Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the opportunity to visit the exceptional exhibit of Ansel Adams' photography, from his early years, at the Arkansas Arts Center, and it made me reflect on the life of Townsend Wolfe, the ultimate southern gentleman and truly a cultural visionary. Townsend passed away earlier this month at the age of 81.

Townsend served as the director and chief curator of the Arkansas Arts Center in Little Rock for 34 years, until his retirement in 2002. That year, he was honored with the Governor's Arts Award for Lifetime Achievement by the Arkansas Arts Council. During his tenure, the Arts Center experienced unparalleled growth in numbers of annual visitors and in its exceptional collection.

Townsend's love of art extended beyond the walls of the galleries, bringing beauty into the lives of countless Arkansans. Townsend leaves behind a legacy of warmth and passion, and his contributions to ``The Natural State'' will continue to live on at the Arkansas Arts Center.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievement of a true Arkansas leader, my colleague and friend, Representative Steve Womack.

Early this year, Steve was awarded the Department of the Army's Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service, which is the highest award the Secretary of the Army may bestow upon a civilian.

Before being elected Representative for Arkansas' Third Congressional District, Steve dedicated most of his adult life to the Arkansas Army National Guard where he retired as a colonel after 30 years of service.

He has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Legion of Merit. His example is one all Americans and Arkansans can admire, and I treasure our work together here in the 115th Congress representing our State of Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance and impact of mentoring in our society.

I recently heard from a constituent, Karissa, who works with the Boys & Girls Club in my district in Bryant, Arkansas.

One of her mentees was struggling, having trouble in school, finding it difficult to build friendships with her fellow students. Karissa's guidance and encouragement helped build confidence, which led to participation in the school's JROTC program and improving her camaraderie with her fellow cadets.

At-risk youth face many difficult challenges, and life is infinitely more challenging without the support of caring adults.

With mentors, at-risk youth are less likely than their peers to skip school or use drugs and are more likely to go to college, play sports, and volunteer in our communities.

Whether it is through a mentoring organization like Scouting or the Boys & Girls Clubs, a nonprofit, a religious institution, or school, being a positive influence for our young people goes a long way in strengthening our communities and serving the best interest of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41. As you have heard today, it has an immense cost to our economy. The SEC estimates, as you have heard from other Members, up to $590 million per year, Mr. Speaker. Now, think about that. That is $5 billion over 10 years. And if we put a 10 multiplier on it, that is $50 billion of investable capital that could be put out for productive use helping the world have more mineral resources. Instead, it goes to this ill-advised rule.

In the past two decades, the United States has lost more than 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, of its public companies, in large part due to the costs and regulatory burdens of being associated with being a public company. Dodd-Frank's resource extraction rule piles on even more harmful red tape for those publicly traded companies in the United States that are global energy providers.

As this rule only applies to publicly traded companies, this increased burden puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage. Over 75 percent of the extracted minerals are owned by state-owned enterprises, Mr. Speaker, that are not covered by this rule. That puts our companies at a competitive disadvantage. It requires our companies to reveal confidential information, putting our companies at a competitive disadvantage.

And if, Mr. Speaker, the people want transparency, the best way to handle that is through self-disclosure through global transparency and accountability. There are important public policy goals, and 51 countries have entered into the Extractive Industry Transparency Institute, which is self-reporting and publishing, by country, by company, both public and private, these important issues about mineral extraction.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if it is about corruption, our friend, Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin, long ago, in the 1970s, passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. There is no more act feared by global corporate America than complying with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and ensuring that our companies, our shareholders are not prone or party to bribery.

I support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of one of Arkansas's great leaders and a dear friend, former State Senator Stanley Russ, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 86.

Born and raised in Conway, Arkansas, Stanley served in the U.S. Army during the Korean war before becoming a State senator for 25 years.

Stanley received numerous awards for his work, including being named of one of the Ten Outstanding State Legislators in the United States by the Assembly of State Governmental Employees. He also received the Distinguished Service Award from the Conway Chamber of Commerce and was elected into the Arkansas Tech University Hall of Distinction as well as the Arkansas Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Our State and Faulkner County will miss Stanley's smile, his enthusiasm and ability to get things done to enrich the lives of all Arkansans.

