but let me indicate to two pastors that i just got off the phone with, bishop dixon and bishop bait beatty, who are watching -- bishop beatty, who are watching hungry people coming to a site looking for food. as i was speaking to the emergency leadership, they were indicating they were evacuating babies from apartments and people were being displaced. what does that have to do with where we are today and no budget? we know the president introduced his budget a few months ago, because of his responsibility, we know that homeland security was provided funding and fema was provided funding to deal with emergency declarations of a disaster. my district now needs it more than they've ever needed it. they need it in terms of providing for those immediate needs of vulnerable people without the resources to have stocked food, medical care,

clothing, and also those who may be off work now because of the disaster. so we don't have a budget. we're not moving along to ensure that fema that has seen a lot of disasters over the last two years has the necessary funding to to to -- to do their job. that is a broken moral compass. it also reflects the constitution because we are old and -- owed an equal treatment under the law and due process under the fifth amendment. there's no due process, when i hear that one area is under water and we're not able to get help. let me also say that as i watch a broken moral system, i also look at the predicament that we will be in with the zika virus. my colleague, mr. jeffries, mentioned the open yoid crisis and the -- the opioid crisis and the water crisis in flint and

around the nation and the hard work done by members in michigan and mr. kildee. they need a budget to be able to fund the crisis, or to help repair the crisis, restoretive dollars that a budget does to give a road map to the appropriators. i also know that we are facing another potential epidemic, if you will, the zika virus that is taking control of places like puerto rico and other places in the caribbean, places that we have not yet fully documented. i can assure you the gulf coast states of florida, louisiana, and others, and texas, are in the eye of the storm. the president, a couple of and s ago, dutifully responsibly introduced to this congress a request of $1.9 billion. no i didn't say trillion. i didn't say $5 billion. i said $1.9 billion. so the centers for disease

control can do their job. mr. jeffries, colleagues, if we are not doing our job, we need those who have the responsibility, the distinctive responsibility for issues of health and epidemics in this country to be able to do their job. we have now been told by the centers for disease control that it is not just in the prestages of pregnancy that zika virus can have a se zero impact. it is throughout the pregnancy. we also know they have just determined it will be severe brain damage that will come about. so how irresponsible can it be to not put forward the emergency supplemental of $1.9 billion? i sent letters to secretary burwell, sent letters to obviously the president of the united states supporting his effort. but aye sent letters to our leader, nancy pelosi, who has been a champion on these issues of zika funding and i've sent letters, or a letter to speaker

paul ryan. might i speak to the speaker and certainly ask that a half-baked, if i might say, contribution to fighting the zika virus is not going to work because any taking of moneys from other places is going to damage the funding of malaria, tuberculosis and the universal flu vaccine and yes it is going to undermine our needed and continued effort of fighting ebola. let me finish by simply saying this. along with the idea of the zika virus and other crisis, when we hear headlines like this, that indicate americans still don't see a vibrant labor market, then you know what else is needed under this budget? we need a budget to be able to fully fund retraining of americans. i've introduced legislation that would train middle age or middle

management workers and others and give them a stipend while they're being retrained for the 21st century job. we cannot do that with a budget not passed and an assessment not being made on how we would fund job training. last week, the supreme court heard -- lastly, the supreme court heard a case today dealing with issues of executive orders and immigration. i would argue that texas and the other states did not have standing because they're not required to give drirse licenses or anything else as the president provides a prioritization of who should be deported. but i will say to you that over the year, we have said over and over again to pass comprehensive immigration reform which could have been a key element of a budget revenue to be able to help this country move along. without a budget and a discussion, an intelligent discussion about what comprehensive immigration reform would do as an added revenue for this country, here we are, mumbling along while houston remains under water, needed

resources from fema, while the zika virus is in distress with no moneys and while a number of other important issues are. so mr. jeffries, i thank you for allowing me to spend a moment to at least tie in the bill of rights that deal with very core values of this country and we have let down that basic document that guarantees equal protection, guarantees a certain freedom to be protected, guarantees that americans have due process, you will, and certainly guarantees the freedom of expression so that americans can speak and be heard. they are speak but they're not being heard. what a shame that this budget has not been passed. i amrateful to the congressional black caucus, let me acknowledge the chairman and say, let us keep our fight going because we have reason to

provide that kind of comfort to the american people. with that, i yield back my time. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentlelady from texas, you raise several important point, one thing that's struck me in my time here in congress is that under republican reign we've consistently seen government by crisis on one issue after the next. from the group of people that spend so much time messaging the point to the american people that they believe in fiscal responsibility, where is the fiscal responsibility in failing to put forth a budget consistent with the law that you supported? the other thing that amazes me, and the gentlelady from texas raised the point about the supreme court case that was argued earlier today on the immigration executive order issued by the president, i sit on the judiciary committee along with the honorable sheila

