then labor secretary hilda solis said, we can't afford not to move on very important issues affecting people. we cannot afford not to move. we cannot afford to allow the constitution to get in the way of those things that we would like to do. this isn't sour grapes from a republican in the u.s. house of representatives, mr. speaker. this case went to the supreme court. this case went to the supreme

court and on that court of course sit two obama appointees, two clinton ppointees sit there. 9-0, mr. speaker. 9-0, two 1/2 years later, was the ruling -- 2 1/2 years later, was the ruling from the supreme court that when the president did was patently unconstitutional. unconstitutional. now, this isn't a surprise to anyone. you remember the words of harry reid when he implemented these sessions to prevent recess appointments. he said, i'm not going to let the president do an end run around the constitution. the constitution has these requirements. harry reid knew it, president bush knew it, harry reid knew it again in 2012, president obama knew it in 2012 and he did it anyway. as then labor secretary said,

we have important things we need to do and we can't let things get in the way. quoting from that 9-0 decision, mr. speaker, justice briar wrote the majority opinion, he said this he said, the recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. that bears repeating, mr. speaker. the clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our onstitutional structure. i don't even know if that captures it, mr. speaker. it's not really an inevitable consequence, it's there by design. it's not an accident that we have this friction. it is there by design.

this isn't the ranting of a sour grapes conservative republican. this is the unanimous decision of a supreme court that is as divided as any court we've seen in my lifetime. but they unanimously said, president obama, your goals are not what we're litigating today, the process that you're using to achieve your goals is unconstitutional. why? because congress got in your way and instead of working with congress, you went around congress and the law doesn't allow for that. sound familiar, mr. speaker? sound familiar? it took 2 1/2 years to litigate that case. it took 2 1/2 years to get an answer from the supreme court. in those 2 1/2 years, over 400 cases were decided by the national labor relations board, now all invalidated by this

supreme court decision. .ives thrown into turmoil not one senator, not one democratic senator, not one senator from the leadership spoke out to say, mr. president, i may agree with your politics, i may agree with your policies but the way you're getting them done is unconstitutional. and every one of them knew it. just like the supreme court did 9-0 when they ruled 2 1/2 years later. now fast forward to today, mr. speaker. we're talking about immigration. and we're not talking about good immigration policy. because that's what we talk about in the judiciary committee. we're not talking about immigration law in this country, because that's what's decided by the house and the senate. what we're talking about is the president taking action on his own in an end run around the senate, an end run around the

house, an end run around the constitution and implementing immigration policy all by himself. he was asked about that in a univision town hall, mr. speaker. it was march of 2011 and the question that was put to the president was, mr. president, my question will be as follows, with an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of students? fair question. fair question. a lot of folks out there have this issue on their mind. it was march of 2011. and this is what the president said. this is what president barack obama said in answer to the question, mr. president, can't you just stop deportations by executive order? the president said this -- with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. the president was right on that

day in march. i can't just do this by executive order, he told the questioner, because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. he says, congress passes the law, the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. then the judiciary has to interpret those laws. there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. those are not my words, mr. speaker. those are president barack obama's words. there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear, very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply through executive order ignore those

congressional mandates would not conform with my responsibilities as president. that's powerful, mr. speaker, but that's not even the most interesting part of that response. he went on in that question and said this -- that doesn't mean that we can't make decisions to emphasize enforcement. it doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it fair or more just and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country. it doesn't mean that we can't work hard to change the law. it just means that i as president don't have the ability to do it by myself. the constitution requires a team effort between congress and the white house. mr. speaker, this wasn't just a one-time thing. this wasn't a quote that i just pulled out of thin air. i'm not trying to miss

characterize the president's feelings -- mischaracterize the president's feelings. november, 2013, he's been heckled. he's given a speech and he's being heckled by protesters who want him to do more in terms of changing immigration law. you've just heard his last quote where he says, i can't do this by myself, congress has to lead in this area, he's being heckled and he says this -- now what you need to know when i'm speaking as president of the united states and i come into this community is that if in fact i could solve all these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so. that's what he says to the heckler. he said, sir, what you need to know is if i could, i would. if i could change these laws without congress, i would. but the constitution doesn't allow for it. president obama went on to say, we are a nation of laws. he says, that's part of our

