Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper for those good remarks, and I think they reflect the quality and the character Mark Pryor has displayed as a Member of this Senate.

I have been asked: Who are some of your favorite people across the aisle, Democratic people whom you respect and like? Mark Pryor has always been at the top of that list.

We have both served as attorneys general of our States. We have a number of things to talk about. I have been able to commiserate with him over Arkansas football in recent years. We kind of keep up with those things a lot.

I just would wish to say something that I basically said at the National Prayer Breakfast several years ago. Senator Pryor and I were cochairmen, and I was able to say, with great confidence, that Mark Pryor is one of the best people I have ever served with in the Senate. He is a man of faith and integrity, and his ego is under control--not always so around this place, and it makes it run better. He is collegial, willing to work with people across the aisle, work within his own party, and not one who has had difficulty making decisions. He has done what he thought was right year after year here in this great Senate.

We had the opportunity to lead the Senate Prayer Breakfast and then the National Prayer Breakfast twice, and it was a special time. Mark really did a great job and spent a great deal of time meeting with people from all over the world. I think the depth of his faith is quite obvious.

To Mark I wish to say that you are special to me. Your service in the Senate has been very special. You have always done what you thought was right for your State and done so in a way that is so pleasant and collegial to work with. I know you will have some great adventures ahead. It looks even like the Razorbacks are coming back. They may give Alabama and Auburn a real hard time next year--who knows. Hope springs eternal. They did pretty well at the end of this year, I have to say. A monster may be arising in Arkansas--who knows.

We do have a great Senate, with less than 2,000 people having served in this body. We have people of talent and ability throughout, but there are people over the period of years that touch you as the genuine article, people whom you respect and admire, and, Mark, you are one of those. God bless you and Godspeed.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it has already started. There is being readied today a building in Crystal City, VA, to house the announced 1,000 workers who will be hired to process the unlawful Executive amnesty the President has said he intends to execute.

The President is already moving forward. He is rushing to impose his immigration views before the Congress can contain it or restrain it; before the American people fully understand what is happening; and to make it so it can't be stopped.

The President's Executive orders violate the laws of Congress--the laws that Congress has passed--in order to implement laws he wishes Congress had passed but which Congress has refused to pass. It refused in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014.

The American people, through their congressional representatives, have considered these kinds of proposals, they evaluated them, the American people expressed their views on them, and Congress said no. The people have been clear on this issue. For decades they have pleaded, demanded, really, that this Congress create an immigration system that is lawful; that we end the lawlessness, that it be principled, that it serve the national interest, and that it serves their interest and not the special interests. But Congress and political leaders have refused to do so.

It is unfortunate to a degree I don't think I have seen on any other issue. Perhaps no other issue defines the gap between the elites in this country and middle Americans who go to work every day, who support our country, pay our taxes, and fight our wars. Our people want our laws that are on the books now enforced. If new laws are needed, they want us to pass new laws to end this lawlessness. But this President rejects the will of the people. His policies nullify the laws we have. His policies, shockingly, direct Federal agents to ignore their oaths and not enforce the laws, which creates the lawlessness that stains our legal system in our country today and is causing so much angst out there. People are not opposed to immigration. People are frustrated that their government refuses to create a lawful system that will work and serve them.

What I want to say to my colleagues is that the President has gone even farther than that. He has gone farther than just saying: I am not going to enforce the laws, which he, as a President, the Chief Executive Officer, is required to do. He is required to execute the laws of the United States faithfully, which he is absolutely failing to do. But he is moving forward with his immigration agenda, rejected by Congress and the American people, and he is moving forward in a lot of different ways.

This was an issue in the campaign. The people heard about it just a few weeks ago and they cast their ballots. There are nine new Senators elected to this Senate, and not one of them said they supported President Obama's scheme. Not one of them. They steadfastly opposed it. So in this lameduck Congress, the attempt is being made to move this new lawless agenda forward out of fear that it might not be so popularly received next year.

Is Congress hopeless, helpless, ineffectual? Is it not able to stop this? Absolutely not. Congress has the power to control what the President does. It has the power to control what he spends money on. The President, the executive branch, cannot spend one dime that has not been approved by the U.S. Congress. He can't spend more on roads, highways, schools, defense, education, or health care that Congress has not appropriated and not approved. So Congress has a responsibility and a duty here. Congress should fund no program, should allow no Presidential expenditure to be spent on programs it deems are unworthy. It absolutely has a responsibility to ensure this President spends no money to execute policies that are plainly in violation of existing law.

This Congress has a constitutional duty, no matter what Members may feel about the substance of the issue. I have opinions on that. I oppose the President's substantive position. But as a matter of law, separation of powers, and constitutional duty, this Congress should stop the expenditure of Federal funds for projects that Congress has rejected and are not worthy of funding. Congress has deliberated these issues. This is not something it has not considered before. It has rejected this policy.

The special interests have spent, according to one independent group, $1.5 billion to try to ram through Congress an immigration plan the American people reject and that Congress has refused to pass. The President hasn't given up, and these special interests haven't given up, despite the election and despite the wishes of the American people. They want their policies and they are going to ram them through this Congress, if they possibly can, no matter what the people think. That is a threat to representative democracy. It is a threat to the laws of this country. And the Congress needs to say no.

Let us be specific now. People may think: Well, you may not expend money if you don't prosecute somebody. So how are we going to complain about that, Senator Sessions? Well, let us look at this. This is from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, which is charged with processing the applications of people who wish to enter the country lawfully. Broadcast on Monday, December 1--just this week--at 11:52. Subject: Today's email news.

USCIS is taking steps to open a new operational center in

Crystal City, a neighborhood in Arlington, Virginia, to

accommodate about 1,000 full-time, permanent Federal and

contract employees in a variety of positions and grade

levels. The initial workload will include cases filed as a

result of the executive actions on immigration announced on

November 20, 2014. Many job opportunities at the operational

center will be announced in the coming days and please

continue to monitor USAJOBS if you are interested.

This is just days from now.

Now let's put this little chart up. This briefly continues on what they published. This is right off their email.

Current vacancies include: Special Assistant GS-12.

Boy, a lot of people in the country would like to be a GS-12.

Arlington, Virginia, today. Special Assistant GS-15,

Arlington, Virginia. Today. Chief of Staff GS-15, Arlington,

Virginia. Today.

It goes on, today, today, today, today. They are rushing this through. They are determined to get this done before the American people can find

out what is happening, to raise their voice, to communicate with their Members of Congress and the Senate and stop it. This is not good for this country.

You may say: Well, Jeff, surely the President hasn't overreached in these matters. But Congress has stated you cannot enter the country unlawfully. That is a fundamental principle of our immigration law that has been on the books for many years. If you enter unlawfully, you are not entitled to work in America. And if you enter unlawfully and attempt to work and someone hires you and knows that you are illegally here, the employer is subject to criminal penalties and other penalties. That is the basic law. It has been on the books for years. The President is just wiping that off the books, colleagues.

Are we going to accept this? Are we going to allow the President to just wipe out duly passed laws to create an entirely new system of immigration that Congress refused to establish? Our laws are on the books today. He has no power to reduce and erase those laws.

How serious is this? Last night former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich--Ph.D. in history, a student of American government, author of quite a number of books--made some dramatic statements about the meaning of this Presidential action, and we should hear it, colleagues. This is the former Speaker of the House, a student of American history and government. This is what he says about what is happening today. We cannot be oblivious to this, because what happens today will set trends and policies for tomorrow. He said:

Obama funding new staff and offices without congressional

approval is step toward kingship or dictatorship. He must be

stopped now.

How much clearer can it be than that? He goes on to say, in another tweet here:

Congress should only approve very short spending bill to

set up fight in January on Obama unconstitutional power grab.

No long term CR.

Here is the third one from last night:

Our entire constitutional structure is at stake. The new

Obama power grab is the greatest threat to freedom since King

George Third.

Those are quotes from Newt Gingrich. I am telling you, this is not a little bitty matter, and we have to fully understand the nature of what is happening here. Congress refused to pass what the President is enacting right now by Executive order and he has no power to do it. He should not be doing it. He may well be stopped by lawsuits in years to come, but Congress has the power to stop it now. We don't have to allow money to be spent in Arlington, Crystal City, VA, to hire 1,000 people to process these applications.

Now, how are things going in our immigration system today? I wish I could report better circumstances than we have. The situation was grave even before this action. On May 20, last year, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council president, representing thousands of USCIS workers, issued a statement.

Colleagues, we need to know what has happened. It is unbelievable.

This is a person directly engaged with the people who do the work every day, the law officers who go out there and try to adjudicate these immigration cases.

USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp

applications instead of conducting diligent case review and

investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all

applications to be approved, discouraging proper

investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of

any applications. USCIS has been turned into an ``approval

machine.''

This is an absolute abdication of the responsibility the Congress and the American people have given to the President as the Chief Executive Officer and given all the way down to the lowest USCIS officer. They are not to be a rubberstamp machine. They are not to be an approval machine. They are to serve the interests of the American people. They are to evaluate applications and do so carefully and fairly and consistently. They are to investigate red flags.

What is he talking about when he says red flags? He is talking about threats, criminals, terrorists.

Even Secretary Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, testifying a few days ago, acknowledged that of these 4 million or 5 million people who are going to be applying for legal status in America through the President's program, there is no way their applications are going to be evaluated. If they say they came to the country in 1999, nobody is going to check on that. They are not going to see if they graduated from some school or had some job somewhere and investigate it. They are simply going to act on the paperwork they have been given. And in many cases--in the bill that President Obama supported earlier last year-- there would not be any face-to-face meetings. They wouldn't even go into an office and actually see the person. It would all be submitted by email and documents, which is highly risky, as the experts told us. They need to see the person because they may not be the person they say they are. They could just submit paperwork, get citizenship status, and nobody would have any idea whether they are worthy of being in the United States.

The situation is graver than a lot of people think. It is our duty to legitimately represent the people in our country who believe this system is supposed to work. They sent us here. We say we have an immigration law in America. Well, good. And then we end up here. It is not so good. It is not working at all.

What are we supposed to do? We are sorry, constituents. We are sorry you voted for us. I know we told you we wanted to do stuff to make this system better and we are going to end all this, but we will worry about that tomorrow--and we are going to do something.

For 40 years Congress and Presidents have been promising to fix this system. The problem is, the special interests have won every time. The special interests have blocked the kind of reforms that create a system that we know will serve our national interests, will be fair to immigrants who apply, and help the American people live better lives.

To make a couple of more points. October 28 of this year, Mr. Kenneth Palinkas, the president of the association of 12,000 officers--issued this statement:

We are still the world's rubber stamp for entry into the

United States--regardless of the ramifications of the

constant violations to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whether it's the failure to uphold the public charge law, the

abuse of our asylum procedures, the admission of Islamist

radicals, or visas for health risks, the taxpayers are being

fleeced and public safety is being endangered on a daily

basis.

That is what Mr. Palinkas said. Has anybody ever called him to testify and to lay out these dangers? Certainly not the U.S. Senate. President Obama has his secret meetings with businesses and activist groups--people with their big money and their contributions. He met with them all summer. Did he meet with Mr. Palinkas? No. Did he meet with the head of the ICE officers association? No. Mr. Palinkas pleaded and asked to be admitted so he could lay out the problems they face on a daily basis, and it was rejected.

Mr. Palinkas goes on to say:

I write today to warn the general public that this

situation is about to get exponentially worse--and more

dangerous. America dodged a bullet when the Senate

immigration package S. 744 was blocked by the House. That

legislation would have been a financial security catastrophe.

But news reports have leaked information to the public of a

USCIS management contract bid for a ``surge'' printing of 34

million green cards and employment authorization documents to

be provided to foreign nationals, a bid that predicts the

Administration's promised executive amnesty.

Think about what this officer is telling us. It is true. He goes on to say:

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 this happen. Express your concern to your

Senators and Congressmen before it is too late.

That was October 28 of this year. He also issued this statement on May 20 of last year:

USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens that, in

accordance with law should be placed into immigration removal

proceedings before a federal judge, are prevented from

exercising their authority and responsibility to issue

Notices to Appear.

It goes on to say:

The attitude of USCIS management--These are the political

appointees, appointed

by the President to execute his views of immigration.

The attitude of USCIS management is not that the Agency

serves the American public or the laws of the United States,

or public safety and national security, but instead that the

agency serves illegal aliens and the attorneys which

represent them.

What a statement. Who is the government supposed to represent? We represent the people of the United States who are lawfully here.

While we believe in treating all people with respect, we

are concerned that this agency tasked with such a vital

security mission is too greatly influenced by special

interest groups.

Boy, that is the truth. We had in one day Microsoft--a great company--demanding that more workers be allowed to come into the country so that they can work, in the same week they announced laying off 18,000.

In September of this year, Mr. Palinkas issued this statement:

Many millions come legally to the U.S. through our wide

open immigration policy every year--whether as temporary

visitors, lifetime immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers,

foreign students, or recipients of our ``visa waiver

program'' which allows people to come and go freely. Yet our

government cannot effectively track these foreign visitors

and immigrants. And those who defraud authorities will face

no consequences at all in most cases. Our caseworkers cannot

even do in-person interviews for people seeking citizenship,

they cannot enforce restrictions on welfare use, and they

even lack the basic office space to properly function.