jackson lee and we hear almost every week about how lawless this president allegedly has been in terms of his time in office. it's interesting to hear consistently lectures about how lawless this president has been from people who believe that president barack obama exceeded his authority on january 20 of 2009, the moment that he took the oath of office because they are folks who still cannot believe that this man is the president and leader of the free world. i never buy that lawlessness argument. but this is a group that supports essentially undermining the constitution over in the other house of this congress, president has done his job in putting forth the supreme court nominee who is clearly qualified, not according to members of the congressional black caucus, according to orrin

hatch himself. one of the leading members of the senate judiciary committee amongst others. the lawlessness is not taking place at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, it's taking place right here in the united states congress under the leadership of house and senate republicans. certainly. >> they could not muster the votes of the majority and they could not muster them even though their budget ended medicare, it took $6.5 trillion in cuts from overall budget. ms. jackson lee: it devastates good paying jobs, education, american infrastructure and again it repealed the affordable care act and dismantled the affordable care act for 20 million people. even with those poison pills, to draw in support for some kind of budget that would fit within the

law, their responsibility, or the responsibility of this congress, they're in the majority, they could not pass or get on the floor a budget. clearly the compass is broken, the moral compass is broken, but more importantly it denies equal protection under the law in my interpretation of millions of americans depending on congress doing its job. i appreciate the gentleman. mr. jeffries: i appreciate those thoughtful observations. we want to bring representative bobby scott and representative stacey plaskett into this conversation in terms of the stunning inability to present a budget and as representative jackson lee said, what else is there to do in terms of satisfying the extreme elements of your party? privatize social security and throw all the people out of their home across the country? what else can you do? we're going to explore some of these draconian cuts that were in a budget that apparently is

not ex-dream enough, but let me yield to my good friend and colleague the representative from the virgin islands, by way of brooklyn, new york, i point out and we're so thankful for your presence here in the congress and it's my honor to yield to you. ms. plaskett: thank you so much, congressman jeffries. thank you so much to the congressional black caucus for giving us this opportunity to always be the conscience of this congress. i want to thank you for your tireless efforts to raise awareness on not just the committee on the judiciary but all of the work you do and this group coming together this evening to talk about the fact that once again the republicans have created a road to ruin in their budget failure. we talk about the fact that this republican congress has blue past the statutory deadline to enact a budget, reflecting the

belief of leadership that their already severe budget proposal was not radical enough to pass through this republican majority. you talked about draconian measures already in the budget they proposed which seems to have not been sufficient enough for their caucus. at the direction of the house g.o.p. leadership, the budget committee put forth one of the most devastating budgets in history and the majority rejected that plan as insufficient, which can only lead us to believe that it did not, was not even severe enough for them. some of the things that were in that budget were an end to medicare guarantee for seniors, mick $6.5 trillion in cuts, the sharpest cuts ever pr posed by the house budget committee, devastate investment in good paying jobs, education, and american infrastructure, repeal of the affordable care act and dismantling the affordable health care of 20 million

americans. now, as expressed by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. beatty, in february, the administration, our president, requested support for americans through the budget that he submitted to this congress. provided for support for education, job training support, bolstering our obligation to seniors, real tools for growth for the territories, in puerto rico, the virgin islands and others by inclusion in the affordable health care act and expansion of medicare. but it seems that the republicans have failed their promise to pass a budget. never mind even listen to or hear our o.m.b. officer, the o.m.b., head of o.m.b. on that budget. their goal is still clear. to take us back to radical trickle down agenda that shattered our economy in the

past and hollowed out the wages of middle class americans. at that same time, house republicans have done nothing to help the thousands of americans struggling to protect their families from the three public health crises you spoke to, zika, the opiod addictions and the flint water crisis. in the virgin islands, puerto rico, florida, now even texas, this is a real crisis concerning the zika virus. last week democrats on the appropriations committee wrote to harem rodgers requesting an immediate hearing on the administration's $1.9 billion emergency supplemental request for zika, pointing out that, quote, the zika virus is a true public health emergency that has the potential to affect millions of americans this summer including more than two million pregnant women. what did that committee do? absolutely nothing. not even the respect of a hearing. they have not responded to

nothing but inaction and indifference. instead of taking action to pass a budget or address urgent public health crises, the house republicans are now wasting a full week grandstanding on the i.r.s. that's just the kind of hollow, meaningless posturing the american people have come to expect from this congress. hardworking families deserve a congress that invests in their future, protects their safety, creates a level playing field for them and their children to succeed. democrats will continue to press for a budget that creates jobs, raises the paycheck and creates opportunities for the american people, while reducing the deficit in a balanced and responsible way. i yield back to you and look forward to hearing the rest of my colleagues, their thoughts on this budget process, and even possibly solutions for us as american people, to come away with a clear budget that creates growth and

