Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues in the Senate. Serving in this body for 20 years has been one of the great honors of my life. I remember coming up when I was running for the Senate and going to the Republican luncheon. They said: Well, you have a few minutes. You can say something, but don't talk very long because people don't want to hear a lot from you, frankly.

So I told them that I could think of no greater honor than to represent the people of Alabama in the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. That is what I feel about this body. I want to say, I appreciate the full debate we have had. I want to thank those who, after it all, found sufficient confidence in me to cast their vote to confirm me as the next Attorney General of the United States of America.

I have to tell you, I fully understand the august responsibilities of that office. I served as United States attorney for 12 years and assistant United States attorney for a little over 2 years. During that time, the very idea of those great leaders in Washington leading those departments I served under make it almost impossible for me to conceive, I am that person and will have that opportunity and that responsibility.

So I understand the seriousness of it. I have an interest in law enforcement. I have an interest in the rule of law. So I want to thank those of you who supported me and had confidence in me. I want to thank President Donald Trump. He believes in the rule of law. He believes in protecting the American people from crime and violence. He believes in a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, within bounds, and those are things that may from time to time come before the Office of Attorney General.

I look forward to lawfully and properly advancing those items and others that we as a body support, and the American people believe in.

The Attorney General--this is a law enforcement office first and foremost. People expect the Department defend us, defend us from terrorists, defend us from criminals, defend the country from fraudsters who raid the U.S. Treasury time and time again and too often are not being caught or held to account for it.

I believe that is a big responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General and the whole Department of Justice. As a former Federal prosecutor, I worked regularly, nights, weekends, and became personal friends with fabulous Federal investigative agents. They give their lives, place their lives on the line

for us to promote public safety, to try to do the right thing for America.

Sometimes people think of them in terms of taking away our freedoms. That is not so. They are out there every day putting their lives on the line to advance our freedoms, to protect our liberties, to protect public safety, to stop terrorism that threatens our government.

So I feel strongly about that. I had the honor to lead some of the finest assistant United States attorneys in America. Our goal--well, before I became an assistant, I was told that Mobile had the best U.S. attorney's office in America.

So when I came back as U.S. attorney some 6 years later, I told them that was our goal. We were going to have the best United States attorney's office in America. What a great time we had. We had wonderful people. They worked nights and weekends to prepare their cases. We went before great Federal judges. It was a glorious time. It was really a special time.

I will never ever forget that. I was before the Judiciary committee in 1986, and Senator Kennedy--later my friend--spoke harshly about me. It was on the TV. They would show his statement. He said I should resign my office. So a few minutes later I had a chance to say something. I said: Senator Kennedy, what you said breaks my heart. Nothing I have ever done have I been more proud of than serving as United States Attorney. I still believe that. Nothing I have ever done am I more proud of than the work we did in that little office in Mobile, AL, representing the United States of America.

You go into court, you stand before the judge, and you say: The United States is ready. I represent the United States of America in a litigation. So this is a big deal. So I would say to you, friends and colleagues, that this is a special honor. I feel it in my bones. I hope and pray I can be worthy of the trust you have given me. I will do my best to do that.

Let me comment a minute on the heated debate we have had here in the Senate on my nomination and others. It was an intense election. There is no doubt about that. There have been strong feelings expressed during the election and throughout this confirmation process. Sometimes we have philosophical disagreements, just sincere disagreements about policy, what is right and what is wrong, what the law says, what it does not say.

I believe words ought to be given their fair and plain meaning. Words are not tools that can be manipulated to make it say what you want it to say. I believe words have objective meanings. So sometimes we have differences about that, but that is what elections are about. I have always liked the debate. I have always enjoyed participating in this great body, where we are free to speak and be able to advocate for the values that we have.

But I don't think we have such a classical disagreement that we can't get together. I have always tried to keep my disagreements from being personal. I have always tried to be courteous to my colleagues. Still, tension is built in the system. It is there. The plain fact is that our Nation does have room for Republicans and Democrats. That is what freedom is all about. I am fairly firm, I have to say, in my convictions, but that does not mean that all of us have to agree on the same thing.

We need latitude in our relationships. So let's agree on what we can agree on, and I suggest that to my colleagues as I leave here, and take action where we can agree on things, but denigrating people whom you disagree with I think is not a healthy trend for our body.

After I had been here for a number of years, I had gotten along pretty well with Senator Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee. He asked me to be the lead sponsor with him on the significant, pretty controversial bill to eliminate prison rape. There were a number of honorable people who opposed it, some friends of mine. He said: I want to do this with you. People asked me: Did you ever have a reconciliation? Did he apologize?

He said: I want to do this bill with you. And I knew what that meant. I appreciated that. I said: I want to do this bill with you. And so we were able to pass that bill together. It was a moment of reconciliation that meant a lot to me. I think he appreciated it too. We later got involved in another major piece of legislation, just the two of us, that would have established a portable savings plan for young workers like the Federal thrift plan.

About that time, the financial crisis hit, and then he became ill and it never came to fruition. But reconciliation is important. We ought to do that in this body. We ought to try to fight for our values and not give an inch. You don't have to back down if you believe you are right, and you should not back down.

But there are ways that we can get along personally. I would say that would be my prayer for this body; that in the future maybe the intensity of the last few weeks would die down and maybe somehow we would get along better.

So, colleagues, I can't express how appreciative I am for those of you who stood by me during this difficult time. I could start calling all their names, but it would not be appropriate. I want to say again, I appreciate the President and his confidence in me, and by your vote tonight, I have been given a real challenge. I will do my best to be worthy of it. I look forward to working with each of you during that time and maybe make sure that we have a good open door at the Department of Justice.

My wife has picked up pretty quickly that we have a chef, and we can actually invite people for lunch or breakfast there. Maybe we can do that.

Finally, let me thank my family because without their support, I could not be here. It is great. My children have been so engaged in this. They were young when my 1986 adventure occurred. Now they are grown. Your support and affirmation have meant much to me.

Letter Of Resignation

Mr. President, I present to the body my letter of resignation, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Thank you all.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, a number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. There has been a lot of spin that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word obfuscation, I suppose, or disingenuousness.

The truth is the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It has provided the level of funding the President asked for. It has kept all accounts in Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says: Mr. President, we considered your bill--this amnesty bill--that would provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits, and Social Security benefits, and you can't do that. We consider that and reject it. So we are not going to fund that.

Now, the President has already told us and the staff they have across the river in Crystal City where they are leasing a new building, and this building is going to house 1,000 workers paid for by the taxpayers of the United States as part of Homeland Security. Are those 1,000 workers going to be utilized to enforce the laws of the United States? Are they going to process applications for citizenship or visas? No, those 1,000 people--costing several hundred million dollars, in truth-- are going to be processing and providing these benefits to people unlawfully in America.

So Congress said: Wait a minute. We didn't authorize money for that. You can't spend money to fund exactly the opposite of what we have enacted. So we are just going to put some language in the bill--the normal bill that funds Homeland Security--and say you can't spend the money to violate the law. You can only spend the money to enforce the law, as it was created to do.

The bill then comes to the Senate; and what spectacle do we have? We have Democratic Members in lockstep unity blocking even proceeding to this bill, contending we are not funding Homeland Security. Can you imagine that?

Now, my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the Democratic whip, came down a couple of weeks ago and said: I am trying to figure out what is blocking this bill. So I took the floor and I said: Senator Durbin, you and your filibusterers are filibustering the bill. That is why it is not being passed.

Does anybody want to dispute that? The Republican Senate has repeatedly brought up this bill and filed cloture to move to the bill so we can fund Homeland Security, and the Democrats are relentlessly and unanimously filibustering it, blocking even moving to the bill. Although Senator McConnell said if we did move to the bill, he would allow them to have amendments. So this is the situation we are in.

Colleagues, this goes to the core of our constitutional principles about who controls the money in America. Congress is a coequal branch. It is not subordinate to the President. If anything, the legislative branch, through the Constitution, provides maybe even more power to Congress than it does to the Executive and more than it provides the courts. And the most powerful power of Congress is the power of the purse.

Congress is not obligated to pay for anything it believes is unwise, and it has an absolute duty not to fund anything that is unconstitutional or illegal, which is what we are dealing with here. So Congress--the House of Representatives--acted wisely and properly in funding Homeland Security and not allowing activities to be carried out that are unlawful and that Congress has rejected.

This is so fundamental, so basic. How my colleagues have the gall to come to the floor and have a press conference this afternoon and blame Republicans for shutting down Homeland Security is beyond me. I don't believe the American people are buying it.

Now, there are some, even on the Republican side, who say: Oh gosh, the President will blame us even if it is not our fault. So we might as well cave in and give him what he wants. But what he wants is something he can't be given. What he wants is for Congress to capitulate and erode its powers and responsibility. He wants Congress to violate its duty to fund something that is illegal and contrary to Congress's wishes. He can't demand that. He has no right to demand that.

Congress cannot fund--cannot and must not fund--an illegal action in hopes that another branch of government will intervene. Now, I say that because some have said: Well, a court in Texas has ruled that a part of this action by the President is unlawful. The court was narrow in its decision. It fundamentally said something similar to: It looks like a regulation to me, and if you are going to pass a regulation, you need to go through a process. And the President didn't go through a process. It is not lawful. It is not legal. You can't enforce it. The judge issued an injunction barring the President from carrying out these plans, he announced, which is plain law, it seems to me. They didn't even go into some of the other ideas of the constitutionality and separation of powers. He just blocked it on that basis.

So we are hearing it said that we can fully fund Homeland Security without any restrictions, allowing the President to do this, because the courts stopped it. I think that is unwise for a number of reasons. The first one is we don't know what the courts are going to do. This Congress has a duty to fund only things it believes are appropriate and lawful. So Congress shouldn't fund it on that basis, period. We should stand up for Congresses in years to come--for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren--and defend the power of the purse and defend the integrity of this Congress.

