It’s amazing the things you can learn when your Congressman takes time to call you and you both have the patience and respect needed to hold that CIVIL conversation. There might be a lot less confusion and anger if everyone could actually talk with their Congressman the way I do.
Can Congress defund ‘executive amnesty?’ It’s not that simple
President Obama’s executive action to legalize 4.1 million illegal immigrants is protected from the annual appropriations process, according to a Congressional Research Service report dated Monday.
The report, done for House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and shared with the Washington Examiner, explains that U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services activities are “primarily” funded through direct user fees, as opposed to an annual appropriation by Congress.
But the key point for Republicans as they deliberate tactics for confronting Obama on what they refer to as “executive amnesty” is that, per the CRS report, approval to use the fees for immigration services is provided for under current law and not subject to an annual re-authorization by Congress.
“Current law further provides a permanent, indefinite authority for use of the adjudication fees in that account for specified purposes. As a consequence, the authority to expend these fees is controlled outside the annual appropriations process and does not depend on annual action by Congress,” said a CRS report dated Dec. 8.
The report, shared with House Republicans on Wednesday morning, was discussed in a closed-door session about the $1.1 trillion “cromnibus” spending package. The bill, negotiated with Senate Democrats, ensures the government won’t shut down when the current continuing resolution expires Thursday night, funding the federal agencies other than the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.
Funding for DHS, which oversees immigration services, is set to expire Feb. 27. Carving money for DHS out of the rest of the omnibus and funding it through a continuing resolution that expires in February is designed to give the full Republican Congress that will be seated in January leverage to confront Obama on “executive amnesty.”
Republicans argue that the president’s unilateral move to halt deportations and grant work permits to 4.1 million illegal immigrants is an unconstitutional overreach of his authority.
Some Republicans have argued that funding DHS is akin to funding Obama’s executive legalization. Mostly members of the House GOP’s right flank, they also have pushed for policy riders to be attached to a funding bill designed to prevent a government shutdown that would prevent the administration from using the immigration services fees for Obama’s executive legalization.
Other Republicans emphasize that the program is funded by fees and the only way to attempt to stop it is to change the law. Waiting until the GOP takes control of the Senate in January is the smarter political move, they contend, as it guards against a government shutdown just prior to the holidays and puts the party on stronger footing to pass changes in the law and fight Obama in 2015.
These Republicans have pushed for the Cromnibus as the best move as part of their broader immigration-fighting strategy. House GOP leaders told rank-and-file Republicans during Wednesday’s private conference meeting that they would fight Obama hard on the issue after the party takes control of the Senate.
A source who attended the meeting told the Examiner that the leadership “made very strong pitches and kept on the theme of, we will absolutely fight in February because of the president’s action and detailed in short a few options, like attaching their own immigration proposals to the funding of DHS, border security, defunding of his executive order. But the punch line was a passionate promise to fight in February.”
The CRS report notes that only a change in the law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by Obama himself would succeed in rolling back “executive amnesty.”
“An enactment of law would be required to alter these existing statutory provisions concerning the collection of the fees in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, their availability for expenditure, or to prohibit their use for certain purposes,” the report reads. “Provisions of a bill or joint resolution to accomplish these purposes would be subject to the constitutional requirements associated with the lawmaking process, which include that the measure be presented to the president for his approval.
“Such an enactment would be within Congress’s constitutional authority to legislate.” SOURCE
Pete Sessions has never failed to make personal contact with me when there was an issue such as that we’re facing. Pete knows that even if we disagree we can generally meet somewhere in the middle if we just get a chance for some 1 on 1. All I can say is keep up the fight Pete, I may not always agree, I may not always understand the particular in’s and out’s of what’s going on but communication is the key to understanding. Thank you!
While it may be little consolation to conservatives, House Republicans announced their intention Wednesday to vote on an amendment — in January, when the new Congress is sworn in — that would block the president’s executive action on immigration.
Rules Chairman Pete Sessions said during a panel hearing on the “cromnibus” Wednesday that Republicans plan to bring up legislation similar to an amendment offered by Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina that would prohibit the president from carrying out his immigration action.“Mr. Mulvaney has given us an amendment that works perfectly well,” Sessions said, saying he will “guarantee” that the Rules Committee, “in the new Congress, in the first two weeks,” would have a meeting to put that legislation on the House floor.
