Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Debates Bills to Disapprove Federal Regulations  CSPAN  February 7, 2017 5:59pm-8:00pm EST

5:59 pm
management. where the roads are going to go, how are they going to manage the various uses of the land, whether it's agriculture for cattle or for recreation or hunting or whatever, that they invite into that process all of the local agencieses, the county, the state -- agencies, the county, the state, environmental groups, hunting, fishing, cattlemen, whoever would have a stake in that, they were invited into the process. it shortened the process from eight years down to something probably in the two or three-year range to go through this entire thing, and for reasons that i'll never understand, the repeal eliminated the use of good science and economics. so i don't understand what's going on here. this is a good process so that public would be invited. yet, the congressional review act, should the senate agree and the president sign this particular review, the bureau
6:00 pm
of land management will never be able to go back and enter this process of land planning again. they cannot issue a new regulation. it is nonsense what's happening here. mountain top removal in coal country where mountains are simply wiped off the face of the earth and all of that dirt piled into the nearby streams, that regulation providing clean water for the communities in the rivers for recreation or fishing or any other thing, gone. no longer available to protect the communities. . it goes on and on. one thing the president did the very first day was an executive order to eliminate the reduction in the mortgage guarantee fee. this is a fee paid by homeowners, usually low-income homeowners who, because of their income, because of their
6:01 pm
financial status, cannot get a regular mortgage unless there is a guarantee. he said this was for the benefit of the homeowners. baloney. this was from for -- this was for the benefit of the bankers. we already know he's appointed three people to his cabinet that are from wall street. particularly from goldman sachs, and another one from another agency in wall street. he was going to do away with wall street. well, no. he brought wall street into the cabinet. going backwards on this one. i'm going to take a deep breath, i need it after all of that, and i'm just beginning to get wound up, haven't even gone through the other 20 things on my list but i did notice this is my day to welcome to the floor of the house of representatives new members. new democratic members. mr. raskin is from the marvelous state of maryland but i have two californians here.
6:02 pm
perhaps you'll take the microphone over here and share with us your take on your first 36 days in congress. no, 33 days. >> thank you, representative garamendi. thank you for your leadership in the state of california and for the country. i rise today to voice my strong objection and disapproval for pie's decision to roll back a program that would provide internet access to low-income americans. i was shocked, shocked that this is the -- one of the first decisions that the f.c.c. chairman makes. and what he has done is provide no subsidies or few subsidies for low-income americans who need internet access.
6:03 pm
ow we know that 45% of americans under $30,000 currently don't have internet access. and providing these folks with internet access is giving their kids a basic shot at digital proficiency and having a job in technology or a chance at the american dream. mr. khanna: the chairman has become a poster child with this decision for everything that's wrong in washington. it's what people complain about. he is writing the rules of modern day capitalism in a way that privileges these elite telecom companies with concentrated economic power at the expense of low-income americans. and this congress must stand united to make sure that an
6:04 pm
unelected bureaucrats doesn't get to write the rules of our economy in favor of wealthy interests at the expense of ordinary americans. so congressman garamendi, i'm going to be circulating a letter to our colleagues that i hope we can send to the chairman and hopefully we'll reconsider this decision that's really not in the interest of ordinary americans. mr. garamendi: mr. khanna, if i might ask a question of you. you represent the silicon valley, at least a large portion of it. the issue of net neutrality has been bouncing around here for some time. the f.c.c., as i understand it, has decided there would be net neutrality, which, as i understand it, perhaps you can explain it better than i, may be the next thing this new chairman intends to do away with. have you followed that? mr. khanna: i have.
6:05 pm
net neutrality, as you know is a simple idea. that means that everyone should have equal access to the internet. you shouldn't get to pay for faster service or to have more of your message out. you'd think if anyone would appreciate the importance of it, it's the president who uses the tools of the internet with twitter and facebook. mr. gare mengke dee: the tweets. mr. khanna: you'd think we want democracy where every citizen has equal access. who doesn't want that? some of these big companies that have a concentrated power and have an interest in making money, not free speech this chairman has shown a consistent pattern, already in a few weeks, of basically siding with large telecommunications companies at the expense of ordinary citizens. and you know, it may sound like a technical issue and some folks glaze over when you say net neutrality or when you talk about the technical issues of
6:06 pm
the lifeline program but i think what they have to know is you've got an f.c.c. chairman who is siding with wealthy interests and telecom companies over what ordinary people -- what would benefit ordinary people. mr. garamendi: thank you for the explanation and the purpose of net neutrality and the way it is one of the things that in a very real way protects the individual to have access. what's happening with these regulations and many of these executive orders that the president puts out is to remove from the individual protections that they have. i mentioned mountain top removal in coal country, the protections that the indigent farmer down the stream has protection that he would have clean water that protection is gone. you look at the mortgage guarantee. it's a small amount but it's $500 a year additional that an individual would have to pay assuming they had to have a mortgage guarantee and most
6:07 pm
low-income people have to have that mortgage guarantee in order to buy a home. it's 500 bucks out of their pocket. so the protections that have been in place, and there may be others, i'm sure in your area you may know of others if you'd like to share with us, you're more than welcome to do so, but i thank you for bringing to us your expertise in the area of communications. i know that you've worked in this area before, you represent a part of america and california here this is a very big issue. mr. khanna: thank you for your eadership and working on this. mr. garamendi: i'll use another analogy, flying below the ray car. a lot of this is flying below the radar, because we're looking at the tweets that come out, the news outlets focusing on the president and missing some important things that protect
6:08 pm
the american people. you know, everyone says they're not for regulations but every time i get on an airplane i'm thankful we have some regulations. regulations can't just be eliminated with a hatchet the way this administration is doing. mr. garamendi: so very, very true. let me go through some regulations repealed here in the house the last couple of weeks. the congressional review act being used to repeal these regulations has two parts to it. one, the ability of congress to repeal regulations which i think is a good idea. the second part has some real shortcomings and that is, once that regulation has been repealed both houses pass it, the president signs it, then the issue cannot be revisited by any -- by that administrative agency. i gave the example of the b.l.m. but it applies across the board. so regulations that deal with
6:09 pm
smoking on airplanes. that's a regulation. ok. we repealed that regulation, smoking on airplanes, you can never go back and do a regulation again in that area. mr. khanna: thank you, congressman. mr. garamendi: thank you for joining us, mr. khanna. i'm going to run through a quick list here, oil and gas companies operate around the world, our new secretary of state was the c.o. -- c.e.o. of exxonmobil, the world's biggest oil company. did exxonmobil pay a fee or a gratuity or corruption to a foreign country? we'll never know now because the congress has passed a regulation that required oil and gas companies to disclose any fees, any money that they have paid to a foreign government for the
6:10 pm
opportunity to extract oil or gas from their country. we happen to know that manufacture--- that many of the countries in which these american oil and gas companies operate are rife with corruption. anthis is a way for us to do anti-corruption program around the world that involves our national oil companies. that's been -- that's on the way to being repealed. how about mentally ill people being able to get a firearm? i suspect 80% of americans, maybe 100% of americans think that somebody that is seriously mental ill ought not be able to get a firearm. there's a mechanism. it's a national database, we call it the nic database, and it shops abase that gun have to inquire to see if an individual is on that database
6:11 pm
for domestic violence, for criminal activity, or for mental illness. we've had a problem with the mental illness part of this because many mentally ill people do not get on the database. for a variety of reasons. the counties, the city the states don't provide that information in some cases, it's deemed to be proprietary or confidential. but there is a way. it exists in the laws today, excuse me, in the regulations today that would require the social security administration when it makes a payment for disability for severe mental illness to an individual that that individual's name goes on this database and when that individual may want to go down to the gun shop and buy a weapon, that the gun shop would query the database and lo and behold, the individual comes up, he wovente be able to get a gun.