We know how this country was founded. It was founded on an understanding of the British Parliament, and the British Parliament wrested from the king the power of taxes and money. That was a huge historical development, and it has been part of our tradition since, that Congress has the power of the purse. The Executive can't do it. So we replaced the king with the President, and we adhered in our Constitution to that great tradition of restraint on the Executive by the legislative branch--by the Congress, by the Senate.

In the Texas court's injunction, let me go further and note the reasons why I think it is unwise for Congress to say that we, the Senate, have no duty to speak on this issue. The House has already spoken and said we are not going to fund this. But the Senate needs to ask what its position will be.

I would point out that the Texas court's injunction addresses only a part of Obama's lawless actions and could be lifted at any time. So the injunction could be lifted at any time. It only covers a part of his actions. If Congress relinquishes the power of the purse, then nothing will be able to prevent the lawlessness or amnesty from going forward.

As the Texas court noted in issuing its injunction, ``This genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle.''

That is absolutely true. He is evaluating whether to issue an injunction.

Sometimes you don't have to issue an injunction because there is not anything much happening right then. But he says, correctly, that: If this goes forward and millions of people are given amnesty, you can't put that genie back in the bottle in any practical sense. It would be a nightmare to try to do that.

Let me point this out:

One, the Texas court's injunction only addresses a small part of the President's recent Executive actions in November.

The Texas lawsuit challenges only the President's November 20 unconstitutional Executive action. And of that, the injunction prevents the administration from implementing only deferred action for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents.

The Texas court injunction does not address the problematic enforcement priorities encompassed in the President's Executive actions.

He set all kinds of priorities that Congress disapproves of and that are bad--unless you don't want the laws enforced, in which case it is good. And we have some who believe in open borders in this country. They deny it when challenged, but they vote that way every time.

On November 20, 2014, the memo revised the administration's enforcement priorities which do not encompass certain criminal aliens nor do they encompass all aliens deemed to be subject to mandatory custody under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fact, these new priorities effectively gut the enforcement of our immigration laws for all but a few select criminal aliens.

Congress passed the law that requires the deportation of persons involved in criminal activities and convicted of those activities. The President eviscerated large portions of that in this order, and he should not be allowed to do so. The judge did not address it.

Indeed, in response to the ruling, Secretary Johnson stated that the Texas court's order does not ``affect this Department's ability to set and implement enforcement priorities.''

Well, that is a big deal. They set priorities that violate statutory law, and they should not be allowed to do that. We can't effectively eviscerate law by prosecutorial guidelines.

According to a February 18, 2015 email from Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske regarding the injunction, he said:

Officers and agents should continue to process individuals

consistent with the enforcement priorities announced by the

Secretary in his memorandum of November 20, 2014, titled

Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of

Undocumented Immigrants.

It deals in large part with criminal activities, people convicted of crimes who are supposed to be deported.

The funding bill the House passed would do much more to stop President Obama's unlawful Executive actions on immigration, so the administration does not intend to change its course as it is still actively preparing for its rollout of Executive amnesty.

On February 17, just a few days ago, the President told reporters that the administration is still ``doing the preparatory work because this is a big piece of business.'' He said:

The Department of Homeland Security will continue in the

planning because we want to make sure as soon as these legal

issues get resolved, which I anticipate they will in our

favor, that we are ready to go.

So he is telling the Department of Homeland Security to spend money now to be ready to move forward and immediately process his Executive amnesty--providing Social Security numbers, photo IDs, Medicare and Social Security benefits for people here unlawfully. He says go ahead and do it.

The Texas court injunction is only temporary and could be set aside at any time. The administration has already filed for a stay of the injunction in the district court and has announced its intention to appeal.

Indeed, as I just read, the President said he expects to win. I don't think he will, but it is a technical part of the ruling. The judge still has many more that he could deal with that could overrule the President's action. He just chose one of them, and that one is rather technical. So who knows for sure what a court might rule.

In addition, the ruling does not address the substance of the case. It will take many months to resolve this litigation, and during that time there is a reasonable chance that some court will lift the stay and allow the President to begin implementing the amnesty pending a final ruling on the merits of the case. But Congress can stop it and has a duty to stop it in its appropriations bill.

In addition, Democrats refused to fund the lawful functions of the Department of Homeland Security. And this is important: The House- passed Department of Homeland Security funding bill funds all of the lawful, statutorily authorized functions of the Department, including the immigration law enforcement component of the agencies that, under the Obama administration, has been prevented from enforcing the laws.

Colleagues, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--now, I guess, 2 years ago--filed a lawsuit against their own supervisors declaring that they were being forced to violate their oath to enforce the laws of the United States.

I have never seen that. It is so bad that the ICE officers have filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from ordering them to violate plain law.

Let me note that the President has already shut down the Department by ordering immigration officers and agents to violate the laws and sabotaging enforcement in a number of ways. These are direct orders of this administration, dismantling systemic enforcement of our laws.

So I think the Senate Democrats and the President must answer why they believe funding Executive amnesty and unlawful immigration policies would make this country safer.

They say: Well, you won't pass a Homeland Security bill like we want it. You are not making America safe.

I say their policies eviscerating law enforcement are making America less safe, as the Immigration and Customs agents do, the ones who process the applicants.

Ken Palinkas, the President of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, has written that: This amnesty executed by the President will make us less safe.

His amnesty makes us less safe. Passing a bill that stops his amnesty will make us more safe. As a matter of fact, he said that more than one time--a number of times. He is very concerned, as his officers are, that if they carry out these policies, the American people are going to be less safe. In fact, they have said explicitly there is no way they can carry out in any effective manner the unlawful orders of the President of the United States.

Is anybody listening to the people who do the work every day? Does anybody care what they think? Apparently not.

So they are going to come to the floor and accuse Republicans in the House and on this side of the aisle of not making America safe when their own officers say the President's policies are making America less safe.

They say there is no way they can effectively process the individuals they are asked to process. They can't process the numbers today, much less what will happen under this bill when they have to process another 5 million. It is just a very unwise thing.

So what did the courts say? I think this is an important quote from the Texas court. A Federal court found that the President had overstepped his bounds. That is what the court fundamentally declared, stating:

It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has the power under

the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.

That is absolutely true. It is in the Constitution. As he said:

It is Congress, and Congress alone, who has the power under

the Constitution to legislate in the field of immigration.

So after the President issued his order and his Department issued orders of amnesty on November 20, 2014, the President, amazingly, said this: ``I just took an action to change the law.'' Don't we know from elementary school that Congress passes the law? The President doesn't pass the law. He said 22 times that he didn't have the power to do this, but now he has moved forward and admitted he is changing the law.

Well, some of our colleagues think: Oh, if we resist this, the President is going to accuse us of not funding Homeland Security, not protecting the Republic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

But I don't think that is so.

They say: Well, the press is unfair.

Well, not always. I think sometimes we Republicans are right to complain but not always.

This is what the headlines are today. The headlines aren't saying Republicans are blocking the bill.

Politico: ``Democrats filibuster Department of Homeland Security bill.''

The Hill: ``Shutdown looms as Dems block DHS bill.''

McClatchy: ``Filibuster continues as Senate Dems block DHS funding bill.''

CNN: ``Senate Dems block Homeland Security funding bill again.''

Washington Post: ``Senate Democrats block DHS spending bill targeting Obama's immigration actions.''

Associated Press: ``Dems Block Action on DHS-Immigration Bill.''

New York Times: ``Senate Democrats Block Vote on Homeland Security Bill.''

Politico: ``Dems filibuster DHS bill.''

Well, that is absolutely true. We are bringing the bill to the floor. We are not blocking it. We want to fully fund Homeland Security. We want the laws enforced. We don't want to spend money from Homeland Security to eviscerate the law of the United States and undermine immigration law in America, and we don't want to fund an unlawful action by the President.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, one of the measures that took place in this Executive amnesty that has been too little commented upon since the President signed these orders in November is another program which has not been authorized by law which would add several hundred thousand new workers to our country.

This is the headline from an article today: ``DHS Extends Eligibility for Employment Authorization to Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses of H-1B Nonimmigrants Seeking Employment-Based Lawful Permanent Residence.''

The H-1B program was set up for certain individuals to come and work for 3 years and then extend maybe another 3 years only, to take a job in those industries and fields where there is a shortage of workers, and it does allow the spouses to come. But since its beginning it has barred spouses from working; otherwise we would be doubling the number of workers. So this bill now just up and approves spouses of H-1B workers to work.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, estimates that ``the number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years.'' This is a very large addition to the workforce.

One might say: Well, it is good that spouses can work.

Well, what if your child wants a job? What if you want a job? What if your spouse wants a job and is looking for a job? Now we will have another 250,000 job applicants, contrary to law.

There are many other aspects of the President's Executive order that have not been given attention. I think this one is worth commenting about.

There has been no sense at all by President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, the Democratic Members of this Congress--no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green card holders, and native-born Americans. We have high unemployment and the lowest percentage of Americans in the working age group actually holding jobs in America that we have had since 1970. Wages are down. Professor Borjas at Harvard documents that excessive immigration pulls down wages. Since 2007 wages of median-income families are down $4,000.

I would say to colleagues that the first thing we should do is focus on getting jobs for Americans who are unemployed. Are we going to keep Americans on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we have Americans ready and willing to take those jobs?

