[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5524-H5528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, while these young folks are setting this 
up for me, I want to start off tonight by talking about what we've been 
talking about in this hour now for close to a year, and that is that 
the United States is a Nation of laws, not of men. It was designed by 
our Founding Fathers to be such. It is something we are proud to be a 
part of. It's something we are proud to step up to the plate and say we 
defend because we believe that the rule of law is more fair than having 
individuals set their own rules as kings and dictators do. And so, the 
rule of law is a sacred part of our institution.
  We say that the people will elect representatives to represent them 
in this Congress and in State legislatures across the country and other 
legislative or quasi-legislative bodies to speak on their behalf, to 
vote on their behalf, and to set up laws and rules which establish what 
a civil society will be and what we will consider right and wrong in 
our world.
  This is a simple concept, arguably, a biblical concept going back for 
centuries and centuries, in fact, thousands of years. There have been 
sets of rules in every society, every culture, and every religious 
background, sets of rules that are established that allows society to 
function.
  The rule of law is important to America. In fact, it is the 
underpinning that allows me and other folks like me who are blessed to 
be able to serve in this Congress, allows us to do this job because we 
stand on that rock, that the law in this country is something that we 
enforce.
  In fact, we take an oath to preserve and protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. And we take that oath freely because we're saying, the basis 
of our legal structure, the ground rock of the rule of law, is the 
Constitution of the United States, which was adopted by this country 
and formed our Nation as we presently know it.
  So we've been talking about that Members of Congress, administration 
people, and others need to be dealt with in the light of the rule of 
law, and when there are questions that should be raised, they should be 
raised publicly.
  And so tonight, as I've done on many occasions in the past, I'm going 
to talk about some things that are concerning me, concerning others who 
care about the rule of law. I hope to be joined by some of my 
colleagues here tonight.
  But to start off with, I'm really concerned about what's being 
reported by the Obama administration, with the political backing of the 
Democrats in this House.

                              {time}  1930

  We are arguably seeing one of the most lawless political crusades in 
American history. Blatantly, this administration has violated both the 
spirit and the letter of the law in advancing a theory of European-
style socialism on State governments and on the unwilling people.
  The administration's ignored two Federal court orders that have just 
come out, and have ignored both of them now, saying that the drilling 
ban in the Gulf of Mexico is arbitrary and capricious and wrong, and 
ordering the United States and the Secretary to withdraw and lift that 
drilling ban. And yet the minute these two courts, both a Federal 
district court and a United States court of appeals, the 5th Circuit 
Court of Appeals, told this administration, this President and this 
Secretary, that they were to lift the drilling ban and save the between 
140,000 and 250,000 jobs that are connected with that industry along 
the entire stretch of the Gulf of Mexico, that it was arbitrary and 
capricious to ban all drilling and it should not be done, they 
immediately amend and reissue another drilling ban in the face of that 
court.
  The administration blocks Louisiana's efforts to proceed to fight 
their own environmental fight by trying to throw up a little small rock 
barrier and a sand barrier to maybe keep the oil from getting into the 
marsh. It's bad enough when this oil stacks up on the beach because it 
makes tar balls, and it makes nastiness on that beach. It makes that 
beach very ugly. But you know what, it just gets on your feet and gets 
your feet dirty, and it just picks up.
  But when it goes in the marsh, when this oil goes in the Louisiana 
marsh, it affects an entire ecosystem that has to do with our shrimping 
industry, our oyster industry, our fishing industry. It has to do with 
the ecosystem of the entire State and the Gulf of Mexico because there 
is a lot that flows in and out of that marsh that has to do with the 
ecosystem of the gulf. And when oil gets in amongst those grasses and 
amongst those habitats, it kills. On the beach it probably causes some 
terrible environmental impact, but nothing like going into those 
marshes.
  So Governor Jindal says let's do something about it, and our 
administration blocks it. And international companies call out and say 
we have material to help clean up, and the administration refuses to 
allow them to come.
  The administration refused to allow the United States Senate to 
conduct a single hearing over the appointment of Dr. Berwick to head 
Medicare at the same time that this Congress and the President plan 
cutting Medicare by $50 billion, and putting a man in charge of 
Medicare that there is a lot of questions that should have been asked 
by the Senate. But using a recess appointment, which is legal, it's 
legal, but in the face of what's facing Medicare and in the face of the 
conversation we just had earlier with Mr. Upton about the massive 
burdens that are going to be created by this ObamaCare bill that has 
now been signed into law, and just the burdens on industry and business 
that are going to be put on there for really no good understandable 
reason, you've got to ask the question why you put a guy in there who 
says the things that Mr. Berwick has said and then don't allow the 
Senate to ask questions about that. I think that's something we ought 
to be concerned about.
  We have a Supreme Court opinion, a recent Supreme Court opinion, that 
protected certain First Amendment rights of free speech, and this 
Congress and this administration immediately brought to this floor and 
shoved through on a partisan vote a bill called the DISCLOSE Act, which 
gives special free speech rights to some and bars other groups from 
having the same rights, which is in the face of a Supreme Court opinion 
that's taken place this summer. And so you have to say what is it about 
``no'' that you don't understand? But you know, this is the way we are 
operating.