opportunities for americans. thank you. mr. jeffries: thank you, representative plaskett. you raised several important points up. noted -- points. you noted that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to embrace this notion of trickle-down economics, which is sort of the foundation of many of the slash and burn cuts that are contained in at least the budget document that has been passed in prior years and the document that was put forth by the budget committee this year. this belief that if you lower the tax rate for millionaires and billionaires, that it will result in some residual benefit to the american people. but there's an irony in the embracing even of that term, trickle-down economics. with the leadership of representative bobby scott and others, the c.b.c. has consistently put forth a budget designed to open the flood

gates of prosperity for working class americans and middle class folks all throughout this country. what the republicans want to do trickle-down economics. the only thing you get with that philosophy. you may get a trickle but you're guaranteed to stay down. so we're thankful that representative scott for so many years has consistently put forth through his leadership a budget from the congressional black caucus designed to be oth fiscally responsible and consistent with our ideals as a country that looks out for the least of those amongst us. let me now yield to the distinguished representative from the great state of virginia, actually, let me amend that, the commonwealth of

virginia, representative bobby scott. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for getting the title of our state correct. i thank the gentleman from new york and the gentlelady from ohio for yielding time and organizing tonight's special order. last week the house of to pass tives failed a budget by the statter toly mandated date of april 15. this failure is unfortunate for our budget process, but perhaps not unfortunate for the american people, because no budget is better than the proposed republican budget that would have been brought to the floor. our nation's budget reflects priorities, but the republican budget only highlights the wrong priorities. the budget the house republicans wanted to bring to the floor would be even more devastating to students, working families and seniors than their previous proposals. the republican budget would end the medicare guarantee for seniors by converting medicare

into a voucher payment that would not keep pace with medical inflation. shifting billions of dollars in medical costs onto our senior citizens. the republican budget would repeal the affordable care act, the health opardize insurance for millions of americans, even though the budget assumes all of the revenue collected by the affordable care act to pay for the affordable care act, all of those taxes remain in the budget. the republican budget includes a total of $6.5 trillion in spending cuts, largely unspecified, if this level of cuts were ever made, it would devastate our investments in jobs, education, research and would see essentially eliminate -- and would essentially eliminate any new transportation projects. on top of these devastating cuts to vital programs that support and uplift hardworking american families, the republican budget calls for

trillions of dollars in tax cuts that would primarily benefit millionaires and billionaires. then they claim the tax cuts would be revenue-neutral. suggesting that we're to believe that trillions of dollars in new taxes would be imposed to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy. despite this, the republican budget is not a credible plan. are we really going to dismantle medicare? are we really going to cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of education and job training and transportation? and are we really going to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? i don't think so. but the house leadership couldn't even secure enough votes for this budget proposal, because a faction of their conference wanted even deeper unrealistic spending cuts. budgeting is about making tough choices and the only choice the republicans seem to have made with the budget proposal is we can only balance the budget on the backs of students, workers,

seniors, the disabled and vote vulnerable communities across the -- vulnerability communities across the nation -- vulnerable communities across the nation, while benefiting the wealthy. we know that's not the right choice. that's why we, as we've done for the last 30 years, we've diligently prepared our own budget alternative to the republican budget, which we would have offered as an amendment to the republicans -- the republican budget if they had brought up the propose -- their proposal. the c.b.c. budget chooses to invest in programs that we know will grow our economy and ensure that every american family is able to prosper. our budget proposes a comprehensive jobs program, totaling $500 billion over three years that will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure that it reaches virtually every community in america. while also investing in what will guarantee america's long-term economic competitiveness. this jobs plan includes funding for direct jobs creation programs, school modernization,

jobs for teachers and first responders, immediate investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, assistance for neighborhoods and families still reeling from the housing crisis, job training programs and summer . bs our budget calls for significant and sustained investments, approximately $300 billion over the next decade, above the president's request, for programs that have been instrumental in lifting millions of americans out of poverty. some of these proposals include restoration of cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, expanding access to affordable housing, increasing access to quality and affordable education, increasing funding for job training, and trade adjustment assistance, adjusting the earned income tax credit and child tax credit to inflation, as well as decreasing the age where you can benefit from the earned income tax credit down to 21 years of age.