They like to suggest these guest workers are doing farm work. They are not. The overwhelming majority of guest workers admitted to the U.S. are not farm workers, but are taking jobs throughout the economy. A farm worker program, with temporary labor, if properly managed, is a good program. I do not oppose that. People come and work for a period of time, and if they return home and come back the next season and make enough money to take care of their families maybe for the whole year, that can work if properly managed. But look at this. The H-1Bs are people with high-tech degrees, high-tech skills. They are competing against college graduates who have computer skills and other skills.

This is what we get. This is how it is working in this country. A bunch of companies got together and they signed a letter to Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, asking for immigration reform back in September 2013. They said they needed more H-1B workers, and they pushed for that.

I would just note this: Byron York from the Washington Examiner has written about this, and this is what the facts are. They are not hiring people. They don't have a shortage of workers. They are laying off workers in very large numbers. Hewlett-Packard had 29,000 job cuts in 2012--29,000. They signed the letter. Cisco Systems eliminated 4,000 jobs in August 2013 in addition to 8,000 cut in the last 2 years. They signed the letter asking for more H-1B workers. United Technologies cut 3,000 jobs in 2013; American Express, 5,400 jobs in 2013; Procter & Gamble, 5,700 jobs in 2012; and T-Mobile, 2,250 layoffs in 2012. These are companies that are asking for more foreign workers.

This is another report that was in the Los Angeles Times just a few days ago: ``A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs.''

Since last summer, [Southern California] Edison--

The biggest utility company in California--

which serves nearly 14 million customers, has been firing its

domestic IT workers and replacing them with outsourced

employees from India. . . . The pay for Edison's domestic IT

specialists is about $80,000 to $160,000 not including

benefits.

Good pay.

The two Indian outsourcing firms providing workers to

Edison, Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys, pay their

recruits an average of about $65,000 to $71,000, according to

federal filings.

They are laying off hundreds and requiring the California Edison employees to train the H-1B workers who shouldn't be coming into America unless there is a job need that is unfilled. How can you say we don't have qualified people? They are doing the job, and they are expected to train them. This is the kind of thing that is out of control. Somebody needs to defend the legitimate interests of middle America.

We need to ask ourselves: Does this make sense? Should the President be doubling up on it with his Executive amnesty that would add 179,600 new workers in the first year of his order and 55,000 more annually on top of the H-1B flow? We have legislation that has moved in this Senate that would more than double the number of H-1B workers coming into the country when the evidence indicates they are not needed. It might make businesses happy; they can pay half the salary of what they would otherwise be paying. But it would not be good for Americans who invested in education, trained themselves, worked themselves into a good job, and have it pulled out from under them.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Regulatory Relief for Community Banks and Credit Unions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I always try to be accurate in what I say on the floor. Having been trained before Federal judges for almost 15 years, practicing law, if you said something out of line, you got hammered for it.

My friend, very good friend and colleague, the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, earlier today came to the floor and said: Mr. President, I have been trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

I would ask my colleague Senator Durbin: Have you ever heard of a filibuster? What about the filibuster you are leading to block the bill that funds Homeland Security? I mean how much more obvious can the answer be to what is holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the House-passed legislation?

It is good legislation, to my knowledge. There is very little dispute about the agencies and the departments in Homeland Security in terms of what they would get in terms of funding. They simply said that the extra-lawful actions of President Obama would not be funded.

The Los Angeles Times now says that this executive amnesty could cost up to $484 million. I think it will be much more. The Los Angeles Times isn't counting the cost to State and local governments, welfare costs, tax costs. This is just their idea of what it will cost to give lawful status to 5 million people. It is going to cost more than that. But $484 million is still a lot of money.

Congress, the House of Representatives, said: Mr. President, we don't agree with this policy and your policy is unlawful. You said 20 times yourself you don't have the power to do this. Constitutional scholars say that. It is an erosion of our power and, based on the fact that we don't like the policy and we think it is unlawful policy, we are going to fund Homeland Security, we are just not going to allow you to take money from enforcement of homeland security laws to reward people who violated the laws.

Isn't that a responsible thing for Congress to do? Isn't it an absolute fact that Congress has the power to fund what it desires to fund and not fund what it does not desire to fund? That is the power of the purse, vested in the coequal branch of Congress. It is Congress's fundamental power.

Senator Durbin is now leading the filibuster. We have had a series of votes. He has been able to get every single Democrat to vote with him to block even going to the bill, even allowing a bill to come up on the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment.

If he wants to offer language that says we want to ratify what the President did and allow all this to happen, he is free to offer that amendment on the floor of the Senate. But he is not even attempting to do that. He is basically saying we are not going to allow the bill to come up for a vote, and we are going to blame the Republicans for blocking the bill.

What kind of world are we living in? I have suggested that is ``through the looking glass.'' We have the people leading the filibuster accusing the House and Republicans in the Senate for blocking the bill when they, indeed, are the ones doing it.

He also quoted our fine colleague Senator Flake to say: To attempt to use the spending bill to try to poke a finger in the President's eye is not a good move, in my mind.

I agree with that, we shouldn't be using a spending bill to poke the President in the eye. But I suggest to my colleagues that the President is the one who has poked the American people in the eye, he has poked the rights and powers of Congress in the eye by taking money that was assigned and given to Homeland Security to enforce the laws of the United States. He is taking out money and spending it at this very moment to undermine and to violate the laws of the United States.

Colleagues, the law of the United States--we have a lot of laws--says that an employer, for example, cannot hire somebody unlawfully in the country.

So the President's proposal: Well, I am going to make 5 million people who are unlawful today lawful. I am going to give them a photo ID, I am going to give them a right to work, a Social Security number, and the right to participate in Social Security and Medicare, because I am angry that Congress wouldn't pass it.

Senator Durbin says this--and our colleagues who have been leading the filibuster have been saying this--repeatedly.

It is impossible to explain the situation, quoting Senator Durbin, where the agency ``with the premier responsibility to keep America safe is not being adequately funded.''

He goes on to say that again about placing America at risk.

I would ask a couple of questions. How does taking funding from the lawful, authorized policies of Homeland Security that are supposed to identify people unlawfully here, to identify terrorists, and do other things to make America safe--how does taking the money from them, to give legal status to 5 million illegal aliens make us safer?

Does that make us safer? How absurd is that?

Ken Palinkas, who is head of the union of CIS workers, the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, said:

Unfortunately--and perilously overlooked in Washington--our

caseworkers are denied the urgent professional resources,

enforcement tools, and mission support we need to keep out

those who are bent on doing us harm.

This is processing the 1 million or so per year who are given lawful status in America. He is not referring to the future when they are going to be expected to process--immediately, apparently--5 million more. They don't have money to process the people today. These are his words, not mine, in a letter dated September of last year. He said:

The 9/11 hijackers got into the U.S. on visas and now, 13

years later, we have around 5 million immigrants in the

United States who overstayed their visas--many from high-risk

regions in the Middle East. Making matters more dangerous,

the Obama Administration's executive amnesty, like S. 744

that he unsuccessfully lobbied for, would legalize visa

overstays and cause millions additionally to overstay--

raising the threat level to America even higher.

That is what the people who enforce the law every day are saying.

In January of this year, a few weeks ago, January 22, Mr. Palinkas said:

The President's executive amnesty--

And that is what they are objecting to. That is what the people who are filibustering this bill today are doing. They are protecting, advancing, supporting, and attempting to fund the President's unlawful amnesty.

Mr. Palinkas, whose duty it is to enforce these laws, said:

The President's executive amnesty order for 5 million

illegal immigrants places the mission of USCIS [that is the

immigration service] in grave peril. Instead of meeting our

lawful function to protect the Homeland and keep out those

who pose a threat to U.S. security, health, or finances, our

officers will be assigned to process amnesty for individuals

residing illegally inside our nation's borders. This

compromises national security and public safety, while

undermining officer morale.

That is exactly right. You don't have to be a real expert to understand he is exactly right about this.

He continues:

The Administration's skewed priorities means that the

Crystal City amnesty processing center will likely have

superior worksite conditions for personnel relative to our

normal processing centers. Additionally, the security

protocols at place in this facility will be insufficient to

engage in any basic screening precautions, ensuring and

rewarding massive amounts of fraud. For the administration to

continue down this course after the Paris attacks is beyond

belief.

This is what we are dealing with. In October of last year, Mr. Palinkas, when the President was proposing this amnesty before it happened, issued a statement on behalf of his workers and his colleagues in the immigration service. He concludes in his statement:

That is why this statement is intended for the public. If

you care about your immigration security and your

neighborhood security, you must act now to ensure that

Congress stops this unilateral amnesty. Let your voice be

heard and spread the word to your neighbors. We who serve in

our nation's immigration agencies are pleading for your

help--don't let it happen. Express your concern to your

Senators and Congressmen before it is too late.

Well, that is what it is all about. The President 20 times said he did not have the power to do such a thing, but he--under political pressure, I suppose, or just an overreach on his part--decided to do it anyway. He said he didn't have the power to do this. Now he has acted on it, even though the officers pleaded for him to not do it, even though an overwhelming majority of the American people said don't do it, even though at least nine Democratic colleagues who were supporting this filibuster said the President didn't have the power or shouldn't do it this way, that these kinds of decisions are part of Congress's power.

Mr. President, don't do it, is what they said. Yet all nine of them are now standing in lockstep to block the funding of homeland security that funds every part of homeland security--it just doesn't fund this building they have leased across the river in Crystal City that is supposed to process up to 5 million people.

Colleagues, I want you to know it is absolutely true they will not even have face-to-face interviews with these applicants. This is going to be coming in by mail and computer. They will eventually be sent someplace to get a photo ID, they will be given a work permit to take any job in America, and the right to participate in Social Security and Medicare, weakening both of those programs over the long term, without any doubt.

That is what is occurring without congressional approval. This is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars just in the process.

