[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1888-H1891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RESTORING RESPECT FOR AMERICA'S RULE OF LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moolenaar). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to have the 
opportunity to address you here on the floor of the United States House 
of Representatives.
  I listened to a lot of discussion here with which I disagree, of 
course; but I keep hearing this term ``do your job'' that seems to echo 
out of the left constantly. ``Do your job.''
  One of the arguments is that the President of the United States has a 
constitutional right to nominate to the Supreme Court. He does. That is 
pretty clear in the Constitution. However, the Senate determines what 
advice is, and the Senate determines that which is consent, and no 
nomination to the Federal court can move forward without the Senate's 
advice and consent. It is the Senate's job then to evaluate the 
President's nominations, and they can do so with or without hearings, 
with or without interviews. The Senate writes its own rules just like 
the House writes its own rules, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put this 
back in perspective here.
  We have a lameduck President who has made appointments to the Supreme 
Court, which seems to believe that the Constitution means what they 
want it to mean, and they want to read it to say what they want it to 
say rather than what it actually says and rather than what it actually 
was understood to mean at the time of its ratification.
  When you have Justices on the Supreme Court who embody that belief, 
who act on that belief, then we here who take an oath to support and 
defend the Constitution--and that is, actually, all of us here in the 
House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, and everyone in the United 
States Senate for that matter--recognize that, if we are going to 
support and defend the Constitution and encourage the nomination and 
the advice and the consent and the confirmation of the Senate and 
encourage then a Presidential appointment to the Supreme Court of 
someone, we know the President is incapable of nominating anyone to the 
Supreme Court who actually believes what the Constitution says and what 
it was understood to mean at the time of its ratification. He has 
demonstrated that in the past with his appointments to the Court. He 
will demonstrate that again.
  We have a Constitution to preserve, protect, defend, and support and 
defend, so our obligation then is to say: Mr. President, you are a 
lameduck. Let's stick with the tradition; let's stick with the 
practice; let's stick with the statements that have been made by a 
number of Democrats in the past when the shoe was on the other foot. 
People like Joe Biden and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer all would agree 
with Senator Chuck Grassley: no hearing, no confirmation in the Senate, 
no vote in the Judiciary Committee, and no vote on the floor of the 
Senate for this lameduck President's appointments because we have a 
Constitution that has got to be restored, and instead of being 
restored, it would be destroyed by another Presidential appointment.
  We were sitting with a deadlocked Court that sat 4\1/2\ to 4\1/2\ out 
of a 9-member Court, and you could kind of toss a coin on whether you 
would get a decision that came down on what the Constitution said and 
what the law said or what they preferred the policy was. There are a 
couple of bad examples of that. This is even with the stellar Justice 
Scalia's sitting on the bench not even a year ago on June 24 and June 
25.
  On the 24th of June, the Court came down with a decision in King v. 
Burwell, in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided that 
he could write words into ObamaCare that didn't exist. They were not 
passed by this Congress--not by either Chamber of this Congress, as a 
matter of fact. It wasn't a phrase that was conferenced out or was 
something that was contested. It was never in the bill. It was the 
phrase that read, ``or Federal Government.'' Had that component been in 
ObamaCare, then the Federal Government could have gone into the States 
and established the exchanges in the States that refused to establish 
exchanges to comply with the suggestion that came from this Congress, 
by the way, by hook, by crook, by legislative shenanigans, just to 
quote some Democrats who lamented at the methodology they had to go 
through to push ObamaCare down the throats of the American people.
  In any case, the law never enabled the Federal Government to 
establish exchanges in the States, and the Constitution doesn't allow 
that authority. In my opinion, there is no enumerated power for the 
Federal Government to create exchanges for health insurance policies 
within the States; but the Supreme Court ruled with the majority 
opinion, which was written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
that they could add words into ObamaCare. Where it reads that the 
States may establish exchanges, they added that the States or Federal 
Government may establish exchanges. They made it up, and they wrapped 
themselves in the cloak of constitutional authority in Marbury v. 
Madison and in a whole series of, presumably, precedent cases along the 
line. That was June 24, on Thursday.
  That would kick the breath out of your gut to hear that, if you are a 
constitutionalist, and it would bring you to a sad state of mourning. 
You would lay your head down on the pillow at night, having trouble 
sleeping, thinking: What am I going to do tomorrow? I couldn't react 
today. What am I going to do tomorrow? Lord, wake me up with an idea on 
how to preserve our Constitution.
  The Supreme Court of the United States believes that they can write 
law when here, in Article I of our Constitution, Mr. Speaker, it reads: 
``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States.'' That is here, in the House and the Senate. 
Article I, which are the first words of our Constitution, reads: ``all 
legislative powers''; but the Supreme Court, wrapped in the cloak of 
Marbury v. Madison and their imagination of what ``precedence'' and 
``stare decisis'' might mean to them decides that they can write words 
into the law. A Supreme Court writing law.
  Then the next morning--that morning that I was hopeful that I would 
wake up with an idea on how to address a Supreme Court that has 
overreached--there came the next decision at 9 my time, 10 D.C. time. 
It was the decision of Obergefell, in which the Supreme Court created a 
new command in the Constitution. Not just discovered a right that never 
existed--they manufactured a command.
  There is no right in the Constitution for a same-sex marriage. There 
is no reference in there at all. There is not one single Founding 
Father who would have ever accepted an idea that they had founded a 
nation that embodied within our Declaration or our ratified 
Constitution or the subsequent amendments that there was some right, 
let alone a command, to a same-sex marriage. That is a completely 
manufactured--not just a right but a command--by the Supreme Court of 
the United States.
  I have some history with this. The Supreme Court of the State of Iowa 
did the same thing to Iowans in 2009. I sat in the legislature and was 
an author of the Defense of Marriage Act in about 1998.