and thanks to the leadership of congressman jim clyburn, our budget also ensures that federal resources are targeted more efficiently towards eradicating port -- poverty by targeting spending toward persistent areas of poverty. our budget also includes more than $340 billion above the president's request for education over the next decade. this additional money will help make college more affordable by increasing the pell grant, fully funding the president's free community college program, reducing interest rates on student loans and financing other proposals to ensure that no student graduates from college saddled with unmanageable debt. the c.b.c. budget also provides much-needed funding for families of flint, michigan, to help address the short-term and long-term cognitive and behavioral development of children exposed to high lead levels. however, the congressional black caucus appreciates, unfortunately, that flint is

not the only community in america impacted by lead exposure. this is why our budget includes funds to help not only flint, but also other communities across the nation deal with the affects of lead exposure. unlike the republican budget, the c.b.c. budget clearly shows how we pay for these additional investments. a budget -- our budget sets a new revenue target of $4 trillion over the next 10 years above current revenue baseline. and to demonstrate how this is achievable, and realistic, our budget suggests several specific alternatives totaling $7 trillion that the house and senate committees can choose from to reach that target. we ask for $4 trillion in new additional and specifically outline at least $7 trillion to choose from. we do this by specifically talking about closing specific corporate loopholes, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, reasonable fee

for financial transactions, restoring the estate tax to levels over a few years ago, specific items where you can choose from and in fact it we -- if we just cancel the bush era tax cuts, we would have almost $4 trillion in new revenue right there. at the end of the day, our budget realistically reduces the deficit by approximately $3.2 trillion over the next decade compared to the congressional budget office's march, 2016, baseline. the c.b.c. budget chooses investments in children's -- for -- the c.b.c. budget chooses investments in america's children and workers, protects our most vulnerable communities, and changes the wrong choices offered by the republican majority. i hope that we will have an opportunity to debate these issues if the house republicans are ever able to bring their road to ruin budget to a full house vote. again, i thank the gentleman

from new york for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. jeffries: will the gentleman indulge one question? you mentioned during that very thorough presentation of what's contained in the c.b.c. budget the 10-20-30 program. and of course 10-20-30, an initiative that has been championed by the c.b.c. through the leadership of representative jim clyburn, would put forth the formula where 10% of the funding allocation would go to counties where 20% of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 or more years. is that correct? mr. scott: that's correct. if you look at that, those counties and areas are spread all over the country. if we're ever going to eradicate poverty, we have to target it to the high poverty areas and 10-20-30 does exactly that. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentleman. in fact, what representative clyburn has consistently pointed out, which i think is important, in an era where

we're trying to find common ground to deal with the problems confronting the american people, is that if you look at a breakdown of persistently poor counties across the country, and overlay that with congressional districts, that a majority of those counties are actually represented by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this is something that we believe should be embraced by the speaker and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as it would benefit by the numbers the constituents that they represent, even more so than those of us within the c.b.c. or on this side of the aisle. mr. scott: that's exactly true. thank you very much for pointing that out. mr. jeffries: thank you, representative scott. let me now ask my colleague, representative joyce beatty, to just react to some of what we've heard. one of the things that i thought was interesting in the presentation related to this

budget is that if you look at the numbers, they're so extreme. i was on the budget committee during my first two years in congress, but these numbers are even more extreme than what i remembered. in the 113th congress. the budget apparently will cut $157 billion from the supplemental nutritional assistance program. over a 10-year period. the republican budget that came out of the committee would cut roughly $2 trillion from medicaid. when i was on the -- when i was on the committee, the number was $700 million. i thought that was out of control. $700 million. now we're at $2 trillion. over a 10-year period, apparently. then we've got cuts in higher education, the proposal is $185

billion over 10 years. you have to ask the question, why would anyone propose such da cronian cuts? -- such draconian cuts? and the answer is clear, this is not something that is often talked about, but the objective is to create a situation where you can dramatically lower the tax rates for the wealthiest amongst us. the top tax rate right now is 39.6%. but what the budget that has been put forth by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would do is it would create two tax rates. one at 10% and the other at 25%. so what you'll see is a tax cut that goes from 39.6% to 25%. and the way that you balance a budget and pay for it is on the backs of working families, the middle class, senior citizens,

children, the disabled, the poor, the afflicted and everybody else who doesn't fall into the category of millionaire or billionaire. now, you wonder how could it be possible that anyone could think that they could get away with such a draconian budget? again, the argument is, trickle-down economics. . but what i found fascinating, and maybe you could react to this, representative beatty, is if you look at a side-by-side comparison of the economy, eight years under president clinton work a side-by-side comparison of the economy, eight years under george w. bush, and then a side-by-side comparison of the conomy eight years under president obama, i think it's pretty clear who actually has been the responsible fiscal

stewards. 20.3 million jobs created under the clinton presidency. america lost 650,000 jobs in eight years under the bush presidency. america has now gained more than 14 million private sector jobs under eight years of the obama presidency. and what's been demonstrated is that the argument that if you lower tax rates you create economic prosperity, is phony. because bill clinton raised the 39.6%. rate to didn't seem to adversely impact the economy. in fact, it was humming between 1992 and 2008. george bush comes to office, lowers the tax rate for high income earners from 39.6% to