But what I want Senator Durbin to know is this is going to weaken national security. Because if someone is here to do harm to America-- perhaps they are a drug dealer or they are a terrorist and they want to do criminal acts in America, and they have a record--they are not going to ask for the amnesty. They are going to stay and continue to work their wicked will. That is what they are going to do. Nobody is going to go look for them. Nobody is looking for them now, and nobody will be looking for them then. It will be business as usual.

But if you came here with a bad purpose--terrorism, drug dealing, other criminal activity--and you don't have a criminal record, you will just call in, send an email in, get your identity, and be allowed to permanently operate in the United States.

And colleagues, the American people, I think, understand this. Nobody is going to investigate anything, other than maybe to run a computer background check--a computer check to see if there is a criminal record out there. There is no way anybody is going to go back and try to verify whether someone has actually been in the country a number of years, verify family relations. They are not going to go back to some school to see if they actually graduated. There are no people to do that. This is just a blanket approval for people who apply, basically. You send in a few documents, and you are in. There is no capability of doing anything other than that.

So the President has just made a big mistake--a big mistake--and Congress needs to push back. Congress has the power to consider what kind of policies we want to set with regard to immigration. Those have been set. It is unlawful for people unlawfully in America to work in America and to participate in Social Security and all of those programs. It is just unlawful to do that. The President is violating that law in issuing directives through these departments and agencies to Federal employees, and those employees are protesting dramatically, but nobody seems to care.

Congress is the one body that is supposed to stand up to that, and the House of Representatives has done so. They passed a bill that would stop this activity, that says: we will not authorize the expenditure of any money to carry out this plan that Congress has not approved, that undermines the laws we have in place, and that--as Palinkas and other officers have told us--will encourage more people to come to America unlawfully, further decimating any integrity the system has.

We issued a 49-page document of 200 different actions taken since President Obama has been in office that undermine the moral integrity of the immigration system, making it more and more difficult to maintain even a modicum of legality in the system. His actions are continuing to erode that--the most dramatic, of course, being this Executive Amnesty. So we are just supposed to accept this.

This isn't a personal issue to attack President Obama or any of our colleagues. It is a big American policy issue. It is a huge issue for this country, and we need to understand it. It is a constitutional question as well as a policy question.

The constitutional question, which the House of Representatives understands, is that Congress appropriates money. Congress has no duty to placate the President of the United States when he wants to carry on an activity that Congress chooses not to fund. Congress has a duty to history and to generations yet unborn to defend and protect its power of the purse. Congress has to do that.

I plead with and say to my colleagues that those who know the President overreached on this, this is the time, this is the bill when we should fix this. Passage of this bill without the language of the House would basically fund all of the Executive Amnesty. It would not block funding of this activity. To take out the House language and to pass what our colleagues want to pass--a bill that makes no reference to the Executive Amnesty--takes no action to stop that activity; that is, it ratifies it. It is in effect a financial ratification of an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch that will have ramifications in the future that we can't even imagine today.

Somebody asked the question--and I think it is a valid analogy--what if the President wanted to reduce the tax rate from 39 percent to 25 percent and Congress wouldn't pass it. So he tells all of his IRS agents--they work for him--don't collect any money over 25 percent. He says to the people: Don't send in money more than 25 percent. I told the agents not to collect more than 25 percent.

Is that so far-fetched, if this were to pass?

What the President is saying is, I know the law says you can't work here. I know the law says you are supposed to be removed if you are here illegally. I know all of these things, but we are just not going to do it. Not only am I not going to enforce the law with regard to immigration, but what I am going to do is I am going declare you as lawful. I am going to give you Social Security numbers and work permits.

A recent report from a liberal group, the Economic Policy Institute, announced on February 10 that the unemployed exceed job openings in almost every industry in America.

We know unemployment is exceedingly high, and we know that we have high job unemployment in the country. Remember, the unemployment rate we see today does not include people who drop out of the workforce, it only reflects those people who are underemployed and looking for more work or people who are actually seeking employment aggressively and have signed up on the unemployment rolls in efforts to get a job.

This indicates that in the big industry we used to hear a lot from-- the construction industry--there are six times as many construction workers as there are job openings. Even for professional and business services they are higher. In retail trade there are far more applicants than jobs. It goes on and on, sector after sector.

So remember, at a time of this high unemployment, we are also going to be legalizing 5 million people to take jobs. We know we have to get over 200,000 jobs created in a month--that it takes 180,000 or 200,000--just to stay level with the growth in the population of America. We have been slightly above that recently, and there has been a lot of positive spin about that. But we still have the lowest percentage of Americans in their working years actually working that we have had in this country in 40 years.

Income is down $4,000 since 2007 for middle-class working families. The median income is down $4,000 since 2007. So how is this good for lawful immigrants, permanent residents, American citizens? How is it good to bring in even more workers at a time when we have the smallest percentage of Americans in the workforce in 40 years? I point to 40 years ago because we began to see a lot more women working in

those years, so this is a reversal of that trend.

What do the American people think about it? Here is some Paragon Poll data that says by a more than 2-to-1 margin Americans strongly oppose rather than strongly support the President's Executive actions. Blue collar and middle class workers strongly oppose the President's action by more than a 3-to-1 majority. By a 50-point margin, voters want Congress to pass legislation making it harder for companies to hire workers now illegally in the country--71 to 21.

The American people want to make it harder. Their children, their husbands, their wives are looking for work and not finding any. They want to have a decent wage, a rising wage, and a chance to get a job. So this is a 50-point margin. Remember, the President's action--far from making it harder for people to get a job--is going to provide a photo ID, work authorizations, and Social Security numbers to 5 million people unlawfully here. Almost all of those are adults, frankly.

Just to show how people feel about this and how strongly they feel about it, Kellyanne Conway's polling data shows that by a 75-to-8 margin Americans say companies should raise wages instead of allowing more immigrant workers to fill jobs.

People would like to see a pay raise around here for a change. Salaries dropped 5 cents in December. We are not doing nearly as well as some would like to say. That is a Department of Labor statistic--a government statistic--that says that.

How about this? What about people who have the hardest time finding work right now. African Americans, according to the Conway poll, by an 86-to-3 margin say companies should raise wages instead of allowing more immigrant workers to take jobs. For Hispanics that is true by a margin of 71 to 11. So by a 71-to-11 margin, Hispanics in America say companies should raise wages instead of bringing in more workers to take jobs, pulling wages down. That is what the market says.

So let's go back to the morality of all of this, which is fundamental. We as members of Congress represent the people of the United States. That includes immigrants, recent immigrants--naturalized citizens--living here today. It includes native-born citizens. That is who our obligation is to. So we need to ask ourselves, how are we helping them at a time of difficult wage conditions, difficult job conditions, while allowing a surge of workers to come to compete for the few jobs there are? Is that fulfilling our duty to the voters, to the electors who sent us here? I think not.

I think it is time for somebody to focus on the needs of people who go to work every day, who have had their hours reduced, who have had their wages decline, who have had their spouses and children having a hard time finding work. That is what is happening.

To repeat for my good friend Senator Durbin, who says he has been trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the Department of Homeland Security, let me answer that question. The House has passed a bill. They have sent it to the Senate. More than a majority of the Senators have voted to pass a bill and fund the Department of Homeland Security. And you, as the Democratic whip, are leading the filibuster to block it from even coming up on the floor so amendments can be offered.

That is the answer to your question. So I don't think you should continue blaming Republicans for not attempting to fund Homeland Security. The whole world knows who is blocking the bill that funds Homeland Security: You and your team of filibusterers.

That is what it is. There is no doubt about that, and we need to get this straight. I don't believe the American people are going to be misled by that argument. I believe they are going to know what is happening in this Senate and why we have this difficulty.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, last Wednesday, President Obama made a statement that is troubling to me. I think those of us who believe in Executive leadership and honest leadership, where leaders talk directly to the people about the serious problems we face, have to be troubled by this trend with this administration. Sometimes it makes me fear for the future of the Republic. He accused Republicans of ``defunding the very operations that are involved in making sure we've got strong border security.'' He said Republicans are blocking funding of that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The House of Representatives--the Republican House--has passed a bill with $40 billion, funding fully, as basically the President requested, all the agencies in the Department of Homeland Security. It has one little catch to it; it bars the President from taking money from the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to be used to enforce the law and using that to grant amnesty and to undermine the law. The House bill is not in any way undermining the security of the United States of America, the ability for Homeland Security to protect us from terrorists. In fact, it strengthens that ability because it keeps the money there and uses it for those purposes, whereas right now the President is spending over $100 million to create a structure across the river that would hire 1,000 new people in Homeland Security to process amnesty applications for people who violated the law and to give them the right to have earned income tax credit benefits, a Social Security card, the ability to take any job in the American economy that maybe an unemployed American would like to have or a recent immigrant with a green card would like to have. No, this person who entered the country now unlawfully gets to take that job under this policy. Congress did not fund that. But it funded the laws of the agency. The President, as he said himself 20 times, had no power to do this.

So what is happening now in the Senate, colleagues? Our Democratic colleagues now unanimously, it appears, are blocking even moving to the bill that funds Homeland Security. So I ask, with all sincerity, how can it be said that the Republicans are failing to fund the operations making sure we have strong border security? How can that be made a statement by the President of the United States?

I think we need to keep talking about that. We should not allow these modern-age politicians to go to the American people with false stories about what is happening. The Democratic Members of this Senate are systematically blocking the bill we would like to see come to the floor that fully funds Homeland Security. They have been given the right, as Senator McConnell has repeatedly stated--which Senator Reid never did-- they have been given the right to offer any amendments they would like that are relevant and germane to the bill. So I would say this is a most serious thing with me, and I believe the American people need to understand it.

