Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives 10102017  CSPAN  October 10, 2017 6:30pm-9:06pm EDT

6:30 pm
[cheers and applause] fantastic. thank you very much. congratulations. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] the speaker pro tempore: for what >> and the house back for a couple of votes. desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution, resolution providing for consideration of the bill senate 585 to provide debater whistleblower protections, increase awareness of whistle plore protections and increase accountability and require discipline for and providing for proceedings during the period from october 16, 2017
6:31 pm
through october 20, 2017 and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on mowings to suspend the rules on proceedings previously postponed. h.r. 1558 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 2464 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, the remaining vote will be conducted as a five-mibt vote. the business is on the vote of the the gentleman from month to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1858 on which the the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1858 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service at
6:32 pm
williamson trail in liberty, pennsylvania as the staff sergeant ryan scott ostrom post office. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:33 pm
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- zero recorded as present. the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from montana, mr. gianforte, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2464, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2464, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 25 new chardon street lobby in boston, massachusetts, as the john fitzgerald kennedy post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
6:55 pm
commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 395, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
7:03 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. will members please take their conversations off the floor.
7:04 pm
the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please take all conversations off the floor. members, please take all conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate the miami lighthouse for the blind on its new height house learning center and pre-k program. it serves south florida since 1931, offering life-changing
7:05 pm
programs and resources for those who have visual impairments and president and her staff are making history once again with the lighthouse learning center. the miami height louis is partnering with miami-dade public schools to provide a learning program for pre-k udents using an evidence program for students to achieve their potential. children will receive the training they need to perform at the same level by the time they enroll in school. mr. speaker, it fills me with great pride to recognize virginia and the entire staff for the miami lighthouse for the blind for their work in launching this in little havana located in my congressional
7:06 pm
district. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, since 19997, the children's health insurance program has provided health insurance for millions of children across the united states of america. unform in another sabotage to our system, congress failed to re-authorize chip funding before it expired om september 0. without action, states will have to curtail care for our neediest children. my home state, over 295,000 children rely on chip for everything from routine checkups
7:07 pm
to immunizations. congress' failure is jeopardizing the well-being of america's children. congress will be going into recess next week without taking any action to re-authorize this essential program for children. millions of kids could go without care. we must do better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute ap revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to celebrate 40 years of community of revitalizeation. when an air force base closed, the renewal of the community began as a transition from
7:08 pm
military to civilian use. these 40 years stand as a test ta metropolitan to the hard work and resilience to the folks of my county who have overcome the job loss associated with the base closing. the transition from military to civilian is not an easy one. on focused on investing invsing. contributions of our past. the air force base shaped our national defense and making our community in what it is today. we are forever grateful for preserving that history throughout these 40 years. the speaker pro tempore: for seek urpose does the jo
7:09 pm
recognition? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> i join with my colleague from illinois and demand that the chin's health insurance program be re-authorized none ap done before we leave. ms. jackson lee: the headline of he how chronicle that says trump ramps up demands. we don't think these impact. the young lady on this front page, her name is karen and trying to ensure the children can be contributing americans. we stood together yesterday with 122,000 in the state of texas. we thought we had a reasonable deal to be able to work together to help these young people.
7:10 pm
with the ridiculous demands that have been made, $15 billion rder wall, cutting legal immigration. does anyone care about human life. and we stood with the chief of police, the cheer sheriff and fought against the ridiculous nonregulation of guns that can kill people, military guns. we need gun safety legislation and we need it now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. over the weekend i had the opportunity to participate in the opening and closing eremonies of the vietnam war
7:11 pm
wall. it was in state college and it was a moving experience for all those who visited. the theme for our county was "welcome home." our veterans did not receive a warm welcome home. this is a scar on our history and one we are working to heal. the traveling wall serves as a reminder to promote liberty and freedom. and recognizes the struggles and thanks them for their service. mr. speaker, the wall tells the story of so many americans and sons and daughters and friends and our neighbors and our american heroes. it's never too late to honor our veterans to ensure they receive the recognition they deserve. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> permission to address the
7:12 pm
house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: what it is a privilege to help community leaders who have been engaged in the puerto rican relief effort. lorraine counselman along with our constituents have been organizing. and bethany frankel, helped range aid. human stories from relatives across that vast region focused on the lack of aide especially in the interior parts of that island. our district has the largest of puerto ricans and families. fema is not doing its job and the trump administration should get f.
7:13 pm
nd the lorraine base noticed his brother and sister live in a sister and still had no power and i insert into the record detailing his dire situation, no water, no electricity, no radio contact with families's and their crops. we need to address the humanitarian crisis in prosecute what is happening there is un-american and the trump administration better wake up. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> wish to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. tan tan i recognize an outstanding constituent from the 22nd district, neal sutter land.
7:14 pm
he has been a member of the fire department since 1965 and fire chief since 1998. through his years of dedicated fire years, he has led to become one of the most well respected and one of the busiest, handling over 220 calls a month. the chief has responded to 90% of those calls. he chief is an active on the softball team for the past three years. recently the chief was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. on saturday, i had the honor of joining our community at a beautiful ceremony dedicating the chief. tragically, medical research shows that firefighters have a greater risk due to increased
7:15 pm
risk. and his spirit and commitment to community is an inspiration. i send our thoughts and trares to chief sutherland and his family during his courageous battle toll beat cancer and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, $15 billion for a wall. mr. payne: i thought mexico was going to pay for it. mr. president,, mr. speaker, president trump is playing a dangerous game. with north korea. he is playing a dangerous game with american lives.
7:16 pm
the president probably thinks he's being clever when he taunts kim jong unand calls him little rocket man. the president probably thinks he's a tough guy when the threatens to rain down fire and fury on north korea. but the president is not clever and he is not tough. a clever president would know that peace is preferable to war. a tough president would understand that threatening war with a highly armed petty dictator makes the united states look weak and risks american lives. president trump cease -- president trump's saber rattling could draw the country into nuclear war no one wants. if the united states is drawn into a war for the president's ego, people will die. americans will die. and thousands, not millions, of
7:17 pm
north koreans will die. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of bud adams who passed away at his home on adams ranch in fort pearce, florida, he was 91 years old. he was a larger than life cowboy a fixture in florida's agricultural community, and patriarch of adams ranch, a ur-generation operation that has been around 50 years and began 000 acres he running the ranch with his famous for came his innovations, including
7:18 pm
developing a breed of cattle that could stand up to florida's hot and humid summers. mr. rooney: he was an avid outdoor photographer and conservationalist. he's shown many of us that it's possible to work the land while preserving god's beauty. bud is survived by his loving wife dot of 67 years, his three nine 14 grandchildren and great grandchildren. florida has lost one of its greatest sons and it was an honor for me to serve him here in the house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, my colleagues, i rise in support of the 21st century air act. this critical f.a.a. re-authorization offers the best possible plan to finally mornedize our antiquated air
7:19 pm
traffic control system. i recently traveled to ottawa, canada, with congressional colleagues to learn firsthand how canada's national air service provider has been using -- move 12g million aircraft each year since 1996. mr. faso: this model improves air traffic control tech nond -- technology and isn't subject to onerous government procurement rules. it's clear the system works far better than its u.s. counterpart. these reforms would also benefit the environment as the updated technology allows for more direct routes. for instance, in can dark over the last 20 year, has resulted gallons of on fewer fuel used in the last 10 year, twice that amount in the last 20 years this needed change has widespread bipartisan support and it would guarantee consistent funding for
7:20 pm
modernizing our air traffic safety system. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: frur does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address though house -- house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> phi years ago today, kaitlin was taken hostage by the hakani network, an offshoot of the taliban while hiking near the pakistan-afghanistan border. she's given birth to two boys while in captivity, boys whose only life experience is being a hs taj and surrounded by violence and fear. i speak with kaitlyn's mom and dad regularly. while my heart breaks for them, as fellow americans, as a father with children of my own, i'm horrified for them. mr. perry: kaitlyn and her family are americans. we cannot rest until they're released and returned safely to
7:21 pm
the arms of the united states. i urge my colleagues to join me in praying for the safe return of kaitlyn, her husband and her two children but also for her family and loved ones for whom time has stopped five years ago. i implore the u.s. state department to use every resource at our disposal to bring our american citizens home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. sloip leave of absence requested for mr. hastings of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. there's so many things we need
7:22 pm
to talk about. important events are spilling upon americans, cascading upon us. we could spend hours and indeed should spend hours talking about north korea. we should and will spend hours talking about tax reform or tax reductions or serious benefits for the super wealthy in america. and we will talk about that. we will debate that but what's on my mind right now are the disasters that have befallen our american people. think about what's happened over the last 11 months. floods on the east coast. people forced out of their homes as the rivers rose. in the carolinas.