  This administration has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona 
to try to block them from enforcing their laws and Federal laws with 
specific provisions against discrimination in any form or fashion, and 
profiling in any form or fashion, but to just try to save their State 
from the invasion that happens nightly and from the slaughter of 
American citizens that has happened over the last couple years, and the 
multiple slaughters across the border.
  The administration's refused to defend the Republic against the most 
egregious violations of voting rights since the Civil Rights Act was 
passed. And we all saw them on television. It's kind of like we used to 
wonder how you were going to get the guy that shot Lee Harvey Oswald, 
ever get him a fair trial when the whole world saw the shooting on 
television. Well, the whole world saw these two guys, one with a club, 
standing out in front of a polling place, intimidating voters. And yet 
this administration says that they don't see any harm in that, and they 
are not going to enforce it.
  So we are going to go through some of these things tonight and talk 
about them. And the first one I just brought up: the voting rights 
violations are ignored. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is right now 
very proud to be out suing the State of Arizona, dropped the case that, 
hey, I will ask you, if you can see this clearly, if you will look 
right there, you will see a club or a shillelagh or a baton, but it is, 
if you

[[Page H5525]]

go down to the gun store you can buy that weapon. So it's clearly a 
weapon.
  Then if you would watch the film, you would hear the intimidating 
language that's going on there, and yet this is dropped. And it's a 
blatant voting rights violation. Refused to sentence the Black Panthers 
to default judgment. These guys were sued and didn't even show up. And 
it was a default judgment got against them, and then they dropped it. 
They didn't even have to work to get something against these guys. 
These guys lost. I mean, a fresh-out-of-law-school, brand-new lawyer 
can handle a default judgment and get recourse against these people. 
But the Justice Department chose, after these guys defaulted in the 
lawsuit, to drop the suit. I think this is a blatant disregard of 
something.
  Civil rights is an issue that when we say the term ``civil rights'' 
of course we remember what developed in the sixties, of course we know 
where it came from. Of course we know it had to do with the treatment 
of African Americans in this country initially. But it was not written 
just for African Americans. It was written for Americans, every kind of 
American. And then an off-shoot of civil rights is the Voting Rights 
Act, which protects every American's right to freely vote.
  Now, if two guys dressed in paramilitary uniforms, carrying clubs, 
are standing in front of a polling place and intimidating people and 
making them afraid to go up to that polling place, why in the world 
wouldn't it be the duty of our Attorney General, the man who is sworn 
to represent us in this type of law and to represent us being the 
American people and the Federal Government, why wouldn't they pursue 
this?
  And that's why I say this is blatantly avoiding, ignoring, of not 
doing your job and doing your duty to this country to preserve the 
laws.

