[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2229-2237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    IMMIGRATION AND THE RULE OF LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to be recognized to 
address you here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives and to have the privilege to participate in this great 
deliberative body that we have and are.
  On occasion, I come down here and listen to my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle. They have been known to change the subject on 
me, or I have changed the subject that I came down here to speak about 
because I have listened to the things that they had to say. It is good 
for us to have that kind of debate, Mr. Speaker, because certainly I 
disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn here.
  I want to take this from the top, and I will get to the wall 
situation along the way. I think those numbers are a long ways off, 
myself. I will start the immigration issue, Mr. Speaker. There has been 
a long battle that has gone on. For me, it goes back into the early 
part of this millennium when we had a group of Senators who decided 
they were going to solve the immigration problem back in about 2006 or 
so, and so they brought their big immigration bill and pushed it hard.
  Here in the House we brought an enforcement bill and pushed that back 
against the Senate. We held hearings for that enforcement bill around 
the country, in places like Arizona and Dubuque, Iowa, as I recall. 
There were a number of others around the country. We made the case that 
we have to be a nation of laws, and the rule of law has to prevail, and 
that the effort on the other side was to waive the application of the 
law. They said: We want to be able to tell people that we feel sorry 
for you. Therefore, we are going to sacrifice the rule of law out of 
our sympathy for the condition that you left in order to come in to 
America.
  Well, that fits some people, but it doesn't substitute for the rule 
of law. It doesn't substitute for the respect for the law that we must 
have if we are going to be a law-abiding, first world nation. Plenty of 
Third World nations don't have respect for the rule of law. Most of the 
nations that these illegal aliens come from are coming from countries 
that don't have respect for the rule of law. One of the things they are 
trying to get away from is the erosion of the law that they have had in 
their home country.
  I mean, think of Mexico, for example. Driving down the street in 
Mexico, you might be pulled over by a police officer there and they 
will leverage a thing called mordida against you, which is you pay the 
police officer on the spot and he will let you go. Well, that is paying 
off the law enforcement. They use that to generate income for 
themselves, and they get by with it in a country that is corrupt.
  Mr. Speaker, when I travel to Mexico and to some of the worst places 
in the world, and when I look at the circumstances there, whatever they 
may be, I can generally put together--and I will say almost always put 
together--a proposal, a strategy on how to put that country back in 
shape again and get it functioning the way it should function.
  In Mexico, for example, they have a lot of natural resources. They 
have good, hardworking people. They have got a continuity of family. 
They have got a culture that goes deep back for centuries, but they 
can't make it work, and they haven't made it work for a long time. I 
don't know if they have ever made it work.
  At the heart of this is the corruption that exists. The corruption is 
there due to lack of respect for the rule of law. If we import that 
contempt for the rule of law and if we adopt it as our national policy, 
which would be amnesty, we would be adopting the policy of accepting 
the violation of law and rewarding the lawbreakers for their objective 
that they had when they broke the law.
  If we do that, America, the shining city on the hill, continues to 
devolve downward toward the Third World from the first world. Our job 
should instead be lift up the Third World to the standards that we are 
here in the first world. And one of those things would be to promote 
the rule of law in the countries where they don't have it, as in

[[Page 2230]]

Mexico and many of the Central American countries. That is the center 
of this immigration debate, Mr. Speaker.
  Out of all this discussion that goes on, I hear the individual 
narratives, I hear the heartbreaking stories, I hear all of the laments 
that are out there about, oh, woe are somebody's constituents because 
they are subject to the application of the rule of law and they want to 
be exempted from that. Meanwhile, as soon as they are exempted from the 
rule of law, if that should happen, and the destruction of the rule of 
law in this country, they are going to be asking for the law to protect 
them in some other area. That is how this is going on in this country.
  I would take this back to 1986, more than 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker, 
when this debate was going on. It is the same debate that has been 
going on in this country for more than 30 years. There were 
approximately a million illegal aliens in the United States, as far as 
the estimates were concerned, at the beginning of the debate when the 
House and the Senate eventually passed the 1986 amnesty act; a million.
  The discussion was: Well, we can't possibly address these million 
people that are in America and we can't possibly deport them all, so 
let's make an accommodation to them. Let them stay, give them a fast 
track--it turned out to be a path to citizenship--then what we will do 
is we will promise America that there will never be another amnesty 
again ever.
  That was the language that was used. There will never be another 
amnesty again ever. At least at the time, they were honest enough to 
admit it was an amnesty.
  So they set about passing the legislation in the House and the Senate 
that granted amnesty, they thought, to a million people. That amnesty 
legislation went to the Ronald Reagan's White House, where he was 
surrounded by a group of people in the Cabinet who were his advisers. I 
am sure they had the best interests of the country's and the 
President's in mind, but they had decided to advise Ronald Reagan that 
he should sign the amnesty act because he could put this issue away, 
well, maybe forever, but for the duration of our Republic because we 
were always going to enforce immigration law from that point forward.