tradition. he says, and so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like i can do something by violating our laws. and what i'm proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve, but it won't be as easy as just shouting, it requires us lobbying and getting it done. wow. mr. speaker, he's being heckled for his position on immigration policy and he says to the heckler, if i could do something about it, i would, but i can't. because america's tradition is a tradition of laws. he says, it's not as easy as just one man deciding that he's going to ignore the law or change the law, what it takes is hard work. working with congress, lobbying

in congress, working through legislation and changing the laws. it's not as easy as one man deciding he doesn't like the law. cause our tradition is a tradition of law. he goes on to that heckler, mr. speaker, and he says to him, if you're serious about making that happen, that change happen, changing the law, if you're serious about making that happen, then i'm willing to work with you. but it's going to require work. he says, it's not simply a matter of us just saying we're going to violate the law. that's not our tradition. the great thing about this country, president obama said, is we have this wonderful process of democracy and sometimes it's messy and sometimes it's hard, but ultimately justice and truth win out. that's always been the case in this country. and that's going to continue to

be the case today. mr. speaker, that was a year ago. that was a year ago that president obama said to the heckler, wanting him to do unilateral immigration action, he said, it's not just a matter of us saying we're going to violate the law. he said, we got this wonderful process, this crazy, crazy process called democracy where we go to the house and we go to the senate and we work to change the law. he says it's hard. he says it's a hard process. it's a messy process. but ultimately truth and justice win out and he is so right. he is so right. justice briar in that 9-0 decision, rebuking the president for violating the said, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our onstitutional structure.

we've been down this road before. mr. speaker, i represent a community of immigrants. a vibrant, wonderful, wonderful community of immigrants. folks who stood in line and paid their money, folks who have relatives overseas who have been waiting in line five years, or 10 years, or 20 years. and i welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to change the law to bring fairness and justice to them. oh, mr. speaker, i've got folks in my district, big brains, big minds, strong work eth exs, but the visas they're here under don't allow them to go to work. the president proposed offering four million new work permits to folk who was done it the wrong way. i've got folks in my district who have done it the right way. waiting in line without the ability to work. are there things on which we can

agree there absolutely are, but isn't the first of those things that the president cannot unilaterally change the law from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. he knew that was true in 2012, he knew that was true in 2013. what has changed about our 250-year-old constitution today that suddenly makes it ok? the silence in this town is deafening. folks who know the right way, who know the right way, to pass a law. to change the law. to implement a law. to enforce a law. in the america that you and i love. the america that we inherited from patriots before us. the president says it's sometimes messy and it's sometimes hard, but the great thing about this country is we

have this wonderful process called democracy. justice breyer says, mr. president, you might have forgotten a little bit about that democracy. and 9-0, the supreme court says the constitution was thrown by the wayside in the president's zeal to implement his policies, in the president's zeal to do as harry reid described it, an end run around the senate. in the president's desire to do to do as harry reid described it, an end run around the constitutionism welcome a policy debate with the president. i welcome a partnership with the president. to fix a muddled immigration process we have in this country today. we are a land of immigrants, always have been, always will be. i thrive on that. i celebrate that. ut we are also a land of laws. a sentiment the president has acknowledged and celebrated in

years past and a sentiment that just days after the last election the president threw threw out the window in the spirit of the ends justifying the means. i don't think the american people are going to let that stand, mr. speaker. and i call on folks from the left and the right to be part of that chorus of voices. we are not having a debate tonight, we are not having a debate tomorrow, about policies of immigration reform. the discussion we're having is about process, the discussion we're having is about whether the constitution matters. the discussion we're having is, who writes the laws? does congress craft the laws and the president signs them? or does the president craft the laws and the president signs them? it's not simply a matter of us saying we're going to violate the law. he president said. the easy way is to yell and

scream and pretend i can do something by violating our laws. but the better path, the harder path -- the better path, is the harder path, the president says. with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportation through executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that congress has passed, the president says. there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore the congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president, president obama says. 9-0 in defense of the constitution. the last time the president decided he was going to go it alone, an end run around the senate, harry reid said. an end run around the constitution, as harry reid said. but it took 2 1/2 years for the

supreme court to sort that out. i think the -- i think america deserves better. i think those trying to immigrate to this country deserve better. i think those fighting for work back home deserve better. and perhaps worst, mr. speaker, i think the president knows better. and has chosen the path he's chosen anyway. there's still time to turn back on that decision. mr. speaker. there's still time to engage in that partnership, to engage in that messy that hard, but that oh, so rewarding process, as the president has described it, that is the constitution defined democracy that we live in today. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for