Applications for entry are rubber-stamped, the result of

grading agents by speed rather than discretion. We've become

a clearinghouse for the world.

Now that is the truth and anybody who knows what is going on in our system knows it. The President's action will beget even more lawlessness in the future. It is a statement to the world: No matter what the law says, you come to America, you get to stay. You will not be deported.

This is a recipe for disaster. It cannot work. What we need in this country, and can achieve if Congress and the President will act, is to create a lawful system and enforce the law. We need to make it a system that we can be proud of and that is fairly applied. We need a system that ends the ability of people to defraud our country and come in unlawfully, and to serve the interest of working Americans.

That is what it is all about: Are we serving their interest, or are we listening to special interests--political groups and activist groups, politicians who think they gain political advantage, and certain businesses who want more, cheaper labor? Don't we represent the vast majority of the people? Isn't there a national interest--an interest of the American people? Somebody needs to defend that interest. It has been lost in this process.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, in a few moments Senators in this Chamber will cast one of the most important votes they will ever cast in the Senate.

With this vote, Senators will make a simple but vital decision. It is a decision that will steer the future course of our country and our Congress--and particularly the Senate.

With this vote, Senators will decide whether their allegiance is to President Obama and his agenda, Majority Leader Reid and the open borders lobby, or whether their allegiance is to the American worker, the constitutional order, the American people, and this Nation's sovereign laws.

The choice could not be more clear. Do we as a Nation have the right to control our borders? Do we? That is the question every Senator will be answering today.

President Obama has announced to the entire world that he will implement a sweeping unilateral Executive amnesty--only after the midterm elections, not before, as he promised, because there is concern among his Members that it wouldn't be politically popular. This amnesty by Executive order will give work permits--contrary to law--and Social Security numbers--contrary to law--to as many as 5 to 6 million people, the White House tells us, to people who are here illegally, illegally entered the United States, illegally overstayed their visas or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

With a casual stroke of a pen, the President is preparing to nullify the immigration laws of the United States. He is preparing to wipe away the lawful protections which every American worker in this country is entitled to. He is preparing to assume for himself--himself alone--the absolute power to decide who can enter our country, who can work in our country, who can live in our country by the millions, regardless of what the law says, what the citizenry says, and what the Constitution says. These immigration rules--who can come, work, and live in the country--are the bedrock of any Nation's immigration laws and sovereignty. The President has already erased much of these rules-- erased them. And his planned Executive action would remove much of what remains of them. It would establish for people all over the world the principle that if you can get into America, you can stay in America, and work in America.

Let's consider the current state of immigration enforcement. Immigration officers already tell us--people who do this every day-- that they have been barred from fulfilling their oaths to follow the law. They filed a lawsuit claiming they were required to violate their oath. The president of the ICE officers' council warned: ``ICE agents''--Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers--``are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely on the charges of illegal entry or visa overstay--the two most frequently violated sections of immigration law.''

The policies of this administration represent an open invitation to millions who enter the United States on visas each year. People come lawfully on visas for certain periods of time. It encourages them to unlawfully overstay. And why not? If no one is going to deport you, why would you return if you choose not to return to your home country?

And what about the border? We know from the substantial influx of illegal immigrants from Central America that all you have to do is show up at the border, demand entry, and you will likely be released into the United States. You may be asked to return for some sort of hearing in the future. But people are not tracked as to where they will go and not one of those people will be looked for if they fail to show up. That is not happening anywhere in the system.

Consider this recent report from the Associated Press: ``As of early September, only 319 of the more than 59,000 immigrants who were caught traveling with their families have been returned to Central America.'' That means that more than 99 percent of those apprehended with their families have so far been allowed to stay. That is in addition to the tens of thousands who have entered without their families and who have been promptly released also into the United States on some sort of bond or promise to show up for court, and many adults from Central America who have been released as well.

As President Obama's former ICE Director, John Sandweg, explained: ``If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are near zero.''

And who picks up the tab? Local school districts, local police departments, local taxpayers.

No nation can have a policy where people can simply show up at the border and demand to be released into the country, especially since the policy is never to seek to apprehend persons who don't show up so they can be deported. But that is what is happening right now under the policies of this administration. It simply is. The American people need to understand that. They need to know more fully how serious this situation is.

The American people are beginning to understand that these policies represent in truth a collapse of immigration enforcement.

What about our asylum system? Here is what the House Judiciary Committee reports on asylum, which is when we accept people from around the globe who are subjected to serious oppression.

Asylum approval rates overall have increased dramatically

in recent years. The vast majority of aliens who

affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their claims.

At the same time, an internal Department of Homeland Security

report shows that at least 70 percent of asylum cases contain

proven or possible fraud.

Seventy percent contain proven or possible fraud. Still they are being approved overwhelmingly for entry, and once approved for asylum, they are entitled to all social welfare benefits.

What about our visa screening process, the people who come on visas? Here is what Kenneth Palinkas had to say on that. Mr. Palinkas is the president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, representing 12,000 immigration caseworkers and adjudications officers at the USCIS. Here is just a fraction of his dramatic report delineating and detailing the problems they are facing today.

USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp

applications instead of conducting diligent case reviews and

investigations. The culture at USCIS encourages all

applications to be approved, discouraging proper

investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of

any application. USCIS has been turned into an ``approval

machine.''

This is the man who represents the officers doing this everyday, and what he says is true.

He goes on to say in this letter: ``The attitude of USCIS management is not that the Agency serves the American public or the laws of the United States, or public safety and national security, but instead that the Agency serves the illegal aliens and the attorneys which represent them.''

Surely this cannot be what is happening in our legal system.

He goes on to say this:

Large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not

effectively enforced for illegal immigrants and visa holders,

including laws regarding public charges as well as many other

provisions, as USCIS lacks the resources to adequately screen

and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants seeking

status adjustment. There is also insufficient screening and

monitoring of student visas.

So the contention that this administration is deporting record numbers of illegal aliens is plainly false. Removals have dropped dramatically.

Now consider what will happen to our system if the President goes through with his plan that he has announced after the election to provide unilateral Executive amnesty by Executive order to illegal workers and visa violators here today. What immigration law will be left after that?

The government is not enforcing the law with respect to visa overstays, illegal entry, illegal work, asylum fraud, document fraud, workplace fraud, and on and on and on. We ignore immigration law for young people, for older people who came with younger people, for the parents of older people who came as younger people, for people with relatives, for people traveling alone, for people traveling with families, for people who entered before a certain date, for people who entered after a certain date, people who entered through an airport or seaport, for people who do show up in court, for people who don't show up in court. We have made a million excuses for not enforcing the law.

And when millions more enter illegally asking for their amnesty in the future, asking for their amnesty now that others got before them, will the President print work permits for them, too? What moral basis will remain to deny future unlawful immigrants work authorizations, jobs, and amnesty in the future?

I am sure this will make the activists, the politicians and certain billionaire executives who enjoy dinner parties at the White House, very happy that the President is doing these things. But what about what is good for America? What about what is in the interest of the American people? America is not an oligarchy. The masters of the universe don't get to meet at the White House and decide how to run this country.

When the American people learned what was in the Senate amnesty and guest worker bill that doubled the number of guest workers for which every single Senate Democrat voted, the people said no, no, no, and the House stopped the plan. But now the same groups that wrote this bill are working with the White House to extract the same benefits by Executive fiat, by Executive order. They had at least 20 secret meetings in July and August alone with the White House to plan this strategy. These measures, we are informed, would include a massive expansion in the admission of new foreign workers, including more workers for information technology giants who are laying off Americans, in fact, more than they are hiring. We learned from Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are now already being filled by foreign guest workers. Can you imagine that? We are turning out thousands of IT graduates, but two-thirds of the jobs are being filled by foreign workers, and wages are falling.

Americans wish to see record immigration levels--these high lawful levels of immigration that we have--reduced, not increased, by actually a 3-to-1 margin. But the proposal they are pushing and advocating would double the number of lawful workers while not dealing effectively with the unlawful flow.

Yet Senate Democrats are colluding with the White House to support the surge of these numbers. Studies show wage declines among all wage earners since 2009. There is a wage decline among all American workers. Wages have fallen since 2009, but the declines on a percentage basis are the greatest for our lower income workers. The people having the hardest time getting by have received the biggest percentage drop. Does this not concern our leaders? Has no one paid any attention to this fact?

So far our Senate Democratic Caucus has enabled the administration's lawless scheme every step of the way. Not one Senate Democrat has supported the House plan that would stop this Executive amnesty.

The House-passed legislation would stop it. It is waiting on the floor of the Senate to be called up for a vote. Not one Member of the Democratic leadership has even demanded that Mr. Reid bring it up for a vote. Not one has pledged to stay here in Washington every day until this Executive amnesty is stopped.

But it is not too late. We are going to have a vote soon.

Where is the courage? Where is the independence that Senators should show? Where is the willingness to stand up to the political class, the lobbyists, the party bosses, the elite set in the Nation's Capital, and to stand by the side of the American people--indeed, to defend the institutional powers of Congress which alone has the power to make law, not the President. He cannot make law. He cannot give someone the right to work in America when the law says they are not able to work if they entered the country unlawfully. Until that happens, I have to say that every Senate Democrat is the President's partner in this scheme as surely as if they wrote the Executive orders themselves and as surely as if they were sitting right next to the interest groups huddling with White House aides to craft these orders.

So I have a message today for all the special interests, the globalist elites, the activists, and the cynical, vote-counting political plotters who are meeting in secret at the White House, and the message is this: You don't get to sit in a room and rewrite the laws of the United States of America. No, sir. Congress writes the laws. You may not be used to people telling you no, but I am telling you no today.

It is critical that our Senate Democrats be willing to say no today when we vote.

I also have a message for the American people: You have been right from the beginning. You have justly demanded that our borders be controlled, our laws enforced, and that at long last immigration policy serve the needs of our own people first. For this virtuous and legitimate demand, you have been demeaned, even scorned by the governing class, the cosmopolitan elites. They know so much. They want you to believe that your concerns are somehow illegitimate, that you are wrong for being worried about your jobs or your schools or your hospitals or your communities or your national security.

These elite citizens of the world speak often of their concern about people living in poverty overseas. Yet they turn a blind eye to the poverty and suffering in their own country. They don't want you to speak up either. They don't want you to be heard. They don't want you to feel you have a voice. But you do have a voice, American people, and your message is being heard. I am delivering that message to the Senate today.

This is a moment of choosing for every Senator. Where will history record that you stood in the face of the President's promise to unlawfully nullify immigration law in America?

There will be a motion made soon that will allow the Senate to block the President's planned Executive amnesty. This is simply to pass the legislation the House has already passed. This is a commonsense Senate action.

If you believe we are a sovereign nation with a right to control our borders--and don't we have that right?--then you must vote yes. Let's bring it up before this unlawful Executive order for amnesty occurs.

If you go along with the idea that America is an oligarchy run by a group of special interests meeting at the White House to rewrite the immigration laws of America, then vote no.

The Nation is watching today. This is an issue of extreme importance for the American people and for the rule of law. Will you at long last break from your majority leader, Democratic colleagues, or will you once again surrender your vote to Mr. Reid and the groups meeting in secret at the White House to thereby enable their lawless actions?

In its almost 2 years of existence--this Congress that has been in existence here going on 2 years now has failed to pass a single appropriations bill on time, and now we are facing another CR. Pass everything--one vote to fund the entire government and not a single amendment is being allowed.

This Senate has violated the laws that limited spending that we voted for and spent more than allowed. It has blocked amendments to such a degree that the entire heritage of free debate and free rights to amend laws has been violated and damaged substantially in this Senate.

If we leave town without having passed a bill to block this Executive amnesty, then it will be a permanent stain on the Senate, the constitutional order, and this entire Democratic caucus.

I know the pressure is to stay hitched and stay in line, but Senate Democrats do have the power to vote differently. Senator Manchin voted differently last time, and others can also. It is time to stand up and be counted for the working people in this country and enact legislation in their interest.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it brings me no pleasure to make the remarks I feel compelled to make today. I think it is important for us to understand how we, the Senate of the United States, are operating.

The Senate--the legislative body heralded by the late Senator Robert C. Byrd as the second great senate in history, the first being the Roman Senate--is being eroded beyond recognition by the tactics utilized by Senate Majority Leader Reid and those who support him in that process.

Today is Constitution Day. It was Senator Byrd who moved legislation to declare today Constitution Day. Under that Constitution, there are two bodies in the Congress, the House and the Senate, and the Senate has always been known as the body where great debates are held, with an open ability to amend and discuss, and the great issues of the day are laid out. That is what we are about.

But the Senate has changed dramatically since I have been in the Senate, some 18 years, and not for the better--not for the better of the American people. It might be good for politicians, but it is not good for the American people and it is not good for the public interest, in my view.

As has been happening time and again, we are once again today, at nigh on the eleventh hour, being asked to vote for a spending bill before we recess. We have to recess, you see. Why? So Senators can go home to campaign, but we are being paid, whether we are here or back home or vacationing or whatever. Why don't we stay a few days longer if necessary? Oh, no. We have to get out of Washington and go back home and campaign.