I extend my respect, affection, and prayers to his family and loved ones.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time.

Today I rise in support of H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

One can cut the hyperbole on the other side of the aisle with a knife today because we are not here talking about gutting enforcement. We are not here talking about exceptionally benefiting Wall Street operators. What we are talking about is enhancing the SEC's cost-benefit process.

The Commission has made many positive strides toward its economic analysis in the past few years. This bill will enhance their efforts at ranking and providing resources to the rules that will in fact provide investor protection and provide efficient, competitive U.S. markets. Too many of their resources have been deviated on wild goose hunts related to the Dodd-Frank mandates.

During this same time, we have experienced a sharp decline in initial public offerings and public companies generally. Largely, in my view, that is as a result of the regulatory burden and the costs associated with being a public company. This should be a concern to every Member of this body.

This bill would make the SEC's rulemaking process more accountable by enhancing its cost-benefit analysis requirements and would require the Commission to revisit its rules after implementation to ensure they are actually achieving their intended purposes.

This bill does away with the notion that congressional mandates are exempt from cost-benefit analysis and requires the Commission to evaluate these rules as well--a good thing; Congress doesn't always get it right--in addition to identifying alternatives which might even include no rule at all, in short, using common sense.

Requiring this sort of more robust economic analysis will also help the SEC set priorities. Chair White testified before our committee in the past Congress that they have 50 front burners. They can't decide what their most important agenda item is. Let's fix it, Mr. Chairman, by passing this bill.

This bill will focus attention where attention is needed to benefit investors, our capital markets, and the economy the most. H.R. 78, along with the HALOS Act that we passed in the House on Tuesday, will help ensure that the SEC regulations do not unnecessarily impede consumer and business access to capital.

I thank the chairman for the time. I appreciate Mrs. Wagner for her work on this bill.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership to set aside for us to visit with the American people and talk about empowering patients, not politicians.

For 6 years, we have witnessed the failed rollout of the ObamaCare program. We didn't get to keep our plan that we liked, and we didn't get to keep our doctor that we had such a good relationship with. We have seen physicians leave the business. We have spent billions on duplicative, unnecessary exchanges that are now failing across this country. So I commend the Republican Study Committee, and I am proud to be a part of this group to talk about how to bring relief to the American people on the failed ObamaCare law.

I still hear from constituents--even now, 6 years later, from this rolling evolution of ObamaCare--who have seen their coverage lost and their increases in healthcare costs skyrocket. This healthcare regulatory burden that we are talking about tonight has led to droves of part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs and unaffordable group plans for the people who were in a good small business group plan. This regulatory burden is on top of what has been a 6-year to 8-year crushing burden on business from many different agencies from the EPA and beyond.

One constituent wrote my office after he was forced to accept an insurance plan to meet the affordable healthcare law that cost him $1,300 a month, Mr. Speaker, and he still has to meet two $2,500 deductibles before the insurance coverage kicks in. Now, that is $20,600 a year. Mr. Speaker, I was a small businessman before I joined Congress, and we had employees that made $20,600 a year in our small business. So what is left for the family budget when you are going to spend $20,000 for health care? That is typical now after the rollout of ObamaCare for a family of four. This is in a place in our country where healthcare costs $20- or $30,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses? Obviously, this system is broken.

Now, in Arkansas, unlike much of the country where people are definitely seeing large, double-digit, or, in some cases, larger increases in the ObamaCare premium, Arkansans, on the exchanges, are seeing lower than those average increases. In my view, this is largely because our Governor and our State legislature are working hard to make the best out of a bad situation and fighting to pursue innovative measures that work best for our small State.

The Arkansas Works program has helped to prevent skyrocketing premiums on the exchanges, and the State is still subject, though, to duplicative reviews by Federal and State agencies and costly and burdensome regulations that have nothing to do with trying to lower the cost of health care for Arkansans.