                              {time}  1830

  And Ronald Reagan, I don't have inside knowledge on what he was 
thinking on the deliberations that went on. I just know that most of 
his Cabinet advised him to sign the Amnesty Act. He ultimately signed 
the Amnesty Act.
  Consequently, when they began processing these illegal aliens, there 
were only going to be--I say ``only.'' They thought it was a huge 
number--1 million. There were going to be 1 million of them to process. 
Well, they processed 3 million instead of 1 million.
  Why? One, they probably underestimated and undercounted. The other 
half of the equation was there was a lot of fraud that got in the door 
that was processed also.
  And so we end up with about 3 million newly amnestied Americans that 
have a pass to citizenship who have been rewarded for violating 
America's immigration laws, many of them rewarded for committing the 
crime of unlawful entry into the United States of America and many of 
them operating with false documents. That was the path 30 years ago.
  After that bill was signed and the results of it became evident, then 
President Reagan reversed his position and announced that he regretted 
that he had signed the Amnesty Act of 1986. I remember those days. And 
I have since had the conversation with then-Attorney General Ed Meese, 
who has informed me about the inside workings of this to a degree.
  I lament that that decision was made in 1986 by President Reagan to 
sign the Amnesty Act because it started us on a 30-year debate. Once 
debate was out there and once the public understood and once people in 
foreign countries began to believe that if they could, once, get into 
the United States, there would sooner or later come along and be 
another Amnesty Act that would include them and they would have their 
path to citizenship and lawful presence in America and all of the 
benefits that have grown massively since 1986, once you put the carrot 
out, once you break the mold of the principle of protecting the rule of 
law, then after that it is easier the next time and the next time and 
the next time.
  Our virtue that we had a respectable virtue on enforcing immigration 
law in `86 has been ratcheted downwards because of the `86 Amnesty Act 
and at least six much smaller but subsequent amnesty acts since that 
time.
  I looked into the language in the early part of this millennium more 
than a decade ago, and they say, well, first of all, it is not amnesty, 
and they tried to redefine it. I have had this discussion with Karl 
Rove during the George W. Bush administration: Well, it isn't amnesty 
if they pay a fine. It isn't amnesty if they get a background check. It 
isn't amnesty if they abide by our laws. It isn't amnesty if they learn 
English.
  Well, I am not very thrilled about that. I would say the proposal 
then was a $1,500 fine in order to waive the criminal charge of 
unlawful entry into the United States of America. Under that argument, 
somehow that mitigated violating the law, so you wouldn't be able to 
call it amnesty. And I defined it then. I said: No, whatever the 
penalty is on the books when the crime is committed, if you waive that 
penalty, you have provided amnesty for a class of people.
  So the more precise definition of amnesty, to grant amnesty, is to 
pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of 
their violation or their crime, as the case may be--pardon immigration 
lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime.
  What is this proposal with DACA and DAPA that President Obama so 
unconstitutionally advanced forward? It is just that. It is the most 
blatant form of amnesty for the largest classes of people that has ever 
been created in the history of the United States of America. Of course, 
we only have to look back to 1986 to find the first amnesty, and then 
there have been the six or so subsequent amnesties that I have 
mentioned.
  But Barack Obama, constitutional scholar, at least as high a standing 
as Mr. Panetta from California who spoke here on the floor a little bit 
ago, but Barack Obama, constitutional scholar, 22 times on videotape, 
in different speeches in various places around the country, said to 
America that he didn't have the constitutional authority to waive the 
application of the immigration law against people who claim that they 
came to America before their 18th birthday and presumably were brought 
in by their parents.
  If you look at the DACA language that has been advanced here in the 
House--or let's go across the rotunda to the Senate and look at Dick 
Durbin's language there. It is, if you have come into America before 
your 18th birthday, for any purpose whatsoever, then you get amnesty. 
And some of those people now, according to the older drafts of the 
bill, would be 38 years old, getting amnesty to stay in the United 
States of America at age 38.
  People believe that that is the humane thing to do, to reward them 
with the objective of their crime. Now, they could have carried a 
backpack of marijuana into the United States the day before their 18th 
birthday--I have been telling the truth about pretty much all of that, 
except they are supposed to not commit any other crimes--and they would 
be granted this level of amnesty under DACA. The President's DACA 
acronym stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
  So that policy that he advanced, after Barack Obama, 22 times, told 
us he didn't have the constitutional authority, he was right. Just a 
couple of weeks before he issued this DACA policy, he stood over here 
at a high school in Washington, D.C., and explained to them that he 
didn't have the authority.
  He said: Congress passes the laws; I, in the executive branch, 
enforce the laws; and the courts interpret the laws. Pretty simple. 
That is a nice, concise description of the balance of powers that we 
have in this country. But he said he didn't have the authority because 
he can't write law.