Sessions said he believed those in the country posed a threat to national security, and that the “rule of law” must be upheld. But he made it clear that the Rules Committee did not intend to have a fight over the president’s executive action in the cromnibus, thus effectively saying the amendment would not be made in order.
GOP leadership is trying to present the argument that the best chance for success is after the new Congress is sworn in. “We should not put a government shutdown on the table when Republicans have minimal leverage to change this law, particularly when Republican control of the Senate is a month away,” Sessions said.
While that argument won’t quiet every GOP detractor who wants to immediately block the president, it is true that Republicans will have an enhanced ability to get those sorts of pieces of legislation to the president’s desk once the new Congress is sworn in — and making President Barack Obama veto those bills could fire up the GOP base in advance of the 2016 elections.
According to aides, Sessions has been fighting behind closed doors for a more aggressive stance on the immigration action, as he’s taken a good deal of heat from conservatives — and conservative media, as he noted Wednesday night — for not doing enough to derail GOP leadership bills that do not block the president’s immigration order. “I do not support it,” Sessions said of the executive action, “despite what you may read in leading-edge blogs around the country. I have not changed my position that I have held over a number of years.”
Aides say, the Texas Republican has sought to use his leverage as Rules chairman to gain commitments from leadership that Republicans will, at the very least, vote to block the immigration action in the new Congress. And Sessions confirmed Wednesday night that he had met with conservatives earlier in the day — members like Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Mulvaney — to discuss getting a commitment from leadership to bring up the Mulvaney language next Congress.
Sessions got the commitment he’s been seeking Wednesday afternoon when members met with GOP leadership to discuss the amendment. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 2 House Republican who controls the floor schedule, supports bringing the so-called “Mulvaney amendment” back to the Rules Committee for full chamber consideration within the first weeks of the 114th Congress, according to a spokesman.
Such a commitment, however, might not placate conservatives, who note the legislation won’t be attached to a must-pass bill like the cromnibus, meaning it stands little chance of ever getting Obama’s signature.
But it would be another message from the House to the president that they will work to undo his executive order, and it very well could be attached to future pieces of legislation, aides said. It’s just a matter of what Republicans can do in the Senate with only 54 votes.
Regardless, the early commitment from GOP leadership to bring up such a bill will serve as a degree of consolation to conservatives as they consider the $1.1 trillion cromnibus, and it could prove key to getting sufficient Republican support as Democrats grow increasingly discontent with the bill.
GOP to Bring Up Bill Blocking Obama Immigration Action — Next Year
Fred, I just read Article 1, section 7 and I either don’t understand it because it sounds so simple, or WE THE PEOPLE are being duped into believing that the presidents veto ends all discussion of a bill he refuses to sign. Congress has the power to go around the president. No? As far as immigration goes, common sense would dictate that the country just can’t absorb all these new “workers”. Our economy is still in the shitter.
Congress can, and once the new Congress is seated, likely will over-ride any veto Obama should try to hang out there…
While Congress can vote to override a presidential veto, causing the bill to become law without the president’s approval, this is rarely done. More often than not, the threat of presidential veto is sufficient motivation for Congress to modify the bill prior to its final passage. This article provides a brief overview of procedures involved in vetoing a bill and the ways Congress can respond to a presidential veto
Meanwhile the bastard is going to take most of my pension. See them all in hell.
Excerpt from the article Washington Post or fly over to my place.
Congressional leaders hammer out deal to allow pension plans to cut retiree benefits
A measure that would for the first time allow the benefits of current retirees to be severely cut is set to be attached to a massive spending bill, part of an effort to save some of the nation’s most distressed pension plans.
The rule would alter 40 years of federal law and could affect millions of workers, many of them part of a shrinking corps of middle-income employees in businesses such as trucking, construction and supermarkets….
Note the example cited below the fold.
Whitlow Wyatt, 70, retired with a $3,300-a-month pension in 2000 after working more than 33 years as a long-haul driver. He could face pension reductions of 30 percent or more if Congress permits trustees of the hard-pressed pension fund to slash benefits.
Just imagine what havoc these cuts would work upon the personal budgets of many already-retired, elderly retirees under the age of seventy-five! Retirees who are over age seventy-five or disabled are exempt from the cuts.