30 minutes. mr. johnson: thank youing mr. speaker. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight, ladies and gentlemen work a heavy heart because today we had a grand jury a secret grand jury finding in new york that resulted in no charges against a police officer who killed an unarmed man named eric garner. a man who they accused of trying , and some cigarettes that man was approached by law enforcement on the streets of new york, and when approached, he said that he had not done anything wrong.

he held his hands up. in the hands up, don't shoot position. and they took him down while his hands were up and applied a choke hold, an illegal choke hold. and applied it until the man . ok his last breath what did eric garner say 13 times before he died? what did he say 13 times before he died? he said, i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. and he said that over and over and over again until he could

not breathe, he took his last breath. just like michael brown, accused of stealing some cigarettes, or cigars, excuse me, michael brown, accused of stealing some cigars. eric garner, accused of selling some cigarettes. i don't know when possession and or sale of tobacco merited a death penalty in this country. both of of them -- ose cases involved tobacco products. both of them involved men, black men, with their hands up in the don't shoot position. . th of them were killed

both cases handled in a secret grand jury process. we don't know the names of the grand jurors. we don't know what went on in the grand jury room. although we do have a transcript in the michael brown case and it shows that a lot of injustice was done in that grand jury room which resulted in an unjust no bill against the police officer involved in that case. we don't know what happened in the new york case. but we got a result a no bill, against that police officer. , just caught on tape like in the rodney king case, ll caught on tape. eric garner caught on tape, the killing, but still no justice

done. cameras are not the sole answer, it appears. t runs deeper than a camera. these are dark days, ladies and gentlemen. hat we're living in today. first african-american president treated like no other president has ever been treated before. this a symptom of the obama backlash? that is occurring in this country? is there any connection between what we see happening in the streets of ferguson and on the streets of new york with what's going on with the dehumanization of the leader of the free world? first they said he was not a

resident, not a citizen of this country. then they said he was a communist, a socialist. accused of him being weak and indecisive as a president and not really having the intellectual capacity to be the president. now they're saying, they said he was a muslim. now they're saying that he's an emperor. a king. disregarding the constitution. where are we in america when it and how we ck males treat them and how they end up faring in life. is it our fault? yes, we do have responsibility. we can always do better. but don't put your foot on my

neck and tell me that it's my fault that your foot son my neck. -- that your foot is on my neck. people are tired of seeing what's happening over and over again, young 12-year-old black males with -- young 12-year-old black male with a b.b. gun at a park. on the streets. and a police car rolls up, a police officer gets out and immediately shoots the young man and kills him. will that go to another secret grand jury process and have the same result as what we saw with michael brown and eric garner? it's happening throughout the streets of the nation. and i tell you, i've been gratified by the protesters i've seen protesters out there, it's

been black and white protesters. out there. demonstrating, peacefully, being met with a militarized response. nd i say that to say this. that -- i'm going to paraphrase something that you'll probably be familiar with, but they first came for the gypsy and i wasn't a gypsy, and i didn't say anything. then they came for the jews, and i was not a jew, and so i didn't say anything. then they came for the women and i wasn't a woman and i didn't ay anything.

.hen they came for me and there was nobody else to say anything. is that where we're headed in this country, ladies and gentlemen? because all kinds of people out peacefully protesting, and that's what i advocate for, peaceful protests. violence is not the way. violence just produces more pain and agony. violence is not the way. nonviolence is the way. that we must confront this. because really, when you move past the fact that black males are at the bottom of the totem pole and we're the ones who bear the brunt, those who come to aid

us are in the line of fire also. what happens to one of us happens to all of us. if not you now, then what happens tomorrow. when you come to my assistance. so we all are our brothers' keeper. right now we're operating under an economic philosophy in this country of only the strong survive. if you're weak it's your fault. . and i don't owe you anything. don't ask me for nothing. you get yours, i got mine. you get yours. don't worry about me. don't ask me for nothing. that's the economic attitude that we have that we're trying to preserve and protect in this hollowed body here. it's called la someday fair capitalism and it is -- lase