35%, we had the greatest recession in the history of modern america, the worst financial crisis since the great depression. and president obama come into office and he raises the top tax rate again from 35% to 39.6%, more than 14 million jobs created, unemployment rate dropped under his tenure from over 10% to 5%, the deficit has been reduced by more than $1 trillion, stock market has gone from 6,000 to over 16,000. now it's up to 18,000. haven't been in the 401k system as long as representative scott, who is clearly monitoring the situation, so the prosperity numbers have been phenomenal. representative beatty, would you just react to that.

mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. jeffries. i think you and our other colleagues have said it so well. here's what i'm afraid of. i think that the republican g.o.p. want to take us back to the radical trickle down agenda that shattered our economy and hollowed out the wages of middle class, hardworking americans. you said it all with that comparison from president clinton to president bush to now president obama. and i could add to that long list. from 18 million people with health insurance, women having some of the best health care opportunities, getting mammograms for those who are un- and under-insured. we're able to have college students stay on their parent's insurance. so i think when we look at what's happening, the billions of dollars that they want to do

away with programs and we can billion at, the $185 from federal college aid for low-income students, or the $150 billion from the supplemental nutrition assistance program. snap. many of my constituents refer to that as getting their food stamps. certainly, but for the congressional black caucus, those members on the agriculture committee, those members in leadership fighting for us to restore those dollars, i think it's quite simple. i think what we're hearing tonight from our members of the congressional black caucus, they're trying to take us back in history. they're trying to take us back to an era of time that we're not going to let them do that. we have too much at stake.

we have gained so much. and i think if someone asked us tonight, why are we here? why are we the conscience of the congress, mr. speaker? why are we here tonight talking about the road to ruin and destruction by not having a congressional budget? i think the facts speak for themselves. i think that the american public needs to know that this is not something to -- that just affects the congressional black caucus. i want that to be clear. this affects america you mentioned it with mr. clyburn's 10-20-306789 the fact is more individuals who don't look like members of the congressional black caucus will benefit and that's the difference between democrats and republicans. we care about all people. they profess to have hearings on poverty and then when you look at the results of their own

budget and what they're doing to those individuals who live in poverty, chuckle we may, clear our voices, mr. speaker, as we may, the facts speak for themselves. they are not creating programs that will help us eliminate poverty. and it is as simple as that. mr. jeffries: i thank you for laying that out. history can be judged by objective observers as it relates to fiscal responsibility but a few facts that perhaps some in the chamber may have had amnesia about but maybe it bears going through, sequestration was brought to us, painful budget cuts, as it relates to the extreme agenda of some here in the congress, in a manner that has cost us both jobs and the ability to experience

accelerated financial growth. we saw that in the aftermath of a severe economic shock, the approach that was taken by our friends over in europe of extreme austerity did not pear financial fruit. it was the stimulus package that was put forth with not a single vote from anyone on the other side of the aisle that was actually the financially responsible approach taken to help deal with the train wreck that president obama inherited and get the economy back on track. but, of course, since the objective from the very beginning, not my words but the words of senate majority leader on the other side of the capitol as to make the president a

first term -- a one-term president. i mean, i just don't even understand the philosophy of a president who takes office, inherits the worst economy since the great depression, and the number one agenda is to make ure he's a one-term president. but, that was an unsuccessful political endeavor. gets a second term and then the first thing that some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle decide to do as we approach the end of the fiscal year in 2013 was to shut down the government. $24 billion cost us

in lost economic productivity. that's not hyperbole. those are the facts. and what was it all for? because there's this obsession, perhaps clinical in nature, with the affordable care act. this is why we voted more than 50 times to destroy it, to defeat it, to delay it, and to do everything possible to stop it. what could possibly be wrong with making sure that pre-existing conditions don't prevent someone from being able here in the greatest country in the history of the world from being able to get adequate medical care. what is wrong with more than 20 million previously uninsured americans actually having health care, yet in the budget that apparently is not extreme enough, we would take away the