                              {time}  1800

  One of the pieces of debate was why do we need to bother to do this. 
Yes, it would make sense if marriage were threatened. But it was so far 
beyond the pale that why would we bother to do this. We saw litigation 
coming in

[[Page H1889]]

Hawaii at that period of time that was trying to force same-sex 
marriage on America.
  We wrote--and I was one of the authors of it--the Defense of Marriage 
Act and put it into Iowa law. And from 1998, 11 years later, the 
Supreme Court of the State of Iowa created a command for same-sex 
marriage in Iowa.
  Iowans rose up and threw three of them off the bench the following 
election in November of 2010 not because of the policy decision, but 
because they had not kept their oath of office to support and defend 
the Constitution.
  They are obligated to read and understand and believe the 
Constitution and then issue their judgments based upon the law, the 
text of the law, and, as an ancillary component of this, the intent of 
the legislature itself.
  Because, after all, the legislature is the voice of the people. The 
judges are not. They are unelected. They are appointed for life. They 
are unaccountable.
  So there it was on June 25, 2015, on Friday, that the Supreme Court 
manufactured a command for same-sex marriage. Now, this is appalling to 
me, Mr. Speaker, because I can read this Constitution and understand 
what it means. I could read the precedent cases along the way that have 
flowed from Marbury on down to today.
  It is no longer possible to look at this Supreme Court and discern 
what a likely decision of the Court might be by studying the text of 
the Constitution and the text of the law because we have a Court that 
will make it up as they go along, write law as they go, and discover 
what they would call a new right in the 14th Amendment to the 
Constitution, equal protection under the law. There is equal protection 
already. There has long been equal protection.
  That amendment was about making sure that babies who were born to the 
newly freed slaves post-Civil war would be American citizens and they 
would enjoy all of the rights and all of the privileges of being a 
citizen of the United States. A person that enjoyed personhood in good 
standing, that is what the--the 13th Amendment ended slavery, and the 
14th Amendment guaranteed equal rights.
  Now this Court has twisted it into a command that there is not a 
difference between a man and a woman when it comes to joining them 
together in matrimony. Well, there is a difference. It has been husband 
and wife in every one of these States until such time as the activists 
got busy.
  Those are the kinds of things that, if the States want to establish 
same-sex marriage, so be it. That is the voice of the people. It is 
constitutional, and it fits the structure of our United States 
Constitution, along with the various State constitutions and the 
structure of the rule of law.
  But if a court wants to manufacture a new right, let alone a new 
command, that is wrong. And this Congress ought to speak up. We need a 
President that will appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that will 
rule on the text of the Constitution, its original meaning, and on the 
understanding of what the text of that Constitution says.
  So I would back up to the King v. Burwell decision, Mr. Speaker, and 
add this for the benefit of those folks that are listening in. And 
maybe there are some staff at the Supreme Court that are listening.
  If you discover a law, if it is a law like ObamaCare that comes 
before the Supreme Court and you the read the text of that and it 
doesn't include ``or Federal Government'' and you believe that Congress 
wanted the Federal Government to be able to establish the exchanges or 
intended to write that into the law, you don't get to just write it in 
and say that is what they really meant. You have to remand it back to 
Congress and tell us: This is what the law says.
  So, therefore, if Congress wants the law to say something different, 
we have to amend it here in the House and the Senate and get a 
Presidential signature on it. That is the constitutional structure of 
this government that we have, Mr. Speaker.
  It is a bit frustrating for me to listen to the dialogue otherwise 
that the Senate is not doing their job because they withhold a 
Presidential appointment when you have a President that has proven that 
he is not going to put up an appointment that will protect our 
Constitution.
  This is the time we must defend our Constitution. We must nominate 
and elect a President of the United States who will make those 
appointments to the Supreme Court, who believe the Constitution means 
what it says.
  Mr. Speaker, I didn't actually come here to talk about that. That is 
my rebuttal to what I have listened to for the last 40 minutes or so.