7:23 pm
we think about california and the massive floods and the 200,000 people evacuated from their homes in my district. we think about the recent urricanes as they slammed into houston. florida. the keys. and hurricane maria as that hurricane devastated puerto rico and the virgin islands. are traumatic disasters now in our memory, but they're also a reality. in california today, in my district and in my colleague, mike thompson's, district, thousands of home have been burned to the ground.
7:24 pm
and people have died. these disasters are not new to america. and over the years we've set up a mechanism to deal with them. that mechanism is that firefighters across this nation that respond, the emergency plans that have been put in place. i know during my period as insurance commissioner in california, i would often arrive at the -- at these disasters, some of which go back more than 3, 40 years. console people that have lost their home and attempt to deal with their insurance issues. and i would also remind those who were in the path of these flames or hurricanes or tornadoes, to be prepared. that boy scout motto. be prepared. and now in california, same message goes out by the first
7:25 pm
responders and indeed by myself here on the floor of the house of representatives. be prepared. be prepared to evacuate. think about what it is you need to take ahead of time. those important papers. those scrapbooks, those photo album the dog, the cat. and when the time to go arrives, when that message arrives on your cell phone, or on the loudspeaker from the police car out front, obey it. get out. get out because you've already prepared. yes, you should have had that insurance policy that you forgot, that flood insurance program. yes, you should have had it. and all too often, we have to rely upon the generosity of charities, and thankfully they are there. and we also rely upon the
7:26 pm
federal, state, and county governments. and today, here in the house of representatives, and in the senate, as well as in the administration we're beginning to gear up for yet another emergency appropriation to pay for the relief efforts that are under way. it's not going to be enough. it may take care of part of what occurred in houston or in florida or in the keys. certainly not going to be enough to take care of the devastation in puerto rico. and i know as the fires continue to rage in california, the appropriations that are being discussed, the emergency money for fema, will not be enough. while we are looking at these
7:27 pm
disasters and the billions upon billions of dollars that will be needed to rebuild the infrastructure, to rebuild the schools and hospitals, to pay the bills for the emergency work that's going on, this house of representatives, week is in the process of trying to figure out how to pass a massive tax cut that will take trillions of dollars of revenue away from the federal government. it's estimated anywhere from $2 trillion to $5 trillion depending upon the details over the next decade will not be available for the next disaster. will it be added to the deficit. possibly -- to the deficit? possibly. will those revenue reductions be balanced by cuts to medicare? yes. already being discussed.
7:28 pm
in the republican budget. with those $2 trillion to $5 trillion reductions in revenue be added to the deficit or will we cut medicare? tried to do it in the affordable care act. now they're coming back with a budget bill that would cause it to happen again. more than $1.5 trillion pulled out of the medicaid program. and so there'll be another disaster, a slow building disaster, of millions of americans that will not be able to get health care. so added on top of the burden of rebuilding america, the emergency appropriations to pay for the ongoing and past disasters. need to be aware of the
7:29 pm
inconsistency of thought that's going on here. we're looking at an appropriations bill to pass something in the range of $15 billion in addition to the previous $12 billion, which we know will not be sufficient to deal with the existing disasters. s say nothing of the billion of dollars that are yesed to the counties and states for disasters going back at least in california 10 years. the federal government has yet to reimburse the counties and states. for the obligations that the federal government accepted, in some cases a decade ago. so in the face of all of that, we're going to reduce revenues to the federal government. who gets the tax breaks? here's a fact that the vice president, excuse me, mr. , has , if i might
7:30 pm
suggested in california that it is the poor that will get the tax break. not so. they'll get a little, to be sure. the middle class is likely to get a tax increase. but the real tax break, the top 1% get 80% of those revenue reductions. 80%. will flow to the top 1% of america's wealthy. so if you're concerned about income inequality you bet behr paying attention. what is the logic of what is happening here? what is the logic, in the face of disasters that have occurred historically, but more recently, in the last year?
7:31 pm
floods in california, floods in wildfires, s, tornadoes in the midwest. in the face of all of that, we're going to massively reduce the ability of the federal government to respond. doesn't make much sense to me, particularly when the beneficiaries of those tax reductions are the superwealthy. 2,500 families in america would benefit from the limb nage of the estate tax. 2,000-plus families. billions of dollars. billion andlion to 9- superwealthy families don't have
7:32 pm
to pay an estate tax. hat's going on here? 600,000 low-income housing vouchers gone so they can pass on their wealth to the next generation. income inquality. in the face of the disasters, we need to stop for a moment, as we begin the appropriation process r the fema emergency appropriations. need to stop for a moment. consider the way these two things work together. was in mill district, davis, california, for an event on sunday, and i had several students, some of whom are my interns came to me and said what are you going to do about the
7:33 pm
student loans? there is a lot of happy talk that we are going to make higher education free. used to be that way when we were building the economy when we built the economy, but tell me w, how can we in the face of trillion to $5 trillion reduction so the wealthy can get wealthier, how are we ever going to reduce the cost of education to americans? maybe somebody has the answer here. doesn't seem like that could be happening. i'm going to introduce a bill again this week, one i introduced in the last session. it's kind based that americans are able to refinance their
7:34 pm
home. i did it. and i suspect many of the people who are listening and many of the members of congress have refinanced their home. if you had a student loan from five years ago or eight years ago or about to sign a document this fall for a new student loan, federally-financed student loan, you cannot refinance that. but federal government, 1.3 trillion dollars of student ans out there, nearly $900 billion of that $1.3 trillion is owed to the federal government. why don't we refinance those loans? what if we were to do that? what would it mean to the
7:35 pm
students out there instead of paying 8% interest to the federal government that is able at out and borough money 2%? even the fat cats on wall street can't have a margin that big. the federal government does. so these students are paying these high interest rates so the federal government can literally profit on their backs. that's a fact. let's allow those students to refinance those loans. let's just see what happens. the federal government can 2%. w money at 3%, reduce all of the stupid
7:36 pm
loans. 900 billion. the government would go out and borrow it at 2% for 10 years and tell the students and those who are no longer in school. we are going to allow you to refinance and take an interest rate at half of what you are getting now. why are we charging a fee to these students. don't we want them to get an education? and don't we want them to be able to improve themselves but yet we require a fee? let's eliminate the fees. origination fees. it was like the federal government was a shark. we are dealing with students and their lives. if we can do this, maybe it's a couple of $1,000 and the student
7:37 pm
can invest in their lives and family. these are things that are possible. these are things that we ought to be doing. just a lot of happy talk. oh, we are going to make education free. we could. if we don't cut the federal $5 nues by $2 trillion to trillion over the next decade. eliminate origination fees. save low-income borrowing. all possible. the art of the possible ought to be what we're doing, not the art of enhancing those who are so wealthy already. i'm going to paraphrase a fellow that is pretty important in american history. f.d.r. said something like this. he said that the measure of our
7:38 pm
success is not that we do more for those who have much, but rather we do for those who have little. this tax cut that we are going to spend this week and next week, this next month and according to our treasury secretary, will be done by the end of the year. so, what does it mean? it means maybe a small tax break for the working men and women of america. t means a huge tax benefit for those who are already wealthy, the elimination of the estate tax and been estimated by the "new york times" that based upon ar president's tax returns of decade ago and won't show us his
7:39 pm
present tax returns, that he could benefit to the tune of a billion dollars with his proposed tax program. ot bad if you can have it. but is that good public policy? i don't think so. i don't think so. not in the face of the needs of america. we have enormous defense needs. we have been fighting wars in the middle east for almost three decades now. there are other needs that we have for our military and we need to listen to secretary of defense and others as they talk about the need to rebuild much of the american military. theadd mirl responsible for pacific theater says he needs something rather important,
7:40 pm
munenishons. yes, we have needs and students that are paying interest rates far hire than is necessary and ununable to finance their student loans, but it's possible. that could make a lot of economic sense. these young men and women might actually might start a family and be able to buy a home, a car, start a new business, start a small business, a lot of possibilities. but, hey, the superwealthy need another tax break. i don't think so. i don't think so at at all. and i don't quite understand the happy talk by our leaders of this administration who would like to say, not to worry, you will deduct the first $25,000.