affordable care act. so these are just some of the facts i wish we had some more to -- some more time to explore. this is not hyperbole. historians will judge his presidency and this congress, i, of course, am of the belief that many will conclude this is a congress that has major -- majored in obstruction, minored in -- minored in dysfunction and done everything possible to pursue a degree and legislate -- in legislative malpractice to the detriment of the american people and i'm hopeful that we can just get back on track, try to find common ground to do the business of the american people, which is why each and every one of us was sent here to the people's house. and with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members that remarks and debate may not engage in personalities toward the president including by repeating remarks made elsewhere that would be improper if spoken in the member's own words. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho for 30 minutes. mr. yoho: i'd like to request five legislative days to rhett -- to revise and extend any remarks on this evening's special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection fpble mr. yoho: i would like to thank you again for allowing me and my colleagues to speak on this vital issue this evening. if congress doesn't assert its authority, we risk becoming obsolete in the eyes of an executive who prefers to legislate with a phone and a pen. thank you to my colleagues to join me this evening and may god bless america. every day before members of

congress meet to conduct official business, we gather to recite the pledge of allegiance to the united states of america. we place our right hand over our hearts and promise to our colleagues and our constituents and all americans that we will uphold the rule of law. this very law is the very vehicle that has ensured liberty and justice for all even being a possibility. the rules of -- the rule of law. unfortunately, this administration seems intent on operating outside the rule of law. it insists upon circumventing congress by changing laws, by legislating from the oval office, and not from capitol hill. time and again the american people have to bear witness to the blatant disrespect this administration has for our constitution. in my heart, i believe this disrespect is on full display in the embattled fight congress and the american people found themselves in today with the executive branch at the supreme

court this morning, the supreme court heard oral arguments in the united states v. texas including 25 other states. to some this case is simply an argument over whether or not you are pro-illegal immigration, let me repeat that. you are pro-illegal immigration or not. to others this case is about keeping families together. to many, like myself, it's about protecting the dignity of our constitution and the balance of powers within the three branches of government. the united states v. texas is about the rule of law and defend defending the integrity of our great institution of government. we are a constitutional republic yet the president's mass deferred action on deportation of individuals residing within our country illegally would make it seem more like we are living in a dictatorship. the constitution is clear on the shombs legislation. article 1 -- on the legislation. article states all powers shall

be in the congress of the united states which shall consist of a enate and a house of representatives. all legislative powers herein granted shal be vested in the congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. article 1, section 8, clause 4, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. that is solely the responsibility of this body. take notice of the absence of any reference to the executive office, executive branch, or judicial branch. article 2, section 3, however, states that the president shall take care that the laws be fthfully executed. it'seferred to, the take care clause. that the laws be faithfully executed. t established, not rewritten, not selectively enforced portions of the law. but to take care the laws are faithfully executed. that power is still delegat to congress just as it was over two centuries ago. if the supreme court upholds the

administrative executive action, i fear that our public, that is the united states, will die. we will see an end of a nation that started fending of tyranny, we will send the end of a nation which has withstood a civil war, two wrld wars and countless terrorist attacks. terrorists hate the united states simply because of the manner to which we have prospered under the freedoms enshrined in the constitution. again, the success ofour nation is because we area land and a nation of laws. i urge all of my colleagues in the house and senate to not falter in their defense of the founding principles upon which this great nation wasuilt. interesting today at the suprem court, i was there to speak on these very topics. many pro-illegal immigrants were present. i found it very interesting they were shout, demonstrating, exercising freedom of speech. . freedom of speh and demonstrati in america. simply because we have a constitution that protects

that. at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to my good friend and colleague from virginia, mr. dave bratt. bratt bratt thank you, mr. -- mr. brat: thank you, mr. yoho. mr. speaker, today i rise to discuss the case being heard before the supreme court, united states vs. texas, and thpresident's unconstitutional executive actions on immigration. and the need for the restoration of the balance of powers between the branches of vernment. this case is the challenge to president obama's executive actions for illegal immigrants, so-called deferred action for parents of americans and lawful permanent residents, otherwise known as dapa, an expansion of the earlier deferr action for childhood arrivals, otherwise known as daca. the lawsuit was brought by governors and attorneys general from the texas supreme court and 25 other states. that is significant in and of itself. under these unconstitutional

programs, president obama claims the right to, by executivifyat, make an illegal immigrant -- executive fiat, make an illegal immigrant lawfully present. let me say that again real slow. the president claims by right -- by executive fia, -- fia,t to ake an illegal -- fiat make an illegal immigrant lawfully present. this is straight out of 1984. the language is upside down. the government is handing out work permits and making illegal immigrants eligible to work in the united states as well as receive social security, unemployment, disability benefits. this only hurts american citizens and taxpayers. what has congress done about this? not enough. the real issue in this case is not discretion but whether or not there is any limit at all on presidential power. the founders recognized these