                              Immigration

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about the rule of 
law, for sure. Part of this is stimulated by an immigration hearing 
that we had yesterday in the House Judiciary's Immigration and Border 
Security Subcommittee.
  This is the type of hearing that I have listened to too many times. 
It was one of the hardest hearings I have sat through in my time here 
in this Congress, Mr. Speaker.
  This was a hearing that had witnesses, such as Sheriff Jenkins from 
Frederick County, Maryland, who has been enforcing immigration law and 
standing up for the rule of law.
  He has been prudently using the legal and justifiable evidence that 
he had before him, and he has been criticized for his effectiveness by 
the people that don't want to enforce the law. He is a good witness, 
Sheriff Jenkins.
  Additionally, we had witnesses from two families that were suffering 
tragically. One of them was the mother of Joshua Wilkerson. Her name is 
Laura Wilkerson. She has testified before the Judiciary Committee in 
the past at least once.
  I have met her at an immigration event in Richmond, Virginia, on 
another occasion and listened to the tragic, tragic story of her son, 
Joshua, who was essentially abducted from his school--he was about a 
sophomore in high school or so--and hauled outside of town where he was 
beaten mercilessly and bludgeoned and finally murdered.
  The perpetrator, an illegal alien who law enforcement had encountered 
and released onto the streets of America, who had no business being in 
America in the first place and who law enforcement already had picked 
up at least once--this illegal alien beat this boy to death.
  Then he went and bought gasoline and burned his body. He hauled his 
body out and poured gasoline on it and burned Joshua Wilkerson's body. 
Then he went and took a shower and went to a movie, as if it was just 
another day in the life of.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it was another day in the life of America and 
Americans. It was another life lost to an illegal criminal alien who 
was unlawfully present in America and who had no business to be here, 
one who had been encountered by law enforcement officers in the past, 
one whom I believe ICE declined to pick up and place into removal 
proceedings. This happens every day in this country. It happens 
hundreds of times in this country each year.
  These incidents of illegal aliens that are arrested and turned loose 
on the street because the President has this idea of prioritization or 
prosecutorial discretion are costing lives in America. They are 
costing, in the end, thousands of lives in America.
  It was a sad, sad story told by Laura Wilkerson yesterday. She had 
the courage and the heart to come here and share her story with us and 
to place that awful, brutal, ghastly memory again into her mind's eye 
and pour that forth into the Congressional Record so that some of us 
will soak that up and be mobilized to do something more, to do 
something more to resist the President's policy of amnesty, de facto 
amnesty, amnesty by executive edict, that has been part and parcel of 
the Obama policy since the beginning of his time here in office, and it 
has been getting worse and worse every month.
  I thank God for Laura Wilkerson. I ask God to bless the life and the 
memory and the soul of Joshua Wilkerson, who has paid a tremendously 
high price because we have an ideological President who, I would say to 
the other side of the aisle, is not doing his job. In fact, he is 
ordering law enforcement officers not to do their job.
  Federal law requires that, when immigration law enforcement officers 
encounter an individual who is unlawfully present in the United States, 
``he

[[Page H1890]]