6:12 pm
makes sense. it enhances the day -- the database, adds to the database individuals that are so severely mentally ill that they're able to get social security disability payments. who is to object to that? apparently a majority of the house of representatives and the senate does object to that. probably the national rifle association also. so now we have a situation in which we have a protection for americans being protected from the mentally ill individual that could buy a gun, or could not buy a gun, now suddenly being able to not be on the national database for those people that are mental i -- mentally ill and a protection. one more protection gone. there are others. i'm going to run through them as quick as i can here.
6:13 pm
i don't know whether you believe in climate change. global warming. i certainly do. i've worked on this for more than 30 years now. and it is a real issue. and we know, no debate about is, that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. and in fact, it's far more powerful than carbon dioxide. so the emissions of methane are one of the things we would want to reduce going into the atmosphere to add to those elements in the atmosphere that creates global warming. climate change. well. house of representatives has passed a resolution through the w that allows it to do so to roll back a requirement that the
6:14 pm
bureau of land management put in place that requires oil and gas companies that are drilling for oil, drilling for natural gas, that they control the leakage of methane. from the gas well. wow. that's a terrible thing to cause them to do. really? to require that a -- that an oil company, that a drilling company, that's going after natural gas on government, excuse me, your land, the american public's land, that they in the process of drilling for that natural gas or oil that they control, capture, the methane that would otherwise leak from that well. well that regulation is gone. the protections of americans. gone.
6:15 pm
greenhouse gas emissions. emitted without regulatory control. and many of these gas wells are in communities and in neighbors who will also enjoy more methane emissions. one more. or maybe more. oh, yes. labor. violations. labor laws have been on the books for well over 80 years. . requirements on hours, working conditions, hazardous circumstances. there are many different regulations that affect employers. they have to provide a safe working environment for their workers. some do. well, i would say most work at making sure that their workplace is safe.
6:16 pm
some do not. and some of those who do not provide a safe workplace have been fined by the federal government for those labor violationses. that's a good thing -- violations. that's a good thing. it causes those companies to provide a safe working environment for their employees. a regulation was put forward by the obama administration that said that if a company wants to contract with the federal government, they must disclose their labor violations. where they have violated the various labor laws and maybe hours of work, overtime pay, working conditions, hazardous circumstances, safety. they'd have to disclose it. it didn't say they couldn't get a contract. but it did say that they would have to disclose to the public that they have not provided sufficient awareness of the various labor safety and
6:17 pm
workplace laws. that's on the way to being repealed. so what i want to do tonight is to simply say to the american public, pay attention. there are many, many things going on here in congress and in the administration that are harmful to you, the american public. the kind of protections that you have counted on. worker safety, environmental protections, if you live down stream from a coal mining operation, any of those things are in the process of being repealed. and your protections along with them. so be aware of what the new administration and the congress is doing to you, not for you. i could talk about the wall, about the $15 billion to $30 billion that's going to be spent if mr. trump gets his way
6:18 pm
here and builds a 1,400-mile wall. want to just end with this. and that is choices. your representatives, myself, 434 of my colleagues here and 100 senators, and a president. we make choices about how your tax money's going to be spent. should it be spent on a wall? well, let's consider for a wall. spending it on a this is the minimum amount of money and that's not going to build much of the wall. for $15 billion, what could you do for it? i'm from california. i was once a regionent of the university of california and on -- regent on the university of the california and on the board . so i'm familiar with this system. $15 billion could fund the entire california state university system for three years. and that is nearly a half a
6:19 pm
million students. you could replace all of the water pipes in flint, michigan, 270 times over, for $15 billion. choices. you want safe drinking water in flint and other communities around the united states? or do you want a wall? you're concerned about the american military, the navy? five submarines, virginia class submarines, or one ford class aircraft carrier, plus a submarine. or how about scholarships for undergraduate programs at the university of california, which i had the privilege of graduating from a few years ago. 27,777 four-year, full-time scholarships. that's the end of graduate -- undergraduate population at the university of california-davis.
6:20 pm
there's one more place you could spend $15 billion or even one part of $15 billion. nd it's on this. no, that's water infrastructure. where is it? found it. too many placards. for give me for a moment. -- forgive me for a moment. these are the deadly diseases in america. let's see. breast cancer, over the last decade we've seen breast cancer actually decline. prostate cancer has declined by 11%. heart disease by 14%. stroke by 23%. hiv-aids by 52%. this one, alzheimer's, has not declined.
6:21 pm
471%. e has increased by and it's going to go even more. what could we do with $15 billion of research on a disease that affects every american family? we could almost assuredly find a cure for alzheimer's. i thank my colleagues here in the house of representatives for increasing the budget for alzheimer's research, from around $500 million to just under $1 billion. that was done last year. f we can increase that funding another $1 billion a year, researchers indicate to us that we have a high probability of delaying the onset of alzheimer's by five years. and another $1 billion after that we probably could find a cure for this disease that is going to bust the american
6:22 pm
bank. medicare and medicaid, that's where the big money's going to be spent. so my plea to our president and those who want to build a wall is, we have choices. you want to do something for the american public? let's spend that $15 billion to $30 billion on education. you want to do something for every american family? spend some portion of that $15 billion to $30 billion by doubling the amount of money that we're spending annually on alzheimer's research. you want to do something for the security of our nation? meet those critical needs that our military has. whether it's a new submarine or an aircraft carrier, we can debate. but we do know that we have expenditures that are necessary in that area. so, mr. president, don't waste our money. don't waste our tax money on a wall. and by the way, we know mexico's not going to pay for it. and don't get in a fight with our trading partner and our neighbors to the south and
6:23 pm
australia. be aware, americans. watch closely what's happening here in washington. and if you're concerned, so am i. concerned about where we're headed and about what this government is doing to you, not for you, but rather to you. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority party. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and to have the privilege to this great in
6:24 pm
deliberative body that we have and are. on occasion i come down here and listen to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. they've been known to change the subject on me or i've changed the subject that i came here to speak about because i've listened to the things that they had to say. it's good for us to have that kind of debate, mr. speaker. certainly i disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn here. but i want to take this from the top. i will get to the wall situation along the way. i think those numbers are a long ways off, myself. but i'd start with this. on the immigration issue, mr. speaker, there's been a long battle that's gone on. for me it goes back into the early part of this millennia. when we had -- let's see. we had a group of senators that decided they were going to solve the immigration problem back in about 2006 or so. and so they brought their big immigration bill and pushed it hard.
6:25 pm
and here in the house we brought an enforcement bill and pushed that back against the senate. we held hearings for that enforcement bill around the country. in places like arizona and iowa, as i recall. there were a number of others around the country. and we made the case that we have to be a nation of laws. and the rule of law has to prevail. and effort on the other side was to waive the application of the law. and they said, we want to be able to tell people that we feel sorry for you, therefore we're going to sacrifice the rule of law out of our sympathy for the condition that you left in order to come into america. well, that fits some people. but it doesn't substitute for the rule of law. it doesn't substitute for the respect for the law that we must have if we're going to be a law-abiding first world nation. plenty of third world nations don't have respect for rule of law. most of the nations that these illegal aliens come from are coming from countries that don't have respect for the rule of law. and one of the things they're
6:26 pm
trying to get away from is the erosion of the law that they've had in their home country. i mean, think of -- i'll just say mexico, for example. driving down the street in mexico. you might be pulled over by a police officer there and they will leverage a thing against you which is, you pay the police officer on the spot and he'll let you go. well, that's paying off the law enforcement. they use that to generate income for themselves. and they get by with it in a country that is corrupt. then -- and when i traveled down to mexico, mr. speaker, and i traveled to some of the worst places in the world, and when i look at the circumstances there, whatever they may be, i can generally put together, and i'll say almost always put together, a proposal, a strategy on how to put that country back in shape again and get it functioning the way it should function. and mexico, for example, they have a lot of natural resources. they have good, hardworking people.