                              {time}  1940

  So if one man, Eric Holder, makes the determination--and maybe a 
couple other lawyers in the office, I don't know. There are a whole 
bunch of them over there. But if he made the decision not to enforce 
this law, is that a rule of law or is that a rule of men?
  Now, you'll hear prosecutors say every prosecutor determines what's a 
good case. That's true. But they have a civil suit already that they 
already won, okay. I mean, they didn't have to do anything but take it 
to judgment, and they didn't do it--much less go prosecute the other 
violations under the Civil Rights Act.
  So you have to ask yourself: Is this the rule of law or the rule of 
Eric Holder? And if it's the rule of Eric Holder, then it's not what 
this country is designed to be. It's not designed to be the rule of 
Eric Holder. It's not designed to be the rule of Barack Obama. It's not 
to designed to be the rule of George Bush or any other President or 
leader of this country. It's designed to be the rule of law. And this 
body has an awful lot to do with what is in that body of law that's 
called a rule of law.
  And if we are going to arbitrarily and capriciously make changes or 
choose how we're going to enforce the law, I would argue that we're 
going down a slippery slope, and that slippery slope could lead to real 
disaster for this country, because if Eric Holder made this decision 
based on some personal decision that he has, what's to prevent the next 
Attorney General to have a different personal opinion and avoid some 
other law that's important to the rights of the American people? I 
don't know.
  So it's the Office of Attorney General we need to be talking about. 
And what's their job? And I would argue their job is to enforce the 
law. And if there is any question as to whether or not this is 
intimidation--and I would almost guarantee you there is--that's for a 
jury or a judge to decide in a court of law; not for a group of lawyers 
sitting around a back room someplace deciding which group you want to 
protect. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
  I would hope that the Attorney General will be taking another look at 
this. And if he thinks there is any way anybody could think this guy 
with a club is intimidating somebody under the Civil Rights Act, then 
let a trier of fact make that decision and do your job and present your 
case in court like a good lawyer should, and let's find out just what 
the courts that we trust with these decisions have to say about it. 
I'll accept that. I think that's right. That's the way it's supposed to 
operate.
  So there's one blatant avoidance of the law.
  Now, let me start off--because I like to be straight as I can be. To 
do a recess appointment--it's been done in the past. I can certainly 
tell you the last administration did it. Other administrations have 
done it. Using that method is not what I have a concern about because 
the President absolutely has the right to do it.
  Now, he picked sort of a brief recess but, hey, that's okay. It's 
been done on brief recesses in the past. So that's all right. I'm not 
complaining about that.
  But one of the things we've got to ask ourselves is, when the 
President of the United States told the American people what was in 
that 2,500-page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we were going to have to 
pass so we'll find out what's in it because she didn't know and neither 
did anybody else in this House, now we're getting to know what's in 
that bill.
  But the promises that were made by the administration were a lie. And 
one of those promises was there are no death committees. There's nobody 
going to be deciding your life or death. Nothing in this bill is going 
to create or have someone in charge that's operating this bill that 
believes that rationing your health care and making decisions about 
whether or not you get treated--that's what we were promised. The 
President of the United States himself told us that on multiple 
occasions. And not only the President, but almost everybody that 
represented what was in this bill said, We're not in the business of 
rationing health care. This bill's not going to ration health care. 
That's what they said. That's what they all told us.
  Now, who's this guy Donald Berwick who's now been put in charge of 
Medicare and Medicaid? He's a proponent of the British health care 
system and believes in rationing your health care and redistributing 
wealth. What he said, and if you watch--I know it's on FOX; I hope it's 
on all of the channels, his statement about how he viewed health care. 
He basically said health care, by its very nature, requires you to have 
some form of rationing and a redistribution of wealth from the more 
prosperous to the least prosperous. It's the very nature of the beast, 
he said. He told us rationing health care is inevitable.
  Now, wait a minute. We were promised by the President of the United 
States that we were not talking about rationing health care. Why would 
the first guy put in charge of this be a guy who publicly endorses 
rationing health care?