This continuing resolution, covering a massive amount of spending that no Member can fully comprehend at this late hour and nobody can meaningfully analyze, scrutinize or investigate--once again, we are being asked to fund the entire government of the United States in one catch-all bill, with no opportunity for a single amendment. There is no way to improve the legislation or to engage in meaningful consideration of our financial status.

Aren't we facing a crisis financially? Hasn't the Congressional Budget Office told us we are on an unsustainable financial path? Yes. Are we going to discuss that at all? No. We are going to bring up this bill, vote it through, and go home and campaign.

This denies the American people the opportunity to know what is being passed and to analyze and hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions. So the American people can't comprehend or study what is behind this massive bill either.

Once again, as a tactic, this bill is being rushed through under the threat of a government shutdown. Without a funding mechanism, the government would shut down October 1 if we don't pass an appropriations bill to fund it because the Government of the United States cannot operate and spend a dime Congress hasn't appropriated. That is a fundamental constitutional power.

Yes, there is a problem out there. How did it happen that we are getting toward the end of the session and nothing has been done? I will talk about that.

Why is this happening? Is it because we don't have time? No, it is not because we don't have time. The reality--and I will say this, and I have not been contradicted on it by any Member of this Senate, to my knowledge. It is not a lack of time. We haven't done anything this week or last week, and we have next week and the next week if need be. We can vote 20 times a day. It doesn't take a lot of time to vote. People can have their ideas to improve legislation and bring them up and argue for them and get an up-or-down vote, yes or no.

So why is this happening? The purpose is to protect Members from having to cast votes that their constituents might disagree with, to protect them from being placed on record one way or the other on important issues facing the Nation. That is the problem. It is politics first, sad to say. It just is.

We have not voted on a single appropriations bill in the Senate this year, not one. Not 1 of the 12 appropriations bills that are required to fund our government each year has come before the Senate. Committees are being bypassed, secret deals rule the day, and millions of Americans are thereby robbed of their ability to observe and participate in the legislative process. They are denied the ability to write their Senators and say: I hear you have an amendment coming up on thus and so. Vote for it or vote against it. That is all being eliminated in this process.

It has been so long since we followed the regular order, I think it is necessary for me to share with the people and our colleagues what is supposed to happen and what is not happening.

Each year Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution which outlines the spending goals and limits for the upcoming year. Then, based on the spending levels contained in the budget resolution, the individual authorization committees are to report out authorization bills. For example, they are to review the Defense Department. We don't do that anymore. They are to review the Defense Department. We normally do a Defense authorization bill--but it hasn't been done this year--to authorize certain spending and policy changes, utilizing the expertise of the members of the committees to shape where the spending is supposed to go, laying out priorities, setting and making decisions about what we can afford and what we can't afford, evaluating whether programs are effective, to serve the citizens of the United States.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do? This is the way we eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. This is the way we stop it.

After the authorization committees do their work, the Appropriations Committee actually is the one to fund the government. The subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee are tasked with producing appropriations bills for

each area of the budget, which are to be individually brought to the floor of the Senate, debated, and amended on the floor in the light of day before the American people. Each year the Senate is supposed to consider individually 12 appropriations bills. This gives each Member and their constituents a chance to review and analyze every line of the bill and to offer suggestions for saving money, improving efficiency, and better serving taxpayers--which we are failing to do and we need to do. We don't have a dime to waste, and we are wasting money regularly throughout our government, as anybody who has studied it knows.

Under the tenure of Senator Reid, the budgeting process has been dismantled. We have only passed one budget in the last 5 years, although the Budget Act says we should pass a budget by April 15 every year. Our committees stand idle, and the floor is one run not for the high purpose of legislative debate but frankly as an extension of a Democratic political campaign committee.

So the Senate has ceased consideration of appropriations bills altogether, relying more and more on autopilot resolutions and catch- all continuing resolutions and omnibus spending packages.

When I first came to the Senate, almost every single Senate spending bill was debated. It was brought to the floor. A Senator was embarrassed if they didn't bring every bill to the floor. Sometimes they had two or three that couldn't be completed. They would be completed at the end and passed as an omnibus bill, and people would complain. Now none of them are passed--zero. We go year by year without debating a single stand-alone spending bill on the Senate floor. So a Senator has to ask, what are we here for?

One of the worst tactics the majority leader has used to suppress Senators' rights and block open debate is a technique called filling the tree. Under that tactic he uses his majority rights to keep Senators from offering amendments as representatives of their States and the American people.

Senator, a bill is coming on the floor, and you can't stand and give an amendment? Right, you cannot. He fills the amendment tree, we can't file another amendment, and he refuses to allow amendments to occur. His majority, having written the bill with President Obama--they move the legislation, and there is no real ability to challenge it.

It is not the way the Senate was supposed to be set up. The Senate was always to be set up to allow individual Senators and the minority rights to be able to influence legislation and to highlight what is in it.

Blocking amendments prevents this body from working its will, prohibits legislation from being improved, and protects Senators from being held accountable by the voters on the great issues of the day. I don't think there is any doubt about that. And that is the reason it is being done.

But we can do things the right way. It absolutely can be done. Members ought to be able to offer amendments. It just turns into a real debate, and people get to push for the agendas they believe in and advocate for their position. Who knows, 10 years from today an agenda not popular today will be popular then. That is the way we are supposed to do it. Senators being prohibited from offering amendments keeps the Senate from being a critical sounding board for the issues of the day.

Our majority leader has used this tactic, filling the tree, 90 times during his tenure. To put this in perspective, the 6 previous majority leaders filled the tree only 49 times, all total. Mr. Reid has filled the tree on 40 more occasions than all 6 previous majority leaders. This stops amendments from being voted on, from being offered, and that is what is happening.

The majority leader has shut down one of the most important functions that Senators exercise to defend and advance the interests of their constituents.

It doesn't stop there. The Senate is supposed to be Washington's cooling saucer. That is why on many important and controversial matters 60 votes are required to adopt a measure or to confirm a nominee, and, importantly, to change the rules of the Senate requires a two-thirds vote to move such a question towards final passage.

That is, a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate. Thus the two-thirds vote threshold is critical because it ensures the rules have meaning, they have power, they apply, and in years to come will not be likely changed, and protect minority rights in the Senate. The rules will apply when parties are in power and when they are out of power. To change Senate rules requires a broad consensus across the body. This protects the rights of individual Senators to be heard on the issues of the day. It is a key component of the Senate's heritage of discussion and debate and openness.

Yet Mr. Reid, in an exercise of brute political force, last year changed the Senate rules by a simple majority vote. He ignored the counsel of the Senate Parliamentarian who ruled his tactic was contrary to the rules of the Senate. The Parliamentarian is our preeminent protector of Senate practices, and over the years different Parliamentarians have done a good job. In one stroke the majority leader changed the nature of this august body, perhaps forever.

So today the Democratic Senators who empower Mr. Reid and the Senators who give him power and support him are not even allowed to consider important legislation either, effectively. Republicans or Democrats cannot offer amendments. They cannot even fully debate the issues. Huge bills are rushed through in the waning hours of a session. Systematically the rights of Senators to provide equal representation to each State are being dismantled.

But it gets worse still. As we know, President Obama has promised that after the midterms he would issue executive amnesty to 5 to 6 million people--immigrants who are unlawfully here, unlawfully entering the United States. This Executive order, Presidential order--fiat-- amnesty--would include work permits for millions of illegal workers along with photo IDs and Social Security numbers, and it would include more guest workers. So businesses can bring in even more guest workers at a time of high unemployment and falling wages.

The President and the immigration lobbyists and business groups and activist groups are meeting secretly in the White House trying to implement through executive action the same disastrous, wrong policies that were rejected by Congress through the House of Representatives. The House said no to this. Once the public learned what was in the Senate amnesty and guest worker bill, they declared, no, no, no, and the House heard it. So the President is now conspiring to go around the Congress.

What did Mr. Reid say? His duty is to represent the Congress, and we are a coequal branch with the executive branch and the executive branch doesn't have the power to change the immigration law that is in a law, in effect. The United States law says you cannot work in the United States--flat out, you cannot be hired if you are in the country illegally.

The President doesn't have any power to change that. The President can come back to the Senate and advocate it and see if he can pass that. But the Senate hasn't changed the law. You shouldn't be able to work in America if you are not lawfully here. Taking a job from a lawful immigrant? This is fundamentally wrong.

What does Mr. Reid say about this? Does he defend the prerogative of Congress, the Senate? No, he doesn't. Instead, he has told the President to ``go real big'' and bypass Congress. Do the biggest amnesty you can do.

Majority Leader Reid has blocked this Senate from considering the House-passed legislation that is sitting at the desk in this Senate that would stop the President from doing this. He would use legitimate congressional power to deny funding to execute any such bogus, unlawful amnesty plan. The Constitution and the American people's interests are at stake here. But Mr. Reid is determined completely to ensure this executive amnesty happens anyway, and he is determined to do whatever he can to see that it does happen. The principles that govern our political system, separation of powers, and public debate are not important here at this time.

But, colleagues, I would note that we have to recognize Mr. Reid does not operate all on his own. He operates with the support and empowerment of a Democratic Caucus that allows this to occur. We saw this vividly when I made a motion some weeks ago that would allow us to take action to stop the executive amnesty. I moved that we strike his filling the tree, remove it, clear the amendment tree, and allow new amendments to be brought up to stop executive amnesty. That would have been to bar the executive action, and every Senate Democrat voted with Mr. Reid--except the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin--that would enable the President to go forward with his unlawful amnesty decree. It is unbelievable.

The posture we are in is the House has passed a bill that would stop the President from going forward, clearly. It has already passed the House of Representatives. It is sitting on our desk and the majority leader will not allow it to be brought up. Why?

He has the votes. Why doesn't he bring it up and vote it down? The reason is he wants to protect his Members. He believes in this policy. He is advocating this policy. But he thinks if he brings it up for a vote, his Members might find out that the people back home are not happy.

More than three-fourths of the American people believe the President is exceeding his authority if he goes forward with this executive amnesty. So why can't we have a vote on it? Because of politics. Protect our Members. They don't need to take tough votes. Let's get out of Washington and go home and play politics in our home State.

Nobody in the Senate Democratic Congress has spoken up to support the House bill. Some pretend or hope the President won't do it. What does that mean? Nothing.

But a vote means something. So let's vote. You are either for it or not.

Every Member who supports Mr. Reid--and we will have another vote on this--is as much a supporter of President Obama's unlawful amnesty as if they were sitting in a room helping him sign the order.

This is the time. It is either stop now or it may never be stopped. We need to vote on it. People need to be held accountable. Every American needs to know where their Senator stands on the President's unlawful assumption of power to violate plain law of the United States to carry out a political agenda he has that the American people reject. It is that simple. It is about power and it is about politics and it is not about what is best for America.

All of us owe our constituents a full, open, and deliberative process where the great issues of the day are debated with their scrutiny and the people's scrutiny. We receive their input with our rights respected, our responsibilities honored, and our Senate strengthened in the process and respected in the process. The democratic process is messy sometimes, sometimes contentious, and often difficult, but it is precisely this legislative tug of war, this back-and-forth, which forges a national consensus. People have to stick their necks out and say what they believe on important issues facing America.

It is a process our Founders utilized, men of the Enlightenment they were, to find what truth is. Truth, they believe and I believe, is an objective reality. Words have meaning. Principles are valid. Things are true and things are false. Their theory was you have a full and open, robust debate and everybody says more through that process. It is the best way for you to tell what the truth is, and based on what the truth is you can make a good judgment for what is best for America. It is the same theory we use in jury trials: cross-examination of witnesses, bring in evidence, 12 good men and women judge the evidence in an attempt to find what the truth is.

Some of this crowd today, this post-modern group, they don't even believe in truth, if you want to know the truth. While secret deals may appear to keep the trains running on time, they also keep them running too often in the wrong direction. Only through a renewed, open legislative process carried out in the full light of day can we clean up this government, forge a real national consensus, confront the difficult choices we face, achieve accountability in Washington, allow our Senators and Congressmen to be there on the front lines and sink or swim on how they perform.

We are not guaranteed office. The American people don't work for us, we work for them, and to act as we have in the past returns power thereby to the everyday citizen.

It is time for us to restore once again the great Senate of the United States.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday I cast votes against the nominations of Stephen Burns and Jeffrey Baran to be Commissioners on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I hope I am wrong in my conclusion. The NRC is an incredibly important body at this time in the history of civilian nuclear generation. While low natural gas prices puts economic strain on our fleet of nuclear generators, the NRC has to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits that its regulations provide. In the past the NRC has had talented scientists and nuclear experts compose the Commission. But for these two vacancies the President has nominated lawyers with legal and policy experience. Neither Stephen Burns nor Jeffrey Baran has the technical experience, I believe, that will enable them to effectively serve on the NRC.