7:41 pm
well, yes, and then what? oh, by the way, there is this 20% increase in the bottom tax rate, from 10% to 12%. 20% tax increase and it goes tom 35%, unless you are able maneuver into their scheme where you can reduce your tax rate to 15% by being a limit ld liability corporation or sub-chapter s corporation. a you have the money to hire lawyer and if you are a corporation, some of our largest corporations are able to hire the lawyers and the accountants and deduct their taxes. the list is long and the list is rather maddening.
7:42 pm
pple, ge, at&t and others, the big ones. their tax rates are down to zero or in the less than 10% range, and they want more. and so, puerto rico is devastated. and so, my counties in california are faceing rampaging fires and perhaps as many as 2,000 homes have already burned. and there will be another tornado and another hurricane and the question for us is will there be money for the federal government to provide the support that we should do to help americans rebuild?
7:43 pm
fundamental question. a fundamental question. i know that there's a better. i know there is a better way. i know in the proposal that our republicans have put forth, there is less money for infrastructure and if you want good-paying jobs, the infrastructure industry has good -paying jobs. and it will have a foundation for future economic growth. i know when we rebuild the infrastructure of our communities that have been devastated by hurricanes and tornadoes and floods and fires that the communities can come back strong and the economies for those communities can flourish. and i know that it takes ar strong american government to
7:44 pm
make that happen. and so, mr. speaker, as we enter this week, my hearts and thoughts go out tore millions of americans that have been devastated by the hurricanes and floods and fires, those people in my district that have lost their homes and those that have lost their life. and i come here to the floor and i say, let us think seriously about what our obligation is to americans. to those who have little, to those that have lost everything, hat is our obligation to them? f.d.r. was correct, the measure of our success is not that we do with those who have much, but rather that we do for those who
7:45 pm
have little. so, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields.
7:46 pm
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 leader. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: it is my privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and to discuss topics that are on my mind and hopefully you'll consider these arguments as well, mr. speaker, and i know that people across this floor and across the country have a lot of these same considerations in mind. and i wanted to come to the floor an address the daca
7:47 pm
situation and take you through a little bit of the history of the deferred action for childhood arrivals which was implemented by barack obama in an unconstitutional fashion and he knew it, all of america knew it. we know that barack obama, 22 times, said that he didn't have the constitutional authority to implement a program that granted the equivalent to amnesty, at least temporary amnesty, let alone a work permit which he added to the program, by executive edict, fiat or order. instead, it requires legislation in order to enable such a policy. a president can't great amnesty a president can have prosecutorial discretion. prosecutorial discretion is a legal tearm for what the justice department does and when they are determining whether the resources they have to prosecute crimes are adequate to enforce against the most serious offenders.
7:48 pm
barack obama, president obama, did implement some of those relatively prudent policies with prosecutorial discretion he prioritized the most violent and evil criminals that he could identify, at least by policy. turned a lot of them loose, too, by the way, on the streets of america in the course of all that. so it was a very confusing policy that emerged, without consistency, under president obama. however , he exercised a legal prosecutorial discretion when they looked at each case on an individual basis. but i recall, as his secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, came before the committee to testify about the program on daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals, or some might say deferred action for children of aliens. her testimony and the memos that came down, the morton memos, set up four different cat goirs of people that would
7:49 pm
be granting a quasi-amnesty underneath the president's policy. and there, secretary napolitano testified over and over again and it reflected the document itself which seven times referenced on an individual basis only. on an individual basis only. seven times. i can repeat it for the record, mr. speaker, but that's what was going on which told me, as i listened to her testimony and had read the documents prior to the testimony, they knew what the law said they knew it required that -- that it required an individual basis only and a prioritization of applying the law to bring about the best effect of the utilization of the resources of the justice department. yet, barack obama, president obama, around the country, multiple times in the year and a half or two years building up to his implemention of the daca policy, multiple times he
7:50 pm
said that he didn't have the constitutional authori to implement the deferred action for childhood arrivals. and multiple times turns out to be at least 22 we have a videotape on. the most recent that i recall was in high school just outside of the capital here in washington, d.c. where he was speaking to a high school group he said you're smart students. you know there's a separation of powers. i don't have the authority to grant this legal status to people that are here illegally even if their parents did bring them in, or even if they came in on their own under the age of 18. i don't have the authority to do that. that's congress that has the authory. and i should remind everyone, mr. speaker, that president oba taught, he taught constitutional law, he was an adjunct professor teaching constitutional law at the university of chicago. iversity of chicago has a good reputation for
7:51 pm
understding the constitution. and barack obama demonrated that when he said, you're smart students. and you know that we have three branches of government, separation of powers. congress is article 1. ey make the las. he said, i'm article 2, executive branch, my job is to enforce the laws. and article 3 is the judicial branch of government, they interpret the laws. so when the courts interpret the laws that congress writes, the depecktive's job is to carry them out he knewe was violating the separation of powers beuse he defined that to america multiple times. but he did anyway. and i believe that president obama made a calculation. a political calculation. the political calculation in my estimation was that he could get away wit he wanted the policy. congress wouldn't pass the policy because we have great respect for the rule of law. and we don't want to reward law
7:52 pm
breakers. that happened in 1986 and we're paying the price for that amnesty act of 1986. so he couldn't get the dreamer legislation through congress. so he calculated that he could get away with implementing that as a policy even though he knew it was unconstitutional. and so some of us went to -- went to work to initiate lawsuits to have the courts strike down the executive edicts of barack obama that was the foundation for daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals. and as it wandered through the courts, the lead in the primary case was chris crain, the president of i.c.e. the immigration customs enforcement, union. his name was on the case first. crain vs. napolitano in the beginning. and as it went through the courts and by the time you follow it through a circuitous route you find out that crain vs. napolitano got shifted off onto the side and it was
7:53 pm
declared to be a decision that was -- that had to do with administrative rules that if he had a grievance he needed to take it through the administrative rules process rather than the courts to address the policy itself. it got parked off on a side rail, so to speak. and then we saw a parallel case come forward, the daca case, the deferred action on parents of, i think it was parents of americans was how the president described it, i would have said parents of aliens myself. that case was found by judge an -- by judge andrew hanen in texas to be unconstitutional. a similar and parallel case. the president couldn't grant amnesty to parents of children that were here. and the president couldn't great amnesty to children who came here. that same constitutional principle applies to both. and we know that ken paxton and
7:54 pm
others, the attorney general of texas, with about nine or 10 or 11 other state attorneys general had filed a suit or prepared to file a suit, excuse me, to litigate the daca case and -- in a parallel fashion that da pa was litigated successfully. and they set a date of september 5 and said to the president, if you don't end daca by september 5, we're filing this case. and so that's about the day and probably exactly the day that president trump came out with his decision on daca. but i move too fast forward and i need to back up to what happened. and that is, barack obama, president obama, finished out drawing the daca recipients by -- while growing the daca recipients.