  You know, I was talking about rationing health care back home, and I 
was surprised to learn that people didn't get the whole concept. So let 
me give you an example, okay, and I've given this example before.
  My wife was born and raised in the Netherlands, in Holland, where 
they have socialized medicine and have had socialized medicine since 
the Second World War. My mother-in-law, who lived a long time--into her 
nineties--she lived under a system of socialized medicine. And she was 
healthy enough and so desirous of seeing her grandchildren that, even 
when she was really struggling with a lot of health issues, she still 
flew to the United States to be with her grandchildren and to be with 
her daughters. She's got a daughter here and a daughter in Florida. My 
wife's one of her daughters.
  My mother-in-law, back when she was in her mid to late eighties, was 
suffering from anal polyps--not a pleasant thing to talk about--and she 
was having a lot of bleeding issues, and she went to the health care 
people in the Netherlands. And when she came to the United States, she 
was still--she'd been treated with a drug that they gave her for almost 
a year, and it had not changed her situation at all. Very embarrassing 
for a very nice woman to have this situation.
  So we took her to a Dutch doctor that we knew that worked in Austin, 
Texas, and spoke Dutch, and we had gotten to be friends with him. And 
he went in and talked to my mother-in-law about it, what it was, and 
when he came out he said, You know, he said, this is a shame. They're 
treating your

[[Page H5526]]

mother--he's talking to my wife--with sulfa drugs. Now, we haven't 
treated people with sulfa drugs since the Second World War because we 
have antibiotics. And sulfa drugs were our drugs of choice in pre-
antibiotic days, but at a time when you're 88 years old and it costs 
the system a lot of money for antibiotics to fight this bug, just treat 
the old person with sulfa drugs because, quite frankly, she's not worth 
the investment. That's rationing.
  So being in the United States of America, the doctor immediately 
prescribed two antibiotics. Two weeks later, my mother-in-law was cured 
after a year of suffering with this situation. That's rationing. That's 
a governmental agency making a decision what drug you get for your 
illness.
  And we've got a guy that we just put in charge of the health care for 
our elderly and the health care for our poor, Medicaid. So our needy 
and our elderly are now under the charge of a man who says a health 
care system, by its very nature, has to have rationing in order to be 
fiscally able to function; in other words, in order to pay the bills. 
And we have been promised that this wouldn't happen.
  So what rule am I saying this is a violation of? It's not a rule 
that--they followed the rules. But it's the spirit of the thing, that 
the Senate should have been able to at least ask a few questions about 
these statements which were promised weren't going to happen. And I 
think the American people deserve to have those questions answered, so 
that's something else.
  We have had one of the worst, if not the worst, environmental 
disaster in the history of the United States on British Petroleum's 
poor management and poor operation of their offshore drilling resulting 
in an oil spill that is catastrophic.