The House bill will not deny a single penny of funding for legitimate lawful operations of Homeland Security. It will be spent on enforcing the law, enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act that was actually passed by Congress.

What the President is attempting to do is to create and execute a law Congress rejected. He asked the House to pass this law and the House said, no, they did not agree with this policy and rejected it. So he is executing it anyway.

Senate Republicans have attempted to move the bill to the floor three times, and each time it has been blocked by our Democratic colleagues because the bill does not fund the President's unlawful Executive amnesty that he admitted 20 separate times he did not have the power to do.

Congress, colleagues, is supposed to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. Congress should not fund any program, no matter how much the President wants it, that they believe is bad policy. More importantly, more clearly, no Senator should vote to fund a Presidential policy that violates the law, that violates the Constitution, that distorts the relationship between the Congress, which makes laws, and the President, who is supposed to execute only the laws Congress makes. So that is where we are at this point.

The President is not entitled to spend taxpayer money to implement a system of immigration that Congress has rejected. An article in yesterday's Washington Times is further indication of where we are in this world of politics. It was reported that the Department of Homeland Security is spending taxpayer money to set up hotlines for illegal immigrants to call in to with any complaints they may have about immigration law enforcement officers if they think the officers have violated their ``rights'' under President Obama's Executive amnesty-- not violating their rights under law--but the President has told them this and sent out this message to the stakeholder groups.

Now who are the stakeholder groups? I suppose they are the activist groups. That is how they refer to them: stakeholders. So they send out this message: If you are not happy with the way the Federal agency is executing my policy but indeed those agencies are attempting to enforce the law as written, then you have a ``right'' to call in to this hotline, and I will get on them, and I will see that they do it.

So how do the officers feel about this? National Border Patrol Council vice president Shawn Moran said this in a response. First, let me tell you, the Border Patrol officers in the USCIS--the Citizenship and Immigration Services officers--have opposed the President's Executive amnesty. Their association has laid out how it will make the problem worse, it will increase the risk of terrorist attacks, and otherwise further degrade the integrity of our legal system. They have been clear about this. We ought to listen to them. They enforce that law repeatedly. That is their duty. They have opposed bills that they think may look good on the surface but once they have read them and found out the bill will not work effectively, they speak out against that, which is very helpful, and I am glad they do.

Well, this is what Mr. Moran said:

Instead of supporting our agents, this administration had

decided it is more important to find new ways to solicit

complaints and invite ridicule against them.

The American people have to know that the Obama administration's dereliction of duty relating to our immigration system did not begin with this recent decree. From the day he took office, the President has relentlessly and systematically, colleagues, friends, the American people, dismantled immigration enforcement. It is far more serious than you would imagine.

My office has compiled a 49-page baseline timeline of nearly 200 specific entries and events that occurred since 2009 detailing how the law of the United States has been undermined by directives and orders from the President of the United States. It is step by step. This one person alone, the President, has acted against the will of the American people and undermined the law in America.

Just briefly, I will mention the first event that came to my mind. When he took office in early 2009, I believe in the State of Washington, the officers, doing their duty, enforcing the law that says a business cannot hire somebody unlawfully in America, investigated a business in Washington, discovered quite a number of people unlawfully in America, and were to commence action against the business for violating plain law that is still on the books and has not been repealed. And what happened? Immediately, the President intervened. He told them: No. Do not do this. And he told the activist groups--the La Razas and the other activist groups that were engaged in pushing him on this issue--essentially, he told them: Look, I am going to honor the promise I made to you during the campaign--that is the way I would interpret it--not to allow this kind of lawful activity to happen in the future.

So from day one, the law officers of our country got a clear message. What was the message? If you go out and enforce the law, you will get in trouble. If you do not say anything and do not do anything and stay back and lay back and not enforce the law, everything will be OK. That began the situation.

Here are just some of the highlights that I circled and looked at.

This was the Bellingham, WA, case I just mentioned, detaining 28 illegal immigrants who were using false, fake Social Security documents.

On January 29, 2009, in April of 2009, and June of 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano delays the E-Verify deadlines. E-Verify is a system by which businesses are supposed to check a person's Social Security Number to find out if it is valid before they hire them. Many times we know people have used false Social Security Numbers to get work. She delayed that. Then she delayed it again in April, and delayed it again in June.

In June of 2010, the ICE union--the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--they are three basic groups: the ICE group, there is the Border Patrol group, and the Citizenship and Immigration Services group that processes the paperwork. The ICE union cast a unanimous vote of ``no confidence'' in the agency Homeland Security leadership, including ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven, citing ``the growing dissatisfaction and concern among ICE employees'' that they ``have abandoned the Agency's''--ICE's-- ``core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty.''

He said the policy of this government--not what we as sworn officers are supposed to be enforcing, but the policy of our leaders is to spend all their time campaigning for policies related to amnesty and undermining enforcement.

ICE officers went so far, colleagues, as to file a lawsuit in Federal court contending they were being ordered to violate the law by their supervisors. A judge expressed sympathy for them but eventually decided they didn't have standing to proceed with the case, but I think it is still on appeal.

In 2011, at a roundtable with amnesty advocates, President Obama admitted his deportation statistics were misleading. Indeed, they have been. They claim they have increased deportation, but that is totally incorrect. They finally had to admit it.

In February of 2012 President Obama slashed the budget for the 287(g) Program, a program that I helped advocate for and moved forward when I came to the Senate 10 years ago. It simply says the Federal Government will work with State and local law enforcement officers to train them in the things they can legally do to help the Federal officers enforce the law. It is a perfectly sensible program, and it is very popular. A number of States have taken quite a step toward it. It was working in an effective way, and they canceled it after he took office.

They announced the delay in the biometric entry-exit visa system in February of last year. An inspector general audit revealed declines in workplace enforcement of substantial amounts as a direct result of White House policies, and they admit the Obama administration manipulated deportation data.

In March of last year a new report revealed that the ICE officers----

I thank the Chair, and I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to wrap up.

It was revealed that ICE released 68,000 convicted criminals in 2013. These are convicted criminals.

In May of last year the Deputy Chief of Border Patrol revealed that the border surge was incentivized by the administration's policies.

As I said, there are 49 pages of this.

I would point out that we are ready to bring the bill to the floor and allow amendments to the legislation passed by the House that fully funds Homeland Security and ensures that the money is spent for enforcement and not to dismantle the law.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 7 minutes.

Mr. President, the key part of the President's unlawful executive amnesty, the overwhelming majority of it that actually is involved in the House bill, deals with adults and providing them work permits. It is not about the young people, as has been discussed. It involves 4 million-plus people.

We have talked at length about the President's executive action and how he is unlawfully, unconstitutionally making law--Senator Collins laid that out--when only Congress can make law. We have shown that the law he has created is law that he proposed and that Congress specifically rejected. We have shown that the President himself has at least 20 times said he does not have the power to take this action, rightly declaring he is not an emperor--those are his words--and that Congress makes laws.

So now Senator McConnell has moved to bring up the House-passed legislation that fully funds all lawful aspects of the Department of Homeland Security and all its lawful actions to protect the homeland. But the legislation has a provision in it that simply bars the President from spending any money to execute his unlawful Executive directions. It stops the Department of Homeland Security from outlaw activities. This is a matter of great constitutional importance.

It is, in addition, a matter of great importance to working Americans. What the President is doing is giving lawful status to over 4 million adults--persons who entered our country against the law or came in and overstayed their time. These persons, under current law, cannot be hired by any business or employer, but the President wants them to work anyway.

Congress considered and rejected this plan. The result is that the President's plan will be a further kick in the teeth to down and struggling American workers. The facts are clear. I am not seeing them disputed.

Median family income since the recession of 2007 to 2009 has declined by almost $5,000. This is a catastrophic event. This is unbelievable damage to America's middle-class workers. Such a decline is unprecedented since the Great Depression 80 years ago. While some say jobs and wages are recovering and we can stop worrying about that, the facts show otherwise. In addition to depressed incomes, America has the lowest percentage of persons in their working years who are actually working in nearly 40 years.

So consider this. There were huge worker layoffs during the 2009 recession, and many more had their hours reduced as a result of ObamaCare and other events.

There are other factors that combine to reveal that job and wage conditions are much worse than the unemployment rates would indicate.

Despite these problems--a slow economy, job-killing automation, and low wages--the President is carrying out his unlawful plan rejected by Congress that we give 5 million persons unlawfully here legal status--a Social Security number, a photo ID, and the right to take any job that may be available in America. The President's policies are in perfect accord with those of his nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. When I asked her this simple question last week, I got a surprising answer.

Question:

Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful

immigrant who's here, or citizen--or a person who entered the

country unlawfully?

Answer:

I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one

that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how

they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless

of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in

the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

That is the testimony last week by the chief law enforcement officer in the land who is supposed to be enforcing the laws of the country. That is her view of who should be working: Regardless of how you came here, you are entitled to work and apparently take any job in America.

This was a moment of inadvertent candor. She tried to modify that later, I acknowledge, but essentially all she said was: Well, I don't think anybody should work except those the President says should work-- and that would include the 5 million who are here unlawfully.

Let's be clear. These 5 million persons, with their new government- issued documents, will be able to apply for and take any of the few jobs now available in the economy. Sadly, the problem in America is not too few workers, but too few jobs. Last year, the administration celebrated the creation of over 2 million jobs. The President's actions would create from unlawful immigration over twice that many workers in one single amnesty act. Millions more Americans who lost jobs during the recession still haven't found work today.

Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, and neither do the American people--by a wide margin. But, arrogantly, the President refuses to listen to the legitimate concerns of hurting Americans. He dismisses them, and supported by his palace guards in the Senate who blocked legislation----

I thank the Chair, and will wrap up and save some time for Senator Hoeven.