6:27 pm
they have a continuity of family. they have a culture that goes deep back for centuries. but they can't make it work. and they haven't made it work for a long time. i don't know if they've ever made it work. but at the heart of this is the corruption that exists. and the corruption is there due to lack of respect for the law. if we import that contempt for the rule of law, and if we adopt it as our national policy, which would be amnesty, would be adopting the policy of accepting the -- of accepting the violation of law and rewarding the law breakers for their objective that they had when they broke the law. if we do that, america, the shining city on the hill, continues to devolve downward toward the third world from the first world. our job should instead be lift up, lift up the third world up to the standards that we are here in the first world. and one of the those things would be -- one of those things would be to promote the rule of law in countries where they
6:28 pm
don't have it, as in mexico and many of the central american countries. that's the center of this immigration debate, mr. speaker. of all the discussion that goes on, i hear the individual narratives, i hear the heartbreaking stories, i hear all of the laments that are out there, woe are somebody's constituent because they're subject to the application of the rule of law, and they want to be exempted from that. meanwhile, as soon as they're exempted from the rule of law, if that should happen, and the destruction of the rule of law in this country, they're going to be asking for the law to protect them in some other area. that's how this is going on in this country. and i would take this back to 1986. more than 30 years ago. mr. speaker. when this debate was going on. it's the same debate that's been going on in this country for more than 30 years. there were approximately a million illegal aliens in the united states, as far as the estimates were concerned. at the beginning of the debate,
6:29 pm
when the house and the senate eventually passed the 1986 amnesty act. a million. and the discussion was, we can't possibly address these million people that are in america and we can't possibly deport them all. and so let's make an accommodation to them. let them stay. give them a fast track that turned out to be path to citizenship. what we'll do is we'll promise america that there will never be another amnesty again ever. that was the language that was used. there will never be another amnesty again ever. at least at the time they were honest enough to admit that it wasn't amnesty. so they set about passing the legislation in the house and the senate that granted amnesty , they thought, to a million people. that amnesty legislation went to the white house, ronald reagan's white house, where he was surrounded by a group of people in the cabinet who were his advisors and i'm sure they had the best interests of the country and the president in mind, but they had decided to
6:30 pm
advise ronald reagan that he should sign the amnesty act because could he put this issue away, well, maybe forever, but for the duration of our republic. because we were always going to enforce immigration law from that point forward. nd ronald reagan, i don't have inside knowledge on what he was thinking on the deliberations that went on, i just know that most of his cabinet advised him to sign the amnesty act, he ultimately signed the amnesty act. and consequently, when they began processing these illegal aliens, there were only going to be -- i say only, they thought it was a huge number, a million. there were going to be a million of them to process. well, they processed three million instead of a million. why? one, they probably underestimated and undercounted. the other half of the equation was there was a lot of fraud that got in the door that was processed also. . so we end up with about three million newly amnestied
6:31 pm
americans who have been rewarded for violating america's immigration laws, many of them rewarded for committing the crime of unlawful entry into the united states of americamark of them operating with false documents. that was the path 30 years ago. after that bill was signed and the results of it became ident, then-president reagan reversed his decision and announced he regretted he'd signed the amnesty act of 1986. i remember those days and i've since had a conversation with then-attorney general ed mideast who informed me about the inside workings of this to -- of ed meese, who informed me about the inside workings of this. i regret that decision to sign the amnesty act because it started us on a 30-year debate. once debate was out there, once people understood and people in foreign countries began to believe if they could once get
6:32 pm
into the united states, there would soon ore later come along and be another amnesty act that would include them and they would have their path to citizenship and lawful presence in america and all the benefits that have grown massively since 1986. once you put the carrot out, once you break the mold of the principle of protecting the rule of law, then after that, it's easier the next time and the next time and the next time. our vir chao that we had a respectable virtue on enforcing imgation law in 1986 has been ratcheted downwards because of the 1986 amnesty act and at since that time. i look back at the language and they say, first of all, it's not amnesty. and they try to redefine it. i've had this discussion with
6:33 pm
karl rove during the george w. bush administration. it is an amnesty -- it isn't amnesty if they pay a fine if they get a background check, it isn't amnesty if they abide by our laws and it isn't amnesty if they learn english. i'm not very thrilled about that. i would say that the proposal then was a $1,500 fine in order to wave the criminal charge of unlawful entry into the united states of america and under that argument somehow that mitigated violating the law and so you wouldn't be able to call it amnesty. i defied it then. i said, no, whatever the penalty is on the books when the crime is committed if you waive that penalty, you've provided amnesty for a class of people. and so the more precise definition of amnesty, to grand amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their violate or their crime as the case may
6:34 pm
be. pardon immigration lawbreakers, reward them with the objective of their crime. what is this proposal with daca and dapa that president obama so unconstitutionally advanced forward? it's just that. it's the most blatant form of amnesty for the largest classes of people that's ever been created in the history of the united states of america, of course we only have to look back to 1986 to find the first amnesty and then the six or so amnesties i've mentioned. but barack obama, constitutional scholar, at least as high a standing as mr. panetta who spoke here on the floor a little while ago, but barack obama, 22 times in videotape, in speeches and various places around the country said to america that he didn't have the constitutional authority to waive the immigration law against people who claim that they came to
6:35 pm
america before their 18th birthday and presumably were brought in by their parents. if you look at the daca language that's been advanced here in the house or let's go across the rotunda to the senate and look at dick durbin's language there, it is if you've come into america before your 18th birthday, for any purpose whatsoever, then you get amnesty and some of those people now, according to the older drafts of the bill, would be 38 years old. getting amnesty to stay in the united states of america at age 38. and people believe that that's a humane thing to do. to reward them with the objective of their crime. now they could have carried a backpack of marijuana into the united states bethe day before their 18th birthday and been telling the truth about pretty much all of that except they're not supposed to commit other crimes and they would be granted this level of amnesty under daca. the acronym stands for deferred
6:36 pm
action for childhood arrivals. and so, that policy, that he advanced after 22 times, barack obama 22 times told us he didn't have the constitutional authority. he was right. just a couple of weeks before he issued this dambings ca policy , he stood over here at a high school in washington, d.c. and explained to them that he didn't have the authority he said congress passes the laws. i and the executive branch enforce the laws and the courts interpret the laws. pretty simple. nice, concise description of the balance of powers that we have on -- in this country. but he said he didn't have the authority because he can't write law. two weeks later, the president grant es the policy to work permits to people in the united states who assert that they came in before their 18th
6:37 pm
birthday he created an entire class of people. i read carefully through the morton memos. i read the memo that launched all of this, it was signed by janette napolitano, then-secretary of homeland security, and her memo said, seven times, on an individual basis only, on an individual basis only. and this -- in this page and a third of the document that established the policy. she knew very well that they had to make an argument that this was an on -- on an individual basis only in order to try to sustain any kind of facade before the courts when they would almost certainly be sued for daca and later on for dapa. it was never on an individual basis. it's huge classes of people created. they created four separate classes of people in those memos and still, still they assert that they have a right to do this. now i hear the gentleman say it's unconstitutional.