                              {time}  1950

  We are in like the 95th day of that oil spill right now. We have a 
new procedure being worked on as we speak and we're hopeful it will 
help. But it doesn't matter. We have poured millions of barrels, not 
gallons but barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico; and the 
consequences, we are beyond thinking about.
  But one of the problems is the action of the Obama administration 
because of this one leaking oil well. Now, it is kind of interesting 
that the United States has drilled, according to what they are 
reporting today, 42,000 plus oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
United States, the United States drilling area, has had one drilling 
mishap, and that's the one we're dealing with today. One in 42,000 is 
what the record is, right now.
  So the question is, what should we do about it? Well, I would argue, 
and this is not hard stuff, plug the well, which has got to be done a 
certain way and I think they're ultimately going to do it. I'm not 
pleased with their performance. And secondly, under the Oil Spill Act, 
the Federal Government took control of oil spills. We have a written 
law, the Oil Spill Act, and it puts one person in charge of making sure 
that all the resources of America, and anywhere else we can get, I 
would argue, are to be put in to clean up that mess. And under the 
Federal Oil Spill Act, the President of the United States is in charge 
of that. It's his jobs. BP's got to stop the oil drilling and they've 
got to pay damages, but the United States has got the duty under the 
Oil Spill Act to clean up the mess. And they have a way to try to 
collect on who will pay the damages. I'm not talking about a damage 
issue. I'm talking about who says to clean up boat number 5, go out 
there and clean. How about you number 10, go clean. Number 100, go 
clean. Number 1,000, go clean. Who says that? The Federal Government 
does that.
  Okay. We are close to 100 days into this oil spill and the 
responsibility for the cleanup belongs to the Federal Government. Now 
what is the solution that our administration, the Obama administration, 
has come up with? We're going to put an oil drilling moratorium and 
shut down all oil drilling in the gulf. Later they tried to amend it to 
make it deep water only. But what happens when you do that, when you 
say the power of this government says stop drilling, what do the people 
who are in the gulf do? Stop drilling.
  Now I can't tell you the number of drilling rigs we've got in the 
gulf, but it's a lot. Deep water, we have in the twenties or thirties 
or forties out there, in deep water. Those are the big expensive 
drilling rigs. But all of them cost a lot of money, even the shallow 
water rigs. We shut down drilling in the gulf, started making 
accommodations for the shallow water people, but interestingly enough, 
since that occurred, nobody, not one person, has been issued a permit 
to drill out there. So they may have told them they could drill but 
they haven't issued them a permit to let them drill, so, quite 
honestly, nobody's drilling.
  Now what this means to the economy of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, possibly portions of Florida, is that 
a lot of people are going to lose their jobs. The public number that 
they're giving out is 140,000, but that I believe is the number that 
was determined in Louisiana alone. I asked the question of a person 
very knowledgeable at the Chamber of Commerce in Houston, Texas, what 
they thought this--what could ultimately end up as a permanent ban out 
there, or at least a long-term ban--will do to Houston, and they said 
250,000 jobs.
  Now is this what you do in a time of recession? At a time when 
unemployment is at record numbers? I don't think so. But they did. They 
issued a moratorium. And they were taken to court. And the Federal 
district court said, No, lift that moratorium, this is arbitrary and 
capricious, and it is the wrong thing to do. Lift it. Well, of course, 
not being willing to take no for an answer, they took it to the 
appellate court, Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. Lo and behold, the 
Fifth Circuit said, No. The trial court is right. It's arbitrary and 
capricious. Lift that drilling ban. You're doing harm by having that 
drilling ban.
  And Secretary Salazar steps up, makes a few adjustments to zero in on 
some deep water rigs, floating deep water rigs, and issues another 
moratorium. Now first, I think there are probably a bunch of judges 
both on the Fifth Circuit and in the district court that ought to be 
asking Mr. Salazar, ``Secretary Salazar, excuse me, sir, but what is it 
about no that you don't understand?'' I have asked that of lawyers who 
argued in my court from time to time, and I think that question ought 
to be asked: What is it about no that you don't understand? We've told 
you this is an arbitrary and capricious and way beyond the scope of 
what you should be doing here and you're doing it anyway. Why don't you 
understand the word ``no'' when people you are supposed to be answering 
to are telling you no? I think that's a question that's valid, and I 
think that's a question that we as people who defend the rule of law, 
we ought to be asking that question. I don't think we have an answer, 
but I do know what they did. They issued another moratorium.

  Now those who would defend the moratorium would say, yeah, but 
they've lightened it each time. The issue is at some point in time 
until the playing field is cleared, the people who operate those rigs 
don't know if they're in trouble or not in trouble if they start to 
drill. They don't know. Because this keeps in the court system.
  See, one of the real crimes that happens in this country and happens 
in every part of the country now, even including politics, is we use 
our courts as a weapon, sometimes when we really have no real position 
in law that would allow us to do so. We used to have a saying back 
where I come from that any idiot can file a lawsuit. All he's got to do 
is have the price of the filing fees and directions to the courthouse. 
That doesn't mean it's a good lawsuit, but defending that bad lawsuit 
can be so economically depressing to whoever's getting sued that 
ultimately that becomes a weapon, and even though they would have won 
if they had contested, the cost of contesting it becomes a weapon.
  Well, now in this case, they've gone to court. They've been told by 
the court it's arbitrary and capricious. They've been told by the 
appellate court it's arbitrary and capricious. They've done it a third 
time. Now if you're a driller sitting on a drilling rig that costs 
somewhere between a half a million and a million dollars a day just 
sitting there and not operating, if you are that owner operator of that 
drilling rig, do you know if you can drill the day after the district 
court ruled? No.