distinctions -- distinctions and they made congress the first branch among equals of the federal government and the most accountable branch to the american people, and thus article 1, not 2, the congress is article 1. the founders created a system of checks and balances to ensure no individual could gain absolute power within the government without a check. not even george washington whom they all loved. under our constitution, the congress is entrusted with all legislative powers. all. including the power to establish a uniformed rule of naturalization. the founders drafted the constitution to clearly state that it is not the president who writes the laws, congress does. much of the president's job is to faithfully execute these laws passed by congress. in fact, neither any immigration law nor the constitution empowers the executive to authorize, let alone facilitate, the violation

of the laws passed by congress. the president even acknowledged this 22 times on tv before using his pen and phone to act alone without congress. this imbalance of powers is a threat to self-government itself. our inaction time and again has expanded the administrative state and left the american people without a voice in washington. and the presidential elections on both sides of the aisle are making this abundantly clear. for starters, we can advocate for reforms in four principled areas. reclaiming congress' power of the purse, reforming executive empowering lelingtive -- legislative cliffs, restoring congressional authority over regulations and regularrer tos, and reigning in executive -- reining in dis-- regulators and reining in executive discretion. i introduced a bill to reform this process with the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, uscis, the primary

agency for implementing the president's immigration executive orders. cis funds self through application fees, which -- funds itself through fees. congress cannot effectively exercise its powers through the appropriations process to perform basic oversight functions and ensure the agency is executing the laws faithfully. my proposal, the you spending for congressional immigration supervise vision, will make unaccountable agencies like the u.s. citizenship and immigration services accountable to congress. and therefore accountable to the american people. putting uscis on appropriations ensures that unelected bureaucrats are held accountable and provides transparency for how the federal government is raising and spending your money.

congress needs to reassert its power of the purse by making agency budgets subject to appropriations. but we cannot stop there, there's more congress has to do to restore congress' power to hold the executive branch accountable. the constitution still gives congress all its powers. it's up to congress to step up and start using them. i now yield back the remainder of my time. mr. yoho: i thank the gentleman for yielding back and the comments you said. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. king from the great state of iowa. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from florida for organizing this special order, for his leadership, for his constitutional convictions, and the opportunity to address you tonight, mr. speaker, here on the floor of the house of representative. i'm listening to this dialogue that's taking place here on the floor and this thought occurred to me, that several years ago, our borders are so open and our borders are so poress and we

have a president who is -- has refused to enforce the law. in fact, he sent a message through his executive branch, if you're zermed to enforce the law, you better find another job. that came out of the president and his leadership team all the way on down to our border patrol agents. i've been down to the border a good number of times. and i've watched as people come across the border in broad daylight, float across there in a raft, stand there on the grass on our side of the river, and wait for the border patrol to come down with a welcome wagon and say, would you like to apply for asylum? by the way, one of them was a pregnant lady. and so i'm sure by now she has her asylum or at least that baby is an american citizen. our borders are so pouress that in order to illustrate how bad they were, we had james o'kieffe that went down and put on a osama bin laden mask and walked across the border. nobody bothered him. there was another individual that thought, i'll make a bigger show of it, i'll hire a band and he rode a circus elephant across the rio grande

river. that's how bad our border. is here's how bad our law and our constitution are. the band was certificate aid ining the supreme court today, mr. speaker, to try to convince them that we ought to see the supreme court rewrite law that congress has written, that's been signed by a previous president, and every president since then has taken the oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. this constitutional balance that we have has seen a supreme court rewrite obamacare, so now they have the audacity to rewrite the law, and they're the ones that are deciding today, with eight justices, sadly, sadly not nine, as to whether or not the president of the united states can do what the supreme court did. in other words, rewrite the law. the president of the united states 22 times, as the previous speaker, mr. brat said, told america, he doesn't have the constitutional authority to grant the amnesty, the executive amnesty that he did. whether it be daca or dapa. but then after he deliberated

for a while, he checked his conscience, that didn't bother him, we shouldn't be amazed at that, mr. speaker, he already knew the constitution, he lectured it to us. what he checked was his politics and his question was, can he get away with it? is there an enforcement capacity that could stop him? well, he hadn't mentioned yet judge hanen in texas, who, if these justices in the supreme court deadlock 4-4, the president's executive amnesty, at least for dapa, is going to be stalled for the duration of his administration. and so this prosecutorial discretion argument before the court today, that the obama administration very well noh knew was the center of this case -- very well knew was the center of this characters the prosecutorial discretion can only be conferred on an individual basis only. that was a testimony of janet napoleon and in the first morten memo document, there were multiple references to an individual -- her testimony was on individual basis only. even the first document set out