6:38 pm
unbelievable to me that anybody could argue when president obama said it was unconstitutional, then he was the last one he was going to admit this and he went ahead and committed an unconstitutional act that takes care of the deferred action for childhood arrivals. and then obama came with a policy, dapa, deferred action for parents of americans. that's somebody that has, an illegal, who has a baby in america, sneak into america, have a baby, they call that birth right citizenship. and now -- the president grants them a legal presence because they violated our laws and some of them, many of them, for the express purpose of coming here to have a baby that would be granted the right of american citizenship. we see between 340,000 and 750,000 of those babies born in america every year. think of the population that america is carrying that doesn't have a moral claim to citizenship, doesn't actually
6:39 pm
have a legal claim to citizenship, just can point to the practice we began awarding citizenship to babies born to illegals many years ago, there were only a few of them. it wasn't significant. and by the time it gets around to where it's significant, now they've recreated their own constituency group here in america. dapa, texas brought that case against the united states of america and has prevailed so far in court before judge andrew henin, and that case is now, the dapa policy is now at least suspended and held in place because one wise judge in texas decided to draw the line and he made the -- he had the clearest constitutional understanding, dapa is unconstitutional. the president can't write the law. and mr. speaker, i'm not speaking from lack of experience
6:40 pm
on this or lack of knowledge on this. i'm not here speaking of -- speaking off of talking points other than what came from a handful of notes i scribbled a while ago. one of my experiences with separation of powers. when i was in the state senate in iowa, our newly elected governor at that time was tom vilsack with did a respectable -- who did a respectable job in those eight year. early in his term he issued an executive order. executive order number seven, that granted special protected status for sexual orientation and gender identity. when that executive order came down, i looked at it, i was appalled that a governor would think he could legislate by executive order. i made calls to republican attorneys, made my case and they told me i didn't understand it. it was drafted in such a deft way that it fit with nuances such that it was a constitutional executive order and that i had to submit to it
6:41 pm
because -- and my answer was, no. the iowa general assembly has within the boundaries of its state constitution, the same legislative authority that this congress has. and that it was clear to me that he was legislating by executive order. i initiated legislation to push on it. i initiated a lawsuit that lawsuit, easy to look up. it's king vs. vilsack. it was decided exactly on the same kind of principle, whether an executive officer, a governor of president, can write law. our founding fathers would agree with no concept that said that either the executive branch or the judicial branch of government could write law, instead, they separated these out and they gave us articles one and two and three of our constitution. it's clear.ker,
6:42 pm
they didn't write it someplace else in the constitution, they put it right up front. all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states. not a president of the united states. not a judicial branch of the united states but a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. then they set about laying out the structure of the senate and the house of representatives. all legislative powers. and then, the congress has delegated some legislative powers. there's no delegated legislative power here for the president of the united states to write immigration law. but he did that. and then we had to bring two lawsuits. one is texas vs. the united states, decided by judge henin, that decision stands, it was appealed up to the supreme court, there was a 4-4 tie which means the fifth circuit decision prevails. well, good, congratulations, it's held in place now. but daca, the deferred action
6:43 pm
for childhood arrivals, and that's an odd acronym that doesn't necessarily match somebody that's 38 years old that lawsuit, i pulled the people together to initiate that lawsuit and it turned out to be crane vs. napolitano that case is still being litigated. it's been pushed off on to a side rail because of the president of the i.c.e. union has been directed to litigate against the justice department because it's agreements with their -- a grievance with those in favor say aye employees rather than getting to the constitutional question. it's been pushed to the side by a judge. that is still being litigated but it remains unconstitutional. the former president of the united states knows that. not only that, our current president, donald trump, knows that. he has said many times during the campaign that very early on in his presidency, he would eliminate the unconstitutional executive orders that bring about these components of
6:44 pm
amnesty. that includes daca and dapa and needs to also include the morton memos. i've got a nice little pact i can send to the white house. i did expect that very early in his administration that he would address daca and dapa and the morton memos. and so it was a bit of a surprise to me to learn as far as -- i'll say as recently as january 23, and this is the only confirmation i have of this, that the united states citizenship and immigration services is still issuing daca permits. and still extending daca permits. and that's a number that runs up to about 800 a day at the pace, at least, that they were doing with tens of thousands in backlog yet. the simple thing to do would be to freeze any action on daca and dapa. i would rescind the executive order and invalidate every daca
6:45 pm
permit, every dapa permit. we've got a database also to address that, mr. speaker. but the simplest thing right now would be just simply suspend any action that's affirmative in continuing this unconstitutional act. and from my standpoint and i think it should be the standpoint of the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states, and all who take an oath, his oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and that constitution requires that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed. i think he was very sincere when he gave that oath. i think that vice president pence was even more sincere when he gave his oath. very moving to me to witness that testimony out here on the west portico of the capitol. but i want to remind the administration that this action continues, at least as far as the report is concerned, and united states citizenship immigration services may just need a memo from the white
6:46 pm
house, cease and desist the unconstitutional actions taking place at uscis. very simple, very abrupt, not very traumatic to anybody in this country and then start the process of undoing the lawlessness that we've had to submit to under barack obama's regime. . the earlier that daca and dapa are addressed by this president, in the keeping of his solemn oath, and that's to the american people, the easier the going to be, i'm encouraging that it happen early and that it not be delayed because the problems created by barack obama are now being compounded by uscis. i want to also, mr. speaker, speak in favor of, let's accelerate the construction of this wall. that's another solemn pledge of president trump. by the way, that agenda that he laid out for america that thursday night in cleveland, as i listened to plank after plank
6:47 pm
after plank in his platform, that was a solid and a strong agenda, and he has people in place that are listening to all the pledges that he's made and he's been going down through that list in an impressive fashion. keeping his oath time after time after time. keeping his promises to the american people time after time. i'm looking at the exceptions. and -- but the rule has been a very consistent and a very aggressive approach to keeping these promises. i know that a week ago saturday president trump sat down at a table with a small group of people behind him and he went through three executive orders. one of them was a reorganization of the national security council. the third one was for the department of defense to produce a strategy to defeat radical islamic jihad or at least isis and produce a strategy within 30 days. when it was over, i realized three executive orders had been
6:48 pm
signed and ayou the -- and i thought, how long did that take? i backed my television up, set my stop watch on my iphone, and in a minute and 40 seconds the president of the united states had signed three executive orders and moved this country dramatically in the right direction again, again and again. so i'm not here in broad criticism. i'm here with targeted encouragement. and i'm not concerned that the wall hasn't moved quickly nough. and to the american people who, by the tens of thousands in event after event after event, chanted, build the wall, build the wall, we even had an individual come to an event in iowa that had a wall costume on . he looked like he was made out of flexible cement blocks. it's a movement in this country. and it's a promise to america. mr. speaker, i point out that donald trump never said, i think we'll build some fence,
6:49 pm
or we're going to do something virtual. he said, we're going to build a wall. it will be a big wall. it will be a beautiful wall. and the mexicans are going to pay for it. that's the line. so i've said that i think donald trump has been an expert at building things big, he's been an expert at building them beautiful. and i'm going to leave it up to him to figure out how to get the mexicans to pay for it. but i'm pretty confident he's going to get that done. i'm intending to be supportive of that effort. when i hear the gentleman from california speak about how expensive the wall is, and his numbers were $15 billion to $30 billion to build -- i think he said 1,300 miles of wall. we have 2,000 miles of border and we have a few miles built that are adequate barriers right now. but much of it that we even call a fence or a wall needs to be completely reconstructed so that we have an effective barrier.