fair capitalism and it's been supported by a u.s. supreme court that has contorted itself in ways that enable it to rule to enable a corporation to become a person. so when we have a corporation having a right to free speech and having unlimited funds and unlimited duration and we have a corporation that has a right to religious freedom, so that they can dictate to its employees their religious beliefs, it doesn't even make sense for a corporation to have a religious belief. but that's what our supreme court has found. and every other way that it can aid corporations to become richer. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and i don't owe you a thing. you're on your own. that's what they want us to believe.

but it's time for people to come together because it is all about economics. they put blacks against whites, poor whites and poor blacks against each other and then they're going to the bank in the truck and we're sitting here pointing figurers -- fingers at ourselves when we're all in the same boat together. the 99% or the 47%, as one of our presidential candidates most famously talked about. i'm proudly one of those 47%. and i represent the 47% that's eally the 99%. and so this extra judicial killing of black men has to end . if not then what's going to happen to you tomorrow? ith that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to associate myself with the words of my colleague, rob woodall from georgia. i think this body's been

blessed by rob woodall being here and his words tonight just einforce that. so the president has declared an amnesty. the law of the land is that if someone is in this country illegally, they're not allowed to legally work. to change that law requires a bill. as "saturday night live" pointed out in their version of schoolhouse rock, a bill has to pass the house, has to pass the senate and then it goes to the president and gets his signature, if it is going to change existing law. for anyone to just pronounce,

re's the new change, is an iscriminate approach -- an indiscriminate approach to changing the law without following the law and i believe that such an indiscriminate approach would be both wise and unfair. it would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration and it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting to come ere legally. ultimately our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders anisette laws for

residency and citizenship and no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws hould be held accountable. that's what i believe. and all the words, every one of those words i just spoke, would be both unwise and unfair -- were words directly out of the mouth of the united states of america's barack obama. he was right. in everything he said in that uote he was exactly right. there are millions of people lined up around the world who are wanting to come here legally. most of those would be coming

and have to have some way to support themselves and yet the president spoke into law and oral fiat saying, you know what, i'm going to disregard everything i previously said that was .xactly right changed the law without a bill going to the house or the senate or without coming to me for my signature after it's passed a vote. our president also said, i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with the president trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all.

and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president of the united states of america. the trouble is he said that march 31 of 2008 and when he ecame president he forgot that promise. somebody needs to get that promise in front of him again. also in 2008, before he got elected, he said, we've got a government designed by the founders so there would be checks and balances. you don't want a president who's too powerful or a congress that's too powerful or a court that's too powerful. everybody's got their role. congress' job is to pass legislation. the president can veto it or he can sign it. senator obama said, i believe in the constitution and i will obey the constitution of the united states. we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an

end run around congress. i had a practice court instructor at baylor law school . he was an incredible trial lawyer before he came to be a professor at baylor law school. phenomenal. he talked even slower than i do. dawson ll hear matt saying, when he caught a witness saying something different one time than he said another time, he would say to the witness, well, were you lying then or are you lying now? let the shoe fit on the shoe hat wears that size.

now, there's been a lot of talk about the law. i've been called anal and everything else around this house floor, even by people in my party, for actually reading ills and reading laws. ut eight united states -- 8, united states code, section 234-a says the following, under subparagraph a-1, it is unlawful for a person or other higher or tap a, to recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the united states an alien, knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien as defined in subsection h-3 of this section, with respect to such employment. or, b, to hire for employment

in the united states an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection b of the section, or if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer or farm labor contractor, to hire or recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the united states an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection b of this section. so basically it makes clear, everybody that follows it, it's easier for me to see it in print, but when i see it in print it's very clear. it's illegal for someone to get is not an rica who authorized alien. if you're an illegal alien or

an unauthorized alien, as the language is here, then you're not entitled, it's illegal for you to get a job in the united states. and it's illegal for someone to ire you. so really raises an interesting question. and i haven't seen this in the president's fiat, the royal decree that he made. haven't seen if he is providing amnesty for every employer that hires someone who's here illegally. because the president saying basically i'm, -- saying basically, i'm giving you amnesty so you can go work wherever you want to, but as the law makes clear in section 1324 of volume 8 of the united states code, it's illegal to