Moreover, Stephen Burns--during his service with the NRC as General Counsel--authored several important legal memoranda that enabled then- NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko to improperly undermine the licensing of Yucca Mountain resulting in severe criticism by a Federal court. He also provided a legal opinion that improperly advised Chairman Jaczko that he, alone, could use emergency powers to conduct the business of the Commission in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. This was not a close question, in my opinion. Mr. Burns should not have issued such an opinion. While Mr. Burns is familiar with the Commission's procedures, he has no technical nuclear power experience and I am not convinced that he will resist interpreting the law with a political bent. For Mr. Baran--a House Committee staffer who has worked for many years for an opponent of Yucca Mountain--there is not evidence that he can impartially consider highly political Commission decisions.

This critically important Commission must be led by persons who are able to be competent and independent persons of strength. Reluctantly, I have concluded that I must oppose the nominations.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor a courageous young Alabamian Gabe Griffin. Gabe is a 9-year-old boy who lives with his family in Shelby County, AL.

Right now, Gabe lives like any other child, but that is expected to change soon. Without a cure, Gabe's doctors expect him to be in a wheelchair by the time he is 12 years old and lose his life around the age of 20. Gabe suffers from a fatal genetic mutation called Duchenne muscular dystrophy, DMD, which is caused by an absence of dystrophin, a protein that helps keep the body's muscles intact. The onset of this fatal disorder occurs during early childhood and causes generalized weakness and muscle wasting that increases over time. While medical advances have led to some very promising clinical trials, to date there is no cure and no one has survived. DMD affects approximately 1 in every 3,500 boys, which adds up to about 15,000 boys in America.

Symptoms usually appear in male children before age 6, and progressive proximal muscle weakness associated with a loss of muscle mass is observed first. This weakness eventually spreads to the arms, neck, and other areas, and most patients are wheelchair dependent by the age of 12.

Gabe can currently walk, breathe, and feed himself like any other child. Since his diagnosis, his family has been relentlessly striving to raise awareness and increase research funding for DMD. They play an active role in the fight against this devastating disease and are tireless in their efforts to find a cure.

Recently, a cross-country bicycle ride to raise awareness of DMD was completed. Wes Bates, a student at Indiana University; Michael Staley, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Bachus; and their support team rode 3,300 miles from Astoria, OR, on June 28 to Mobile, AL, on August 14. They worked to educate people across America about DMD, and the funds they raised will be used to raise awareness and advance current research.

Through his struggle, Gabe has continued to bring happiness and light to those around him. He is a wonderful and courageous boy. It is my honor to recognize Gabe Griffin and his family for their incredible efforts to defeat Duchenne muscular disorder. It is my hope that with their continued efforts, Gabe may live to see the cure of DMD.

I thank the Presiding Officer and appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on an important subject tonight.

Earlier this week I spoke about the President's promise that he would issue an Executive amnesty, a grant of amnesty to 5 or 6 million people by some form of Executive order with his own pen. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo ID's, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

The Senate Democratic Conference has supported and enabled the President's actions and blocked--so far--every effort to stop it. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this Executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote at least. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the President's partner in his planned lawless acts. Plainly the President must execute the law that was passed by Congress, and the law does not allow for unlawful immigrants to work in the U.S. It doesn't allow for many other things they are suggesting the President may plan to do by Executive order.

Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation's immigration laws and how it is creating unwise and unlawful policies. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled?

How did we get to the point where the Democratic Party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America? And we are at that point, colleagues.

Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said:

Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration,

I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes real

big.

That is the majority leader of the Senate. He intends to do nothing in the Senate to stop the President's actions. But colleagues, we know better. This body is not run by one man. We don't have a dictator in the great Senate. Every Member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid could do such a thing to block this Senate from voting in a way that would stop the President's Executive actions is to not support him in his plan.

Every Senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents, not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests but the American interests, the workers' interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don't have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.

Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the President will circumvent Congress to issue Executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the President to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.

Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid's statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this Executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.

In effect, the entire Senate Democratic Congress has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House--what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House--maybe even more so today--to move forward with Executive action anyway, no matter what the people think, no matter what Congress, the people's House, votes on.

Politico reports that ``White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.'' Now that is a quote from Politico. Twenty meetings with legal experts, immigration advocates, and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the President's order. So who are these so- called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren't in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren't sought.

No, White House officials are meeting with the world's most powerful corporate immigration lobbyists and activists who think Border Patrol is for the little people. We know better. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world, we know, don't care much about old fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, immigration control, let alone the constitutional separation of powers or even the consistent and even-handed enforcement of plain law, passed by the elected representatives of the American people in due fashion.

Well, don't you get it? They believe they are always supposed to get whatever it is they want. They are used to that. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, one report says they have spent $1.5 billion since 2007 trying to pass their desired immigration bill--$1.5 billion. They think whatever they want is good for America. They tried and tried and tried to pass the bill through Congress, but the American people said: No, no, no. So they decided to just go to the President. They decide to go to President Obama, and we will insist that he implement these measures through Executive fiat. And Senate Democrats have apparently said: Well, that is just a wonderful idea. We support that. Just do it. Go big. But, Mr. President, wait a little bit. Wait until after the election. We don't want the voters to hold us accountable for what you are doing. We want to pretend we in the Senate have nothing to do with it.

One of the groups that has joined the chorus of special interests demanding Executive action on immigration is FWD.us, run by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He just turned 30, and I understand he is worth about $28 billion.

Mr. Zuckerberg has been very busy recently. One of his fellow billionaires,

Mr. Carlos Slim--maybe the world's richest man--invited Mr. Zuckerberg down to Mexico City to give a speech. What did Mr. Zuckerberg promote in his speech? Well, this is a report of it.

I guess I will first note that young Mr. Zuckerberg maybe doesn't know there is a deep American tradition--a tradition in most developed nations--that you don't go to a foreign capital to criticize your own government. I suppose he doesn't know about that. They probably didn't teach him about that when he was at one of the elite schools he attended.

This is what he said in Mexico City:

We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of

immigrants. And it's a policy unfit for today's world.

Well, the ``masters of the universe'' are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don't extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.

I have another article from late last fall that was printed in Business Insider about Mr. Zuckerberg's actions. The headline is ``Mark Zuckerberg Just Spent More Than $30 Million Buying 4 Neighboring Houses For Privacy.'' The article says:

Mark Zuckerberg just made an unusual purchase.

Well, four purchases.

Facebook's billionaire founder bought four homes

surrounding his current home near Palo Alto, Mercury News

Reports. The houses cost him more than $30 million, including

one 2,600 square-foot home that cost $14 million. (His own

home is twice as large at 5,000 square-feet and cost half as

much.)

Larry Page made a similar move a few years ago so he could

build a 6,000-square-foot mansion. But Zuckerberg's reason is

different. He doesn't want to live in excess, he just wants a

little privacy.

That is a world the average American doesn't live in.

So Mr. Zuckerberg, who has become the top spokesman for expanding the admission of foreign workers, championed the Senate immigration bill for which all of our Democratic colleagues voted. One of the things the bill did was double the supply of low-wage foreign workers brought into the United States for companies such as Facebook.

We have been told for a long time--and most of us have heard this repeatedly--that there is a shortage of STEM and IT workers. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This has been the central selling point of these massive demands for increases in foreign worker programs across the board--programs that bring in workers for every sector in the U.S. economy. But we know otherwise from the nation's leading academics, people who studied this issue and are professionals in it. I have a recent op-ed here from USA TODAY which reports that there is actually not a shortage but a surplus of Americans who have been trained in the STEM and IT fields and that this is why wages have not increased since 1999.

If you have a shortage of workers in a field such as information technology or science and mathematics, wages go up, do they not? If wages are not up and are basically down since 1999, I think the case for our free-market friends is pretty clear--we don't have a shortage.

So rich high-tech companies are using the H-1B visa program to keep wages down and to hire less expensive workers from abroad. Indeed, the same companies demanding more guest workers are laying off American workers in droves.

I would like to read some excerpts from that op-ed published in USA TODAY. The article was recently co-authored by five of the nation's experts on labor markets and the guest worker program. I think it tells a story that has not been refuted. We have partisans and advocates who have been claiming there is a shortage in these fields, but the experts say no. And since they have been speaking out on this issue, we have seen no real data that would dispute what they say in this article dated July 27, 2014.

Headline: ``Bill Gates' tech worker fantasy.''

Subheadline: ``Silicon Valley has created an imaginary staffing shortage.''

Business executives and politicians endlessly complain that

there is a ``shortage'' of qualified Americans and that the

U.S. must admit more high-skilled guest workers to fill jobs

in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math.

This claim is echoed by everyone from President Obama and

Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.

Yet within the past month, two odd things occurred: Census

reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a

STEM job, and Microsoft announced plans to downsize its

workforce by 18,000 jobs.

The five writers of this article--referring to themselves--go on to say:

None of us have been able to find any credible efforts to

support the IT industry's assertions of labor shortages.

The article was written by Ron Hira, Paula Stephan, Hal Salzman, Michael Teitelbaum, who has recently written a book on this subject, and Norm Matloff. These are labor economic experts who have studied these issues for years. Many of them have testified before Congress. They say:

None of us have been able to find any credible evidence to

support the IT industry's assertions of labor shortages.

What a statement that is.

They go on to write--they all signed this article together--that:

If a shortage did exist, wages would be rising as companies

try to attract scarce workers. Instead, legislation that

expanded visas for IT personnel during the 1990s has kept

average wages flat over the past 16 years. Indeed, guest

workers have become the predominant source of new hires in

these fields.

The `predominate source of new hires' in information technology fields is coming through guest worker programs from abroad.

They go on to say:

Those supporting even greater expansion seem to have

forgotten about the hundreds and thousands of American high-

tech workers who are being shortchanged--by wages stuck at

1998 levels, by diminished career prospects and by repeated

rounds of layoffs.

They go on to say:

There is an ample supply of American workers who are

willing and qualified to fill high-skill jobs in this

country. The only real disagreement is whether the supply is

two or three times larger than the demand.

There is no doubt we have a surplus of IT workers. The question is whether the supply is two or three times as big as the number of job openings.

They go on to say:

Unfortunately, companies are exploiting the large existing

flow of guest workers to deny American workers access to STEM

careers and middle-class security that should come with them.

Imagine, then, how many more Americans would be frozen out of

the middle class if politicians and tech moguls succeeded in

doubling or tripling the flow of guest workers into STEM

occupations.

That is exactly what the bill before this Senate--the bill the House of Representatives rejected--would have done. It would have doubled the number of guest workers coming into America just to take jobs--coming in for the very purpose of taking a job that we need Americans to be taking.

The article goes on:

Another major, yet often overlooked, provision in the

pending legislation--

That is the bill President Obama is pushing for, the Gang of 8 bill

would grant automatic green cards to any foreign student who

earns a graduate degree in a STEM field, based on assertions

that foreign graduates of U.S. universities are routinely

being forced to leave. Such claims are incompatible with the

evidence that such graduates have many paths to stay and

work, and indeed the ``stay rates'' for visiting

international students are very high and have shown no sign

of decline. The most recent study finds that 92 percent of

Chinese Ph.D. students stay in America to work after

graduation.

So that just meant we have thousands and thousands of students graduating from schools and being sent home. That is not accurate, according to the experts who study the data.

The article continues:

The tech industry's promotion of expanded temporary visas

(such as the H-1B) and green cards is driven by a desire for

cheap, young and immobile labor. It is well documented that

loopholes enable firms to legally pay H-1Bs below their

market value and to continue the widespread age

discrimination acknowledged by many in the tech industry.

I talked to a gentleman whom I knew a little bit who worked at a computer company. He is well into his forties, maybe close to 50. I asked him what kind of security there is. He said, Well, in the tech industry these companies go and fall. I said, What happens if you were to lose your job? He said, At my age, it would be very difficult.

That was a poignant moment for me. This man, with a family, raising children, doing the right thing, is worried at his age whether he can get a job, when the majority of people being hired in these fields are H-1B guest workers.

The USA Today op-ed concludes by saying:

IT industry leaders have spent lavishly on lobbying to

promote their STEM shortage claims among legislators. The

only problem is that the evidence contradicts their self-

interested claims.

I think this is a dramatic article. It is an article by undisputed experts in their field. To my knowledge no one has disputed it. The false, tech world fantasy claims, the USA Today op-ed referred to, is an imaginary shortage, not a real shortage.

So I would pose a question to Mr. Zuckerberg, who is a brilliant man with so many fabulous qualities, and I respect that. But I read in the news that Facebook, his company, is now worth more than $200 billion. Is that not enough money to hire American workers for a change? Your company now employs roughly 7,000 people. Let's say you want to expand your workforce 10 percent or hire another 700 workers. Are you claiming you can't find 700 Americans who would take these jobs if you paid a good wage and decent benefits?

Let me just say one more thing: Facebook has 7,000 workers. Microsoft just laid off 18,000. Why doesn't Mr. Zuckerberg call his friend Mr. Gates and say: Look, I have to hire a few hundred people; do you have any resumes you can send over here? Maybe I will not have to take somebody from a foreign country for a job an unemployed U.S. citizen might take.

It is a serious matter. I want to continue to talk about this. There is this myth that we have surging employment in the high-tech industry. According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,000 layoffs in August of 2013, up 34 percent from the previous month, then up 57 percent through August 2012.