He pushes on to advance the interests of immigration activists, political consultants lusting after votes for the next election, and big business interests lusting after low wage labor. Businesses, who have become so transnational that their interests and those of the American workers are often incompatible.

President Obama supports these business interests. But I ask: Who represents the interests of dutiful American citizens and the lawful immigrant who followed the rules? Who is speaking out for their interests? They are the ones who are forgotten.

I am going to make a prediction: Their voices are going to be heard. No longer, in secret, will the legitimate wishes of good and decent Americans be denied. The people's voice will be heard. The day of the special-interest operatives, tone-deaf politicians, and those who would allow this--their voices will end. This time, the American people will get what they rightly demand--the protection of the laws already on the books. They will force the political class to end the massive lawlessness, and to produce an immigration system that serves the national interests, not the special interests. They will force these self-interested forces out of the seats of power and demand policies that protect their wages, their jobs, their national security, and their government budgets.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, and I hope, when we vote soon, our colleagues will recognize it is time to consider the opportunities Senator Collins has said will be provided here--to have amendments and to go forth and do the right thing for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that earlier today once

again our Democratic colleagues have--like the palace guard protecting the White House--blocked and filibustered moving to the Homeland Security bill--a bill that the House has passed and that would fully fund every lawful program of Homeland Security.

The House has passed a bill that funds Homeland Security, they have sent it to the Senate, and the Democrats are refusing to let it come to the floor to even be debated. They are filibustering a motion to proceed to the bill, where amendments can be offered.

Senator McConnell has said we will have amendments. Senator Collins has already reached out with amendments she thinks have bipartisan support. That is the way the process in the Senate is supposed to work. That is what we should do.

Amazingly and incredibly, our Democratic colleagues say that the Republicans want to shut down Homeland Security and that the Democrats are trying to keep that from happening. They claim Republicans have put riders on the bill. But I would say that I think, if there is any logic left in this body, that the riders were put on Homeland Security unilaterally and unlawfully by the President of the United States. He put those riders on Homeland Security when--after Congress refused to pass his amnesty bill that had in it the right to work for people who are illegally in the country--he gave legal status to people illegally in the country; he gave them a Social Security card with a photo ID--he wants to provide all of them with that and let them participate in Social Security and Medicare. That is what the President wants to do. All of those things fall outside the law governing Homeland Security and all of the items and programs that are involved in that homeland security process. This amnesty is outside of it. In fact, amnesty is not pro-homeland security, it is anti-homeland security. It is anti- law. It rewards people who have violated the law. It is going to create a mechanism where these people who get these photo IDs will have the ability to take any job in America, and nobody is going to check them in any effective way. In fact, it is quite clear that the Administration doesn't even intend to have personal interviews with them because the Administration doesn't have the time or the people. But they are spending money out of the lawful part of Homeland Security to create an office across the river in Crystal City, and they are hiring 1,000 people to process these individuals.

So Congress simply said: Mr. President, we oppose that. We won't approve that process. You said 20 times it is not lawful for you to grant amnesty, but you have changed your mind and you are going to do it anyway. So we are going to fund all the programs of Homeland Security just like last year--with some increase, I suppose--but we are not going to fund this office across the river to make people lawful who, under the law, are unlawful. That is what the bill is.

So my Democratic colleagues say that somehow this doesn't fund Homeland Security and that Congress has no right to decide what it funds and doesn't fund. But it is a fundamental power of the people's elected representatives to control the purse strings, to decide what gets funded and what does not get funded. Congress can fund programs that it doesn't like as a matter of policy or it could defund those programs, and it could defund programs it believes are illegal.

As a matter of fact, I would say Congress has an absolute duty to refuse to fund programs set up by the President of the United States that he would like to carry out if Congress believes those programs are unlawful. So that is where we are.

It is beyond my comprehension that our friends on the other side--at least seven have said in clear statements that they oppose the President's Executive amnesty, and they are now voting unanimously to not go to the bill and even allow it to be considered.

Now, one thing is not being considered enough. This amnesty is more than prosecutorial discretion. The President of the United States is giving work authorizations to more than 4 million people, and for the most part they are adults. Almost all of them are adults. Even the so- called DACA proportion--many of them are in their thirties. So this is an adult job legalization program. And we talked about why Congress didn't approve and it didn't pass, and why the President shouldn't carry out on his own that which Congress has rejected and for which he has no lawful basis.

But let's go further. Let's ask on behalf of the American people, the American working people, is this a good idea? Is it a good idea at this time of low wages--a time when the percentage of Americans in the working population who are actually working and have jobs is at the lowest it has been since the 1970s? Is this the right time to advance another 5 million people into the job market--a time when we admit 1 million lawful immigrants to the United States a year? I believe we have 700,000 guest workers from abroad working in America on top of that, and we're adding another 5 million who can take any job in the economy?

Frankly, the problem, colleagues, is not that we have a shortage of workers in America; the problem is we have a shortage of jobs and we have the lowest workforce participation that we have had in a long time.

Gallup recently noted that if someone works just a few hours a week, they are counted as an employee. People used to work 40 hours--overtime maybe--now they work 10 hours a week, and they are counted as an employee. If you are an engineer working at a fast food restaurant, you are counted as employed. So there are a whole bunch of factors that they know are out there that are causing the American people to be very concerned about their futures, even though politicians in Washington are saying things are so great.

Wages fell in December--I think the last full month for which we have the data--5 cents an hour. So it is not getting much better. That is not disputable data. We want wages to go up, not down.

So I think this is all important, and it is time for Congress to understand whom we represent and whom our focus should be on. We want to treat people who come to America well. We want to give them every lawful benefit when they immigrate to America properly. And people who enter unlawfully need to be treated humanely and processed properly, and the laws need to be enforced. We don't want to mistreat those people.

But what is it that is critical? What is critical is that we know whom we represent. We represent lawful immigrants and citizens of the United States of America. Our duty is to them. We should establish an immigration policy that serves their interests.

Years ago a witness before the Judiciary Committee told that committee--and I was a member--that, `well, if your policy is to do what is best for poor people around the world, it is almost always the right thing to let them come to America. If they get in trouble health- wise, the hospitals will take care of them. Their children get a free education. If they get in trouble otherwise, this country helps them.'

But what we have to decide is what is a good policy for the United States of America and how to execute the national interests, not special interests.

Let me point this out. The numbers are stunning, colleagues, and we are going to have to learn these numbers. I am going to insist that we know what we are doing as we go forward with the ever-expanding programs to bring in more workers from abroad.

One of the more remarkable but least-reported trends in our economy is the disproportionate share of jobs being filled by foreign workers. Most people do not understand this. The following is new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics--not my opinion; these numbers come straight from BLS tables. I challenge my colleagues, if these numbers are wrong, tell us they are wrong. It comes right off the BLS table. I don't think they are disputable. I don't think anybody is disputing them.

The total number of persons employed in the United States has increased by 1 million since 2007. Frankly, that is not many jobs at all over that number of years. It sounds like a lot, but it is not many. So we have had a total increase of 1 million jobs since 2007, but during this same time the number of jobs for U.S.-born workers-- citizens--declined by 1 million.

How is that possible? During this same time the number of foreign workers with jobs increased by 2 million. So

that is where the net gain occurred. This means that all net employment gains since the recession have gone to workers brought in from abroad.

How many workers should we be bringing into America? Shouldn't we ask how the economy is doing? We are having the slowest recovery since the Great Depression 80 years ago. Shouldn't we ask questions about that? How many people are on food stamps and welfare and all kinds of aid programs? How many people have claimed disability?

During this same time--get this, colleagues--the population of Americans 16 and older increased by 11 million, but one-fifth of a million fewer Americans are employed.

Here is a chart that will reflect some of this data. This reflects that natives--people born in the country--accounted for two-thirds of the increase in the working-age population. It is a myth we are having declining birth rates to the extent we have fewer people coming into the working ages. That is not so. Since 2000 we have added increases of 16.8 million working age people, but all the employment gains went to immigrants from 2000 to 2014.

I was surprised at this. I knew we were having issues with this, and people have shared that with me, but I did not realize the numbers were this stark.

Let's look at this. This is the change in the working age on these two parts of the chart. We have an increase in immigrants from 2000 to 2014 by 8.8 million people, while the native population in their working ages increased by 16.8 million people--twice the number of working age immigrants, basically. But where did the jobs go, the few jobs we have been creating as we are recovering from the recession? We created 5.7 million jobs since 2000 that went to the immigrant population--this 8.8 million--and the native population showed a decline of 100,000 jobs. So even though we had a 16.8 million increase in that working-age group, we had a decline in native-born workers actually working.

I would say those are stunning numbers, and it calls on us to reevaluate our policies. We are not against immigration. I am not saying we should end immigration, I am saying it is time for us to review our immigration policies, as any sensible, sane nation would do. It is time to do that.

The President's policy goes in exactly the opposite direction. By overwhelming polling data, Americans--including Hispanics--agree that amnesty has created more of an illegal immigration flow, and yet this amnesty rewards 5 million people for what they did illegally.

Let's look at a little more of the reality of how this plays out in the world. Here is a dramatic article in Computerworld about the big power company in California--Southern California Edison. What have they done recently? Information technology workers at Southern California Edison are being laid off and replaced by workers from India. Some employees are training their H-1B visa-holding replacements, and many have already lost their jobs. The employees are upset and they say they can't understand how H-1B guest workers can be used to replace them since they are already doing the job now.

Apparently, Southern California Edison--a power company rooted in the United States of America--is converting, laying off, and terminating the employment of people who have been with them for a number of years. Southern California Edison is transitioning those positions to foreign employees who have come in under the H-1B visa program for the sole purpose of taking a job. They are not coming under the immigration policy where they would move from green card into permanent residence and into citizenship. They come solely for a limited period of time to take a job, and they work for less pay too often.