6:50 pm
the estimates -- the estimate's about $15 billion to 30ds billion, or the numbers on the -- $30 billion, or the numbers on the republican side, $25 billion. if somebody's telling you $15 billion or higher, you should understand they don't want that wall built at all. that's why they have an inflated number in their head. so who gives them that number? i read those documents. i've questioned those numbers considerably. but i don't know if there's anybody in the united states congress that has more years and more experience building things and being in the construction business than i do. we're in our 42nd year of construction with king construction. and we do a similar kind of work that gives us the ability to make a legitimate estimate. on the cost of this wall. and i've designed a wall. many people know, mr. speaker, that i built it down here on the floor more than 10 years ago. and i put an estimate into that , the now a youtube that's gone semiviral. and that estimate that i
6:51 pm
uttered then that night holds up pretty well when i put our modern software estimating to work. and i will say this, thanks to my oldest son, david king, who owns that company today, he committed some days of pro bono work to put together an estimate on what it would take to build a concrete wall with at least a five-foot-deep foundation in it. and a wall that comes up to be a minimum of 12 feet functioning in height. with wire on top. and a wall of that nature, that estimate is sophisticated, it's about six pages of spread sheet, 5 1/2 to be a little more accurate. but the all built into the interrational databases necessary, add your materials and labor and overhead and your cost to be able to build a wall. here's what's really going on. we are spending, mr. speaker, we are spending $13.4 billion a
6:52 pm
year defending and protecting our southern border. 13ds.4 billion. that turns out to be -- $13.4 billion. that turns out to be $6.7 billion a mile. and the board par petroleum has come to the committee numerous -- on nume -- pa -- border patrol has come to the committee on numerous provisions. who do you interdict successfully? their answer before the committee has been, well, we think about 25%. they get about one in four that try to get across the border. so presumably three out of four make it in. so i would call that a 25% efficiency rate. then i go down to the border and i talk to the officers and the agents down there. and this includes border patrol and i.c.e. and i say, to so you're stop being 25 -- so you're stopping about 25%? the answer that comes back most consistent is no. 10% has to come first. i've had estimates by i.c.e. officers that operate near the board that are will say, we
6:53 pm
think the closer to 2% to 3%. i don't know that that's the right number. i don't want to assert here, mr. speaker, into this record that i think we're only stopping 2% to 3% to those that attempt to get across the border, i'm suggesting that that's certainly a number that's plausible. it comes from the people that should know the most. and if the border patrol on the border says 10% has to come first, they might be thinking that 2% to 3% sounds all right. i'm not even -- i'm not even focused on those numbers of 2% to 3%, up to 10%. i'll take it to a 25% number and say, that could be an inflated number. but it's still -- it's an awful number to consider for return on investment. if you're going to spend $13.4 billion a year a every single year and get 25% efficiency on $6.7 million a mile. i need to put this into a con sex so people understand what -- context so people understand what it really is. a lot of us live out in the country.
6:54 pm
on gravel roads. in the flat country in iowa we have a gravel road every mile. let's just say general kelly came to me, and i would have said janet napolitano or maybe jeh johnson, came to me and said, visa proposal for you. i want to you secure a mile of country road. a gravel road out there. and i'm going to offer you $6.7 million a mile to secure that. for each year on a 10-year contract. so here's $67 million in contract and you're going to have to guard this mile for a year and you can let 75% of the people through that are trying to get across that road. and i'm still going pay you. that sound like a good deal? there's not hardly any american that wouldn't take that deal. that's not a very good deal. and i'd point this out to -- president trump will recognize how bad a deal that is. it's a terrible deal. yet we're stuck with that. $13.4 billion, 5% efficiency, $6.7 million a mile.
6:55 pm
these numbers probably are blurring some people in their minds, mr. speaker. so i'd take it back to this. $6.7 million a mile. we have built a four-lane highway, 20, across iowa, with just a few miles left to go, we'll finish it very soon. and the stretch through that expensive iowa corn field, crossing rivers with expensive bridges, and building that four-lane highway that is everything except in name the equivalent of an interstate highway, four lanes, median in the middle, fences on either side, ditches, seeding, signage, all of the things that go along, the bells and the whistles that it takes to build an interstate highway. i'm going pause for a second while people think. $6.7 million a mile to guard our southern border and we're building nothing down there? how much does it cost to build that interstate highway across the expensive iowa corn fields? $4 million a mile. $4 million. in the books, nearly completed. it will come in right at that number. and that's buying the expensive
6:56 pm
corn field, it's doing the archeological and the environmental and the engineering. the land acquisition, the 40 ng, which i spent over years in the earth moving business. and the paving, which we do structural concrete work. and by the way, i've scooped some of that concrete into the last forms up there and i'm proud of it and happy to have had the privilege to do it. the painting the stripes on the highway, shouldering it, seeding it, fencing. it we shouldn't forget, this is a fence, four lanes of highway, and a fence with a median in the middle, and all of the bells andles that go on with an interstate highway, $4 million a mile. they're telling me the going to cost what? to build $15 billion to $30 billion? so let's see. $13 billion is $6.7 million. so you're about $8.5 or so million. he's suggesting a price that would -- if -- a price per mile
6:57 pm
that is multiples of the cost of what it's costing to us build an interstate highway. i don't have any doubt that we can go down there and build a concrete wall. and i want to build a fence, a wall and a fence. so we have two no man's land. one on either side of the wall, and have it wide enough that you can turn a patrol vehicle around in that no man's land. if you catch anybody that that no man's land, i want it to be the presumption that you're unlawfully present in the united states of america. they get an immediate deportation. if they want to appeal the deportation, they can do so from their home country. not be sitting here on welfare in the united states of america. that's the objective of what we can do. and the number that i put into the record back in 2005 that i said upholds today, i'll just say this. it's less than $2 million a mile. if we reached into that $13.4 billion a year budget and just carved out $1 billion a year
6:58 pm
until we get the fence, the wall and the fence constructed, we would soon interest have this done. done at a reasonable time, we'd have it done with a squeeze into the budget. or if they want to go to another account, that's ok with me. but let's get this done. we can do slip form concrete with a slip form notch in the center of that to drop precast panels in. we can pour those precast panels right down there on the job site. we can make them any height that the president wants it to be. they can be tongue in groove. they can be latched together. we can build fixtures right into that concrete. to mount any kind of devices we like for monitoring. but here's what america needs to understand, mr. speaker. it's not a fence. it's a wall. the wall is the centerpiece. a fence, a wall and a fence. but the centerpiece is a concrete wall. a concrete wall that's designed to keep people out, not keep people in. my colleagues on this side of the aisle constantly are bringing up the topic saying, you want to create another berlin wall. another berlin wall.
6:59 pm
i look throughout history. in fact, i asked the question of one of america's best historians. among the top two favorite authors that i have. victor davis hanson of southern california. and i asked him, as i've asked the question many times, do you know of any barrier in history, a fence or a wall, that was designed to keep people in that was a national boundary or a barrier that was built by a nation state? other than the berlin wall? he thought for a while and he said, well, you might say that the fence and the structures in between north and south korea are at least in part designed to keep north koreans in. all right. i'll concede that point. here's a fence and a wall between north and south korea designed to keep the subjects of marxism in their country. because they want to escape to freedom. and the berlin wall was designed to keep the people in east berlin from a marxist society, because they wanted to escape to freedom. those barriers are immoral for
7:00 pm
those reasons because they're fencing people in that want to escape to freedom. but when you are a nation state and you're having a flow of people coming from without, there are many examples in history where there have been barriers, particularly walls that have been built to keep people out. it's fundamentally different to have a wall to keep people out rather than wall to keep people in. if we forget the history of what built the great wall of china, the great wall of china was built originally to keep the mongols out of greater china, as they were running raids down and doing the things that happened with raids, raping and pillaging and steal, and heading back to monogoal ark the chinese decided they only had a couple of things they could do, they could submit and be raped and murdered and robbed incessantly and the fruit of their labor would be taken by
7:01 pm
the people who killed an assaulted them. they could mount raids to go back to mongoa -- mongola and punish the perpetrator, but they concluded that would not stop it. the punitive raids wouldn't end the raids coming into china. so they built the great wall of china. think had many segments of the great wall of china. it wasn't a continuous 5,500 miles as we used to declare it to be, now 13,000 miles long. but it was segments where they thought it would do the most good. then by 245 b.c., before christ, as western civilization counts time, by 245 b.c., the first emperor of china came to power and he decided that he would connect the segments of the great wall of china so it was one continuous wall and he set the laborers -- laborers to work doing that and they completed the great wall of china.