[[Page H5527]]

Because you've got the appellate court. Do you know you can drill after 
the appellate court ruled? No, because they've issued another 
moratorium.
  Now eventually that guy that's running that rig says, you know what, 
this is costing me somewhere around a million bucks every 2 days. I can 
pick this thing up and I can go over as I believe was announced by a 
group, Diamond or something like that, Diamond drilling rig, Diamond 
offshore drilling pulled their rig out today and moved it off the coast 
of Egypt.
  Well, why wouldn't you? Is it good business to lose half a million 
dollars a day? Because people are clouding the waters so much or 
clouding the environment so much that you don't know whether if you 
start drilling, they're going to come drag you off and throw you in 
jail for violating a moratorium. I mean, that's why the drilling rigs 
aren't drilling. That's why they're pulling out and moving to other 
places. So at least Diamond is going off the shore of Egypt. Others 
will move off the shore of Australia. Others will move off the shore of 
Europe, into north Africa. Others will move off the shore of Libya; off 
the shore of Brazil.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, what is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with this 
picture? We all attach to the same oceans. The rest of the world is 
drilling. And we have had two courts of jurisdiction say, no, you can't 
have a moratorium. Why do we have a moratorium? Because I would argue 
that Secretary Salazar is ignoring the courts and ignoring the rule of 
law, and we ought to be concerned about that.
  It has nothing to do with defending British Petroleum. They ought to 
get hammered every way they can get hammered, because they actually did 
some very bad business practices, it is going to prove out, I think. 
But we will have to see the proof. But still they have to pay for the 
damages they have done, which they have agreed to do, by the way.
  Let's talk about another issue that in Texas at least is on our minds 
24/7, and that is the issue of what is going on at our borders. 
President Barack Obama made a speech about 10 days ago that 
specifically raised this issue of immigration. He talked about we 
needed to do a comprehensive immigration plan and that we were 
defending our borders better than we have ever defended them, ever; 
that we have improved the situation greatly.
  In the interest of fairness, I would argue that maybe he should have 
mentioned that the day before he made this announcement that there had 
never been a better defense of our borders, automatic weapon fire hit 
the city hall of El Paso, Texas, fired from across the border at city 
hall. I think at least in the order of fairness, we should have known 
that, well, except for maybe the fact that for the first time since 
1919, the City of El Paso has been fired upon from across the border.
  By the way, in 1919 when they did fire across the border, the 
American troops went across the border and cleaned out Juarez, in fact 
chased Pancho Villa, and they all came from right there at Fort Bliss, 
and we are sitting with 24,000 experienced combat soldiers at Fort 
Bliss right now. I am not saying he should have called them out. I am 
just saying let's paint the picture accurately.
  Even if it is true that we have got more resources on the border than 
ever, and I think there is something to that, we have also had a 
massive escalation of what is going on across the border from our 
southern border States.
  The cartels that promote and sell various sorts of drugs, and being 
an old judge I have tried more drug cases than 10 times the number of 
seats there are in this room, but I can tell you that when the cartels 
moved to the Mexican border, especially that strip of border between El 
Paso and Brownsville, we have got two, arguably three cartels fighting 