This is what one person said:

``They are bringing in people with a couple of years'

experience to replace us and then we have to train them,''

said one long-time IT worker. ``It's demoralizing and in a

way I kind of felt betrayed by the company.''

I bet he did. Continuing to quote from the article:

SCE, Southern California's largest utility--

Which is a quasi-almost-government entity under the regulatory powers of the State--

has confirmed the layoffs and the hiring of Infosys, based in

Bangalore, and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Mumbai.

They are two of the largest users of H-1B visas.

Apparently what happens is these companies sign up workers in--in this case--India, and they call up the big power company and say: Look, we have all these young people who have an education, and your salaries are real generous to them, they like your salaries, and we will just send them over on H-1B visas. They can stay 3 years and then return to their country and you can get rid of all those American workers. Maybe you will not have to pay such high retirement or health care benefits.

The article goes on to say:

Computerworld interviewed, separately, four affected SCE IT

employees. They agreed to talk on the condition that their

names not be used. The IT employees at SCE are ``beyond

furious,'' said a second IT worker. The H-1B program ``was

supposed to be for projects and jobs that American workers

could not fill,'' this worker said, ``But we're doing our

job. It's not like they are bringing in these guys for new

positions that nobody can fill.''

It goes on to say:

``Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job

that an Edison employee wasn't already performing,'' he said.

It goes on to talk about this. Professor Ron Hira, who studied this in great depth and has written about this problem for some time, made some comments on it too:

The SCE outsourcing ``is one more case, in a long line of

them, of injustice where American workers are being replaced

by H-1B's,'' said Ron Hira, a public policy professor at

Howard University, and a researcher on offshore outsourcing.

Adding to the injustice, American workers are being forced to

do `knowledge transfer,' an ugly euphemism for being forced

to train their foreign replacements.''

He goes on to say:

``Americans should be outraged that most of our politicians

have sat idly by while outsourcing firms have hijacked the

guest worker programs.''

So the guest worker program is supposed to help businesses. If they can't get people to work, then they can apply to this program, which has some limits. Yet the President proposes doubling the number of people who can come in with H-1B visas to work. He wants to double that number. He has been demanding that. But Mr. Hira said:

The majority of the H-1B program is now being used to

replace Americans and to facilitate offshoring of high wage

jobs.

So this is a pretty thorough article in Computerworld, and it is a growing problem in the high-tech industry.

Professor Hal Salzman, who is a sociologist and public policy professor at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, wrote about this last September. This is not something new. This has been understood for some time. This is what he says in U.S. News and World Report:

All credible research finds the same evidence about the

STEM workforce: ample supply, stagnant wages and, by industry

accounts, thousands of applicants for any advertised job. The

real concern should be about the dim employment prospects for

our best STEM graduates.

Who are STEM graduates? Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We have been telling our children they can have good jobs. Parents have borrowed money, invested in the college savings plans; students have borrowed money themselves to get degrees in STEM fields, and now we find STEM salaries are flat since 2000--that only 40 percent of STEM graduates are actually working in STEM jobs.

This is what Professor Salzman and five others said in an op-ed in USA Today, condemning what we are doing in America today:

Average wages in the IT industry are the same as those that

prevailed when Bill Clinton was President, despite industry

cries of a shortage. Overall, U.S. colleges produced twice

the number of STEM graduates than annually find jobs in those

fields.

We have to think about how to get our people, our children, our constituents into good-paying jobs. I wish there were more of them. I wish there weren't enough jobs and we had to import workers, but it is not so.

The Salzman article goes on:

. . . the growth of STEM shortage claims is driven by heavy

industry funding for lobbyists and think tanks. Their goal is

government intervention in the market under the guise of

solving national economic problems. The highly profitable IT

industry, for example, is devoting millions to convince

Congress and the White House to provide it with

more low-cost, foreign guest workers instead of trying to

attract and retain employees from an ample domestic labor

pool of native and immigrant citizens and permanent

residents. Guest workers currently make up two-thirds of all

new IT hires, but employers are demanding further increases.

If such lobbying efforts succeed, firms will have enough

guest workers to last for at least 100 percent of their new

hiring and can continue to legally substitute these younger

workers for current employees holding down wages for both

them and new hires. . . . the Census Bureau reports that only

about one in four STEM bachelor's degree holders has a STEM

job, and Microsoft plans to downsize by 18,000 workers over

the next year.

Microsoft signed a letter to the President and Congress just a few months ago demanding more foreign workers in the same week they announced laying off 18,000 workers, and this is a pattern throughout the industry. They are lobbying for more and more while they are laying off workers.

Here is a statement our office obtained from a union representative at IBM:

On January 28, 2015, IBM embarked on another of its regular

``resource actions'' or job cuts at sites and divisions

around the US. Although IBM won't say how many employees were

notified that their employment was being terminated, the

Alliance@IBM estimates the number at around 5,000.

I continue to read from their statement:

This has been almost a quarterly experience for IBM

employees. One of the biggest drivers of the job cuts is off

shoring and bringing in guest workers from other countries.

So they are laying off Americans and bringing in people from abroad.

The statement goes on to say:

The terminating of regular IBM U.S. employees while keeping

H-1b visa or L1 visa workers on the payroll has been ongoing

at IBM for years.

As one worker stated in an email to the Alliance just this

past week:

``Received `RA' notice (termination notice) yesterday. . .

. I was told last October that I was being replaced by an IBM

India Landed Resource. . . . ''

That is a guest worker.

Another employee e-mailed:

``I would estimate that of the 20 people in my IBM

department, at least 80% were immigrants on Visa's working on

a so called government contract.''

They were working on a government contract. They were bringing foreign workers.

And it goes on.

Here is an article in the Engineering Journal about IBM: ``Massive Worldwide Layoff Underway At IBM.''

Look, I am not saying a company can't lay off and be more efficient. The business market changes, and they are just not able to stay in business if they are paying people to do work that doesn't exist. I understand that.

What I am saying is that at the same time they are laying off people, they are demanding the right to bring in more foreign workers, further driving down wages.

Here is what this article says:

Project Chrome, a massive layoff that IBM is pretending is

not a massive layoff, is under way. First reported by Robert

X. Cringely in Forbes, about 26 percent of the company's

global workforce is being shown the door. At more than

100,000 people, that makes it the largest mass layoff at any

U.S. corporation in at least 20 years.

So these groups have all come together in a lobbying group, Compete America, the Alliance for a Competitive Workforce. IBM is one of them. I think Hewlett-Packard laid off 12,000 not too long ago; they are part of it. Microsoft, laying off 18,000, is part of it--demanding more guest workers.

Cringely wrote that notices have started going out, and most of the hundred thousand-plus will likely be gone by the end of February.

How does it impact us? Does it impact Americans?

Alliance@IBM, the IBM employees' union, says it has so far

collected reports of 5,000 jobs eliminated, including 250 in

Boulder, Colo., 150 in Columbia, Missouri, and 202 in

Dubuque, Iowa. Layoffs in Littleton, Mass., are reportedly

``massive,'' but no specific numbers have been published.

Here is a story in timesunion.com about Governor Cuomo in New York. His program of IT work in New York is being outsourced by IBM.

. . . IBM has brought hundreds of workers from India to

fill jobs in Albany for which--in theory--plenty of Americans

are qualified.

Walt Disney World's information technology department laid off 500 workers, while Disney's profit margin has gone up and the stock price is rising.

We are going to be talking about this for some time. We need to ask ourselves: What is in the interest of American workers at a time when we are laying off large numbers of workers--skilled and unskilled? I have been talking about skilled.

Do we really need massive increases in foreign workers? Do we need to pass legislation that would double the number of guest workers that come into the country at this time? I think not.

I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. I see my colleague.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please notify me at 9 minutes into a 10-minute speech.

Mr. President, we are in the odd situation by which our Democratic colleagues are complaining that we are blocking funding for the Department of Homeland Security when the House has passed a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. It is sitting at the desk today. The majority leader, Senator McConnell, has moved to proceed to that bill, and they are blocking it. Senator McConnell moved to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed--to just

get on the bill--and he has indicated, as he has before, that there would be amendments allowed to the bill. This would be the way to move forward with an appropriations bill in the regular order. So it is unbelievable, really, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to contend that the majority Republicans in Congress, in both Houses, are trying to block funding from the Department of Homeland Security when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look at today's CNN headline. This is on their Web site: ``Democrats Block Funding for DHS to Protect Obama's Immigration Orders.''

Why are they blocking it? To protect Obama's immigration orders that are contrary to Congress's will, clearly overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, and contrary to law. Why should Congress fund unlawful activities? Why should it fund policies it does not approve of? Why should it fund policies the American people strongly reject? It has no duty to do that.

Congress is not a potted plant. It is not a rubberstamp. Congress has a duty to the people, which is to ensure that the laws of this country are followed, that the American people have defense for the homeland, with funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and they have done that. What they have said is we are not going to fund actions by the Department of Homeland Security that undermine the law. We are not going to approve money that undermines the laws of the United States, and we are not going to allow the President to take money, which was given to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce the law, so he can undermine the law.

What has the President done with his Executive orders? It is a stunning action. He said over 20 times he didn't have the power to do this. He doesn't have the power to do what he did. He just did it because political pressure, I guess, caused him to do so. He is going to provide legal status, not for children, for 5 million people. They will be given Social Security numbers. Constitutional scholars have told us, colleagues, the utilization of the idea of prosecutorial discretion is not appropriate in such a massive way as this. What I want to tell you is it goes well beyond prosecutorial discretion. The President is going to provide a Social Security number to people who are unlawfully here. He is going to provide a photo ID for people who are unlawfully in America, providing work permits for them, the right to participate in the Medicare and the right to receive checks from the Federal Government in the form of earned income tax credit to the tune of billions of dollars.