7:55 pm
that number ended up 700,000. they get a card that says, you get to stay in the united states for two years, there won't be any immigration law against you as long as you don't commit any of these crimes, felonies or a nasty combination of throw misdemeanors and he created out of thin air a work permit. congress isn't going to grant work permits to illegal aliens but barack obama did. congress isn't going to grant a, you get to stay, come out of the shadows and stay on the streets of america permit for daca recipient bus president obama did he feel went outside. and this congress should have had its back up. i am frustrated. i'm frustrated with the lack of conviction on the part of the members of this congress. you stand in here once every two years and take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. that includes acknowledging that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. it includes the requirement that you understand the
7:56 pm
difference between article 1, article 2, and article 3. article 1 writes the laws. that's all of us here and over in the senate. we write all the laws for the united states of america. that's how the constitution starts out. the legislative powers shall be eserved for we here, the representatives in this republic of the people. we're as close to anybody the people as anybody elected in this government. that's what you take an oath to. you're going to protect the constitution of the united states. you should at least be able to defend article 1, the very authority that is the reason that you're here serving in the first place, ladies and gentlemen. and then we have an obligation also to look over the shoulder of the executive branch and have oversight over the function of the executive branch and conduct hearings and bring witnesses and dig into the methods and the
7:57 pm
effectiveness of the president of the united states, our chief executive officer, in carries out the execution of our laws. and the president of the united states takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, but also it requires that he takes care that the laws be faltefully executed. now, that means carry them out, not kill them off. and it looks like he was trying to kill off the constitution rather than carry out the laws that are described by this article 1 congress. by the way, some of the laws that president obama defied and gave orders to defy, to ignore, some of those laws were signed into law by bill clinton. and so this is, the legitimacy of the united states congress has been, and our effectiveness, has been diminished by a president obama who went outside the bounds,
7:58 pm
the lines that are drawn, between legislative authority, executive authority, and judicial authority. now our founding fathers set that up to be a static relationship. they expected and believed that the courts would be the weaker, the weakest of the three branches of government. they expected also that since power is something that you always have ambitious people reaching for more power they wanted to divide that power, restrain the power, that's why we have the system that we have today. that's why we redistrict every decade, that's why they call for a census so we can count all the people in america and set up congressional districts so that there is a proportional representation in each of the 435 seats here. offset by two senators from every state, that we have a geographical representation a small population state with a big voice, or maybe a big population state with the same kind of voice over in the united states senate. but here in this congress, in
7:59 pm
this house, everyone has roughly proportional, same number of constituents and your vote means the same amount here. that it does for each one of us. whatever your particular role is. so this was set up to have this balance of power and what our founding fathers envisioned was, each branch of government would jealously protect the power vested in it through the constitution. they didn't imagine that there would be a congress that would be in opposite they didn't imagine the two party system as i understand some of the history i've read. they didn't envision that there would be a republican majority in the house a republican majority in the senate and a democratic president who clearly and openly and blatantly defined it in advance and then violated the constitution. ing fathers never expected that this house of
8:00 pm
representatives would sit on its hands and simply let the constitution be violated for two years or longer just on daca alone. but that happened. i brought amendments to the floor time after time after time to cut off the federal funding that supported the unconstitutional acts of the president of the united states. and those amendments passed off the floor of the house of representatives. and they were killed off over in the senate. but our founding fathers did not imagine that the constitution could be openly defiantly and blatantly violated and not have this congress hold together and shut off the funding, the power of the purse is the power of bringing that president back in line and making him keep his constitutional, the will wasn't there. as i went before a committee to present an amendment to get, i'll say, to get the rules consent, consent to an amendment, i reminded everybody in that panel, you all took -- took an oath to support and defend the constitution. if you meant it, if you take
8:01 pm
your word seriously if your oath to the constitution means anything, then you not only -- then not only do you have to open the door so my amendment comes to the floor and we have an opportunity to debate it and force a vote on the floor of the house of representatives, not only is that the case, but if you don't support this, then your own oath to the constitution is called into question. . my approach to this, and by the way, mr. speaker, i remind people that i chair the constitution committee. and there are a couple reasons for that. more than a couple. but i've defended this constitution every day that i've been here in this united states congress and i take it seriously. my father used to lecture the constitution to me at the supper table. he would bring out the constitution and set it down at the table. weibring the code of iowa and set it down at the table. the bible would be on end table. the constitution on the kitchen table. and the code of iowa on the kitchen table and he would open it up and say, now, we're going to trace back for you how -- pick your law here in this book.
8:02 pm
we're going to trace back for you how this gets back to the constitution. where is the authority for pick your law out of this book? and he would debate that and discuss it with me and that's which are learned that i shouldn't ever utter an opinion that hadn't been thoroughly thought out. because he was the most effective critical thinker i ever met in my life. but he steeped me in great respect for the rule of law and a great respect for the supreme law of the land, our constitution. and the structure that's guaranteed in the constitution, a republican form of government. and that, mr. speaker, means a representive form of government. where the people select their representatives and send them off to be their voice here in this congress. and it was a fantastic piece of wisdom and historical knowledge that put this together in the fashion that it did. now we have the oldest and most successful -- not just oldest, we have the oldest constitution on record, we have the most successful constitution on record. you can put this all together.
8:03 pm
i believe that our founding fathers, as they put this together, were inspired by god to write the declaration, to fight the war, to shape the constitution, and i think that they were -- our founding fathers were moved around like men on a chess board to bring about this fantastic country that we have. but a big part of this fantastic country is the rule of law. and when i write rule of law, for years i capitalized the word rule, i capitalized rule with an r, and law with an l. so it stands out on the page as if -- so that it looks as important as it is when you read the phrase. rule of law. rule of law is an essential component of american exceptionalism. it is a pillar of american exceptionalism. and if you think about what went together to make this great country that we have, i would
8:04 pm
add up a whole series of things. i'd trace american exceptionalism back all the way to mosaic law. mosaic law was borrowed by the greeks. and the greeks kind of teased each other, well, that isn't your original thought, you borrowed that from moses. they had great philosophers and they added to the culture but the law came out of moses, from the greeks to the romans. and the romans set up republican forms of government and they also had a very good and healthy rule of law. so that, at least in theory, they applied that to everybody. and that rule of law spread across western europe by the roman, all the way to ireland. and when the dark ages came, let's see, rome was sacked in 410 a.d. and when that happened that more or less -- historians call that the signal of the world falling into the dark ages. so for several hundred years not much happened that was the
8:05 pm
reported to us. -- that was reported to us. and people lost the ability to think and reason in the fashion that they had from among the greeks, among the romans. and christianity had to get itself spread into all of that and then emerge. and it did emerge. it emerged sometime shortly before the end of the first me lynnum. and -- millennium. and it became the age of enlightenment. and the industrial revolution. we know, mr. speaker, these courses of history that have followed, but i would just point out what happened in america. and in america we're just, let's see, we're about ready to celebrate and we did on monday, because the federal holiday, but we're about ready to celebrate october 12. and that is columbus day. the day that -- the day after tomorrow. happens to also be my wife's birthday, mr. speaker. so there's a couple reasons we should celebrate columbus day. but columbus discovered america.
8:06 pm
he discovered the western hemisphere. and he did so because he had a vision that the earth was round and not flat. and he was able to convince ferdinand and isabela that they should invest their capital in three ships to send him across the seas in the hopes that they would circle all the way around to india and find a pass abbling to come back and they could trade -- passage to come back and they could trade and be a richer nation than spain was. that was the same year that the spanish through the moors out. that's when the kingdom of ferdinand and queen isabela was established in a more stable fashion than had been prior to that. but they found the money for christopher columbus. he discovered the hemisphere. and after that we saw a lot of spaniards emerge. they focused down in the south and in the central american region, in the caribbean, and settled that area, going south and north from the isthmus. they brought with them christianity. and they were driven by the idea of spreading christianity around
8:07 pm
the world. that went on through the 1500's were they were settling and developing in that part of the world and conducting some you a trossities as well, mr. speaker -- some you a trossities as -- atrocities as well, mr. speaker. they had some atrocities. they began to develop and bring western civilization, -- civilization, though, to the new world. and the other end of this thing in 1607, the first people that settled and built a permanent settlement in the north american continent were there at jamestown, just down the flood us a little ways. 1607. and the christians that landed there, they came for religious freedom. and they set a cross there on the shores of the atlantic ocean and they knelt at that cross and they prayed. and the prayer was, lord, thank you for sending us to this new land. and we hear your call and we
8:08 pm
call out to you to guide us and bless us and we will listen to the mission that you've delivered to us, which is to evangelize all people here and around the world and to settle this continent to please you. that's the summary of the prayer . and they believed, you could tell, if you read that prayer, you can see -- you can hear manifest destiny in that prayer. you can see religious emancipation in that prayer as well. they knew why they were here. a country that's formed by people that have powerful faith, as they did, and then you've got the pilgrims of plymouth rock, 1620. and the rest of america was built out. and as the collinnists began to throw off the yolk of king george, they still retained essential principles. essential principles would include those of the magna carta, the idea that a man's
8:09 pm