This week, Governor Hutchinson wrote the House leadership decrying the individual and employer mandates and stressing the need for healthcare reform that provides our States more flexibility--more flexibility, Mr. Speaker--to design programs that fit the needs of people in our State while increasing predictability and affordability. Some of the points Governor Hutchinson made in his letter to our leadership include calling for States having the option of receiving Medicaid funds through a block grant enabling them to tailor the program in the Medicaid population under health care in what fits Arkansas, what Arkansans can afford. In fact, that is our Better Way approach, Mr. Speaker, for the Medicaid population.

He calls for the elimination of the Federal health insurance exchanges. We had exchanges before ObamaCare that can be operated by States in the private sector without Federal interference. Governor Hutchinson called for restricting the duplicative reviews of rate and plan filings by CMS. They are already being done by our individual State insurance regulators. Of course, the thing that drives up costs not only for the Medicaid population, for people on the ObamaCare exchanges, and for people out in the group health plans is the essential health benefits requirement.

Governor Hutchinson says that this has driven up costs for everybody, for government, for families, and that elimination of these requirements would provide flexible options for insurance providers to offer cheaper plans to younger and healthier individuals. That is key to choice, Mr. Speaker.

In some counties, Arkansans now only have one insurance option. I don't think one option is an option. There is no choice. This monopoly or oligopoly pricing combined with the mandates are demonstrating the unaffordability of the Affordable Care Act.

With the recent election, we now have a unique opportunity to recognize these flaws of this one-size-fits-all, Big Government- mandated, top-down approach to health care, reverse course, and, again, bring relief to the American people of this failed law put forth by the Obama administration. Chairman Walker and the Republican Study Committee have put together a comprehensive plan to repeal ObamaCare and replace this failed law with conservative principles.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want change. We are asking that we design those changes with patients in mind and that we, in fact, in this group--Mr. Walker, I know you agree--we will read the bill before we pass it.

So the RSC proposal and the Better Way framework outlined by Speaker Ryan are going to bring relief, change, and opportunity that fit with the principles that have guided the Republican Party and the Republican outlook, the Republican Study Committee, which is

we will bring competition and we will bring efforts to lower prices and increase access for the American people.

With that, Mr. Walker, I commend you again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our Nation's law enforcement men and women.

I respect and appreciate the important work of our police throughout the Nation who are charged with the critical work of protecting the people in our States and our local communities. The heartbreaking violent targeting of our Nation's police officers, recently, demonstrates the dangers these men and women face every day.

Every American is so proud as our many neighbors and fellow citizens get up every morning, put on their local law enforcement uniform and badge, kiss their families good-bye, and go out and serve us, keeping our cities and towns safe, trying to build trust and faith among all of our citizens.

Monday was National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, and our law enforcement men and women in Arkansas and throughout the country deserve our gratitude and respect. I proudly displayed a blue light in my office window to honor our law enforcement men and women, and I thank them for their selfless service.

Section 10:

``No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. We need to close ranks in the House of Representatives. We need to, as colleagues, support what for decades has been the cornerstone principle of American diplomacy towards Israel and Palestine, and that is direct negotiation between these two countries. That is the only way that peace can be achieved. The fact that our Ambassador to the United Nations went against decades of precedent by abstaining from this vote is appalling. It is another vote for tyrants and terrorists.

All of us need to close ranks to support a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle tonight, Mr. Engel and Mr. Royce, in opposing this mistake that has been made by our U.N. Ambassador and by the U.N. resolution itself. Both are wrong. Both our decision to abstain and the drafting have been destructive.

I am proud to have this resolution in the House to once again undo this harm and support our ally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Little Rock Central High School's flag line and marching band for participating in the events marking the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

Known as the Stereophonic Storm of the Mid-South, Central's flag line and marching band joined several high school bands across the Nation at the annual Waikiki holiday parade to commemorate this historic moment.

Led by band director Brice Evans, the school's trip lasted an entire week, giving our students the chance to having an unforgettable experience by meeting Pearl Harbor survivors and enjoying Thanksgiving in Hawaii.

With their seemingly limitless enthusiasm and spirit, the Central High

School band continues to represent themselves with determination and dedication that make all Arkansans proud. As a long time friend and supporter of all things for Central High, congratulations. I look forward to following the band's continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of U.S. Army Corporal C.G. Bolden, a Clinton, Arkansas, native and veteran of the Korean conflict.