One of the first things we do to try to establish a lawful system of immigration is not provide financial benefit to people who come to the United States unlawfully. So this is a problem. I have to say it is a big problem.

My friend and able Member of this Senate, Senator Durbin, the Democratic whip, assistant minority leader, said this last night, yesterday: ``It is incredible to me that we have refused to provide funds the Department of Homeland Security needs to keep America safe.'' He said: ``It is incredible to me that we haven't passed a bill that the House sent over here that fully funds Homeland Security.''

I am not blocking the bill. We want to go on the bill. We want to be able to amend the bill to keep America safe. Who is blocking it? It is my Democratic colleagues. Senator Durbin is the leader of the blocking game. He is the offensive line, the center, I guess, of the offensive line.

Senator Durbin goes on to say: ``There is nothing wrong with a debate over immigration policy.''

That is correct. He continues: ``In fact, the Republicans, now in the majority control of the House and Senate, could have started the debate weeks ago. They didn't.''

Look, we debated Senator Durbin's vision. It was rejected by Congress, his ideas. Many supported the bill in this body. It didn't come back this fall in part because of their actions on immigration.

President Obama had the choice to go from State to State trying to elect people to pass his immigration bill, but he either didn't do it or it didn't work. The American people do not want this kind of legislation.

My friend Senator Durbin said further: ``Instead, they attached five riders to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, and they said: We will not allow that Department to be properly funded unless the President accepts these five immigration riders.''

This is just a normal bill that says how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be spent for enforcement, and we are not going to spend money to not enforce the law. It doesn't change. The bill the House has sent to us does not change one lawful immigration policy of America, not one. It is the President who adopted a radical new immigration policy contrary to law, contrary to the American people's wishes. In fact, quite a number of Democrats urged him not to issue such an order, but he did it anyway. Congress has a duty.

Senator Durbin talks about the DREAM Act that he offered. It had a chance for passage a number of times. But every time it was carefully read, it was an overreach. It went too far. But the point of which is it was rejected by Congress. Congress didn't pass that.

We need to be clear about who is objecting to what in this body, who wants to fund Homeland Security and who wants to advance a radical, unlawful, unpopular amnesty agenda the American people don't like.

Yesterday on the floor Senator Schumer asked if it wasn't possible for the Senate to pass a Department of Homeland Security bill--without language that would ensure the President complies with the Constitution, of course--and then send it back to the House.

Senator Schumer is one of our more able Members, for sure, in the Senate, and I respect him and his abilities. But the answer is this: The House-passed DHS bill is the only vehicle because the House of Representatives would blue-slip a bill that originates in the Senate. This is a basic tenet of how a bill becomes law. Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House

of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with

Amendments as on other Bills.

Over the years, the House of Representatives has asserted, and successfully asserted, that this applied to revenue spending bills as well. According to the Congressional Research Service, as a result, the House customarily originates all ``money'' bills, including appropriations bills. The Congressional Research Service states:

In practice, the Senate has generally deferred to the

House's insistence on originating appropriations.

Indeed, it has generally deferred because they won't move anything that doesn't start over there. They successfully asserted that gray area to their benefit, and perhaps it is consistent with the Constitution.

My staff has been unable to find a single instance where the House took up a Senate-originated appropriations bill in over 100 years, since 1901.

I thank the Chair.

Our friends in the House have been unequivocal: The Senate must pass the House bill. Speaker Boehner said, ``Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats must stand together with the American people and block the President's actions.''

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the House of Representatives has voted to fully fund homeland security, as the President has requested. It sent a bill to the Senate that fully funds all the lawful policies and programs in homeland security. The bill will not deny a penny of funding. In fact, it says, spend the money, but on enforcing the laws of the United States. Don't spend money undermining the laws of the United States. Don't spend money in violation of the laws of the United States. Don't spend money in violation of the established policies of Congress, which rejected the President's ideas that he is now executing. And don't spend money in violation of the will of the American people who overwhelmingly oppose the President's unlawful Executive amnesty.

That is what we are talking about today, and my colleagues continue to suggest that somehow Republicans are not funding the Homeland Security Department. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our colleagues have now voted to block going to the bill. If they don't like some of the provisions that came over from the House, well, let's get on the bill and let's have some relevant amendments and let's vote on it. That is what Congress is about. That is the way we are supposed to do business here.

But our colleagues have gotten spoiled. They think they can block anything and turn around and blame the Republicans for it and that somehow everybody is going to agree with them.

Look, the American people get this. The President is not entitled to spend money to implement a system of immigration that Congress, representing the American people, rejected. If our Democratic colleagues are unhappy, then, as I said, they can offer amendments.

I feel it would be a stunning event if the Senate removes language from a bill that simply restores the separation of powers and prevents the President from overreaching in violating the Constitution. But if they want to bring up amendments that would allow the President to do this activity, let's do it, let's bring it up, and let's vote on it. Perhaps they might win it. But I think it is untenable constitutionally and it is untenable legally, because it is contrary to the law and the will of the American people.

My good friend Senator Schumer is one of our able Members of this body. He spoke earlier today and he said: The

right wing of the Republican Party is risking a DHS--Department of Homeland Security--shutdown to get their way on immigration. They are saying: Take our hard right stance on immigration, or we won't fund national security.

That is not so, Senator Schumer. Give me a break. Come on. You are blocking the bill. The House has voted to fund homeland security. It is on the floor. We need to pass it, and we will give you an opportunity to offer your amendments if you are not happy with it. It is absolutely not so that they are doing that.

So how is it being reported? Republicans frequently complain they don't get fair reporting in the press, but let's look at this:

U.S. News and World Report, today: ``Senate Democrats Block Bill Undoing Immigration Actions.'' That is the headline, ``Undoing Immigration Actions.'' Those are President Obama's unlawful actions. So they are defending his actions, not defending homeland security.

How about this one, USA Today: ``Democrats again block efforts to derail immigration order.'' The effort would derail the President's unlawful Executive amnesty--but it funds homeland security, as the article makes clear.

Fox News: ``Senate Dems nix debate on Homeland Security bill, blocking it, in protest over immigration.''

Who is blocking the bill?

Politico: ``Democrats filibuster Department of Homeland Security bill.''

That is exactly what is happening. The bill has passed the House. It is on the floor. We are trying to bring it up. We are trying to have debate. We are trying to have amendments. And they are blocking the bill--according to Politico, no rightwing publication.

The Washington Post: ``Senate Democrats block DHS spending bill targeting Obama's immigration actions.''

The Atlantic. This is a good one. For those of us who have been around here a long time, and I think for reporters who cover it, this is really humorous, to have our Democratic colleagues, having complained for years about what Republicans do. This is the headline in the Atlantic: ``The New Democratic Obstructionists.''

Here is the headline in the New York Times: ``Senate Democrats Block Republicans' Homeland Security Bill.''

So I would say, colleagues, the American people know better. The media knows better. They know who is blocking this bill. They know that the Congress of the United States--that the House of Representatives and the Senate is not required to fund any program it doesn't like.

It is absolutely not required, and it has a duty not to fund Presidential expenditures that are illegal. The Department of Homeland Security is provided funds to enforce the laws of the United States. The President right now is taking money that was sent to Homeland Security to enforce laws and he is redirecting it and moving it over to a building just across the river in Crystal City, hiring 1,000 persons to process applications of people illegally in the country and to provide them the earned-income tax credit, which is a direct check from the United States of America, provide them a Social Security number, the right to participate in Social Security, legal status in the country, the right to work in the country, and participation in Medicare, when the law of the United States says if someone is here unlawfully, they cannot work. So that is what this is all about.

I just want to push back. I urge my colleagues--at least seven of my Democratic colleagues have said they oppose President Obama's actions. When do they have a clearer chance to confront that action and demonstrate with conviction that they meant what they said than on this vote?

It allows the bill to come forward. It allows us to have a vote. It allows anybody in the Senate to offer amendments that would be relevant to the bill. I feel strongly about that.

I see the Senator from New York. I think she was in line to speak before I was, and I was able to grab a few minutes. So I would just say this. Colleagues, please review your position on this. Let's move to this bill. Let's fund Homeland Security. Let's discuss and have amendments and vote on the President's Executive order, and the one who wins the votes, so be it. That is the way the Congress of the United States works.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to David Lee Thomas, Sr. of Mobile, AL, who passed away on January 22, 2015. He and I were friends for many years. I first got to know him when I was a young Assistant U.S. attorney in Mobile and he was already a proven and respected Federal law officer. He had been hired as the first African-American investigator in the southeast region, with the office of inspector general, U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was investigating fraud by stores and businesses that were buying food stamps for cash or carrying on other unlawful activities. One of the highlights of his career with the OIG was receiving a letter from President Ronald Reagan for solving a fraud case which saved the U.S. Government $10 million. During that time, we worked a number of cases together. Several went to trial, and he taught me a great deal about law, trials, and how fraud and abuse occur.

David retired from the OIG in 1990, but that retirement lasted all of 6 months. He began working at the Mobile Drug Coalition, and from there he began the second most rewarding career when he became the assistant director of the Mobile County Community Corrections Center. In that role, he established the Court Police Department and helped develop the Mobile County Drug Court Program, which was the first of its kind in Alabama.

David loved his community and was involved in many organizations to make Mobile a better place to live. He

was also very active in his church. He was a great law enforcement officer, citizen, friend, and devoted father and grandfather. This Nation has many excellent Federal employees and officials. David was one of the best. His record speaks for itself. I extend my sympathy to his friends and family.