home is his castle. and that the law has to be applied equally to everyone. king john wasn't happy to sign that, by the way. i think it came down to, you know, it's your head or your signature. why don't you decide, king john. he decided his significant in a tour -- his signature. that has been a long time ago since magna carta was signed but it laid a foundation for our pilgrims and the settlers that came to america. they came here for religious freedom, to get away from the old country, great britain. and we should remember that the pilgrims that came in on the may sailed mayflower, they out of the netherlands. several years before they sailed the atlantic ocean, they pulled out and went to the netherlands and there several hundred of them lived around in the area in a community and in various different -- dinner houses and apartment complexes -- different
8:10 pm
houses and apartment complexes that were there. a lot of them went to church in the center. but they staged themselves until they were ready to go i -- to go across the atlantic ocean, to settle at land in plymouth rock in 1620. these early settlers were driven by religious freedom. and as they began to build their farms and their shops and trade and build ships along the coast in our harbors, while all that was going on, we reach that year of 1776. then, of course we know the declaration on july fourth of that year. but there's another seminal event, mr. speaker. and that is adam smith published his book, his book on free enterprise capitalism, and the name of it is "wealth of nations." no one has surpassed that document at this point. he with utter clarity explained how if you allow people to keep their own goods, earn their own profits, and invest that, how it will improve the productivity,
8:11 pm
they'll invest it in efficiency, and how the invessable hand, -- the invisible hand, that is the person who is buying the loaf of bread off the shelf, if that shelf is empty, you put more bread on there and sell more. if you're selling more than you can make, you raise the price a little. if someone thinks you're making too much money, they start up their bakery and get their bread on the shelf and it competing with each other. the shelf is always full of bread and the consumers get a product that they demand. that's the concept of free enterprise capitalism. i don't hear anybody talking about that today. we also developed here a measure tock rosy. if you have freedom you can be rewarded for merit. we don't talk about that anymore. we give out participation trophies for kids that are -- they don't really want them to be winners or losers, just participants. well, that's not the american way. the american way is, we get in, we compete, there's bound to be a lot of losers because there's only one winner at the end. but the losers all learn something and so does the winner. if the winner gets complacent, if the winner gets lazey, then
8:12 pm
those others that are competing are going to pass up that former winner and he's going to have to get a little sharper in his game. that makes us all better. when i look at my neighborhoods, mr. speaker, and i see that we've got some counties in particular that have excellent competition between the public school and the parochial schools. a number of different churches to choose from. and they've got a lot of banks in there that will loan money and compete with each other, invest back in the community. so entrepreneurs with ideas or families need a bridge to the next month or two -- families that need a bridge to the next month or two have a bridge to get them through that. this competition is not just sports competition. it's academic competition, it's competing for students. it's competing for tuition dollars. it's competing for the business investment dollars among the banks. and as churches competing for the faith and competition to save the maximum number of souls. it's a very, very healthy environment. if you take competition out this
8:13 pm
goes flat. and the vitality that exists today and just the vibrant humming of the lives that i'm thinking of would be gone. and it becomes complacent. i fear that's where america is going. if we're afraid to compete, we're afraid to defend our values. free enterprise capitalism. i think every college campus in the country has somebody, some profess that are will speak against it. some of them have many professors that speak against it. they're teaching against free enterprise capitalism. they're teaching socialism. they're teaching marxism. they're rejecting conservatism. and by the way, i can't find a school in the country today that has an effective course on western civilization itself. that doesn't mean they aren't there -- aren't out there. this is just me asking questions of people who should know the answer to that. they're saying, i can't name that unless it be liberty university. now, i grew up in an era when
8:14 pm
every school had multiple courses on western civilization. because we understand our culture, we respect it, we know that without western civilization the world would be so void of the contributions that came from western civilization. and here sometimes a year ago, last summer i guess it would be, yeah, a year ago last summer, i found myself on a panel of msnbc, mr. speaker. one of the panelists said, one could be an optimist and hope that this is the last republican convention where old white people have anything to say about it. there's no way to let a comment like that pass. and so i pointed out, i said, charlie, that's getting a little tired this criticism of old white people. i'd challenge to you name another subgroup of people who have contributed more. then the lady on the panel started fanning herself.
8:15 pm
she was getting the vapors because i defended western civilization. and the host leend over and almost with a leer and -- leaned over almost with a leer and he said, more than white people? hoping i would take the bait. i said, more than western civilization itself. and western civilization is everywhere where christianity has laid the foundation for civilization itself. has laid the -- where christianity has been the footprint that has laid down the foundation of western civilization itself. you don't have western civilization without christianity uric don't have successful history without christianity you don't have people who abide by the moral laws so we don't need a lot of legal laws, you can't manage a nation of 300 million people and think you're going to get that done effectively if they fail to be a moral people a people that reach over and pay
8:16 pm
forward and take care of their families and their friends and their neighbors. and i see it all over this country, mr. speaker. and i've been to all 50 states in this country, met people in all 50 states. i've gotten behind the steering wheel in 48 of the 50. i see good people, great people, day after day after day. to get out of bed and all they want to do is help somebody. they don't care about credit. they don't care if anybody ever notices or sees it. they just want to help somebody. and that's what makes this country turn and work the way it does. if we wonder, we should take a look at the hurricanes that we've suffered in the south and all across from texas, louisiana, and now mississippi the other day and florida, irma. american people, some people flood out of -- fled out of the hurricane, some people come to help. i imagine there's a traffic jam there from time to time. but i'm so grateful that we have the american character that it is.
8:17 pm
the american character is a can-do spirit. people that i know that i had a banker visit me one day, he showed me a picture, actually, i met him at the airport , he showed me a picture of their bank, the water was ready to run in the door of the bank he said, don't send us anything, we can handle this, it's only a flood. i've been back to that community and he was right. i'm glad we have people like that, these spirited americans that are part of a culture that is a can-do culture. i don't want to lose it, mr. speaker. i don't want to lose it by devaluing any they have pill -- any of the pill loofers american exceptionalism. i'll list a few others, a side from the rule of law, there's freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, all of those together in the first amendment. and they're put up there in the first amendment because without them, without an open dialogue, without ideas having to compete in the public square, then we
8:18 pm
don't test those ideas. and our founding fathers understood that. they wanted debate to take place here on the floor of the house of representatives. they wanted debate to take place in the senate. they wanted these ideas to be tested. and for me, i've long believed that i should engage in debate and if i can't sustain my position in debate i only have two choices. i can either adopt the other guy's position or go back and do my homework and get that research done, up my game, so to speak, and be prepared to defend myself at the next round. that's usually what happens. if i'm not able to defend myself. but over the years i pay a little more attention to preparation than i used to when i was younger. so that's how it is. and the best ideas can be sorted forward. sitting in a meeting here, we can be discussing these ideas. somebody brings up an idea, it might get knocked down. i don't think the public gets to see how many ideas are not successful in competing with
8:19 pm
other ideas. sometimes there's a power structure too. what troubles me is when good ideas can't have a fair hearing because others want their idea to come through to have their name on it. that's a bit of a side issue. freedom of speech, religion, peace, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. all first amendment. second. right to keep and bear arms. our founding fathers put that provision in the bill of rights, not so that could hunt or collect or target shoot. or even defend ourselves. the second amendment is in our constitution so that we can defend ourselves from tyranny. from a future tyrant that would come in and if they confiscated our weapons, then they can force anything upon the people of this country. history has proven that over and over again. the first thing a tyrant does
8:20 pm
is go after your guns. the second thing they do is go after all the other rights. and pretty soon you're a subservient people that, imagine north korea or cuba, to get a model or example of that. you can go up the line. the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. constitutional right. i'm naming pillars of american exceptionalism, without them we would not be an exceptional nation. there's no pillar that we can pull out that the edifice wouldn't tumble if we lost our first amendment, our second amendmentering our fourth amendment, our fifth amendment we lost part of it already with keho decision. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just composition. in the keloe decision, the supreme court ruled, i believe it was a 5-4 decision, i know justice scalia dissented as did justice o'connor in one of her last major dissents she had
8:21 pm
written. but the supreme court essentially struck out, i'll say, de facto struck out the terms for public use from the fifth amendment. they ruled that a locality could condemn private property and hand it over to another private interest provided they had a government interest in the private interest being successful. and so they could take, let's say a senior lady's home, a tract of land, and force that into the -- confiscate that, put it in the hands of a private investor. that decision is a horrible decision that weakens american exceptionalism. weakens our property rights in america. and i had the private conversation with justice scalia and he told me he expected the decision to be reversed one day. but to amend the fifth amendment effectively by a decision in the supreme court, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. this private property was taken
8:22 pm
not even for public use but private use. they didn't write in there, nor shall private property be taken for private use because that was a given that would not be the case. it's inch plide in the fifth amendment itself. but the supreme court ruled the way they wanted to rule and they have weakened a pillar of american exceptionalism. trial by jury. no double jeopardy. go up the line. powers that are not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. all of these are pillars of american exceptionalism. free enterprise capitalism. another pillar of american exceptionalism. by the way if you take the nationalization test, last series of flash cards, laminated flash cards and these flash cards, you can hold them up and ask these aspiring citizens some questions and you can see, some of the questions are this. who is the father of our country? and then you flip that card over and it says george washington. who emancipated the slaves?