four categories, groups of people whom the law would be waived for. that's what we're talking about here. who writes the law, if the president writes the law, how could we write one that would restrain this president, that's out of line, let's preserve our constitution and let's look forward to an appointment to the supreme court that actually means it when they take their oath as we do ours. i yield back to the gentleman from florida. mr. yoho: i thank my colleague from iowa for your great remarks and your passion and leadership. it was great to see new front of the supreme court today -- see you in front of the supreme court today speaking passionately about this issue. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield 4 1/2 minutes to my good friend from the great state of south carolina, mr. mark sanford. mr. sanford: i thank my colleague and i really thank you for doing this. i think it is such an important issue. i think that, as has been mentioned by a couple of speakers now, what's really at play here is a constitutional issue. the founding fathers were so emphatically clear that there were to be three different

pieces to the pie. there was to be an executive that administered the law, a leggetive branch that created, and a judicial branch that interpreted. and there's this amazing reservoir of commonsense that exists out there with the american public, so when people told me back home, this is not about being against somebody from some other place. this is not about being against hispanics. this is in fact about the rule of law and a system that our founding fathers gave us more than 200 years ago. and how we preserve it. and how we preserve it is by actually sticking to it. ultimately the issue has less to do with immigration than it does to do with the larger notion of common sense and rule of law. i'd also stress the common sense part. i remember back in the o.j. simpson trial, there was this whole notion of, if the glove doesn't fit, you can't acquit. and in this case, the glove doesn't fit, from the standpoint of common sense. i had my staff pull up a couple of numbers this afternoon. and i think that they're fascinating. here's what i mean by that.

the numbers don't fit with the scale of every other amnesty that's been done for more than .he last 50 years think about this. the amnesties that this president has proposed in total are about 5 1/2 million people. that's more than all of the cumulative amnesties for the last 53 years, going back all the way to the time of eisenhower. in fact, the average amnesty was about 32,000 people in size. we've always been a nation that has been welcoming, we've included other people. so, if you look back at the el salvador yans that clinton and bush allowed in based on civic conflict and real civil war down in this -- civil war down that way, if you look at the persian gulf see evacuees, if you look at the -- my eye sight is getting so bad, i need to get glasses, if you look at the chinese after tiananmen square,

if you're looking at soviet refugees, if you look at the ethiopians, the lithuanians, even going back to war orphans at the time of eisenhower, there has been a remarkable case when am glefts were -- amnesties were junked ok by this congress, ok by the american people, ok by the president because of scale. 32,000 people on average per amnesty for 53 years. again, this president's amnesty dwarfs the total amnesties of all presidents over the last 53 years. and for that reason the american public has reacted as it has. saying, this just doesn't fit. the other thing that i think is interesting going back to the notion of sheer scale and the ways in which this particular amnesty that the president has proposed is at odds with every other for the last 53 years, is that if you were to add up the cumulative amnesties of this president, you'd be in the top 20 states in the united states

of america. 5 1/2 million people. that's well above the population of south carolina, it's well above the population of alabama, or go down another 30 states wherein you'd have a de facto new state added that would be more than midway in the graph of all states in this country. it doesn't fit. a third point that i would make, and i think this is a fascinating one that my staff pulled, is that if you look at all the -- those amnesties i was talking about, they fall into a couple of baskets. the big one being in 1986 that went to this congress. it was in fact as a consequence of the act of congress and the will of the american public. that was a big one. but the other one was the adjustment act of 1966, which goes back to the plight of the cuban people, trying to do something about that. the other one has been a basket of natural disaster, of political strife, of family reunification, that's been a

basket. and then there's been a basket for refugees. but never before have we had a basket that was about a political objective as opposed to reaction to an external event. we've had a long list of external events over 53 years that is at odds with what we see taking place. so, not only is this important for the standpoint of the constitution and the rule of law, as has been so eloquently stated thus far, it is something that doesn't fit common sense from the standpoint of scale. there's one last point. the cato institute estimated thaw are looking at $14,000 per household. you are looking at about $19 billion in costs. that's about 2/3 of the dustup which had over the budget. a $30 billion difference.

in this case, 2/3 of that total would be taken care of just with this question of amnesty which you have brought and i appreciate you doing so. nd i yield back. > those are great numbers that really illustrate the significance and the large numbers. mr. yoho: i would like to yield to my colleague, four minutes from the state of arizona, dr. gosar. mr. gosar: i would like to thank for organizing this special order. i have spoken many times on this house floor about upholding the rule of law, about a lawless attorney general or a rogue i.r.s. director targeting innocent americans or a president trying to attempt amnesty.

ensuring that the federal government is one of my top priorities to the people's house. while the concept may not seem like it needs any explanation, i would like to explain why upholding the rule of law is fundamental. americans need to behave responsibly. this is a contract would he haveen into the fabric. it is a concept envisioned by our founding fathers not only to protect the rights of all, but to prohibit overreach. when he stated and i quote, in a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled. our government is potent. the teacher, for good or for