As Byron York reported, Hewlett-Packard, a high-tech company, laid off 29,000 employees in 2012--29,000. In August of 2013, Cisco announced plans to lay off 4,000 workers in addition to the 8,000 cut in the last 2 years, and Cisco was right in the White House this summer with a group of other companies demanding more workers from abroad. Cisco was signing a letter with a bunch of other companies; United Technologies has announced 3,000 layoffs this year; American Express cut 5,400 jobs; Procter and Gamble announced 5,700 jobs cut in 2012; T- Mobile announced plans to lay off 2,250 employees in 2012.

The shortage is not there. The experts tell us and the plain facts, if we look around, indicate that.

But instead FWD.us and other immigration lobbyists are working with the White House to extract Executive orders from the President that provide them with the same financial benefits that were included in the Senate bill that was rejected by the House of Representatives. One proposal would increase by as much as 800,000 the number of foreign workers admitted for the explicit purpose of taking jobs in the United States.

This is an article that talks about that. It is a matter of importance. The Associated Press article, the title of it: ``Obama Weighs Broader Move on Legal Immigration.''

President Barack Obama is considering key changes in the

nation's immigration system requested by tech, industry and

powerful interest groups--

Not by the American people was he being requested to do this, not by the national interests but by powerful special interest groups that are referred to here.

It goes on to say:

After recent White House meetings, top officials have

compiled specific recommendations from business groups and

other advocates.

``Other advocates.'' Who are they? We know the ACLU has been there. We know La Raza has been meeting there on a regular basis. It goes on. The article says:

One of the more popular requests is a change in the way

green cards are counted that would essentially free up some

800,000 additional visas the first year, advocates say.

Other requests would extend work permits to the spouses of all temporary H-1B skilled workers who have not been able to work. But how about the fact that a single mom might like that job? An unemployed single mom or a single mom who has a job prospect that would pay $3 more than the job she is now working while trying to raise a family? Or an unemployed father? Maybe they would like those jobs first.

So these actions fall on the heels of previous Executive action in which the President already acted unilaterally earlier this year to grant companies an additional 100,000 guest workers. He has already done that. In just the first year of this order, we added 100,000 guest workers by providing work authorizations to the foreign spouses of temporary guest workers. So he would increase the supply of guest workers by approximately 30,000 each year thereafter--this at a time when we have 58 million working-age Americans who are not working. Since 2009 the number of adults has increased by 13 million, while the number of people actually working has decreased by 7 million.

Median household income has dropped $2,300 since 2009. According to the National Employment Law Project, wages are down across all occupations. According to a CBS report titled ``Why American workers feel increasingly poor":

Real median hourly wages have declined across low, middle

and high income levels from 2009 to 2013, the study found. No

matter if workers were in the lowest bracket ($8.84 to $10.85

an hour) or the highest ($31.40 to $86.34) median hourly

wages declined when you take into account the impact of

inflation.

It goes on:

Across all occupations, real median hourly wages slipped

3.4 percent since 2009. While even better-paid workers saw

median hourly earnings erode, the worst hit segments were at

the bottom--

The people who got hurt the most were at the bottom--

with declines in their wages of more than 4 percent.

We have business CEOs, lobbyists, activists, immigration groups, and clever politicians who are able to demand that we have to have more workers in America even when we have a decline in wages and a decline in jobs. But what does the President do? His administration issues an Executive order to provide foreign spouses--the citizens of other countries, not American citizens--with 100,000 jobs in the United States, precious jobs that many Americans would love to have. How many American spouses struggling to support their families would benefit from one of those jobs? How many single moms would benefit from a chance to earn a better paycheck?

Our Senate Democratic friends talk about paycheck fairness repeatedly. Yet they are supporting policies that take jobs and wages directly from American women by the millions.

Immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interest and the people of the United States, not the interests of a few activist CEOs and the politicians who are catering to them. We have had 40 years of mass immigration combined with falling wages, a shrinking workplace, and exploding welfare rolls. We know that, don't we, friends and colleagues? It is time for a shift in emphasis. It is time to get our own people back to work and our communities out of poverty and our schools back on their feet.

Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas--probably the leading academic in this entire area and has been for many years--estimates that our current immigration rate results in an annual loss of more than $400 billion in wages for Americans competing with immigrant labor. Between 2000 and today the government issued nearly 30 million visas to temporary foreign workers and permanent immigrants, largely lower skilled and lower wage.

A recent Reuters poll showed that Americans wish to see record immigration reduced, not increased, by a huge 3-to-1 margin, as the Gang of 8 bill would have done.

Another poll from pollster Kellyanne Conway recently showed that 80 percent of Americans think companies should hire from among the existing unemployed rather than bringing in new workers from abroad to fill these jobs. Yet Senate Democrats have unanimously supported legislation to double the annual supply of labor brought into the United States.

Some people think this is agricultural work. Not so. The increase in immigration under that bill would be more than 90 percent nonagricultural work. These jobs are going to be taken by anyone. So what about the good, decent and patriotic citizens of our country who fight our wars, who obey our laws, who follow our rules, and want a better future for their children? Should their needs not come first?

As the National Review explained, ``we are a nation with an economy-- not an economy with a nation.'' We cannot put the parochial demands of a few powerful CEOs ahead of an entire nation's hopes, dreams, and aspirations.

The basic social contract is that citizens agree to follow the law, pay their taxes, devote their love and loyalty to their country, and in exchange the nation commits to preserve and protect and serve their interests, safeguard their freedom, and return to them in kind their first allegiance of loyalty.

The job of elected officials is to answer to the people who sent them to Washington, not to scorn them, not to demean them, not to mock them, not to sell their jobs and dreams to the highest bidder.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is appropriate that the Senate take note on occasion of those who ably and honestly serve the country and their fellow man. Our government has many who do so every day.

The Reverend Joseph Day was born in rural Dixons Mill, AL, being one of eight children. He grew up in Toulminville, near Mobile, AL, and was a contemporary of baseball great Hank Aaron. They played baseball together and both attended the Greater Morningstar Missionary Baptist Church.

He started work as a U.S. government civilian employee at Brookley Air Force Base in Mobile. When Brookley closed, Day transferred to what is now Robins Air Force Base, in Warner Robins, GA, retiring after 40 years of service. After returning to Mobile, he then spent 17 years working for Volkert, Inc., in Mobile.

He was passionate about helping others. He served as executive director of the Macon, GA chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and while in Macon was called to preach. Returning to Mobile, he founded the House of Joshua Christian Center Church where he pastored until his death. His influence is demonstrated in the remarkable fact that the Day family has produced several Christian ministers.

He was an activist and a leader in the causes he believed in. In 1991, he stood for 7 hours before bulldozers to save a spring fed lake. In the end, the Mobile City Council voted to save the lake and named it Day Lake in his honor.

His wife of 65 years, Ruby Nell James Day, predeceased him. She was a wonderful and beloved woman and a member of the respected James family of Mobile.

Reverend Day's funeral service was a true celebration of a remarkable life well-lived. Speakers at the service included former Mobile Mayor Sam Jones, State Representative James Busky, State Senator Vivian Figures, and City Councilman Fred Richardson. I was also honored to speak. Several prominent pastors from Mobile conducted the service. They were: Ronald McCree, pastor--Greater Morning Star Baptist Church (Eulogy); Clinton Johnson, pastor--New Shiloh Baptist Church (Officiating); Fleet Bell, pastor--Rock of Faith Baptist Church (Song); Darlett-Lucy Gulley, pastor--New Life Methodist Church (Prayer of Comfort); Minister Ronald Suggs, Greater Morning Star Baptist Church (Old Testament Reading); and Minister Gregory Palmer, Sr., Greater Morning Star Baptist Church (New Testament Reading). These pastors have earned the respect of the community over many years for their faith and service to others.

I came to know and respect Reverend Day's son, Eric, when I hired him as the law enforcement coordinator for the U.S. attorney's office in Mobile, where he still works. He reflects the integrity and faith of his father. I am also proud that Eric's wonderful wife Valerie Day has served as my field representative since I was elected to the Senate almost 18 years ago.

This Nation must continue to produce leaders like Reverend Day who, in turn, produce families of energy, drive, faith and service. It is they who provide the vision and faith, and the service, that are the qualities that make America exceptional.

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

President Obama announced Friday that he would not follow through on his promise to utilize Executive orders by the end of the summer to provide amnesty and work authorization for 5 to 6 million illegal immigrants who cannot work lawfully in America because they unlawfully entered the country or have overstayed their visas. That does not indicate he has in any way abandoned his plan to execute such an Executive amnesty.

Indeed, the President directly said he understands that the American people oppose what he is doing--this authorization to work and create a legal status by Executive action. The American people oppose it by more than 2 to 1. So is he going to back off and honor the wishes of the American people? No, not at all--this is the point the American people need to understand.

The President is now brazenly reaffirming in even clearer language that he will carry out his amnesty plan--but only after the election in November. This is an attempt to protect his Democratic Senate candidates. Just a few moments ago, his spokesman, Josh Earnest--Mr. Flack--said it would be wrong to inject this issue into the election.

What I say to Mr. Flack at the White House, whose salary is paid by the American people, is the American people have one chance to have their voice heard. The President is talking about unilateral, illegal action contrary to American law to legalize as many as 5 to 6 million people and we should not inject it into the election. There are Democratic Senators and other Senators who failed to object to that-- should they now be protected from being criticized for allowing this to occur? Is that what we have gotten to in our democracy, that the President can make this decision and not involve the American people? They think they should stay out of this. That they should not talk about it in an election. Well, when should we talk about grave issues that are facing America if not during the election cycle?

I think it is time for the Senate, and all Senators, to be heard explicitly. Where do you stand? Do you support the legislation that the House of Representatives has passed that would effectively--as we often do around here--bar the President from spending any

money to execute such an illegal, unauthorized amnesty or not? Are you for it or not?

Well, we know one thing. If it is left up to the Democratic leader in the Senate, it will not be brought up. So it will take a lot of Senators to stand up to Majority Leader Reid and President Obama and bring the legislation the House has passed that would bar the expenditure of any money to carry out an unlawful amnesty.

The President cannot give work authorization--as he and his people have said he intends to do--to people unlawfully in America. The law says they are not eligible to work in America, and they are not eligible to be hired in America. The President cannot say, as he has already done for the young people through the DACA program: You are authorized to work. They are now talking about 5 to 6 million more people. One article correctly said there were 10 times as many adults-- many of them presumably have entered the country illegally only recently.

I think we have to understand what is going on, and we need to challenge our colleagues to stand up and be counted--counted with regard to the legitimate authority of Congress, which has passed laws of this country that are due to be executed and carried out faithfully by the President of the United States. He is not authorized to just not enforce the law and not utilize the ICE officers and Border Patrol officers and block them from doing their work.

The ICE officers have even sued the Administration, the head of DHS and the ICE director, because they have been blocked from following their oath to enforce the laws of the United States. No wonder this is an important issue. No wonder the American people's interest is rising on this issue, and they have every right to do so.

Well, I am going to explain why this amnesty is unlawful, how it will hurt the American worker, and how it will eviscerate any hope of ever establishing a lawful immigration system in the future if it goes forward. First, let's look at recent events. The President stated at the NATO conference a few days ago that he will give legal status to persons who are unlawfully here by utilizing Executive orders. I say to the American people and to my colleagues that he cannot do that. Those individuals are unlawfully here. He has no power to reverse the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and declare someone lawful who is unlawful. It is a thunderous, dramatic abuse of Presidential power.

He has made it clear previously that his amnesty will include work authorization, and he cannot do that either. It is plainly contrary to law. He has already provided executive amnesty and work permits to those who supposedly came here as young people, although the proof is very uncertain. ICE officers report that they are forced to take someone's word about qualifying for the amnesty. So they are certainly not very tight about verifying that. His advisers and allies openly boast about how broad this is going to be. They say you must go ahead, Mr. President, and do even more than you are saying you are going to do now under this plan. It is really all because of the opposition of the American people.

By a substantial majority, the American people oppose this action, but the President is intending to do it. According to the news reports, Members of the Senate went to the President and said: Don't do this now, Mr. President. I know you promised to do it before the end of the summer, but don't do it now because that might hurt me in my election. I might have to block votes in the Senate that will stop you from doing this, and I will get criticized for doing it. Please don't do this now. Don't do it now. You can do it after the election, when I have secured my 6-year term. Do it then, Mr. President.

No wonder Senator McConnell referred to that as a cynical act by the President.

This was a dramatic event which occurred over weekend. This executive amnesty would include work permits for millions of people who illegally entered the United States or have overstayed their visas and they are here unlawfully. It is a violation of a sovereign, constitutional law passed by the people's representatives in the Congress. It wipes away the Immigration and Nationality Act's clear rules on who can enter the United States, who can work in the United States, and who can live in the United States. Don't we all agree that our Nation has a right to establish that? Shouldn't those rules and principles be established and followed? We are not against immigration. We have 1 million people come to our country every year legally. They apply, wait their time, and then they have the benefit of citizenship in America. We have one of the most generous immigration policies in the entire world. In addition to permanent immigration flows, we have a huge temporary guest worker program which allows people to come here and take jobs. The President wants to double the number of people who come here and take jobs, but the House has refused to do that.