7:02 pm
in the last few year, the chinese have examined that wall with satellites and determined it was 13,000 miles altogether, hich means it must have been ziggedy zaggedy going across china. we're not talking about 13,000 mile here's, we're talking about 2,000 miles. we're not talking about something you can march troops on top of, which the japanese did when they invaded china. but instead, we're talking a barrier, roughly six inches thick concrete that goes up as tall as the president wants it to go with wires on top that have a signal in them that if anyone attempts to breach the top of that wall that signal will send to our control stations and immediately focus enforcement to that location and vibration sensors, if anyone tries to dig underneath it those go off as well and monitoring
7:03 pm
cameras and all the bells and whistles, the accessories necessary for us to protect all of it. it will pay for itself and pay for itself likely before we even get it completed and here are some of the reasons why. just had some law enforcement officers in my office today and they're fighting the drug problems that we have in the united states. and they would assert that in the upper 90th percentile is the percentage of some of the illegal drugs that come into the united states of america, like the opioids, the heroin, the methamphetamine the ratios of those are in the 90th percentile or above. marijuana is lower than that because california and colorado are taking some of that market, thanks, colorado and california, and a number of other states that, what they've done is spread marijuana in big numbers across this land and it is a gateway drug. but the illegal drugs consumed
7:04 pm
in america, according to drug enforcement agency are 80% to 90% and these categories i'm talking about with heroin, opioids, and methamphetamines are in the 90th percentile, come through mexico. so it doesn't mean that they're producing them all in mexico but they might be produced south of mexico, might be produced in china and come into mexico and then be brought into the united states because the boarder is so po rouse. it's not just the illegal aliens, it is also the criminals, the drug smuggler the drug trade. and the mexican government has announced that over the last less than a decade they've had 100,000 people that are killed in the drug war. the drug wars are coming about because there's a huge demand in the united states for these drugs, some $60 billion market for illegal drugs in america, and so that demand is being met by in many cases mexicans but
7:05 pm
also central and south americans that set this network up and this dug distribution chain. i asked the drug enforcement agency, what happens if magically tomorrow morning everyone wakes up in their home country and there's not a single illegal alien in the united states of america, not one person unlawfully in america, what happens to the illegal drug distribution system then? they tell me it severs at least one link in every distribution chain of illegal drugs in america. at least one link. in some cases every link. in most cases many links. that means we have an illegal immigration problem, an illegal drug problem, that are tied together and it creates the stream within which this traffic flows and it brings about the crime and the death. mr. speaker, we have people now that are sitting in there thinking, well, but how did 100,000 people become victims of a drug war homicide or drug wars? how did 100,000 people get
7:06 pm
killed in mexico? we don't have anywhere near that level of death in the united states. oh? we don't categorize it that way is why. 762 homicides in chicago last year. 762. how many of those were drug related? well, i would say most of them to some degree or another. when i asked our law enforcement personnel how many people would be in prison if there was no abuse of illegal drugs or alcohol, would there be 10%? their answer is, probably not. probably fewer than 10%. would be the population of our prisons if we could put an end to drug abuse if we could put an end to also included in that is alcohol abuse, substance abuse. so a lot of lives were cost in mexico, distributing the $60 billion worth of illegal drugs
7:07 pm
into the u.s. economy. how about the lives lost in chicago in the major cities when you have the drug wars, the gang wars that are fueled by drug abuse and fueled by the drug distribution? but that's only a small part. the 762 homicide victims in chicago are a small part. the national institute of health has some data out that shows that over 55,000 americans died in the last fiscal year due to drug overdose. 55,000. and so the mexicans lost 100,000 people in the drug wars over a period of less than a decade. in america we're losing that many people in two years just to drug overdose and that doesn't count the homicide victims that are part of these drug wars that are going on in the streets of america. there is a disaster in this country. we can't tolerate the
7:08 pm
lawlessness that exists in this country. we have to address the border security. and for those who say we don't need to build a wall, we can enforce the border with virtual, we can build a virtual wall if you look up the word virtual you know what it says? not real. not real. and so that means if they want to build a virtual wall they want to build a not real wall. recall being down there to weld some landing wall on the arizona board we are then-homeland security secretary michael chernoff. he was a good enough judge to pick up the welder and weld it with his own hand. i welded some, that's more my trade than his. i said i've welded the literal wall, hand me that virtual welder and i'll weld the virtual weld we are that. i wanted to make my point, and it didn't work. they promoted the virtual wall under the bush administration. i don't know if it actually even
7:09 pm
tried to even do that under the obama administration but they came in and set up cameras and towers, they had ground based radar. and they were going to track everybody that came into america and chase them down and abduct them. and ended up with cameras laying out in the desert never installed and a software package that was supposed to coordinate that never happened and millions, in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars wasted trying to build a virtual wall. so i say this. if you want a virtual wall if you want to put balloons in the air, if you want to do vibration sensors in the ground if you want to run electric singles up on top of the wall, want to stick cameras up there, i'm fine. do all that. let's build the wall as the american people demanded and chanted and as president trump promised, let's build it, a solid, structural, reinforced, concrete wall that's thick enough and tall enough and deep enough that it's difficult to
7:10 pm
get over, under, around or through. and if we do that and then we have to man it and defend it and we put on the accessories, the bells and whistles, the vie prayer -- rye viebration sensors and cameras, and build a fence a wall, and a fence, so there's a double no man's land, we can do that with far less manpower. if i'm assigned to guard my one mile of road that runs west of my house in the country in iowa, and they hand me a contract for $67 million, i can tell you, i would build a fence, a wall, and a fence right down, i'd build it right through the middle of that wall. have a patrol road on either side. i'd fwrade that thing out so i'd have fast track to patrol it. i'd have sensors along there. i'd make the infrastructural investment that would not be $4 million a mile. it would be someplace around a couple million dollars a mile then i'd monitor that and have some people who are assigned to
7:11 pm
patrol it. just enough that i could call in the reinforcements when we needed them. we'd get a lot more than 25% efficiency out of that wall. we'd get someplace equivalent to israeli level security efficiency if we guild that entire structure end to end. now, i said, we don't have to build a full 2,000 miles of it, but we have to be certain that we don't equivocate on the mission to build it until they stop going around the end. if they stop, fine. if they don't stop we've got to be committed to add another serks and another section until such time as we've completed this in the same fashion that the first emperor of china did when the completed the great wall of china 13,000 miles long, which the armies marched on top of. build a wall. and enforce the laws that we have on the books and bring into play local law enforcement, so
7:12 pm
that we can work in a cooperative fashion. every level of law enforcement is always -- has always cooperated with other levels of law enforcement. i grew up in a law enforcement family. i believe the men around me all wore uniforms, if they weren't in uniform they weren't at work. they were on on their way to work, at work or on their way home from work, they were in wrune form. each level of law enforce. , city police, county sheriff, highway patrol, division of criminal investigation, d.c.i. in my state, or d.p.s. in a state like texas, or whether it was federal officers, federal marshals, f.b.i., they cooperated with each other. no one took the posture that said it's not my job. when they encountered somebody violating the law, they enforced the law against them. by the way, there's a federal statute that reinforces such a thing. he who would think we could get to a place in this country where city police, county officers,
7:13 pm
state officers, law enforcement officers, would be directed to plug their ears and potentially, i'm saying this fage rahtively, plug their ear, close their eyes, and not gather information on people unlawfully in the united states of america, inging about, excuse me, the circumstances where a kate steinle would be murdered or a sara root would be nurded or a dominick durdan would be mur murdered or a jazz shaw would be murdered, all by criminal aliens who had no business being in this country, all of whom were murdered by those who had been encountered by law enforcement and who had later on turned them loose onto the streets of america, resulting in the death of these innocents. including brandon mendoza. there are many, many others. there are thousands of others. president trump has said thousands of families are grieving the loss of their loved
7:14 pm
ones at the hands of illegal aliens who are violent, who should have been deported, they were not deported, they were turned loose on the streets of america, usually in sanctuary cities, sanctuary county, sanctuary states, now we have the emergence of sanctuary campuses. or sanctuary school districts. i'll make the mention that it's the quarter after 6:00 in iowa right now, p.m., mr. speaker. and in an hour, a little better than that, an hour and 45 minutes, the des moines public school school board is preparing to pass a sanctuary resolution that tells all the employees of the school district, you can't work with, cooperate, transfer, disseminate information or allow access to students or family to any federal immigration officers. it all has to go through the