8:23 pm
abraham lincoln. and what is the economic. so the united states of america? it's on the flash card. free enterprise capitalism. that's under assault. our religious values are under assault. our family values are under assault. the very definition of the constitution itself is under assault and barack obama landed some heavy blows to it while he was president of the united states. and so as we begin bringing forward a nominee that could compete effectively and hopefully p -- be elected to president of the united states, 17 presidential candidates came through my state. and many of them i knew before they announced. and i think i can say that all of them i knew by the time they got through with their campaigns. out of that all, hard fought, there was a platform that was hammered out. and donald trump earned the nomination. his platform is awfully close
8:24 pm
to the platform of ted cruz who was the second to the last man standing. and that platform is a platform that i appreciate, i respect, and i worked for, mr. speaker. and i've watched as presidential candidates can see themselves as president of the united states, they may not have all their positions hammered out when they present themselves as candidates. in fact, i don't know if any of them did have their positions hammered out when they presented themselves as candidates. but they give their speeches, last crowd reaction, there's some polling information there, they have a team a team of advisor well, talk to them and try to convince them of the priorities they should be bringing forward. in the end, throughout all of this, by the time you get through the national convention and further no, ma'am -- and confer the nomination on our presidential candidate there's a platform to run on from june or july all the way to november it turned out to be last year. donald trump's platform was clear. and he said to me one day about
8:25 pm
events he has tone for me and i'm prr much appreciative of president trump and the times he's come in to help me politically, mr. speaker. he made that reference in a discussion among several of my colleagues and i said, yes, you've helped me and i -- you knew but i how iowans were going to respond, i market tested your immigration plan. he gave it more clarity than i had. throughout all of that it was build the wall and secure or borders and enforce domestic immigration law and reinforce i.c.e. and reinforce border patrol and c.b.p. put that all together. end birthright citizenship. support eppinglish as the official language. these are just some of the pieces along the way. we refined some of this since
8:26 pm
then. also it was a new idea act, the deductibility for rage -- wages and benefits paid to illegals. let's the i.r.s. come in and do the enforcement through the normal audit process. so if the i.r.s. came in under the any idea act and did a normal audit, they would run the social security numbers and other pertinent information of employees through the e-verify and if e-verify confirmed that these employees could legally work in the united states, the employer would get safe harbor for having hired them. if they couldn't verify it, the ployer would get 72 hours to cure, 72 hours to correct he this record. but if he's hiring illegals and then the i.r.s. would say, all right, but you can't deduct this $10,000, $20,000, $100,000 you paid this illegal. so we're going to have to charge taxes on that because that deduction is not a
8:27 pm
business expense, it's actually income instead. so the tax would be applied to that $100,000, so to speak, plus interest, plus penalty. it would turn your $10 an hour illegal into a $16 an hour illegal. that's the essence of it. we require also that the i.r.s. and the social security administration that's collecting social security deposits from workers across the country, sometimes multiple sources on the same social security number, i mean, scores and scores of people on the same social security number, social security stops sending out no match letters some years ago under the obama administration. we put that back together and require the i.r.s. to communicate with and trade information with the social security administration to target and flag those false social security numbers and then also bring the department of homeland security to the table so that the i.r.s.,
8:28 pm
social security administration, and the department of homeland security are all working together to cooperate to enforce immigration law. and denying the deduct lingt of the employer. the employer will have all kinds of incentives to clean up his work force. in fact we have a six-year statute of limitations that compiles, or accrues, over the years. and so if you're sitting there with the sex-year potential liability, you're going to want to be with the clean work force. that's another piece that is a policy that the president has been for, at least in the past. now if things move on -- now things move on but we are -- we have an immigration policy that became part of the platform for the president of the united states and in that policy, throughout, there are multiple times in speech he is announced he's going to end daca. he's going to end daca. and we all expected that that would happen at noon, january 20, of this year.
8:29 pm
when the president was inaugurated out here on the west portico of the capitol not far from where i stand right now. that would have been consistent with his campaign promise. build the wall. end the unconstitutional daca. and so while he was signing executive orders, and i give him credit , he went to the oval office or at least had a formal signing of multiple executive orders that day. launched his presidency with work, right on the spot, instead of, he shortened up the parade for himself and went to work for america. hats off to president trump for that. i support his entire agenda. and i'm going to do my best to help him keep his word on that entire agenda. but we found out weeks later that daca permits were still being issued and they were still being extended and those permits also included work permits. and so president obama's unconstitutional daca, deferred action for children of aliens,
8:30 pm
that unconstitutional daca program was continued and continues actually to this day under the trump administration, completely in contradiction with the campaign promises ehe made. i say many more times than barack obama made the statement he didn't have the constitutional authority, barack obama violated the constitution, president trump has continued that violation. and i'm calling upon him, keep your campaign promise, restore the respect for the rule of law, and da -- end daca by the executive action just sign it off. and end it. and if we fail to do that, and i have worked for 31 years to restore the respect for the rule of law, with regard to immigration. in 1986, ronald reagan signed the amnesty act. at least he was honest about it , he called it the amnesty act. and i listened to what i could on the debate from the house and the senate. and i didn't believe it would
8:31 pm
pass either chamber but it passed both chambers, it was messaged to president reagan's desk. i thought that through, read the material and i thought, i don't have to worry about this. ronald reagan will know that if he signs amnesty, it does great damage to the rule of law and it will take years to restore it. now the deal was to be if you sign the amnesty act, we'll give you the enforcement, we'll enforce the law from this point forward and illegal immigration will no longer be a problem in america. that's what the deal was. and they promised us that this amnesty act in 1986 would be the last that we're going to -- that they were going to then set about establishing respect for the law. . it seems every member in this congress has lost whatever memory they had about 1986. things haven't changed. there's nothing really new under
8:32 pm
the sun. human nature is human nature. it is what it's been for 2,000 or more years. but when there's a promise made that is, first you give us this and then we'll see to it that you get that, let me see. we had ronald reagan's successor, bush 41. george herbert walker bush, a great american as well. he took the promise when he said, read my lips. no new taxes. he said that more than 22 times too. but when it got to the point where he was wanting to get some spending cuts, the democrats went to him and said, you know what, we've got to raise taxes if you're going to get spebleding cuts. but we'll follow through on our part of the deal if you just sign the tax increases that they passed. and so bush 41, dealing honestly and straight-up and believing that the people he was dealing with had the level of integrity that he has, signed the tax increase in exchange for the promise of the spending cuts. and we all know the answer to that, mr. speaker.
8:33 pm
we know the story. when you make a deal like that and you don't have the things on the table that you're supposed to get for that deal, never comes first. you don't see them. so george h.w. bush, 41, signed the tax increase, violated his pledge. read my lips, no new taxes. not only did he sign that and not get the spending cuts, but they beat him over the head with that and he lost his re-election because of it. and we ended up with bill clinton. i think that lesson should be enough to make us all smart enough to know, don't be making a deal like that. ronald reagan recan'ted and regretted that he signed the amnesty act because of the damage did he to the rule of law when he signed that. there were to be one million who would be recipients of the amnesty act in 1986. it turned out to be three million. because of, let's say the estimates were wrong, but there was a lot of fraud and corruption and people slipped
8:34 pm
through because we didn't have tight enough security on it. so three million people got amnesty in 1986 and that was a path to citizenship. a fairly short path to citizenship as well. i've talked to some of them. and they say, yeah, it was great for me. and some of them think that amnesty for another group of people is all right. but if the law means nothing to someone and they violate the law, or it's an obstruction and they slip around that law, or, as we've got today, some number that's 750,000 to 800,000 daca recipients. they're demanding that we grant them amnesty. illegal aliens coming here to the capital -- capitol, right out here in the grass two weeks ago on a monday, gathering around, demanding that congress grant them amnesty. how do you go to a foreign country and be unlawfully present in that country and you go protest to the government that they should ignore their own laws, because you've got something that you want, that you slipped across the border to have access to.
8:35 pm
and i do not buy the idea that most of these daca recipients, most of them aren't kid. the average sage 23. some of them go all -- age is 23. some of them go up to 37. some of them are bald, some of them are gray in the beard. some of them have a build like mine. don't think of them as kids when i look at them. yet there were some who came across the rio grande river on their mother's arm and they didn't know and they didn't form intent. but there are a whole lot of them that would qualify under this that did have intent and did know. we know there are a whole lot of them also, and i've witnessed this with my eyes and helped to collar some of them as this goes on, i've walked through the desert and seen the burlap backpacks that they haul marijuana in into the united states. and it's not only marijuana. but some of these will qualify under daca. drug smugglers will qualify. they'll say, we'll do background tchecks -- background checks. how do you do a background check on someone who doesn't have a legal existence in this country?