These rules are the bedrock of any Nation's immigration policy and sovereignty, and in reality the President is actually and truly proposing to wipe away what amounts to the few immigration rules that are in effect. Through executive action, the President is proposing to repeal the lawful protections to which every American worker is entitled. His action would allow millions of illegal immigrants to instantly take precious jobs from struggling and unemployed American workers by the millions in every sector of the economy. These are not just agricultural and seasonal workers.

Under the President's plan, these people who are given work authorization would be entitled to take any job. They would be entitled to work at the county commission or the energy company or power company. They would be entitled to work at the manufacturing plants and drive the forklifts and heavy equipment. They would be eligible for good jobs--jobs that are good for America.

This is at a time of high unemployment and falling wages. We are now talking about another 5 million people who will be rewarded with the ability to take the best jobs in America when millions of Americans are struggling and wages are falling and we have the highest percentage of people outside of the workforce in America since the 1970s. We have a higher percentage of people who are working part-time instead of working full-time. There are people who are on welfare. Food stamps have gone up fourfold. We need to get our people working first.

Again, no one that I know of would say that the people who want to come to America and work are evil or bad people. We have a generous immigration plan. We are not saying bad things about them. We are simply saying that if you want to come to America, apply. If you don't qualify, we are sorry. We are not able to accept everybody who would like to come to America. We have rules and regulations to make sure we identify people who are likely to be successful in America and won't to be on the welfare rolls and won't demand health care from the government and will be able to pay their fair share of the cost of living in America. That is what any smart Nation does.

I think what people need to know right now is that this unconstitutional action--this planned executive amnesty--has not gone away. It is only a matter of months now that it has been delayed-- unless the American people stop it from happening.

The New York Times reported a few days ago on the timing of these actions. They said this:

President Obama will delay taking executive action on

immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to

pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that taking action

now could doom his party's chances this fall, White House

officials said on Saturday.

Well, what does that mean? It was reported in a very neutral way. The New York Times, of course, favors amnesty. But how cynical is that? How cynical is it that the President is now going to take action on a different date than he promised repeatedly, because he is afraid that if he does it now, the American people will have an opportunity to register their opinion come November and members of his party will face election and they are going to be asked, Did they support and vote for this or not? He does not want that to happen.

What is wrong with the American people being able to influence their government? Is the President above that? Has he reached such a high level of popularity he doesn't have to worry

about what the American people say, think, or believe, and that he can advocate and carry out policy based on political deals he has made with big business and special-interest groups and politicians. Even when the American people don't support it and Congress won't pass it, he gets to do it anyway? Is this where we are in America today?

What is particularly disturbing is our Senate Democratic colleagues apparently don't object to the President carrying out unilateral executive amnesty; they only prefer that the President implement it after the election, after their race is over, so they don't have to explain it to the people they represent.

Politico reported one typical Senate Democrat office as saying: ``Obama should use his executive authority to make fixes to the immigration system, but after the November elections.'' After the elections. Don't let it blow back on me. Go ahead, Mr. President, we want you to do this fix, but don't do it now, do it after the election so nobody can hold me to account.

I think the American people are getting tired of this. I think they are wising up. The politicians work for the American people; the American people don't work for the politicians.

We held a vote in the Senate on July 31. I sought to block this action by bringing up a bill similar to a bill the House passed that would bar the President from spending any money to carry out this executive amnesty. Only one Senate Democrat--Senator Manchin--voted in support of allowing the bill to come up for a vote. And no one, to my knowledge, on the Democratic side has challenged Senator Reid and his blocking of the House-type legislation.

It is a very serious matter that we are engaged in today. It is a very serious matter. The moral underpinnings, the integrity of the immigration law--already seriously damaged by the DACA action President Obama took--will be fatally wounded if he now legalizes 5 million to 6 million people unilaterally. How could we then tell anybody in the future they have to comply with the law?

The President himself said at the NATO conference that if we do his executive amnesty, it will, as he said, encourage legal immigration. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rewarding millions more who have entered the country illegally--rewarding their illegal acts--is not going to cause more people to follow the law; it is going to be a further weakening of the law. And in the future, how will we be able to tell people who came across the border after that, that they shouldn't be given lawful status, rewarding them for their illegal act? It is that simple.

We are going to have to confront this issue. Congress needs to stand up, affirm the rule of law, do the right thing. We are not against immigration. We are not against immigrants. We don't believe this country ought to be isolationist. But we have a right--and the American people have a right--to believe their government will create an effective, honorable system of immigration and see that it is enforced fairly and resolutely. That is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is what the American people have been demanding for 30 or 40 years, and the politicians have steadfastly refused.

I think it is time for the people's voices to be heard. The American people are right on this issue. They are exactly right. We are failing the future of our country, the lawful system of our country, we are failing the American people, and we are failing American workers who are having a difficult time today finding jobs and seeing their wages decline.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. The facts are plain, colleagues. The immigration policies of President Obama are having a devastating effect on the classical American goal of a fair and lawful system of immigration, one that serves our national interest. He has directed the Federal immigration officers not to enforce plain law. He meets privately with pro-amnesty, open borders, and special interest business groups and promises to take even more actions in the future to erase plain law. Unfortunately, our fine law enforcement officers are excluded from the discussion. I have asked that they be involved for years now, and the President has flatly refused.

The President's actions evidence no policy or guiding principle that is sustainable. Now the heretofore largely covert actions by the President are open and blatant, and he has announced them. He has told the world that with the stroke of his pen he will, by Presidential directive, by Executive order, provide legal status to 5 to 6 million people unlawfully in the country today--all this contrary to long established law. But there is more. He has said he will issue, in effect, legal identification cards and work authorization.

Surely we know the President cannot make law. Congress makes law. As Chief Executive, the President executes, carries out, and enforces law. This we learned in grade school. This constitutional construct is not a small matter; it is the mechanism by which this Nation conducts its governmental business. Through this method, the people control their government.

Allowing any President to nullify law is a threat to the future of our Republic and to the ultimate power of the people to control it. That is why I have urged the President to reconsider this point and to adhere to his plain statements, where he has expressly stated he did not have the power to do what he now--in a complete reversal--states he will do.

On November 25, 2013, less than a year ago, he stated: ``If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws.''

On March 28, 2011, President Obama said:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend

deportations through executive order, that's just not the

case. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are

very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration

system that for me to simply through executive order ignore

those congressional mandates would not conform with my

appropriate role as President.

Again, on September 28, 2011, he said:

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

can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We

are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of

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

enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to

the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting

comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion

that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's

just not true. But we live in a democracy. You have to pass

bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.

That is true. Every schoolchild knows that. But what is happening today? The President is saying something quite different.

It is important for Congress to stand and resist the complete erosion of its powers--and even more significantly, the powers of the American people--and see that our laws are carried out effectively.

I know this is a somewhat postmodern time where many believe words have no meaning except as they advance one's agenda of the day, but such approaches are wholly inconsistent with the founding concepts of America. We were founded on the belief that words do have meaning, that sound principles must be adhered to, and that truth is real and must be sought.

While we debate many issues, and good people can disagree, surely we can all agree that at this moment we are in the Senate Chamber and that there is daylight outside. Those are not matters for debate or else we are, indeed, through the ``looking glass.'' Likewise, it is surely not a matter of debate--among Democrat or Republican--that the President cannot make or nullify law. He cannot do that. Thus, we must in unity call on President Obama not to go through with his stated desire which would eviscerate long and clearly established American immigration law. What law might the next President ignore, bend, or nullify?

It is said that he has ordered his lawyers and officials to tell him how he may carry out such actions before the end of the summer. Apparently he did not ask them whether he had such power; he just ordered them to develop a plan to do that which the law does not allow.

Mr. President, frustration and pique can result in hasty and unwise decisions. Please do not do this.

To the officials and lawyers who have received this directive from the President, you must always remember that your first duty is to the Constitution and the Nation and its laws. There will be times when you have the duty to say no.

Lawyers at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are going to be asked how they can carry out the President's plan that he previously said he had no authority to do. They are also challenged. Their duty is to say no. And sometimes you have to resign your office.

Just imagine, this past Sunday--2 days ago--White House adviser Dan Pfieffer repeated the Obama administration's warning of an impending Executive action on immigration. Mr.

Pfieffer said this action would come at ``the end of the summer.'' According to repeated and multiple news reports, these Executive actions could provide administrative legal papers and work permits for up to 5 to 6 million immigrants in clear contravention of Federal law. If these actions are taken, we will have effectively opened the borders of America. We are nearly there already.

Consider that millions of people come every year to America on visas. Currently, if you overstay a visa, there is no legal consequence today. No one is going to come and get you. No one even clocks if you come in or if you leave. If you get a student visa and drop out of school, or if you come to work on a visa and it expires, or if you just come on a tourist visa and never leave, nobody checks, nobody asks these individuals to leave.

The Congressional Budget Office said, in analyzing the Gang of 8 bill that came through the Senate, that as much as 40 percent of the illegality in America today is a result of visa overstays. They also projected that was going to increase in the years to come.

If you get past the Border Patrol at the border and somehow get to the interior of this country, you are also allowed to stay under President Obama's policies, which are not to deport anybody unless they have been arrested for a serious crime, maybe even limited to a serious felony.

As the President's former ICE Director John Sandweg explained, ``If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.'' In order to be deported from the interior, you basically have to commit a serious criminal offense. Otherwise, you are mostly free to enter illegally, work illegally, and even collect benefits like the additional child tax credit. The Treasury Department inspector general said that loophole should be eliminated, and we could do so, but Congress and the majority in this Senate have refused to allow us to do so.

Chris Crane, the head of the ICE officers association--that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who do all the work on the interior of the country and help in other areas too--testified before Congress:

Most Americans would be surprised to know that immigration

agents are regularly prohibited from enforcing the two most

fundamental sections of the United States immigration law.

According to ICE policy, in most cases immigration agents can

no longer arrest persons solely for entering the United

States illegally. Additionally, in most cases immigration

agents cannot arrest people solely because they have entered

the United States with a visa and then overstayed that visa

and failed to return to their country. Essentially, only

individuals charged or convicted of very serious criminal

offenses by other law enforcement agencies may be arrested or

charged by ICE agents and officers for illegal entry or

overstay.

This is a very serious matter. This has not been the policy of America; it is the policy President Obama has directed through his top administrative officials down to the very officers on the street.

Furthermore, if you show up at the border and simply turn yourself in, you are often released into the interior of the country.

A recent newspaper in New Jersey interviewed a 27-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras. The newspaper wrote that he had ``arrived in Freehold Borough 15 days ago from Honduras.'' The article says he ``left behind his parents and 10 brothers and sisters,'' but ``he is hoping his family will join him at some point in the future.''

Once illegal immigrants have been released into the interior, they frequently do not show up for court hearings. The National Review reports that ``in one day at a Los Angeles immigration court last week, Judge Ashley Tabaddor heard the cases of nearly 40 illegal immigrant minors, but none of the children appeared in court, according to the Los Angeles Times.'' None of them came to appear in court.

The article goes on to say:

In each case, the illegal immigrant was thought to have

settled elsewhere, and the judge reportedly decided not to

deport the children in absentia. Instead, the judge--who

declined to speak with National Review Online, citing Justice

Department policy--reportedly issued change-of-venue orders

in each case.

That basically means nothing. If you fail to show up in court for a DUI or for a speeding ticket or for a reckless driving ticket, a warrant is issued for your arrest. That is what happens in America throughout this Nation, and that is what should happen. But when a person who enters the country unlawfully is released and asked to show up at a hearing at some date in the future, and then doesn't show up, the judge apparently transfers it to some other district on the assumption the individual has moved to some other place. How do they know where they are? And nobody will go out and look for them. There is nobody looking for these individuals. They are not even able to put a warrant in the National Crime Information Center because they probably don't even have their true name or any ability to identify them. It is a complete capitulation to lawlessness.

But there are more ways, unfortunately, to get into the country illicitly. Our asylum system is plagued by fraud. The House Judiciary Committee reported this:

Asylum approval rates overall have increased dramatically

in recent years. Approval rates by asylum officers have

increased from 28 percent in 2007 to 46 percent in 2013 and

approval rates by immigration judges in affirmative cases

have increased from 51 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2013.

Combining both of these approval rates, the vast majority of

aliens who affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in

their claims.

The report goes on:

This does not even take into account appeals to the Board

of Immigration Appeals or federal courts. At the same time,

an internal Department of Homeland Security report shows that

at least 70 percent of asylum cases contain proven or

possible fraud.

Our system as it is being run today is not lawful, it is not principled, it does not have integrity, and it has no ability to carry out the wishes of the American people--which has always been to have a system that is effective and lawful and serves the national interests.

