Since returning from Thanksgiving break for the final sessions of the 113th Congress, several members of Congress are calling for the immediate defunding of President Obama's executive amnesty.
Incoming Senate Steering Committee chairman Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) laid out his plan to block funding for President Obama's executive amnesty by passing a short-term government funding bill now that blocks federal funding from being used to implement the president's plan.
The House should quickly pass a short-term CR that includes language prohibiting the use of funds to implement the President’s executive action on amnesty. The American people deserve to know where Members of Congress stand on this issue. The power of the purse is one of the tools Congress has to rein in an out-of-control executive.
Senator David Vitter (R-La.) released a statement telling the House "blocking amnesty (is) on your shoulders."
President Obama’s executive amnesty is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and flat out bad policy – I think all House Republicans agree with that. The weight is on their shoulders to act, and they can by prohibiting federal funds from being used for the President’s efforts. A funding bill that blocks amnesty is the best, smartest way to do this, and I hope they realize this in the first go around before they send a bill to the Harry Reid Senate that funds amnesty. Make no mistake, sending a bill to the Senate without first making an attempt to include defund language is telling the American people that you support Obama’s executive amnesty. That would be a slap in the face to the voters who sent a message last month by electing Republican majorities in Congress.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also released a statement calling the House to defund executive amnesty, but also called on the Senate to block non-national security position confirmations until "the President stops this illegal amnesty."
This November's election was a referendum on executive amnesty, and the American people overwhelmingly oppose President Obama's illegal amnesty. Republicans in Congress should use every tool at our disposal—our constitutional checks and balances—to stop President Obama's amnesty. The Senate should use its constitutional authority to halt confirmations for non-national security positions, until the President stops this illegal amnesty. And both Houses should use the power of the purse, which the Framers understood to be the most potent tool Congress has to rein in an out-of-control Executive.
Senator Cruz also noted that "nearly a dozen Senate Democrats have publicly expressed concerns about President Obama's executive amnesty."
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "We are all frustrated with our broken immigration system, but the way forward is not unilateral action by the president.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.): “I wish he wouldn't do it.”
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.): “I have to be honest, how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable, I think it probably makes most Missourians uncomfortable.”
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.): “I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the president shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own.”
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.): “I don’t like government by executive order. I just don’t, generally, so I’d have to look and see specifically what he’s proposing and what he’s talking about...Overall, I don’t approve of that approach.”
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): “A big issue like immigration, the best way to get a comprehensive solution is to take this through the legislative process.”
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC): “I think this is a congressional issue and I encourage Speaker [John] Boehner [R-Ohio] in the House to bring up a bill, to vote on a bill for immigration reform so that we can then put it into conference...And I do support congressional action over executive action.”
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.): “I’m disappointed the president decided to use executive action at this time on this issue, as it could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the new Senate before it has even started.”
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.): “I have concerns about executive action.”
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine): “And I also frankly am concerned about the constitutional separation of powers…The Framers knew what they were doing and it doesn't say if the president gets frustrated and Congress doesn't act, he gets to do, you know, what he thinks is important for the country.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.): “Asked whether he would prefer the President not do it by executive authority, [Tester] replied, ‘I would prefer that Congress act, yes.’”
Representative David Brat (R-Va.), who unseated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor over Cantor's support for amnesty in a GOP primary this year, echoed Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-Ala.) opposition to the GOP leaderships plan to pass a long-term spending bill for most of the government and a short-term spending bill for agencies dealing with immigration.
The major proposals I’m hearing about would effectively fund Obama’s amnesty program until March. We can’t fund it at all. I agree with other conservatives who have stated that the president’s amnesty scheme is illegal, which is why we should defund it specifically and immediately while funding the rest of the government. This can and should be done.
Representative Brat added that President Obama’s amnesty policies are “precisely” why Virginia voters elected him over Cantor.
“Obama’s overreach is precisely what the people of my district sent me here to stop,” Brat said. “They don’t want this amnesty, and they especially don’t want the president to break the law to do it.”
Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) indicated that he would not vote for a short-term spending bill that would fund President Obama's amnesty and is ready for a long fight.
This is the time to fight, this is the ground to fight on, and I’m a little bit amazed that that isn’t more clear to more people. I will not vote to fund the president’s lawless unconstitutional act, and they should not be asking members to do so.
Representative John Fleming (R-La.) stated his doubts of a long-term spending bill passing in the House.
I think a lot of us, in discussion, we don’t see the purpose of having a long CR. Why not do it the first day we’re in session? I’m not sure it’s going to pass the way they are proposing it. I think it’s likely they are going to have to improve it if they want it to pass.
Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said at an event this week that passing a long-term spending bill does not make sense with an incoming Republican majority in both chambers.
The cavalry is coming. Why in the world would you want to extend a CR (continuing resolution) for several months without waiting for those people (who just won elections) to get here?