8:36 pm
if there's no record of them existing there, they'll say, we didn't find anything negative. of course not, the person didn't exist. i know i had an individual, i wanted on my hispanic advisory committee. smart, personable, young businessman. and i said, i'd like to have you sit down and we'd like to hear your advice and have your finger on the pulse because i want to know what's going on in the minority communities and i want to make sure i'm doing a good job of representing them too. and he said, that's fine, i'm interested. i said, but before i would put you on this committee, i have to be sure, so i'll want to see -- he said he was born in america. i'll want to see your birth -- excuse me. he said he was born in mexico but he's a naturalized citizen. i said, i'd like to see your birth certificate. and he said, ok, i can get it for you. i said, how long will that take you? he said, it will only take me a few days. what do you want it to say? what do you want the birth certificate to say? now, that's a legal document. and you don't get to ask that question if you have respect for
8:37 pm
the rule of law. i just dropped him as a potential candidate on my advisory committee. and a year or two later i found out that i.c.e. had come in and picked him up and deported him. i didn't know he was illegal even at that time. i just didn't trust him any long wher asked me that question. and -- longer when he asked me that question. that's another individual that may have been and still could qualify to be a recipient. those that come across the border, i've locked into the jail cells of the border patrol. and there are hundreds there at the times that i've been there, hundreds of them. they're sorted between children, women, men. and the men far, far, far outweigh the number ofs of women or children -- numbers of women or children. some of the numbers we looked at were 80% men. these -- some of these men will present themselves as under 18. many of them will. and i've seen the cell with those minor males that are in there and some of those
8:38 pm
supposedly minor males have gray in their beard. they would also qualify or at least apply for, and if we didn't have way to do a background check on them, in many cases we don't, they give you a false name, what do you do after that if they've never been printed? they would qualify. ms-13, we know that there have been a significant number of ms-13 gang members who are also daca. that's been published multiple times throughout the last couple of years. so many people that we would want to get out of this country would be granted a path to citizenship to stay in this country. and that's why it's so wrong. and it disrepresents natural born american citizens, it even more disrespects naturalized american citizens who came here the right way and applied the right way and spent maybe seven years to get in a position where they do take the naturalization test and then the oath -- where they could take the
8:39 pm
naturalization test and then the oath. which is a grand day, mr. speaker. i look forward to every opportunity i have to speak to the naturalization services that take place in the federal building in s.o.u. city, iowa. and always -- sioux city, iowa. and i always tell them, remember this date that you became an american citizen and want you to memorize it and i hand them a constitution with the date in it and my signature on it and hopefully they will be -- they will have the reverence for the constitution that i and many have developed as well. but we have a vigthat are comes into america -- a vigor that comes into america. these are self-selected people. if you have 10 kids growing up in a family in bangladesh or ireland or italy or wherever it might be, and one of them has the inspiration to come to america, you're going to get the one that had the greatest aspirations. the one with the strongest ambition. the one with the deepest convictions of themselves. the can-do -- the most can-do sibling out of one, five, six or 10 is the one that has the dream
8:40 pm
to come to america. so they line up and they come here legally and they built this country. and they built this country for over 200 years. and we need to respect the rule of law that they came here to embrace. and we know people that are leaving countries that don't have the rule of law, that are corrupt. when by it to mexico, i see the problems down there -- when i go to mexico, i see the problems down there nefment country i go to, i can put together a formula to put that country into the first world from the third world. except for corruption. how do you address the corruption? law doesn't mean law in mexico and points south the way it does in this country. you get pulled over by the police they might pull you over because they need an extra tip that week. you may not be speeding, you may not have run a stop sign. they might just pull you over. you have to pay the mordida. that's corruption itself. it doesn't happen in this country. hardly ever. because we get their badge number and they're out of a job. this country has -- no country's free of corruption. but we have a healthy country
8:41 pm
with the rule of law. it's a pillar of american exceptionalism. and we cannot, mr. speaker, and my message is to the president, we cannot reward law breakers. it destroys the rule of law. our hearts cannot be leading ahead of our heads. there's a daca recipient that i would like to adopt, if that's what it takes to keep that individual in america. i think that much of that individual. i like this individual a lot. and respect this individual a lot. but i love the rule of law. i love the rule of law because without it, we descend into the third world. so this debate, this debate about, don't you have a heart? don't you know that these are just 800,000 kids? and can't we just give them the confidence of having a legal status in america? and i say, no. not if you love the country, you can't do that. and it's not our doing. they either came here of their own, their own volition, formed the intent, or their parents
8:42 pm
did. and so the law is the law. we don't tell the judge, don't be putting this criminal in prison because he's got kids at home. we don't worry about the separation of families when it comes to enforcing the law against american citizens. but we worry about enforcing the law against people who have intentionally and willfully divide themselves. now, what happens if we should grant amnesty to daca recipients and then deport their parents? that splits up the family. i say, get right with the law. go to your home country. apply to come in the legal way. and by the way, when you arrive in your home country, if you truly are, as you're characterized for daca, you'll have a free american education that the american taxpayers paid for. you'll be bilingual. you'll have familiar al connections in your community -- familiaral -- familial connections in your community. you'll know what it looks like to live in a country where things work generally right. and if you think of the 7,000
8:43 pm
peace corps works that are are working in about 130 countries in the world, and how much good they do, they go to countries without speaking the language, they don't know where they're going to land. they find a way to help out and contribute. people going home is not being condemned to hell. people going home is like sending out 750,000 or 800,000 fresh peace corps workers back to their home countries. what could be a greater economic development plan for mexico, guatemala, he will valve doer, honduras, nicaragua, than for their best and brightest to go home and build their countries while they apply to come back to the united states? that's the best solution we can have mr. speaker. and we don't even have a serious debate on that in here unless i bring it up. so i appreciate the opportunity to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives this evening. and hime hopeful that we made a little bit of progress. i'll continue to defend the rule of law and the constitution and challenge my colleagues to do the same. and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
8:44 pm
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2017, chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, for 30 minutes. mr. castro: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. castro: as with any moment in the history of our nation and the world, there are tragedies and disasters that sere the conscience and call to us action. not home because we're american, but because we're human. some of these tragedies are manmade. others are the work of nature.
8:45 pm
some hit close to home. such as the hurricanes that devastated texas, my home state, florida, and puerto rico. taking many lives and inflicting billions of dollars in damage. some of the work of one man, like the shooter in las vegas, who took 58 lives. like many in this chamber, i've spoken up on these tragedies close to home. tonight i'd like to speak to a humanitarian crisis far away from us. tonight i'd like to speak about the rohingya muslims of burma. the rohingya, after being driven out of burma have sought refuge in bangladesh, ma lay shah, indonesia, thailand and india. some have even come as far as the united states of america. these victims have been driven out of the country their ancestors have called home for
8:46 pm
hundreds of years through a systematic campaign of murder and rape and the destruction of entire villages and communities. it can be challenging for host governments to care for these displaced populations which can lead to additional instability, especially in countries with low incomes or governments already under stress to provide services to their citizens. we see this pattern worldwide. the refugees from the war in syria fled to lebanon and turkey, to iraq and across the mediterranean to europe. over a million refugees are in lebanon, which is over one sixth of that nation's population. over 3.2 million refugees have found their way to tur see and 600,000 in jordan. almost a million have sought refuge in europe. there are similar crises in the central african republic, iraq, south sudan and yemen.
8:47 pm
millions of people have fled conflicts and instability in these regions, usually finding rejudge in neighbors countries vulnerable to instability. our own country has been affected by instability. in recrean years, gang related violence in central america has driven hundreds of thousands of people both to the north and to the south. we remember the tens of thousands of primarily women and children who made their way to the united states and were able to find refuge here. tens of thousands more remained in mexico where the resources to care for these children are scarce. these crises have global consequences. failure to address them early will eventually affect the united states. the united states cannot afort to treat these crises as events over there or just far away this affects us in a very real way. these events highlight how important the concept of democracy and inclusive governance are. democratic countries with inclusive governance respect the rights of citizens and
8:48 pm
address the concerns of even though most vulnerable and least empowered. this is why u.s. foreign assistance matters so much. we invest in the rest of the world and build the capacity of states and societies to govern in a more democratic and inclusive manner. we also empower regional diplomacy to our engagement, allowing regions to address any such instability in a single country collectively. like many others in the global aung san i welcome uu kyi's election. this democracy is a precious and rare event in the world and occurs only now and then. last year, after the burmese
8:49 pm
military drove tens of thousands of rohingya out of the country, aung san suu kyi moved to establish the advisory commission under former secretary general kofi annan. this was an important step toward addressing the concerns of the rohingya which include disenfranchisement, statelessness and widespread discrimination. the situation today looks fwar different and far less lattering to counselor suu kyi. this year the crisis is more devastating with hundreds of thousands displaced.