hire someone that's illegally in the country. o, is the president going to pardon every employer that hires one of the five million that's going to get a permit? we know the president wants to give pardons to folks that are here illegally. but the trouble is, a pardon doesn't work for someone wanting to grant legal status. a pardon only works if you want to forgive a crime that's been committed, like president clinton did, as he kept -- well, president-elect george w. bush, vice president cheney, kept him waiting. the service was supposed to start. president clinton was over

there just signing pardons as fast as he could. it took him a while to get that done and he left president-elect george w. bush and vice president cheney waiting. they were late starting the service that day on inaugural day for george w. bush because he just signed those pardons as fast as he could. because he had to sign the individual pardons. the president hasn't signed five million pardons. and even if he did, a pardon forgives the committing of a crime, it does not change the status of someone that's illegally in the country to legally in the country. that's -- the pardon pertains to criminal law. under nging of status is naturalization, immigration and that power is strictly reserved to this house and the body down

the hall, the u.s. senate. we have the power under article 1, section 8, to make the law on those things. the president does not. and there's no provision that allows him to pardon someone from the requirements of the naturalization or immigration laws. now, something else caught my attention. it's down in the miscellaneous provisions of section 1324, because i'm always looking, ok, does the president have a loophole here? at first i thought maybe he did. turns out he doesn't. but under the definition of unauthorized alien, it says, as ed in this section, the term authorized alien means with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either, a, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or, b, authorized to be so employed by this chapter

or by the attorney general, which is now the secretary of homeland security. so i thought, ah, so maybe this is their loop hol here, that the president might -- loophole here that the president might try to use, even though that's not what was said in the basis that was provided. but then new get over here -- but it says this exception may not be provided alien yale yeen -- unless it is provided for lawful residence. so, again, it kicks it back to the law as congress has decreeded in the past and the president previously signing it,

that you have to follow the law lawful to get this permanent resident status. you have to be awfully admitted. you aren't lawful under that 1324. so there are people that have violated the law to come into the count ti in such a way that it isn't necessarily a crime, t if they go to work under volume 8 of the united states code section 1324, it will be a crime for anybody that hires them ap it will be a crime for them. so that's where the crime hey get committed. and i guess at that time, if the president wants to sign five or five million

employers, well, he could do that, he has that authority under the constitution. parred ops for people who are unauthorized aliens and no matter what the president gives them under the an that person is still upauthorized alien under this provision . there are some interesting days ahead and the statute of limitation will not have run out when a new president comes into office and only way that wouldn't happen if the president would get a third term that is unconstitutional as the president legislating, and

surely that wouldn't happen. now, it's interesting to, in the manner in which the president as given this amnesty and is authorizing these work permits, he has actually doubled down legally on on his violation of the law previously under the da crmp arch under which he had said that since -- well this is the way he doubled down, he expands his unconstitutional action, that the house the house pass the law passed the last week of july and the senate didn't take it up -- and they talked about the senate passing

a come prepares i have bill and they forget to mention the president's bill is unconstitutional and they raised revenue, such a bill has to originate in the house. if the senate gets it down here, we don't get it down here and we put a plus slip on it and raises revenue and the house isn't allowed to headache it up. bill. he senate bassed we passed that one and it was constitutional and it was a good bill. it was a good bill. and it dealt largely with

securing our border because the question people are not asking and the president is not answering is a very important question. f this act of a.m. necessary city, unconstitutional, if this act of amnesty is allowed to stand, and obviously the board is not secure, we still have thousands and thousands continuing to come across our border illegally and nobody is turned away and the big question that has to be answered is, how often should we go ahead and have an amnesty, because clearly, since the president has chosen do provide an amnesty constution neal, without

sturing the border first and the majority of our hispanic friends want the border secured. i have said off and over, if the it confirmed, we have seen their kind of work, at leaves least the people at the top. he borders are now factually secured, then people would be amazed at what the house and the senate can negotiate on. but until the border is secured