And remember, all of these entries are in addition to the huge flow of annual permanent immigration into the United States as well as work authorization. That is all in addition to the lawful flow that we have. Between 2000 and today, the U.S. Government issued nearly 30 million lawful visas for individuals and their relatives to either live permanently in the United States or to come to take a job. We are a generous Nation. We have a very generous immigration policy--more than any nation in the world. And the American people have the right to expect that our laws are enforced, that we don't have open borders. They have never believed in that, and no official, to my knowledge, will stand up publicly and advocate for that, although many of the policies being promoted would result in just that.

Now consider what will happen to our system if the President goes through with his plan to provide work authorizations for another 5 million people living illegally in the United States. What immigration law will be left, colleagues? The government is not enforcing visa overstays, illegal entries, illegal work, or asylum fraud. And now the President is just going to start printing millions of work permits for people illegally in the country--after Congress has loudly declared ``no.''

Congress has refused to pass his plan. What is the President's excuse for wanting to do this unlawful act? He says Congress won't act. But Congress acts when it refuses to do something the President decides. That is an act of Congress, and Congress has declined to provide amnesty in the method the President asked for and has been advocating for. Therefore, he is not given any power to ignore current law that he wishes to change and Congress didn't change.

This is very serious. I say to my colleagues--Republicans, Democrats--this is more than a dispute over who should enter and what kind of amnesty we should have, if any; it is a challenge to the integrity of our constitutional order and a challenge to this Senate.

If the President persists in his plan, anyone ICE officers

come into contact with will simply assert protections and

eligibility under this new Executive action. Now, get this.

So we are going to give amnesty to 5 million or 6 million

people. Well, if there are 11 million, 12 million people here

today, what happens to the other 5 million to 6 million? If

any ICE officer comes into contact with them, those

individuals will assert they are entitled to protections and

eligibility under the new Executive action. New illegal

immigrants will flood across, as they did after the

President's Executive amnesty for people under the age of 30

because they will believe--correctly, it appears to me--that

if they can get into the country unlawfully, they will never

be deported. They will wait until the President--this

President or the next President or some other President--

gives them work privileges in the United States to take jobs

that Americans need to be doing at a time of extraordinarily

high unemployment, at a time when we have the lowest

workplace participation rate since the 1970s. Illegal

immigrants won't even have to wait for Congress to pass

amnesty if this goes through.

So I ask: What immigration law will be left? The President has simply decided--on his own, without Congress or legal authority--that the immigration laws protecting the jobs and wages of U.S. workers won't exist anymore. The President has taken it upon himself to decide who can enter the United States and who can work in the United States--by the millions--regardless of what laws have been passed. The President often talks of justice, but one of the gravest injustices that has been done is to deny the American people the protections of their laws. The laws on the books in America today are the laws of the people of the United States, and they protect working people from job competition at a time of high unemployment.

My message to the American people today is this. You can stop it. We can stop it, together. We will not let this lawlessness stand, and that fight begins with a vote on the House-passed bill just last Friday to block this new Executive action the President would undertake. The Senate cannot be allowed to surrender to the President's lawlessness. It cannot. So I am calling today on every Senator to support this bill from the House and to demand that Majority Leader Reid call it up, and let's have a vote. Every American needs to know where their leaders stand on this issue.

Let me share a message with my friends on the other side of the aisle. Each of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have to decide whether they work for Majority Leader Reid, whether they work for the President of the United States, or whether they work for their constituents.

I remember in 2007 when President Bush got it in his head that we had to have amnesty, without being able to present any compelling reason for us to believe the lawlessness would end in the future--and that effort failed. Three-fourths, I believe, or at least well more than half of the Republicans, opposed their President on this. Why shouldn't Democrats now stand up and oppose President Obama if he is overreaching in his policies?

So I will ask this. Will my Democratic colleagues protect the jobs of the American people? Will they protect the borders of this Nation and, in essence, the sovereignty of this Nation? Will my colleagues demand the Senate leader bring this House bill up for a vote? If my colleagues oppose these Executive actions, as some on the other side of the aisle have indicated they do, there is only one way to demonstrate it with integrity: Support the House bill and demand it receive a vote in the Senate.

There is nothing in that bill that is wrong or unprincipled or improper. There are two bills coming over from the House--a good bill that improves the technical enforcement issues that are at the border today that are making it hard to enforce the law. They improve that in one piece, and they provide almost $700 million in funding to help improve that situation and take care of the humanitarian need there. But they passed a second bill that simply uses a traditional congressional power to bar the President of the United States and any of his officers from spending moneys of the United States to execute some amnesty or work permit program.

Every member of the public--whether in a red State or a blue State or a purple State--ought to call their Member of Congress and Senators and ask them where they stand on this issue. Ask them if they support the House bill to block this executive amnesty that would be contrary to law, contrary to heritage, contrary to the President's own words on more than one occasion. Will your elected representatives demand that we at least have a vote in the Senate? You are a citizen of this country. You are entitled to a clear answer to the question.

We work for the people, and I believe the people are not happy with us. I believe the people rightly believe this Nation should have a principled immigration policy, one that is enforced and carried out fairly and objectively, that serves the national interest, an immigration policy where a person in another country who wants to come to the United States can read the requirements and submit an application, and if they meet those requirements and meet the limits of our law can be admitted to America, and those who do not, are not.

That is what nations all over the world have. There is not anything wrong with that. No nation, particularly any developed nation, can just open its borders to every individual who would like to come here. It just cannot be done. The American people have a right to expect that. That is what they have wanted, that is what they have demanded of their Presidents and their Congresses for 40 years, and that is what the powers that be, the masters of the universe, surreptitiously and openly and otherwise have blocked, refused to give them. They are entitled to that. I believe it truly, and I believe they will get it.

This issue is not going away. We are going to confront it here in the Senate. I believe in the end the American people will be able to hold to account those who do not support a lawful system of immigration.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Reserving my right to object, I appreciate Senator Boxer's leadership on this issue. She is a great advocate and a strong supporter of Israel, as I am, and have been consistently since I have been in the Senate.

I would note for the Senator that the expansion of this program has been problematic for some time. I have been involved with the Visa Waiver Program for quite a number of years. So my concern is not based on Israel, it is based on trying to maintain consistency and effectiveness of the program.

It is not a program that I think is operating effectively. Congress has declared that no more waivers be granted until after this biometric exit system has been completed. I believe our House colleagues are considering a bill that is very similar to what Senator Boxer and others are supporting but it does not include this provision.

Based on that, I am not able to support this amendment and would object.

Mr. President, if the Senator would allow me, I would say let's pass a bill without that provision in it. Let's get that done today, and I will commit to further research and digging into this to see if there is any legitimate way based on law and consistency and the integrity of the visa waiver system that I could support it. It might be. Israel is an educated country. We have a lot of people who travel back and forth between our countries. It is just so far the State Department has not approved it. The House does not have it in their bill, and I and the Members of the Judiciary Committee who have dealt with these issues for quite a number of years--I have resisted the expansion of this program contrary to the law and State Department policy. Regretfully I have objected.

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

Mr. President, the people of the United States have truly begged and pleaded with their lawmakers for years to create a lawful system of immigration--one that works, one that is fair, one that serves the national interest, one that we can believe in. They have been justly and rightly convinced of that fact, and they have demanded it of their elected officeholders to secure their communities and protect the integrity of our national borders. Some say there is something wrong with that. I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is the right thing. That is the moral thing. That is the responsible thing. That is the decent thing. That is what any great nation should have--an immigration policy that serves its national interest and is fairly and lawfully conducted.

But these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Our border is absolutely not secure. It is in a state of crisis. Our communities are not safe. Preventable crimes occur every day because our laws are not being enforced and our sovereignty, at its base level, is not being protected. And, we have a President planning to issue sweeping executive amnesty in violation of law, in ways in which he has no power, and threatens the constitutional separation of powers. Congress passes laws; the President must execute the laws. The President is not entitled to make laws, to conduct actions contrary to plain laws. The President simply cannot say Congress didn't act, so I have to act.

Well, Congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. They considered legislation, rejected it, and now he is going to--it appears from article after article--go forward and carry out an action anyway. It would be fundamentally wrong. This cannot stand. It will not stand.

My position has been and remains that Congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful Executive orders. As an institution, this Congress has a duty to protect this institution and our constituents.

Currently, the President has issued approximately half a million grants of administrative amnesty and work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. Now the President wants to issue another 5 to 6 million work permits to illegal immigrants of any age, despite a clear prohibition in the Immigration and Nationality Act. He is not entitled to do that. Plain law says you cannot employ someone in the country unlawfully.

People think: Well, it is one thing to say you will not deport somebody. But, colleagues, what was done previously was to provide, under the DACA legislation, an ID card with the words ``Work Permit'' across the top, ``Work Authorization'' across the top.

So the President is providing, in violation of plain law, the ability of people in the country to work who are not entitled to work, who will be able to take jobs from any American today. We have a lot of Americans today struggling for work. At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the President's plan is a direct affront to them--to every single unemployed American, to people around the world who have applied to come to the United States and have not been admitted, so they did not come unlawfully. What do we say to them when this happens?

It is particularly damaging to those in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in America. So who is speaking for them? Who will give them a voice in Congress? Will Members hear? Will we hear their pleas? I have been shocked that we have not seen a willingness in the Congress to resist more effectively than what we are seeing today.

So let's consider a bit more deeply for a moment what the President's Executive action would do to immigration enforcement in America. Let me say clearly, colleagues, we are not making this up. We are not having some idea that he might do something for 5 or 6 million more people. It has been repeatedly leaked from the White House--not leaked; they have discussed it. The President has promised it to activist groups like La Raza and the ACLU that he has been meeting with. He has told them he intends to do this. It is only a question of how and the time. The latest article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal--a big article-- said it would happen shortly after Labor Day. Well, this is not something we are making up. It is a direct threat, a direct promise, a statement, it appears, from the White House.

I hope they will not go forward with it. Surely cooler heads in the White House will push back. Surely his Attorney General will say: Mr. President, you cannot do this. His legal counsel in the White House will say: Mr. President, do not do this. This is not lawful. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be saying: This would be devastating, Mr. President. How can we enforce any laws? Please do not do this.

I do not think it is absolutely certain to happen. But it seems to me that by every indication it is an absolute intention right now of the President to go forward with this or they would not have had at least a half a dozen articles on it--the National Journal, Time magazine, and others.

I have spoken many times with a great American by the name of Chris Crane, a former marine. He is also an ICE officer and president of the officers' ICE Council--the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council. He has explained how his officers are ordered not to do their job. They have even sued the Secretary of Homeland Security for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to enforce the laws of the United States of America. Can you imagine that? I was in Federal law enforcement for 15 years. I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sue their supervisor saying, in Federal court: Mr. Judge, my supervisor is ordering me not to do what my duty and my oath requires on a daily basis.

That is a stunning development. Their morale for years has been one of the lowest in the Federal Government. Now I think it is the lowest because they have been demeaned and rejected in a duty they believe is worthwhile for them to carry out.

One of the things Mr. Crane explained is that the President's previous Executive amnesty for the so-called DREAMers basically halted enforcement for anyone who asserted protections under that new administration policy. Mr. Crane would report that ICE officers would come into contact with individuals unlawfully present in the country-- individuals they would encounter in prisons and jails. They would be called by a local police department that they have arrested someone for a serious crime. They would tell the ICE officers. Routinely they are supposed to go and pick them up and deport them. They would encounter people in jail--that is one of the big jobs they have--and they would be forced to release them simply because they assert: I came here as a youth. Nobody is going to do any investigation on this. How do you investigate it? The effect is to demoralize and make it difficult, and almost impossible, to enforce the law.

Now imagine, then, what would happen if the President expands this administrative amnesty and work authorization program to cover millions of unlawful immigrants of all ages. Everyone ICE comes in contact with will assert these protections: I am qualified under the President's amnesty. And any who fail the application will say they are eligible for this amnesty.

So what then? Will the FBI open investigations, check when they entered the country or whom they entered the country with, and where they came from? They are not going to do that--of course not. The officers are going to be totally unable to resist false claims from applicants, who happen to be the people they have arrested. It is going to demoralize immigration enforcement officers. ICE officers will again be

issued orders basically to stand down. No enforcement is going to occur. It will be the effective end of immigration enforcement in America, in my opinion.

You cannot maintain an effective, lawful, consistent, fair immigration enforcement policy with these kinds of regulations occurring and these kinds of orders from the White House, who is the Chief Executive Officer of America, who is empowered and directed to ensure that the laws of the United States are carried out--not empowered to violate the laws of the United States.

We have also heard from officers who have processed immigration applications. These are people who receive applications to come to the United States in a lawful way. These dedicated folks at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are people who have to process all of these millions of applicants if the President issues his order.

So let me read at length from a statement from the President of the USCIS Council, who represents these CIS officers who have an awesome duty. He wrote last year--this is what he said:

USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp

applications instead of conducting diligent case review and

investigation.

This is the officers saying that their bosses are pressuring them to just rubber stamp applications right now--not to investigate, not to ask questions--just approve them. He goes on:

The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be

approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags

and discouraging the denial of any applications. USCIS has

been turned into an ``approval machine.''

That is what the top CIS officer said in a statement last fall. They have been turned into an approval machine. No wonder the American people are unhappy with what goes on here. Does anyone really know how serious this is? It is amazing that we would undermine the very integrity, really, of the entire process, and that is why they have protested. That is why they have come forward. It hurts them. They feel bad to see the great laws of the United States being routinely eviscerated.