8:50 pm
i wanted to be able to show you some of these images of the catastrophe the rohingya face. these are, of course, just a sear ut as i said, they the conscience and call us to action this year the crisis, as i mentioned, is much more devastating. ke many in congress i have been disappointed in the lack of moral leadership aung san suu kyi has demonstrated. when hundreds of thousands of people are driven out of the country, their villages burned, people slaughtered, women and children raped, i would expect a nobel peace prize winning leader of a country to take action. counselor suu kyi rose to power because her moral leadership and persistence in the face of adversity inspired millions. it's deeply saddening and disappointing to witness her lack of action today.
8:51 pm
mr. speaker, i'd like to yield my colleague from new york, representative tenney. ms. tenney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing up this important issue. i just want to make a few comments, i want to say, what makes the united states exceptional among all nations is the moral courage and leadership we have displayed throughout our history. so many times in the face of great terror and significant moral crisis the united states has acted as a force for good. we have supported our allies to restore order where there was once chaos. where people have been suffering famine and drought we have stepped up to provide food and water. time and again the world has faced crisis and the united states stepped up to defend the moral good. the crisis in myanmar presents another challenge for the global community but this moral crisis is yet another opportunity for our nation to once again lead. as we speak the rohingya people
8:52 pm
are suffering undue hardship and violence under a government that's failed to uphold the values inherent to a vibrant democracy. it has been reported that an average of ,000 rohingya are fleeing the country each day. denied basic rights for decades, the rohingya people have been subject to systematic discrimination as religious minority in a predominantly buddhist country. the state has gone so far as to deny citizenship to the rohingya people since 1992. serious acquisition of ethnic cleansing and genocide have been leveled against the government which have failed to respond to -- respond appropriately to calls for calm an peace. while the government has the right to defend itself against surgency, common rules -- te that children protection of children is sacred.
8:53 pm
despite this villages have been burned to the ground by government forces. hundreds, possibly thes -- thousandses of civilians are slaughtered. the cree sis demands our immediate attention. just recently, the house foreign affairs committee held a hearing and chairman royce stated plainly, this is ethnic cleansing. mr. speaker, i must agree. every conflict is complex and this one is no different but it must be made clear that under no conditions should the rights of innocent civilians be abridged and to the government of myanmar, we must make it equally clear that their behavior will not be tolerated. i recently met with constituents from myanmar, utica in new york's 22nd congressional district is a home to a vibrant refugee community. we are home to the largest bosnian refugee population in the nation. a population that was also fleeing ethnic cleansing in their own home country of the former yugoslavia. my constituents shared with me
8:54 pm
their personal stories and deach despair over the violence in their home country. they asked i do all i can to make their choices heard and tonight i'm proud to speak on their behalf. they shared with me horrific pictures of violence, death, torture, children, of young people, of women, of men, of families. it was just simply just appalling. mr. speaker, when our nation faces moral challenges, it is in our nature not to back down. i must insist this time be no different. i call on my colleagues to stand up and speak out and to act on this important issue. i thank my friend from texas and my colleague for highlighting this very important issue and i urge all of my colleagues to understand this is a tragedy of major proportions that's happening in our world today and i thank you again for bringing this issue to the floor. thank you so much. mr. castro: thank you, representative. thank you for joining me at this late hoar. ms. tenney: this is so
8:55 pm
important i'm grateful to you for doing this. mr. castro: absolutely. humanitarian crisis in burma, or myanmar, requires international attention and action. as the representative said. the actions of the burmese state in ethniccally cleansing hundreds of thousands of rohinfwa demonstrate this need for international action. the most immediate need is to facilitate access by n.g.o.'s and international organizations in the rakhine state. there are tens of thousands of rohingya internally displaced in this state. violence against rohinfwa, including the burning of villages, continues despite international condemnation. just yesterday, a full month and a half after the beginning of this crisis, 11,000 rohingya reportedly crossed over into bangladesh. access by international groups would allow the rest of the
8:56 pm
world to deliver assistance to the rohingya, still within the state and to help prevent further violence. the united states , in partnership with allies around the world must ao assist bangladesh in providing for the hundreds of thousands of rohingya they lost. this includes food, water, shelter, a medicine. we can in the allow this humanitarian -- cannot allow this humanitarian catastrophe to escalate further. with eknow a political settlement to repatriation is possible. bang la dish and burma have arrived at such agreements in the past. the united states and our allies must support the u.n. high commissioner for refugees and the bangladeshi's effort to welcome all rohingyaho have a -- aived. given the government's reluctance to recognize rohingya as citizens, this
8:57 pm
identify e ability to them. they have suffered violence and forced displacement for decades. houvens rohingya villages have been burned to the ground and they can no longer return to their homes because in many cases those homes no longer exist. the full extent of the catasophe is not yet known as thousan of rohingya remain unaccoted for. more rohingya have fled myanmar in the past two months than remain in rakine state. would the rohingya want to return if given a chance? what would need to be done to create conditions for such a return? tackling the underlyi issues that led to the olent displacement of rohingya will take decades to rolve. the t important of which will be a militarythat lacks transparency or oversight. that is, the burmese military.
8:58 pm
burma's government and military currently face a dozen separate insurgencies against forces claiming to represent minority communities. while the burmese government has taken steps to reach a cease fire and political agreements with a number of these groups continued fighting in various parts of the country undoubtedly contributes to the military's independence and free rein. allowing the rohingya to be comfortable in burma will require assurances by the burmese government to allow the rohingya to live on the land they have lived on for hundreds of years this can only come with citizenship for the rohingya and greater democracy where the government is responsive to the needs of the population and respects the huan rightsed on civil libeies of ethnic and religio minorits. deloping a political settlement toward greater accountability in the burmese government and citizenship for the rohingya will be difficult and may take years.
8:59 pm
important actions the ud states can take include limiting our support for the burmese military given their complicity in these crimes. for example, the congress considered expanding support for the burmese military ts year. that will not occuriven the actions of the burmese military. i also believe sanctions on individuals found to be complicit in ethnic cleansing, including will call military commanders are warranted. designating military commanders in the state, especially designated nationals, s.d.n.'s, would send a powerful message that these crimes will not be tolerated anywhere in the world, including burma. on the other hand, would like to rognize the immense gerosity of the people and government of banglesh -- the people and governmentf bangladesh have shown in is crisis. over 500,000 people, most of whom are women, children and
9:00 pm
thelderly, have fled to bangladesh since gu 25. the government of bangladesh has accepted these people and worked to provide for them within the limits of their abilities while supporng international effortso address the root causes of the a country not much larger than iowa, face he a significant challenge in taking care of this refugee popation. the 500 population join the hundreds of thousands in the forced migration. bangladesh has done an admirable job but the limits to provide for these refugee pop layings are real and the nation requires international assist taps, this includes assistance frothe
9:01 pm
united states, europe and japan. d countries must provide support especiay china and independent yeah which maintain close relationshi with bangladesh and burma. as i mentioned previously, we are in an age of accelerated news and with social media, we are in a an age of owing. ap now can be seen over the internet, on facebook,witter and other socialedia and the pace at which news comes at us no can give us a pace of whip threp lash ap trying to deal with t things that affect the united states of america such as
9:02 pm
a hurricane at have hit texas, puerto rico and can sometimes feel overwhelming. trye can be a temptation to solve the problems that not only as americans but as flow human bngs. sometimes it does president seem doesn't seem to speak about other tngs, some of them far away, but it's important that we think aut, that we remember and reflect dry to solve the problemand challenges of other people. it's often said the united states can't be the policeman of the wod and believe that's tue, but there are things that call o conience that do move
9:03 pm
s to action where we have the responsibility to act as the acknowledge the ethnic cleansing that has victimized the rohingya people and i wanted to speak about it today. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: jabb. >> i move the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion adjourn. those in favor say aye. thosopposed, no. the ayes have it. the mowing is adopted. th house is
9:04 pm
>> encumbered some 6 million people. a very automobile commute city and it will just extend our brand and give people involved in the process a chance to listen to it. that is how it happened, it was very simple. >> c-span radio app working 20 years of public programming from the nation's capital. listen to the washington journal live each morning beginning at 7 a.m. eastern. here a recap of today's political events weekdays at 7 p.m. eastern.
9:05 pm
and get the latest from congress, the administration and important events from across the nation. onpan radio is available 90.1 fm or by downloading the free c-span radio app. at 20 years, where you hear history unfold daily. next, national security adviser h.r. mcmaster joined his from fivers administrations and a panel at the center for strategic and international 30's. it included henry kissinger who served as the national security adviser for the nixon and ford administrations. >> everybody, welcome. well we are getting ourselves organized of here, let me say that i am delighted to have everyone with us. always when we do public events,
9:06 pm
we have a little safet

51 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on