we have to died if this amnesty is go to stand, how often should we give an amnesty. the president has given a.m. necessary city. and the five million and there and 92 million people ave given up finding a job and millions looking for a job and can't find them and middle class , poor-working americans, they will be put out of work, because people who have gotten amnesty, they will take jobs for lesser pay than what the american citizens were getting paid. they'll bump them out of a job

and also for any employer that hires more than 50 employees, they have learned since obamacare passed actually in 2010. employers have learned if you have more than 50 employers you will pay a fine for anybody that you don't provide what the federal government covers adequate insurance to. ichael lynch has 200 or so employees that are american citizens that are illegal hear and he is going to have to provide insurance that is provided by government even if ey are 60 years old and they

will have maternity coverage, e gay or less by and and 60's., women in their nd if you don't provide that their expensive insurance for their employees, then they are going to be paying a fine, penalty, as chief justice roberts called it in his opinion, clearly it's not a tax, a penalty, a fine, but you are . ing to have to pay this fine o for sosh like dennis michael hish, this president has by

ookt of amnesty, conveyed to lynch, if you will let those 200 american residents, if you will allow them to be fired, let them go, and then hire these people who are illegally in the country. then my administration has put in place a law called informally bamacare that will save you $6 00,000. dennis michael lynch, how would u like to take home an extra $600,000. you have to let your citizens go, hire people illegally ecause of this decree from the

white house. 300 don't and it may be employees and pockets $900,000 he will let them go and let those folks go. five million though folks going to be looking for jobs, 300 is a drop in the bucket when compared the to the five million. income is that's some serious money even for people in congress. but that also doesn't address the issue of whether or not

dennis michael lynch, made $00,000, it to doesn't address the issue whether a new president that comes in january, 2013 might have their justice department might follow the law and might aliensable to pursue the illegally here that got jobs, certainly would be able to puerto rico the employers. but here again, the president can do what president clinton id and leave his suckesor -- successesor and that doesn't seem to be this administration's history when this administration those you under the bus it

maines for you to stay there. it shouldn't count on a pardon. and don't have a pardon their happened before this president leaves office. now, there has been a lot of discussion among republicans in the house and among some of our friends and some of us have been talking tenth but what's the best way to address this unconstitutional amnesty and our leadership has talked about, well, we can talk about all of the government with the omnibus taking appropriation bills, been seven of those, and then not funding the department of homeland security and only funding them to march and then

y march of next year, we could try to overturn the amnesty action taken by the president. most of us believe if those permits are issued before congress stops them, it's going to be difficult to get enough votes to withdraw the permits, once they are out this, it will be so tough to get them withdrawn. ome of us have been saying, we can't wait until march. if you wait until march, there are a real risk that are permits will be done. if we do a short-term c r. when we get a new -- another problem there is that it's not just the

department of homeland security that's involved in this process for people who are illegally here. that's the state department that's involved. you have department of defense that's been involved in housing for the next influx of people as they flood in, the d.o.d. housed many of those people initially. you've got health and human services that takes custody of minors that come in and ships them all over the country. you've got social security is going to be issuing social security numbers. you got the department of justice and c.j.s. for immigration court processing, you have h.u.d. for housing. there are a lot of issues here. and as somebody once said, you hould never take a hostage

that the other person you're trying to influence by taking a hostage is willing for you to shoot. doesn't do you much good to take a hostage that the other side wants you to shoot. and we need to be concerned that if we say, all right, we're not funding the department of homeland security until you cease this illegal and unconstitutional action, oh, the president might say, so you mean you're not going to fund the border patrol? in other words you're going to leave the border wide open? so that anybody that wants to come in can, and that's your threat? you're going to leave the border wide open for anybody to come in unless i back off of my amnesty? well, good luck. yeah. that's not going to do the trick. we need a short-term c.r. to get us into the first of the

year. and we need, for example, the house has defunded ourselves over about a four-year period by over 20%. we cut our own budgets over 20%. nobody noticed, nobody cared except those of us in the house. we had to make real adjustments. well, if we can make those adjustments, i think the white house ought to be able to make those adjustments. maybe they can do with a few less czars, maybe we defund all the czars. but there are smart ways to defund the waste, fraud and abuse in the executive branch and i don't think it's a good idea to start with homeland security. and at the same time what happens when those folks are able to save millions of dollars, who are employers that hire the five million people that have just been given am nest j? what happens to them -- amnesty? what happens to them? they're going to make more money than ever and that's during a president's administration who has presided for the first time in our

history over a nation where 95% of all the income's gone to the top 1%. it's got to stop. nd with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> one of the issues that came up was the intention to retire the a-10 airplane. where does that stand? house and the senate blocked retirement of the a-10. the final bill eases restrictions on that. they said they need to retire these aircraft. it still will have its retirement of the air force to take his many as 36 of them out of the day-to-day operations, which will reduce manning, operations and maintenance costs , but still allow them to be available. say aboutes this bill the fight against isis?