shall be placed in removal proceedings.'' That is the law.
  Our Border Patrol officers are told that, if you are here to enforce 
the law and you are determined to do so, you better get yourself 
another job. They have become the welcome wagon on the southern border.
  Now, most anybody that crosses that border and makes it across the 
Rio Grande River or across the land border that stretches from Texas 
all the way across through New Mexico, Arizona, California, to the 
Pacific Ocean knows, if you just claim asylum, you can be a refugee and 
this Federal Government will roll out the welcome wagon.
  Former Member of Congress Michele Bachmann and I stood on the banks 
of the Rio Grande River at Roma, Texas, here a summer and a half or so 
ago and watched as they inflated a raft on the other side of the river, 
two coyotes.
  It was a fairly good size raft. They helped a lady into that raft on 
a Sunday afternoon in broad daylight exactly at the shift change for 
the Border Patrol.
  They helped a pregnant lady into the raft. She had two little bags of 
her property. They brought that raft across the river, brought it up to 
the shoreline under the eyes of the city police and the Border Patrol, 
but it was shift change.
  One of the coyotes got out of the raft while the other one stabilized 
it. They helped the pregnant lady out of the raft and onto U.S. shores 
and then handed her two little ditty bags. He then got back into the 
raft.
  The two coyotes went back across the river, deflated the raft, folded 
it up, put it in the trunk of their car. It was a car that we had 
watched go around and around over there, knowing that it was a coyote 
car because they recognized it from the U.S. side of the river.
  The lady stood there. She and her unborn baby and her two ditty bags 
were waiting for the Border Patrol to show up. It takes a little longer 
during the shift change, but they show up, no doubt. I didn't follow 
this case any further, and they would have preferred that I didn't.
  Here is what I will predict happened: She applied for asylum, the 
baby is now born, and the baby is an American citizen. She is the 
parent of an anchor baby.
  Well, that is the kind of person that Barack Obama has granted a de 
facto, at least a temporary, amnesty to for the Deferred Action for 
Parents of--I keep wanting to tell you what that word means to me, but 
the parents of Americans is what the President would like to call it--
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, DAPA.
  Well, I watched one of those parents of Americans--a parent now--come 
across the border in an inflatable raft with two coyotes. They got paid 
something to do that. I don't know how much.
  Now the President has issued the edict that we grant this de facto 
permit, this amnesty, for the parents of anchor babies to be staying 
free in the United States.
  That suspends the rule of law. It defies the rule of law. It defies 
the very law, the specified law, itself.
  That case was heard before the Supreme Court this week, Mr. Speaker. 
The question is: Does the President have prosecutorial authority, 
prosecutorial discretion?
  Well, the precedents along prosecutorial discretion--and I don't know 
that the Supreme Court has ever heard and ruled on a case of 
prosecutorial discretion. I believe they have not.
  But the precedents that are out there in the lower courts and the 
practice has been that, if a chief executive officer can project his 
policy through his subordinates, they have to pick and choose which 
cases they will prosecute.
  Well, when they do that, that is called prosecutorial discretion. It 
has to be on an individual basis only, and that is by the words of the 
former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who testified 
before the Judiciary Committee to that extent.
  In the first Morton memo that brought out this prosecutorial 
discretion, it creates four different categories or groups of people.
  So they are utilizing categories or groups of people, declaring it to 
be prosecutorial discretion, when, in fact, it is not prosecutorial 
discretion because it applies to groups of people. It created four 
different groups of people.
  That is the story of Joshua Wilkerson.
  The witness sitting next to Laura Wilkerson is Michelle Root of 
Modale, Iowa. Michelle Root is the grieving mother of a 21-year-old 
daughter who was a 4.0 student at Bellevue University.
  She wanted to become a law enforcement investigator. She had the best 
grades that you could possibly have, living and loving life. She had 
graduated and enjoyed the graduation ceremonies the day before when an 
illegal, criminal alien, drunk-driving perpetrator, ran her down and 
rear-ended her in the street and killed Sarah Root.
  Sarah Root was a 4.0 student with the world ahead of her, wanting to 
contribute to this country, to life, to society, living and loving 
life. Her life was abruptly ended by a criminal alien who had been 
encountered by law enforcement before whose immigration attorneys knew 
him.