He went on to say this:

USCIS has created an almost insurmountable bureaucracy

which often prevents USCIS adjudications officers from

contacting and coordinating with ICE agents--

Who know something about these people, perhaps--

and officers in cases that should have their involvement.

USCIS officers are pressured to approve visa applications for

many individuals ICE agents have determined should be placed

into deportation proceedings.

That is a very serious charge, and that is happening. He is not making that up. It goes on:

The USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens that, in

accordance with law should be placed into immigration removal

proceedings before a federal judge, are prevented from

exercising their authority and responsibility to issue

Notices To Appear.

This is a notice to appear in court. They are being obstructed and told not to do it. He goes on to say:

The attitude of USCIS management is not that the Agency

serves the American public or the laws of the United States,

or public safety and national security, but instead that the

agency serves illegal aliens and the attorneys which

represent them. While we believe in treating all people with

respect, we are concerned that this agency tasked with such a

vital security mission is too greatly influenced by special

interest groups--to the point that it no longer properly

performs its mission.

What a devastating critique. Does anyone care? Has the President done one thing to respond to these allegations? Is the Senate bill that is offered by Senator Reid and our Democratic colleagues, with the blessings of the President--does it do one thing to fix one of these problems? No. They have no intention of fixing these problems. They do not want to fix these problems. This is their policy: to foment more lawlessness and to see that the laws are undermined in such a way they cannot be effectively enforced.

It is just wrong, colleagues. Republicans and Democrats need to stand up to this. Don't we need to respond to the desires of the American people for a lawful system of immigration? Isn't that right and just and decent that they ask of us? Yet we go along in total ignorance and ignore these kinds of statements from our own enforcement officers, which anybody who looks at the border and sees what is happening could believe every bit of. And indeed it is true.

It goes on to say:

This agency is tasked with such a vital security mission is

too greatly influenced by special interest groups--to the

point that it no longer properly performs its mission.

In virtually every article we see the President is meeting with some group, such as La Raza, which has very extreme policies on immigration--basically an open borders policy. They have opposed every policy of lawfulness. Another similar group, the ACLU, was commenting recently on what they thought the President had told them he was going to do about not enforcing the law.

These are the kinds of groups he is meeting with. He is not meeting with the law officers. He never sat down with them to ask: Tell me what it is like on the border. Let's see if we fix this thing. Let's make this system work. He has never done that. That is very indicative. This legislation that would spend $2.7 billion, proposed by the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and totally blessed by the President. This is the President's bill and it does nothing to fix any of the problems. It just asks for more money.

The President of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote last year:

DHS and USCIS leadership have intentionally established an

application process for DACA--

That is his first amnesty for DREAMers that the President issued.

--that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory

interviews with trained USCIS adjudications officers. These

practices were put in place to stop proper screening and

enforcement,--

He is saying that these practices were put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement.

--and guarantee that applications will be rubber-stamped for

approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread

fraud and places public safety at risk.

This is the head of the USCIS Officers Association. He is laying out event after event, action after action, that demonstrates we are dealing with an administration that does not want the law enforced. Can you believe these words?

The president of USCIS goes on to say:

U.S. taxpayers are currently tasked with absorbing the cost

of over $200 million worth of fee waivers bestowed on

applicants for naturalization during the last fiscal year.

This is in addition to the strain put on our Social Security

system that has been depleted by an onslaught of refugees

receiving SSI benefits as soon as their feet touch U.S. soil.

So the story that there are no Social Security benefits is not correct. The refugees who enter our asylum system through the refugee program are entitled to these benefits when they hit the soil.

He goes on to say:

Large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not

effectively enforced for legal immigrants and visa holders,

including laws regarding public charges as well as many other

provisions as the USCIS lacks the resources to adequately

screen and scrutinize legal immigrants and non-immigrants

seeking status adjustment. There is also insufficient

screening and monitoring of student visas.

These are breathtaking reports from our top officers, from the front lines of law enforcement, from people who screen and review applications every day for the United States of America.

Now think--just imagine what will happen to our system if the President goes forward with his executive action. It would overwhelm a system that is already buckling under the weight of massive illegality on our southern border.

We must end this lawlessness. We can end this. We can do so. Let me repeat. I know it can be done. But to do so, we must first stop doing more damage. We must prevent the President's massive executive amnesty from going forward. The public, once riled to these issues, will not be ignored this time, in my opinion. They will not let the representatives of either party acquiesce to lawlessness. That is why I have said that Congress as an institution must not support any border bill that come forward that does not expressly prohibit the President's executive amnesty ideas that he has been talking about, and would block him from spending any money to execute an unlawful plan of this kind.

How can we not take this position, colleagues? What basis do we have to

say we will not take any action when we were being told on a daily basis what the President plans to do? Are we ready to go to recess for August having done nothing, said nothing, offered nothing to oppose the stated intentions of the President in this way?

There is currently no legislation pending for a vote in either Chamber, House or Senate, which passes this test. Senator Cruz has offered language, but they are not willing to allow it to come up for a vote. As a result, both the House and Senate packages should not be supported. Congress should not adjourn until it has firmly stood against the President's unconstitutional and dangerous action.

The American people are asking for us to help. They are pleading with us to help. We must answer their call. We must fight for the lawful and just system of immigration that we can be proud of. Let's put this into a bigger picture. Wages are down. Labor force participation is declining. The percentage of people in the working ages who are actually working has been declining steadily. Indeed, it has not reached a level this low since the 1970s.

Since 2000, the Federal Government has lawfully issued nearly 30 million immigrant and foreign work visas--for people to come to this country to work--almost 30 million visas to legally work in the United States or permanently reside in the United States. During this time, the number of Americans with jobs--Americans with jobs--declined on net. On net, fewer U.S.-born workers ages 16 to 65 had jobs in 2014 than in 2000. Amazing.

There are fewer people working today--even though the population has increased--than in 2000. The President's planned work permits for illegal immigrants is in addition then to the already huge flow of low- wage labor into the United States.

We have a problem, colleagues, with Americans needing jobs. We do not have too few workers. We have too few jobs. I would contend that that is pretty clear because wages are down.

If we had a shortage of workers, wages would be up. When you have a surplus of labor and surplus of workers, wages decline. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2007, a family income of 4 would amount to about $55,000, on average. It has now dropped to $50,000. That represents a huge diminishment of the wealth of America. Is it not time we did something for American workers? Who do we represent? Do we not represent the people of this country? Do we not know we cannot--while we believe in immigration, we respect and admire and love immigrants, we ought to have a lawful system. The number of people who come ought not to be so large that it destabilizes our labor market. Is that not the right policy for a great country to pursue? The American people have begged and pleaded for this system. I believe we ought to give it to them.

Let me sum up one more time here. What we are seeing in the bill presented by the majority, and demanding that it pass the Senate today, is a bill that just provides money. It does not deal with any of the policy problems in any real way that would end the lawlessness and end the belief by people around the world that if they can just come to the United States, particularly if they come as a young person, they will be allowed to stay. We have not acted to end this belief in any effective way.

It could easily be done. We do not need a law to fix that. We have looked at it. Some legal changes could help. But, first of all, the President needs to act.

The House is putting up some money. They are saying it has got to be used for some of the things that would be beneficial to ending this flow. But even then, we have seen the President does not have to use it and does not have to comply with their vision to end immigration into America.

So the President has set this up. He issued his amnesty documents, his policies, and encouraged more people to come to America. If he does this new Executive order amnesty, it would encourage more adults to come to America. It just will. It will weaken the moral authority of all our immigration laws. You cannot take these kinds of actions--as somebody who has been in law enforcement for a long time, you cannot take these actions and think there are not ramifications on them, that there are not impacts throughout the entire world and throughout the entire law enforcement community, for our ICE officers and our USCIS officers working every day dealing with hundreds of these cases.

You have to have clarity. You have to have integrity. You have to have consistency. You have to mean what you say. You cannot say: I am for strong borders, and I am for legal immigration, and then present a bill that is going to do nothing to change the path we are on. It is something I hope our people will look at and pay attention to it.

This bill is going to go down. It is not going to pass. It should not pass. It will be blocked. It will have no chance to pass in the House if it were to get out of the Senate. What I want to say to colleagues is: It is indicative of the lack of seriousness from the majority party when they produce such a poor piece of legislation.

I wish to remind my colleagues of one more thing. The only way the administration can run out of money is if it refuses to spend the money that is currently available to it for the border disaster. There is no law, no regulation preventing the administration from spending money in the current fiscal year. Even the bill they submitted to us, when it was examined, showed it only asked for $25 million for this fiscal year, through September 30. So it is not the kind of crisis we have to rush out and pass a bill today, tonight, or the country is going to shut down. They can reallocate funds. But what we need is, and what Congress needs to do as a representative of the American people, is to say: We are prepared to provide some money, but we need to know, Mr. President, that you are serious. We need to know, Mr. President, you are going to let your officers do their duty and not block them from doing their duty. We need to know, Mr. President, you are not, in a few weeks, going to issue a massive administrative amnesty to millions of people who will be given work permits to compete in America for any job that is out there--any job.

We need to know where you stand on this. We represent our people. We cannot just throw money at this problem, which is what this legislation does.

Let me take a moment to go back and discuss how we got here. We have had the current law basically in effect for a number of years: 5, 6, 7 years. We did not see a spike in entries of young people until the President issued an Executive order basically legalizing people of youth--up to 30 years of age--who came to America. That was seen around the world as an invitation for young people to come. They have come in extraordinary numbers, overwhelming our system.

In 2011, it was 6,000. This year it is going to be 90,000. What a huge surge that is. It should never have happened. Now we are reduced to being here in the Congress and having the President come to us demanding billions of dollars to fund this program and deal with the crisis his policies created. Because it is true, and has been true, the young people who come to America turn themselves in to the immigration officers, who then take them to the Health and Human Services officers and turn them over to them. They go out and find housing. That is why we have seen this all over the country. Find housing for them. Months go by, or, if anyone comes to pick them up, they are turned over to them. They do not inquire if they are legally here, those who come to pick them up. They expect no proof that they are related to the child.

Maybe it is a 17-year-old. Most of them are older teenagers who pick them up, and they are released on a permiso or bail and they never show up. Nobody has the time or the numbers or the capacity to begin to go look and see why they didn't show up in court. But if we get a traffic ticket and don't show up in court in Alabama, California, Texas, somebody is coming after us.

This is the way the system is being collapsed in America today. It is just a tragedy. It breaks my heart. The American people have never approved of this.

So word got out and we had this surge, and now the President, without any real plan to fix it, comes forward and says: Give me $4 billion-- the bill here I think is $2.7 billion--without any clear commitment or proof that we have any plan or any commitment

from his leadership to alter the dynamics of the situation we are in.

This is not acceptable. The bill before us now is not acceptable. It will not pass. It will not become law. We need to insist--the American people will continue to insist--that this Congress and this White House do their duty to make sure we have good, sound immigration laws and then ensure they are faithfully and fairly executed to serve the national interests of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I just want to say how much I appreciate the work by all the Members who worked on the veterans bill. We had some difficulties of a very serious nature, and all of us wanted to fix that. I was not able to support the bill that came out of the Senate.

We learned minutes before the vote that the average cost in the out years would be $50 billion a year if the program was funded, and there was no money to pay for that. It would really just be adding to the debt. It was sort of avoided by saying it would be a 3-year bill, but once you start these kinds of motions rolling, they never seem to end, and in the end we would be faced with a difficult situation financially.

The conference committee went to work, and I salute all the people who worked on this legislation. It has some good policy issues in it. Senator Tom Coburn, who spoke earlier, was engaged in that conference. He is a doctor. He understands these matters, he cares about them, and he was actively engaged, as we all know. In Tom Coburn we have one of the Senate's finest, most committed Senators. He loves this country. Every day he tries to save us money and make us more productive. There is nobody here who works harder or is more effective in addressing that issue than he is, and he says we need to do better. He is not able to support the conference report because it will add at least $10 billion to the debt in 3 years. I will acknowledge that it is better than before. As a result, he will raise a point of order against it, and I have to say I will support that.

Our doctors there do not carry the kinds of patient caseloads private doctors do.

While we have some policy changes that are good, more are needed. We are going to have a new Administrator, and I am very impressed with him. He is a military academy graduate from West Point, spent 5 years in the military, and was a Procter & Gamble CEO. He has bipartisan support in the Senate. A lot of confidence and a lot of hope is being placed in him.

I think the better action for us today is to not try to establish big policy changes that continue indefinitely at great expense. The better choice for us today is to wait a bit, see how effective this new leader is, and see how much he can save without reducing benefits. Maybe we can get some ideas from this top-flight, world-class businessman, who can help us develop policies that serve our veterans. We have an absolute commitment to serve our veterans and fulfill our responsibilities.

I will support the budget point of order, but if it were to be sustained--and it probably will not be sustained because people want to go forward and do this--I am confident we would be able to work with the new Administrator and develop an even better plan for securing the benefits which our veterans have earned and to which they are entitled.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.