for who will control that area. Each of the two major cartels formed 
hit squads, separate organizations like Murder, Incorporated, when they 
used to talk about the Italian Mafia, and these groups became the 
murder squads, going out and killing not only other cartel members from 
the opposite cartel, but also killing Mexican police officers and 
Mexican army military people, Mexican civilians, kidnapping Americans, 
et cetera. Now those hit squads are thinking about becoming cartels 
themselves, so we have a real Wild West shootout going on across the 
border from where we live.
  Now, I didn't mean that to be humorous. But the week before the 
firing on the El Paso city hall, 21 people were killed in one day in 
Juarez, Mexico, in gun battles. I am sorry, but if you will check 
Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of days that 21 people were killed, 
there were very few, in one day. So arguably we have got a situation in 
a city of almost 2 million people directly across the Rio Grande River 
from the State of Texas that is frightening. It is frightening.
  Senator John Kyl says that President Obama told him, the problem is, 
if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 
comprehensive immigration reform. The White House denies that. Senator 
Kyl sticks with his story. I don't know. But the issue that we really 
need to be talking about is defending our border, and I would say we 
are refusing to defend our border.
  Arizona enacted a law to actually enforce the immigration laws the 
Federal Government has failed to enforce. Attorney General Eric Holder 
and the Obama administration have filed a lawsuit against Arizona 
saying it has no right to enforce that law. This is going to be a 
question that is going to be settled by the courts. How many times have 
I said on this floor I respect the decisions of the court? So we will 
certainly see how it comes out.
  But why did the Arizona legislature and the Arizona Governor put this 
law forward? And why, by the way, did they take this law and track, 
according to multiple experts, word-for-word the enforcement provisions 
set out in the Federal law as far as the actions of Federal agents and 
what they can and cannot ask someone? Why does it track word-for-word 
the Federal law? Why did they pass this with specific provisions saying 
that we will not do any kind of profiling of any sort, racial or 
otherwise, and it can only be done as a result of a lawful stop on 
other matters, can you ask a question about the immigration status of 
the person you are talking to, or what country they come from.
  So, you say, why did the legislature pass this? Why is the Governor 
stepping up and doing it? Because they have been begging in Arizona, 
please, come help us. You guys are not stopping this flow of people.
  We had a rancher brutally murdered in his own living room for 
standing up to these drug lord caravans coming across the border 
bringing people and drugs into the United States. And the guy, all he 
did, he was out on his landing, he told these people, you are not 
supposed to be here. And they killed the guy.
  In Texas, we have a river between us. They have a barbed wire fence 
between them and Mexico, and we have got a river between us.
  I have friends, I talked to a good friend of mine, a former county 
commissioner in my home county, who told me that at his place at 
Carrizo Springs down close to the border, that he leaves food and water 
out for people because he doesn't want them tearing the place up. He 
leaves the place unlocked because there used to be mostly economic 
people looking for a job coming through there and all they wanted was 
something to eat and something to drink. But now these thugs are coming 
across the border stealing everything not nailed down and tearing the 
place to shreds, these lawless people that come across our border.