7:15 pm
superintendent and he has to approve it and they won't even allow an i.c.e. officer to talk to a parent of any of the students there unless the superintendent approves it, which of course, it's designed for him to say, no, sorry, we're going to close the door in your face and we are a sanctuary school system and we're going to defy federal law. well, mr. speaker, there is -- we have existing laws to address this. i want to remind the school district, there are a couple of sections of the code that apply. u. is s.c. hem is 8 aliens boring illegal there is a violation. anyone who shields from detection, including in any building or any means of transportation, anyone who
7:16 pm
encourages an alien to enter or reside or anyone who encourages in any -- anyone who engages in any conspiracy or aids or abets the commission of such crime is guilty of a class d or class c facing a penalty of maximum of five or 10 years agendaing on the class. i have the section of the code here. and i ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the 8 and 8 373 and 1324 the . 1373 addresses sanctuary cities. it prohibits the sanctuary jurisdictions by federal law. and that's what they intend to carve out in des moines, iowa to
7:17 pm
have a sanctuary. not the most proficient in educating our students, but the largest. they make a political statement just at the time when the president said he is prepared to suspend all federal delars going to sanctuary jurisdictions and that would include school districts and would include cities and counties and states and any campus that decides they want to be a sanctuary campus. this president will keep his word. i would equate the showdown they are building here that he will blank and would have the nerve to address sanctuaries and law defining, the hole in the wall gang in san francisco with more people being murdered in san
7:18 pm
francisco. when i say that "butch cassidy and the sundance kid" they had a sanctuary for murderers and robbers. they lived in this sanctuary and guarded and protected each other and guarded the notch through the stonewall in the canyon. that's what these cities are. and what the campuses are and some of the states and the counties. sanctuary jurisdictions like the hole in the wall gang. and somehow we are let this grow in america and not address it. we had a presidential election that focused on this. i brought amendments to the floor to defund these sanctuary jurisdictions. every one of them has succeeded and no unconstitutional act or no amnesty act that has been unchallenged by amendment at least that i and others have brought and every time the rule of law prevailed and now we have
7:19 pm
elected the president on the rule of law, this president will not blink. and i will remind the public as i speak to you, mr. speaker, when ronald reagan was elected president, the air traffic controllers decided they would go out on strike and the president warned them, if you go out on strike, you have a contract and you are prohibited by law striking. and they said too bad, if we don't get what we demand we are going on strike. they challenged the president. and what did reagan do? he said if you don't go back to work on the date that i tell you, i will fire anyone who doesn't show up. and so they called the president thinking it was a bluff. mr. speaker, it wasn't a bluff. president reagan fired every air traffic controller. and he put the military air
7:20 pm
traffic controllers to work in a u aorlw ayyodd sfal
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
ysecrl e sstngs'am
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
lifo attorney general. emron awan has a long-tile relationship with some members, including working for meeks and becerra in 2004 and joining wasserman schultz's office in 2005. several members who have albe in emron awan and the past confirmed to politico they terminated their employment late last week. jamaal awan worked as a house aouse
7:33 pm
i.t. staffer for more than a dozen house democrats since 2014, according to legi stmbings tracks bsite that congressional employment. he worked as a system administrator since 2005 according to the congressional records. another house staff with connections to emron awan is also under investigation. according to the senior house official. no one named in this politico report has been under -- as being under investigation has returned multiple calls and emails requesting comment over the past several days. so -- and capitol police have not returned calls. so this is extremely disconcerting. all of us have to hire people to help us with our jobs. computerall of us need
7:34 pm
-- can't help but reflect back, there's a -- there was a new policy last year that was instituted that requires have mployee that may access to the computer systems, massive databases, emails of members, such confidential information they need a background check. but at the same time, there was, as the requirement that had to be certified by the member or the administration officer in a congressional office, you either certify that this person has had the required background check to be allowed to access this confidential information on computers in congressional
7:35 pm
offices, and some of these members were part of the intelligence committee, having access to top secret information , so this is quite serious. but there was another, there were two possibilities. one, you certify this person had the proper background check done. number two, it was an or. in the alternative, if this person works for more than one person, which computer personnel often do, because you don't need them full time, you just need them when something goes wrong or perhaps when they're needing to break into your computer and steal your data, you could sign and certify that this person works for more than one member of congress and therefore i don't believe the background check is necessary. i hope all of my colleagues
7:36 pm
will make note that there may be people on the hill that don't have the best intentions with our computer data, including access to classified information, and so no matter who they are, even if somebody is worried that because of their background or where they were born, that somebody might scream bias or prejudice, we just need to have everyone who has access to classified information to have a background check even if they work for multiple people. we just need to do that. lessons, apparently, are still being learned in that regard. as we continue to hear from some friends here in washington, and some going nuts around the
7:37 pm
country, about a muslim ban, which is completely false, completely untrue, something isre not hearing a lot about the horrors being experienced by christians in the middle east. even secretary john kerry had acknowledged there was an effort at yenside. in other words, an effort to wipe out every christian because of their religious beliefs in the middle east. and so you would think if we were going to be the big hearted nation which we have repeatedly been throughout history, not always, but certainly most of the time, more than any other nation in history, then you would think that our hearts would go out to the christians being persecuted in far greater
7:38 pm
percentages than any other religious or racial group in the middle east and yet this story from town hall, christians were persecuted in every corner of the globe in 2016. and it points out not only did the persecution of christians increase in 2016, it also spread to every corner of the globe, according to open doors u.s.a. latest world watch list. annual report ranks the worst 50 countries for christians trying to live out their faith and while some findings are not surprising, like north korea topping the list for the 16th consecutive year, the group is troubled by the overall rise in the number of incidents considered persecution. and it's getting worse than ever. and of course the current secretary general, when asked a year and a half or so ago why the percentage of christian
7:39 pm
refugees being helped, christian refugees from the middle east being helped, is so much lower than the actual percentage of christians living in the area, his response was in essence that, well, they were so historically -- so historically important to the areas in which they lived, it was important that they be left there. in other words, we need to leave them where they're being murdered to extinction. and then that guy work that kind of sensitivity for a genocide, gets promoted to be general secretary of the u.n. which to me is all the more reason it's time to get out of the united nations and since a rockefeller foundation of some kind controls the land and it's to be used by
7:40 pm
the u.n. as long as the u.n. remains the main headquarters, then all we have to do is start privileges to come in, until we have extreme vetting for people that may be improperly using their positions that the e-- at the u.n. and if that proves too much of a burden, then they can go to brussels or istanbul or wherever, might as well let them go to syria. that seems to be where they want o be most involved, i guess. then it was certainly worth noting, jordan shaktel in "conservative review" has pointed out the middle east country of kuwait issued its own muslim ban in 2011, citing the instability from several terror
7:41 pm
hotbeds in the middle east. and that's rather interesting because the united states has not and does not have a muslim ban at all. christians, atheists, jews, are just as much -- hindus, they're all just as prohibited as any muslim from the seven countries that the obama administration named as being troubled. and the trump administration didn't just name them as troubled, it actually took action and did something about it. and we have this story from liam deacon, breitbart, that the islamic state is paying migrants smuggling fees for them if they join a jihad. so more good news, as president
7:42 pm
trump is trying to protect emerge that story make what trump, president trump did even more important. and i was hearing something on fox news, they had a panel, there was one panel member that repeated, and i know she didn't mean it to intentionally misrepresent the facts, but she did, in saying that no one has been arrested from one of those seven countries for any terrorist activity. or maybe she said not committed any. o it seems that it's worth taking a look at neil monroe's article.
