The Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I won't take long, but I wanted to address the bills that we took up late today. First we voted on H.R. 5759. This is the bill exactly as it appears. We always have copies of the bill that we vote on that are out here in the Speaker's Lobby so you can grab them as you come in here and see what we are voting on. But what this did not reflect was the exceptions, the provisions that were added last night that had to be added by hand here on the floor so that as I tried to talk to my colleagues here on the floor and pointed out that our Republican leadership had added an exception, they didn't know that, and I had to show them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important to explain why a bill that I was listed as a cosponsor on ended up with my voting ``no'' on it, because it was a good bill. My friend, Ted Yoho, is a good man. He is a very dear friend. I think the world of him, and he had a good bill here. The purpose is, it says, ``to establish a rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.''

It was basically to make clear that the President had no authority to do what he did when he started granting amnesty-type work permits to 5 million people who were unauthorized aliens, as the law calls them. My friend Congressman Yoho's bill was entitled the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014. The title was changed by leadership, and it became the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act, and the exception that was added--and I won't read the whole thing--in part the exception says that basically this law that was passed by the House this evening shall apply except for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.

Now, I don't personally think that exception applies right now, but this administration has been using similar exceptions like that to grant amnesty in the way of asylum and refugee status to people that should not have gotten it, but they are already claiming this exception. So it is kind of like what happened at the end of July when our leadership, we had some great principles all Republicans agreed on regarding dealing with the border issue, the immigration issues, all of us agreed on the principles, but nobody got to see the bill until late Tuesday. I finished reading it about 2 a.m. and then got up at 5 a.m. and reread it, and it was a disaster. It was a de facto amnesty bill. So we only had 1 day basically to get the word out that this is a bad bill because we voted on Thursday, and by Thursday, people had awakened, realized it was a de facto amnesty bill, we got it fixed, so very late Friday night around 10 p.m. or so, we passed a good border bill.

I know that is news to the President because nobody let him know. He didn't know the House had actually acted. But on this one, by adding that exception, I know the President issued a veto threat, but he probably didn't know about the exception being added either, because if you saw the official printout of the bill, it didn't include that exception. But if the Senate came through and passed this same bill with that exception, the President could actually claim that this exception on here legalizes what he had done illegally as an executive amnesty provision to give these work permits. So the bill that I was willing to cosponsor completely changed in the addition of that exception. It wasn't just the title that changed.

On the National Defense Authorization Act, Buck McKeon worked very hard on that bill. The people on Armed Services worked very hard. I was very proud of them. They got things in that bill that we have been fighting for. For example, Fort Hood was not workplace violence. That was an act of war against our military members. The law should have reflected it, and the President should have reflected it. But, instead, those military members, those patriots of ours, had been mistreated. They have not been given the Purple Heart they deserved. They have not been given the benefits they deserved, and that needed to be fixed. That fix got in this NDAA, and I am very grateful to Buck McKeon for getting that in there.

Another problem, we have had this administration going after chaplains for saying things like ``in Jesus' name.'' They pray in Jesus' name because as a Christian, Jesus said, if you pray in My name, then it will be answered--but not always ``yes.'' So chaplains were told it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, you can't pray in Jesus' name, and we have got to get rid of all the crosses. The place I reported to every morning for 4 years at Fort Benning had a chapel across the street. Under the orders I had seen, apparently they would have to remove their crosses.

s Well, the provision in the NDAA extended religious freedom to our chaplains. It should have been a no-brainer, shouldn't have been required to have been said, but in this administration, it did.

Also, something that many of us have had problems with was the Authorization for Use of Military Force going back to September 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. It gave the President way too much power.

Some thought it was the NDAA that gave too much power, but actually, it was the AUMF. We amended that. The Gohmert amendment help amend that, but I feel a lot better under this NDAA because the AUMF is finally not continued anymore, so that was a good thing.

The problem is the NDAA--this massive National Defense Authorization Act that is a big, important bill--got to the Rules Committee last night. We didn't have a chance to read it. I am anal enough, I actually try to read these important bills, and I didn't have time to read this bill.

What happened to our 72-hour promise? Well, actually, it was a 3-day promise, and that has been whittled down since then, but we didn't have the 3 days that were originally promised by Republicans.

I knew the bill increased TRICARE costs. I wasn't happy about that. I voted no against a process that takes something as important as our national defense and said, ``Here you go, here is the whole thing, trust us. Vote for it.'' We didn't have a chance to review it.

Were there any powers in this thing given additionally to the NSA? Is there any more power to spy on Americans under this bill? I don't know. I couldn't vote for a bill that was launched on us last night that is this important, and I deeply regret it with the good things that were in here.

There were numerous good things, well thought out, but you can't push a bill this important on us, especially when we know there are problems, we just don't get a chance to find them. Can't vote yes--I couldn't in good conscience vote yes.

One additional irony, Mr. Speaker, I had run for Republican Study Committee chair, and I knew if I were elected chair of the Republican Study Committee, I would still vote as representative of my district in Texas, but I also knew if I were representing a majority of the feelings of the Republican Study Committee, I should not and would not be in a position to speak out as boldly against a majority of the people in my organization.

Maybe it is fortunate I am not the RSC chair, so I am here to complain about the abuses when they happen by our own leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source