In January 1951, Corporal Bolden was taken prisoner of war in Korea; and at that time, his wife, Geraldean, and 3-year-old son, Larry, were notified that he was missing in action. Tragically, that same year, Corporal Bolden died of malnutrition under horrific conditions in a North Korean POW camp.

In 1993, his remains were among those returned to the United States, and through innovative DNA testing, scientists at the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command identified Corporal Bolden's remains and determined his cause of death.

On February 21, after decades of unanswered questions, Corporal Bolden will be laid to rest in his hometown of Clinton, Arkansas, and I am honored to join his family to remember him and welcome him home.

Corporal Bolden gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, and his life is an example for all Americans and all

Arkansans. I thank him and his family for their service and their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of approving the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is widely supported by Americans and by a bipartisan majority in this House and in the Senate.

In the more than 6 years since the application to build the pipeline, the President has refused to authorize it, citing two reasons. Number one, environmental challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, the pipeline has undergone numerous environmental assessments, and the U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement confirms the minimal impact of the pipeline on the environment.

Number two, legal challenges. But, Mr. Speaker, on January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court approved the pathway of the pipeline.

The President has no more excuses to deny the completion of the Keystone XL, and I urge him to rescind his veto threat of this critical energy and infrastructure bill.

Americans want a true all-of-the-above energy policy that boosts our goal of North American energy independence, benefits consumers, creates jobs, protects our environment, and preserves our natural resources.

This bill accomplishes all of those goals. However, Mr. Speaker, the President continues to block this essential energy and infrastructure project and the jobs it would provide to our hardworking American families.

Further, due to the bureaucratic delays of the past 6 years, this project is now costing 50 percent more than its original announcement.

In my district alone, the pipeline has supported over 600 jobs at Welspun Tubular, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, where 700 miles of this pipe are stacked up at the rail head ready to put in the ground.

Mr. Speaker, if approved, this project will provide thousands more jobs and over $3.4 billion for our Nation's economy. The President is out of excuses. It is time to approve this project.

I thank my colleague for yielding. I am pleased to have this time on the floor to talk about this important issue that faces our Congress.

On more than 22 occasions, President Obama has told audiences that, on the advice of his counsel, his attorneys, he could in fact not do what he has just proposed to do last November of 2014.

He stated that he did not have the statutory authority to defer deportation of over 5 million people who are in our country illegally, thereby granting them rights to drivers' licenses, work permits, Social Security, and health benefits.

For example, in 2013, the President stated that implementing immigration ``reform'' through executive action was ``difficult to defend legally'' and ``not an option.'' He has repeatedly told the American people that he is a President, not a king, not a emperor.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the 22 times that the President has uttered these words that say that he does not have the authority to take executive action on immigration.

President Obama's Twenty-Two Statements on His Lack of Authority to

Handle Immigration Policy by Executive Action

With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any

day now despite the American people's staunch opposition, on

Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many

statements he made in the past about his inability to

unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response

was astonishingly brazen: ``Actually, my position hasn't

changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest

was in me, through executive action, duplicating the

legislation that was stalled in Congress.''

This is a flagrant untruth: ``In fact, most of the

questions that were posed to the president over the past

several years were about the very thing that he is expected

to announce within a matter of days,'' reported The New York

Times. ``[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the

sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,'' The

Washington Post's Fact Checker agreed, awarding President

Obama the rare ``Upside-Down Pinocchio,'' which signifies ``a

major-league flip-flop.'' Even FactCheck.org piled on.

