On the recordMay 8, 2012
I thank the gentleman. Let me sum this up because there is a lot of passion. The Constitution might be an inconvenient thing, yet it is the basis for all of our law, but let's move beyond that. This is an appropriations bill. This amendment, no matter what its result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill have the President's signature. So this is the beginning of a whole set of amendments having nothing to do with how much money we're going to spend but, rather, having to do with various political passions. Most, if not all of the amendments, are going to be stripped from this bill. So we're going to spend hours here, and we're going to debate these things, but they're not going to be part of the bill as it finally becomes the law of the land. We're not going to resolve immigration policy in this bill. So I am going to recede from using all of this time, and I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. The truth of the matter is that this is actually an appropriations bill, and these matters are going to get settled in some other way. I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment. It does violate, within the Constitution, the notion of the separation of powers. I believe that, even in a Democrat-controlled Congress and with a Republican President, I would vote against denying the executive branch the right to have its lawyers go to court and argue whatever point of view they wanted to argue.