7:43 pm
this is from bite bart -- from breitbart. seattle judge was ignorant and jihad quicks prior to performing the ban. the seattle judge who temporarily banned the white ouse reform plan after mistakenly claiming the united states has not arrested gee haw dee migrants from the seven countries covered by the reform. but the country has arrested and jailed at least 76 people since 2001 from the seven countries covered in the first stage of the president's reform, which was announced late january. that fact means there is a huge area, or error, in the judge's rationale for imposing a temporary restraining order ban on the president's popular reform of the ex-tensive refugee
7:44 pm
and immigration programs. in a hearing before the decision, judge james row bard told a lawyer from the department of justice that the federal government has not arrested people since 2001 from any of the seven countries named in the reform since the 2001 atrocity in new york, quote, how many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11, unquote, the judge asked. the justice department's lawyer replied, quote, your honor, i don't have that information, unquote, prompting robard to answer his own question. the judge said, let me tell you, the answer to that is none. as best i can tell. you're either arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the united states from these individuals coming from
7:45 pm
these countries and there's no all of us are ignornt of some areas. what is incredibly problematic is when you have a judicial official, a judge, a federal judge, with a lifetime appointment, not only is ignorant, but uses his ignorance the bases of an illegal constitutional order and then adds arrogance to his ignorance. ignorance by judge robart. as a former judge and chief justice, i can understand who is not a lawyer or somebody who was a lawyer or a form irjudge or a
7:46 pm
current judge saying this is a so-called judge, because you would like to think judges if they are arrogant, they will be arrogant about their knowledge in some areas that others don't have, instead of being arrogant bout ignorns that puts the american public in jeopardy. the constitution and the laws passed by this congress and signed by prior presidents make clear that the president has the authority to do exactly what he did, whether you like it or not or i like it or not, he has that authority because we gave him the authority. what we did not give the esident was to do an amnesty program as president obama pointed out. he didn't have authority to do what he ultimately did when he
7:47 pm
realized that the senate would not work with the house to stop him. but a judge that should know better, that is allowed to remain a judge only so long as he is acting in good conduct, appears to be acting in very bad conduct, because according to a data base by the senate subcommittee, why would they have to build this, because president owe baum ave made sure that his administration kept as much secrete as they could as terrorists in america. and not only that, when some of us would try to gather such information, like my repeated requests to the obama administration, to the justice department, would you let congress have the documents that
7:48 pm
ou gave to people convicted of terrorism in the hole land foundation discovery phase. we repeatedly were shunned and t was repeated obstruction and america is more at risk now than it's been in a long time. so what can we expect from the 9th circuit they have a history of not following the constitution or precedent and they are rather liberal and i'm hoping we can do to do something about that circuit and we have told authority to eliminate them. but at this time, i am joined by i friend, mr. rohrabacher, don't know if he desired time.
7:49 pm
mr. rohrabacher: time after you are complete. but i would like to note on your time but i agree with everything you have been talking about for the last 0 minutes. i hope the american people start paying attention. the two of us have been here in washington for the last 20 years, trying to stop this massive flow of illegal immigrants into our country, realizing this didn't just mean that peoples' wages would go down because we have people bidding down the wages of our people, not only is the crime worse, the money being drained from our health systems and schools, money that should be going to our ep own citizens but going to illegals, but we have realized that a flood of illegals in our country that some of the people riding that wave are terrorists who mean to destroy the american way of life and would kill our people in
7:50 pm
order to terrorize our nation into retreat from involvement in the world. i have been very honored to stand with you in these battles over the last 20 years. i would hope the election of president trump reflects the american people are waking up to the significance of this issue and when we see people on the senate side shedding tears for how a temporary halt in immigration from areas where the terrorism is known to exist and radical islamic terrorism exists there but the same tears, a couple hundred people were put in bad situations. but in order to save american lives, we aren't going to put foreigners who are trying to come here in some kind of discomfort? i think donald trump has demonstrated his primary
7:51 pm
objective is to secure the safety of the people of the united states of america. and we need in the united states of congress and i'm proud to stand with you in getting behind mr. trump on this very important goal. mr. gohmert: i'm grateful to my friend from california. we stood for people that weren't able to stand for themselves and look forward to doing that. hasjust to continue on, ken a terrific article, travesty of legal errors. great article pointing out problems with judge robart's decision. nd then this article from hans -- can't pronounce it, from "daily signal," he points out
7:52 pm
the fact is obvious from examination of his seven-page order that contains absolutely no discussion whatsoever of what law or constitutional provision the president supposedly violated that temporary restraining order is in emergency appeal before the panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals. and it contrasts a 21-page inion by a massachusetts appellate judge. unlike robart who ignored cited by trump in his executive order, judge gorton in massachusetts bases his decision denying the temporary restraining order on the extensive power given to the president under that statute. the article goes on -- that's exactly, power in the statute, exactly what the president has done, whether you agree or
7:53 pm
disagree, he had the power to do it. the order signed on january 27 on protecting the nation suspends for only 90 days, like the 180 days that president obama days, just anyone from those countries of concern as classified. and gorton goes on to make note that the decision to prevent iens is a attribute realized through the branches that is largely immune from judicial control and goes on in this article to quote the supreme court. but judge robart in his opinion ends with a claim that sounds like a joke, he says that fundamental to his work is a vigilant recognition that the court is but one of three
7:54 pm
co-equal branches of government. the work is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. instead, robart says his job is limited to ensure that the actions taken by the other two branches are comported. that shows that he intentionally and knowingly abused his authority as a judge by not citing one. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join me in the legislation that i have submitted today, which is the respect state marijuana laws. for too long, washington's decision makers have pursued the
7:55 pm
same policies over a whole range of issues without regard or not, whether those policies are beneficial to the american people. in fact, policies that have utterly failed, they continue to support as many of these things, because the intent sounds so good. so over and over again, we see failed policies who remain in place wasting money. rather than evaluating the reason for the policy failures and ultimately deciding to change course in the washington, the habit has been doubling down on regulations, personnel and tax dollars spent pleesk that that will have and bring a different outcome. last november, the people registered their dissatisfaction with this way of thinking by electing donald trump.
7:56 pm
president trump's statements on the campaign trail loudly and aggressively challenged the status quo. and we haven't had one shaking up the statue tuesday "for a long time but he did so to revisit a whole host of failed federal policies that have been crying out for attention for years and in some cases decades. one such failed policy is u.s. government spending billions of dollars and wasting the time of federal employees in order to prevent adults from smoking a weed. marijuana. candidate trump told the voters this was an issue that would be left up to the states, especially when it comes to medical marijuana, at a 2015 rally in sparks, nevada, then
7:57 pm
candidate-trump said, the marijuana thing is such a big thing. i think medical should be happening, yes. right. we don't don't agree. i mean we think so. and when i really believe, you should be leaving this up to the states. it should be a state situation, i think in terms of marijuana and legalization, i think that should be a state issue, state-by-state, end of quote. i could not agree more with the president and indeed, it is the very approach that i have advocated for several years. in this vein, i have re-introduced today, as i said, respect state marijuana laws act. earlier today, along with republican colleagues from mcclintock, yeoh owe, hunter,
7:58 pm
amash and massie and democratic lleagues, cohen, and blumenauer, titus, polis and barbara lee, my bill, which is not been received a designation yet but entitled the respect state marijuana laws, will permit residents to participate within the confines of a state's medical and recreational program without running afoul of federal law. admittedly, my personal preference would be to lift the federal government's prohibition on marijuana than tirle. however, i understand that this approach would be a nonstarter for many of my colleagues, which is why i have promoted an approach that simply gives the states and their residents the
7:59 pm
room they need to take a different approach to this issue. should they choose to take that different approach. my proposal, if a resident or business acts outside the boundaries set by a particular state, or if the state has osen not to allow medical or recreational use of marijuana by their residents, the federal government would be empowered to enforce federal law. the federal government can still get involved. of course, a number of states that have resisted this shift in national opinion on this issue is small. to date, 44 states, d.c., guam and puerto rico have enacted laws that allow to a varying degree, the sale and use of marijuana for


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on