President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans,

but he can't run from what he's said over and over (and over)

again. Not only are Americans not stupid--they can read:

1. ``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.'' (3/31/08)

2. ``We've got a government designed by the Founders so

that there'd 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 own role. Congress's job is to pass legislation. The

president can veto it or he can sign it. . . . 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.'' (5/19/08)

3. ``Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve

this problem. . . . Anybody who tells you it's going to be

easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen

hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.'' (5/5/

10)

4. ``[T]here are those in the immigrants' rights community

who have argued passionately that we should simply provide

those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least

ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation

until we have better laws. . . . I believe such an

indiscriminate approach would be both unwise 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 in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our

nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to

control its borders and set laws for residency and

citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter

their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be

held accountable.'' (7/1/10)

5. ``I do have an obligation to make sure that I am

following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that

are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are

changed.'' (10/14/10)

6. ``I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things

just by myself. We have a system of government that requires

the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it

happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to

have some partners to do it. . . . The main thing we have to

do to stop deportations is to change the laws. . . . [T]he

most important thing that we can do is to change the law

because the way the system works--again, I just want to

repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on

the books that says that people who are here who are not

documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some

flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to

focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed

to families who are just trying to work and support

themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can

show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the

Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by

myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus

on changing the underlying laws.'' (10/25/10)

7. ``America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the

President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a

choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate

for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both

respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation

of immigrants. . . . 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. . . [W]e've got three branches of

government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's

job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the

judiciary has to interpret the 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.''

(3/28/11)

8. ``I can't solve this problem by myself. . . . [W]e're

going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it

happen. . . . I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to

change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it

happen.'' (4/20/11)

9. ``I know some here wish that I could just bypass

Congress and change the law myself But that's not how

democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it's right.

Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds

and changing votes, one by one.'' (4/29/11)

10. ``Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they

wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.

But that's not how a democracy works. What we really need to

do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive

reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's

what I'm committed to doing.'' (5/10/11)

11. ``I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . .

Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change

the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on

my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on

immigration reform. But that's not how our system works.

That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our

Constitution is written.'' (7/25/11)

12. ``So what we've tried to do is within the constraints

of the laws on the books, we've tried to be as fair, humane,

just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves

need to be changed. . . . The most important thing for your

viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in

order to change our laws, we've got to get it through the

House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by

Republicans, and we've got to get 60 votes in the Senate. . .

. Administratively, we can't ignore the law. . . . I just

have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just

change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing

everything we can administratively. But the fact of the

matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.

And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause

of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive

immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow,

by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not

true. . . . We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills

through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if

all the attention is focused away from the legislative

process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-

end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then

apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten

and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.'' (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred

action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing ``eligible

individuals who do not present a risk to national security or

public safety . . . to request temporary relief from

deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.''

He then argued that he had already done everything he could

legally do on his own:

13. ``Now, what I've always said is, as the head of the

executive branch, there's a limit to what I can do. Part of

the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole

lot of money into it, and when you have a lot

of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are

going to be higher numbers. What we've said is, let's make

sure that you're not misdirecting those resources. But we're

still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order

to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see

coming up occasionally. And that's why this continues to be a

top priority of mine. . . . And we will continue to make sure

that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible.

But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for

legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question,

we're going to continue to be bound by the law. . . . And so

part of the challenge as President is constantly saying,

`what authorities do I have?' '' (9/20/12)

14. ``We are a nation of immigrants. . . . But we're also a

nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken

immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my

own[.]'' (10/16/12)

15. ``I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch

of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's

what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure

that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account

people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on

deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we

have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.'' (1/

30/13)

16. ``I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the

executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you

know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws,

we've got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But

we can't simply ignore the law. When it comes to the

dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, `These

folks are generally not a risk. They're not involved in

crime. . . . And so let's prioritize our enforcement

resources.' But to sort through all the possible cases of

everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very

difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive

immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a

way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that

there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying

out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who've

put down roots here. . . . My job is to carry out the law.

And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They

give us an order that we've got to go out there and enforce

the laws that are on the books. . . . If this was an issue

that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time

ago. . . . The way our system works is Congress has to pass

legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and

implement it.'' (1/30/13)

17. ``This is something I've struggled with throughout my

presidency. The problem is that I'm the president of the

United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My

job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right

now has not changed what I consider to be a broken

immigration system. And what that means is that we have

certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place

even if we think that in many cases the results may be

tragic. . . . [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative

flexibility as much as we can[.]'' (2/14/13)

18. ``I think that it is very important for us to recognize

that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I

can do some things and have done some things that make a

difference in the lives of people by determining how our

enforcement should focus. . . . And we've been able to

provide help through deferred action for young people . . .