                              {time}  2010

  Now, maybe that's why the State of Arizona has said, You know what? 
You guys in the Federal Government are not doing your job. We're going 
to help. And I haven't heard anybody say that if they ask someone, Are 
you an American citizen, and they say, No, I'm from Guatemala, or 
whatever, and they say, Well, we're going to call the Border Patrol. At 
that point, that's where their participation stops, the way I 
understand it.
  Whether the Border Patrol is going to do their job, well, that's 
going to be a whole different issue. But it's going to be decided by 
the courts. But I just think really and truly the real solution to the 
Arizona problem is for the Federal Government to enforce the laws that 
are on the books. The laws are on the books right now.

[[Page H5528]]

  And I was thinking about this coming over here tonight. I will make a 
slight presumption, but it's not much of a presumption, that possession 
of cocaine in Arizona is against the law--especially large amounts. I 
would make the presumption that possession of marijuana in Arizona is 
against the law. I think there's a good presumption by an old judge 
from Texas that possession of heroin in that State of Arizona is 
against the law. I do think under those circumstances, if those are 
written into the code, which I presume they are, they are probably 
felony cases of a serious nature. I think that carrying automatic 
weapons, fully automatic weapons, is both against the Federal and the 
State law in Arizona. I'm pretty sure. I know they are in Texas.
  Now, if people are coming across our border armed with AK-47 weapons, 
backpacks full of drugs, marching in caravans, in many cases dressed in 
uniforms--paramilitary uniforms--marching into the public lands of 
Arizona and I guess turning over to some motorized operation they want 
to that takes it and spreads that filth all over the country, the State 
of Arizona has the right to enforce, if nothing else, the drug laws of 
Arizona. And I would argue if they don't have the resources to stop 
this epidemic of violence and drugs and prostitution and smuggling of 
individuals from every part of the world into our country, if there's 
not enough law enforcement personnel to put on the ground to enforce 
those laws, which they have absolutely the right to enforce, they ought 
to be able to call out the Guard to do it, as long as they abide by the 
posse comitatus laws.
  So this is just after you have caught the drug dealer with a pack 
full of heroin and an AK-47 on his shoulder. How bad is it to ask, Oh, 
by the way, are you an American citizen? I don't know. First off, you 
don't have to call the Border Patrol. Throw them in jail and prosecute 
them for violation of State law. So this thing is kind of out of whack 
a little bit, by my way of thinking. But the real shame to me is suing 
Arizona.
  Finally, we spent almost a year and a half talking about, dealing 
with, and behind closed doors, writing of the majority party's bill for 
health care reform. And in that bill we basically mandate that the 
government will tell people what product they will buy and who they can 
buy it from. As a result, the individual mandate extends the commerce 
clause power beyond the economic activity to economic inactivity. That 
is unprecedented. In other words, what they're saying is, If you don't 
buy this product for your employees, you're going to be punished with a 
$2,000 fine. And the question becomes: Is this commerce as the commerce 
clause of the United States is written?
  Basically, we have expanded the Federal Government probably farther 
under the commerce clause than any other single clause in the 
Constitution. And now, using the commerce clause as an argument, the 
argument in here is that you can make an employer buy a product sold by 
a company or your choice of companies, or if they don't buy it, they 
get fined. And the question is, Where does that stop? If that's the 
law, why can't we make everybody buy a Chevrolet? I don't know. Why 
can't we? If we can make them buy Blue Cross or some other company's 
policy or be fined $2,000, why can't we say everybody that buys a car 
in America next year has to buy a Chevrolet or a Buick or a Ford? Let's 
not get in trouble with the auto manufacturers. Or, I don't care what. 
You have to buy one or they pay a $2,000 fine. If they can do it on 
health care, they ought to be able to do it on automobiles, shouldn't 
they? Where does it stop? That's the kind of issue we've got to ask 
ourselves as we look at this.
  Never before has the Congress used its commerce power to mandate that 
an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private 
company. Regulating the auto industry or paying cash for clunkers is 
one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. This is in The 
Washington Post.
  But the real question we have to ask ourselves is: How are we 
marching over human rights in this country, individual rights--the real 
thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world? How are we 
stepping all over people as a government. And shouldn't we be 
concerned about stepping all over people? And I've lost count, but I 
know it's in the teens of people who have filed lawsuits against the 
Federal Government in at least two jurisdictions, and maybe three, 
saying this is unconstitutional; you can't do this.

  Shouldn't we be thinking about all this? Shouldn't we wonder if the 
rule of law prevailed in other parts of that 2,500-page document we 
call the ObamaCare or health care bill? Because when we wrote that 
bill, we created some of those laws that are the rule of law. And the 
rule of law has to comply with and be supported by the United States 
Constitution, because that's the rock we build our laws upon.
  So as we finish up talking today about the rule of law, I bring these 
issues up so that this House and others can ponder them and say, As we 
continue to march down a corridor which steps all over the rule of law, 
where does it stop? And where do we stand up and say, Wait a minute, 
that's not right. Wait a minute. When a court tells you something and 
orders you to do something and then you appeal it and the appeals court 
tells you the same thing, then what is it about ``no'' that you don't 
understand? When Governors are trying to save their environment, why 
are you getting in the middle of their business and not letting them 
build a berm. Why aren't you helping them?
  We've got issues we've got to talk about as far as the overreaching 
of this Federal Government, and I think we will. I think we will be 
discussing them this fall in a pretty serious manner.
  Madam Speaker, my time is almost done. I thank you for the time 
you've yielded me tonight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________