                              {time}  1815

  Two of them have been quoted in the newspaper at this point. He had 
been released. He had been released onto the streets where he now had 
three times the blood alcohol content allowable by law, drag racing in 
the streets, killed Sarah Root. Her mother, Michelle, told the story 
yesterday of her daughter, whom she loved so deeply, and all through 
the rest of her life and her family's life, they will carry this hole, 
this ache in their heart that didn't need to be.
  Sarah Root would be alive today if the President had done his job, if 
law enforcement had been allowed to do their job, if ICE had responded 
when local law enforcement called them, and if ICE--and on top of that, 
sometimes ICE issues a detainer, and local law enforcement releases 
them from a sanctuary city.
  This is mixed up both ways. We have ICE, who is prohibited from doing 
its job, who sometimes won't when they want to; local law enforcement 
who won't cooperate with ICE because ICE sent out a letter a year-and-
a-half ago or so that said ICE detainers are a recommendation, they are 
no longer mandatory.
  Congress passed a law and directed the Department of Homeland 
Security to establish the rule that would have the force and effect of 
law that ICE detainers are mandatory. They wrote the rule that ICE 
detainers are mandatory, and Dan Ragsdale, the interim director of ICE, 
issued a letter that said to all local law enforcement: no, it is a 
recommendation, it is not mandatory.
  Now we have in this confused, jumbled-up mess of the refusal to 
enforce the law, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed--we 
have the deaths of our children--our children--Joshua Wilkerson, Sarah 
Root.
  And while Sarah Root's mother is in transit to come here to testify--
by the way, this drunk driving, illegal alien, homicidal accident that 
killed Sarah Root, the 4.0 student happened--I keep hearing about the 
valedictorians that come across the river. Sarah was very close to 
being the valedictorian of her college class. She didn't get a chance 
to live and love life beyond 1 day after her graduation.
  While her mother is here with tears in her eyes, flying from Omaha 
where this tragedy took place, to testify before the United States 
Congress, there is another incident in Omaha, this time a very similar 
incident, another illegal alien who had been incarcerated before or 
picked up before and released again.
  This illegal alien killed Margarito Nava-Luna, a 34- or 35-year-old 
man who was walking down the streets of Omaha. This driver, this 
illegal, had three times the blood alcohol content as well, as was the 
driver who killed Sarah Root.
  Now, every one of these are preventable. They are preventable. 
Whether they are a willful homicide or whether they are preventable, 
but these are the cities, Mr. Speaker, where the Obama administration 
has released these criminals into. They have released over 30,000 of 
them. These are where their reoffenses have taken place, in multiple 
cities around, obviously, California and on up along the Pacific Coast. 
Where there is a lot of illegal immigration, that is where you see a 
lot of the recidivism crime. Here is Arizona. Here is Texas. You have 
got it in the heart of the heartland, though. That is Colorado. Over 
along the East Coast, something has happened in most

[[Page H1891]]

of the States, and this is because of the prosecutorial discretion.
  This President, his administration has released over 30,000 
criminals, criminal aliens onto the streets of America. And of those 
that they released, there have been at least 124 of them who have been 
charged with homicide for 135 murders. That is 135 dead Americans who 
would be alive today if the President didn't have the policy of 
releasing criminal aliens onto the streets. Those are the ones we know 
of, those are the ones that are the recidivism within a 5-year window 
of time whose names we know, whose incidents we know, but that doesn't 
include anywhere near all of them, Mr. Speaker.
  This is the locale. This is the face of one of these perpetrators, 
Mauricio Hernandez.
  What did he do?
  Mauricio Hernandez, a sexual predator who impregnated the 13-year-old 
daughter of his live-in girlfriend and repeatedly had sexual relations 
with her in ways that I won't repeat here on the floor, took her off to 
soccer games where he also gave her an abortion-inducing drug, and she 
went into a porta-potty and had a baby who was alive. He went in and 
saw that baby, and this girl was then hauled home. The baby was left to 
die. That baby died.
  Mauricio Hernandez was the perpetrator. He is another illegal alien, 
another one who had been encountered by law, another one who had been 
granted this de facto amnesty because of the President's policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I can stand here every night. I could come here and give 
you these stories, and I can give you the data on the thousands of 
Americans who are dead at the hands of the criminal aliens who have 
been incarcerated for a temporary period of time and released by 
multiple jurisdictions across this country, and every American who dies 
at their hands is a life that could be saved if we just followed our 
laws. That is what is at stake here.
  But we are going to have to personalize it because people over on 
this side of the aisle have their fingers in their ears on data, but 
when they see the faces, when they hear the anguish in the voices, 
especially of the mothers--I will conclude with this, Mr. Speaker--or 
the voice of the father, Scott Root, who said when they arrested this 
perpetrator who killed his daughter, he was out before they could bury 
his daughter, he was out on $5,000 bail, which was less than it cost 
him to bury his daughter, and that individual absconded back out of the 
United States now, not to be reached again by the arm of the law, which 
is not long enough because they put him out on bail.
  I don't want to see any more bail to criminal aliens. I want to see 
law enforcement. I want an expectation that when the law is broken in 
the United States, that there is going to be an enforcement, that it be 
applied equally without regard to any of these categories that the 
President encourages us to be members of, that being one of God's 
children is good enough to be protected by the law, but everybody 
treated equally.
  Secure our borders. Restore the respect for the rule of law. Save 
these lives. Send these people into prison, and when they are done, 
send them back to the country that they can live in legally for the 
rest of their lives if they don't stay in our prisons for the rest of 
their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an infuriating topic that America needs to know 
a lot more about. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this country keep the 
families of these victims in their prayers every day until such time as 
we restore the respect for the rule of law again in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________