But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.''

(7/16/13)

19. ``My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to

carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said `here

is the law' when it comes to those who are undocumented, and

they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement.

And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument

that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the

resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress

has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the

DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown

up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But if we

start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring

the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to

defend legally. So that's not an option. . . . What I've said

is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's

through Congress.'' (9/17/13)

20. ``[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems

without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But

we're also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.

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.

. . . It is 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 is we have this wonderful process of

democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is

hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.'' (11/25/13)

21. ``I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive

immigration reform. But what I've said in the past remains

true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am

constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I've done

is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can't

enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million

people, there aren't the resources there. What we've said is

focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on

people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on

young people, who we're calling DREAMers . . . That already

stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was

confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a

certain point the reason that these deportations are taking

place is, Congress said, `you have to enforce these laws.'

They fund the hiring of officials at the department that's

charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any

more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws

that are on the books. That's why it's so important for us to

get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.'' (3/6/

14)

22. ``I think that I never have a green light [to push the

limits of executive power]. I'm bound by the Constitution;

I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we

can't do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. .

. . Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So

I don't have a green light. . . . My preference in all these

instances is to work with Congress, because not only can

Congress do more, but it's going to be longer-lasting.'' (8/

6/14)

Further, notwithstanding the President's own legal argument to the contrary, Mr. Obama's supporters argue that he simply is doing what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did. This statement is simply not true. Instead, President Reagan and Bush responded in a statutorily acceptable matter to an ambiguity in a specific law and did not seek to circumvent or prevent enforcement of the law as it was written.

I supported recent House legislative action to defund the President's executive actions based on the facts above, as well as my view that Congress must in fact fix our broken immigration system by legislation.

The separation of powers argument here is clear. In article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the enumerated power of setting uniform law for naturalizing our citizens.

Mr. Obama's approach violates this provision by both exceeding his constitutional authority as well as his sworn obligation to faithfully execute the laws as passed by Congress.

While we are all familiar with the Executive's obligation to faithfully execute, we must focus on the cynical distrust that doing the opposite causes among our citizens.

James Madison in Federalist 51 discussed the need for each branch of government to guard against overreach by another. ``When such an overreach occurs,'' Madison stated, ``ambition must be counteracted by ambition.'' And clearly, our government works best when each branch stays within its prescribed boundaries.

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy argued this in a recent separation of powers case before the court when he said:

Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches

seek to transgress the separation of powers.

As a matter of principle, as a matter of our role in Congress, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the proper separation of powers and assert that Congress alone can debate and enact such sweeping changes to our immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, Members seeking to reform our broken immigration system should support our efforts to rein in this tyranny of the Executive. Only then can Congress work together to craft the proper solutions to fix our broken system. Only then will Congress come together and insist on a border that is secure and fully functioning as a cornerstone of our homeland security.

With a land, sea, and air border that knows who and why people are entering our beloved Nation, we can then turn our attention to those many connecting facets of our system: visa overstays; lack of a balanced, well-staffed, and functioning guest worker program; adequate welcome and legal openings for those facing persecution; speedy adjudication for those aliens who are detained; opportunities for needed workers, professors, and students in our universities; and finally, a process for handling those among us who remain outside our legal tax and societal systems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the first branch and our constitutional prerogative. Take action on our Homeland Security bill and send it back to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 596 which repeals the President's flawed health care law in its entirety and provides the Congress with a clean slate to implement the real, patient-centered health care reform that this Nation needs and deserves.

The majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and its harmful intended or unintended side effects which have increased costs, decreased health care access, and lost jobs, work hours, and wages for many of our hardworking families.

This is an opportunity to recognize the flaws of mandates and a top- down approach to health care and allows us to finally consider ideas that will result in a health care system that empowers and encourages individuals to take control of and responsibility for their health care through the use of tools like health savings accounts and incentives that reward healthy behaviors.

We need targeted, transparent, well thought out reforms that acknowledge the complexity of our health care system, and with the right kind of reforms, we can get the right kind of health care that is affordable and accessible.