the permanent authorization for training and equipping the syrian rebels. givesntinuing resolution the administration the beginning authorization of that. since that has a sunset date, this is where the permanent authorization will reside. --the 2015 bill is named what roles did they play in this bill? levin has been the on the armed services committee since the 1990's. his the carter change the committee a great deal. he has been a very vocal force. counterparts -- ongoingeit parts and to

operations in iraq, afghanistan, and syria. he originally sided with the administration, but they have had some disagreements over operational issues. he will be replaced by congressman thornberry, who is a hawk as well. >> let's look at the change is at military bases. headline, "lawmakers give pentagon green light for brac-related study. " >> they do open the door to allow the department to begin an infrastructure analysis.

relying ont is decades-old data. this kind of analysis is done as part of a formal brac. it is a signal that congress is willing to entertain the thought of a brac even if it does not authorize another round. >> your colleagues are writing about some objections in the senate. tom coburn objecting to some land bills. >> this bill is ugly at the finish. it is the language that was attached to the bill. some of that language benefits nevada, where senate majority leader harry reid is from. does not want to see the unrelated language

attached to the bill. a vehicle fores other legislation. >> viewers can follow the reporting on the defense authorization and more at cq.com and on twitter. thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend. ,aturday at 11 p.m. eastern live coverage of the memorial service for former mayor marion berry. sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a, and compton, who recently retired as abc news white house correspondent. saturday night at 10:00 on book tv on c-span2, university of new hampshire jason sokol on how the northeast u.s. was not always -- supportive of african-american human rights. with yourthur books

phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday night at 8:00 on lectures in history, martha jones on female slaves in the law. , george h.w.0 bush's secretary of state, james baker, on the fall of the berlin wall and the liberation of eastern europe. find a complete television schedule on c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at the following number. e-mail us at the following address. citizen tweet at the following address. join c-span conversation, like some facebook, follow us on twitter. headline.a no indictment in eric garner chokehold case for nypd officer. are staging a diet and in grand central station.

they are reacting to a staten island grand jury the decided not to bring criminal charges. the decision triggered outrage and spurred protesters to take to the streets. to helpt obama vowed heal the rift that exist between the police and those they observe -- serve. here's what he said. >> is some of you may have heard, there was a decision that came out today by a grand jury not to indict police officers who had interacted with an individual named eric garner in new york city, all caught on videotape. it speaks to the larger issue that we have been talking about for the last week, the last month, the last year, and sadly, for decades. concern on the part

of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way. there is going to be i'm sure additional statements by law enforcement. my tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation. i want everybody to understand that this week in the wake of ferguson, we initiated a task force whose job it is to come back to me with specific recommendations about how we strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color and minority communities that feel , thatias is taking place

we are going to take specific steps to improve the training and the work with state and local governments when it comes to policing in communities of color. scrupulous ino be investigating cases where we are concerned about the impartiality and accountability that is taking place. as i said, when i met with folks both in ferguson and law enforcement, clergy, and civil rights activists, i said that this is an issue we have been dealing with too long and would -- it is time for us to make progress. i'm not adjusted and talk. i'm interested in action. i'm committed is presently united dates to making sure that we have a country in which everybody believes in the core principle that we are equal under the law. [applause]

so, i just got off the phone with my attorney general, eric holder, he will have more specific comments about the case in new york, but i want everybody to know here, as well as everybody who may be viewing my remarks are today, we are not going to let up until we see a and athening of the trust strengthening of the accountability that exists between our communities and our law enforcement. i say that as somebody who believes that law enforcement has an incredibly difficult job, that every man or woman in uniform are putting their lies it risked to protect us, that they have the right to come home , just like we do from our jobs