[[Page 2231]]

  Two weeks later, the President announces the policy to grant work 
permits and Social Security numbers to illegal aliens that are in the 
United States who assert that they came in before their 18th birthday. 
So he created an entire class of people.
  I read carefully through the Morton memos. I read the memo that 
launched all of this. It was signed by Janet Napolitano, then-Secretary 
of Homeland Security. Janet Napolitano's memo said, seven times, on an 
individual basis only--on an individual basis only--in this page and a 
third of the document that established the policy.
  I remember her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. She knew 
very well that they had to make an argument that this was on an 
individual basis only in order to try to sustain any kind of facade 
before the courts, when they would almost certainly be sued for DACA 
and later on for DAPA.
  Well, it was never on an individual basis. There were huge classes of 
people that were created. They created four separate classes of people 
in those memos. Still they assert that they have a right to do this, 
and now I hear the gentleman say it is unconstitutional.
  It is unbelievable to me that anybody could argue when President 
Obama said it was unconstitutional--he was the last one that was going 
to admit this--and he went ahead and committed an unconstitutional act. 
So that takes care of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
  Then Obama came with the policy DAPA, the Deferred Action for Parents 
of Americans. That is an illegal who has a baby in America. If they 
sneak into America and they have a baby, they call that birthright 
citizenship. The President grants them a legal presence because they 
violated our laws, and some of them, many of them, for the express 
purpose of coming here to have a baby that would be granted the 
practice of American citizenship.
  We see between 340,000 and 750,000 of those babies born in America 
every year. Think of the population that America is carrying that 
doesn't have a moral claim to citizenship, doesn't actually have a 
legal claim to citizenship, just can point to the practice that we 
began awarding citizenship to babies born to illegals many years ago. 
There were only a few of them. It wasn't significant. By the time it 
gets around to where it is significant, now they have created their own 
constituency group here in America.
  But both of those policies, DACA and DAPA, are clearly 
unconstitutional.
  And DAPA, Texas brought that case against the United States of 
America and has prevailed so far in court before Judge Andrew Hanen. 
The DAPA policy is now at least suspended and held in place because one 
wise judge in Texas decided to draw the line. He had the clearest 
constitutional understanding DAPA is unconstitutional and the President 
can't write the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking from a lack of experience on this or 
lack of knowledge on this. I am not here speaking off of talking points 
that came from anyone other than a handful of notes I scribbled a few 
minutes ago, but here is one of my experiences on the separation of 
powers.
  When I was in the State Senate in Iowa, our newly elected Governor at 
that time was Tom Vilsack, who served 8 years and did a respectable job 
as a Democratic Governor in those 8 years. Very early in his term, he 
issued an executive order also, Executive Order No. 7, that granted 
special protective status for sexual orientation and gender identity.
  When that executive order came down, I looked at that. I was appalled 
that a Governor would think that he could legislate by executive order. 
I made my calls to my Republican attorneys and made my case. They all 
told me I didn't understand it, that it was drafted in such a deft way 
that it fit with nuances such that it was a constitutional executive 
order and that I had to submit to it. My answer was, no, the Iowa 
General Assembly has, within the boundaries of its State constitution, 
the same legislative authority that this Congress has and that it was 
clear to me that he was legislating by executive order.
  I initiated legislation to push on it and I initiated a lawsuit. That 
lawsuit is easy to look up. It is King v. Vilsack, and it was decided 
exactly on the same kind of principle: whether an executive officer, a 
Governor, or a President can write law.
  Our Founding Fathers would agree with no concept that said that 
either the executive branch or the judicial branch of government could 
write law. Instead, they separated these out and they gave us Articles 
I, II, and III of our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. They didn't write it someplace later 
on in the Constitution. They put it right up front, Article I, section 
1: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
Congress of the United States''--not a President of the United States, 
not a judicial branch of the United States, but a Congress of the 
United States--``which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
Representatives.''
  Then they set about laying out the structure of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, all legislative powers. And then the Congress 
has delegated some legislative powers. There is no delegated 
legislative power here for the President of the United States to write 
immigration law, but he did that.
  Then we had to bring two lawsuits. The one is Texas v. The United 
States, decided by Judge Hanen. That decision stands. It was appealed 
up to the Supreme Court, where there was a 4-4 tie, which means that 
the Fifth Circuit decision by Hanen prevails. Well, good. 
Congratulations. It is held in place now.
  But DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--and that is 
kind of an odd acronym that doesn't necessarily match somebody that is 
38 years old--I pulled the people together to initiate that lawsuit. It 
turned out to be Crane v. Napolitano. That case is still being 
litigated. It has been pushed off onto a side rail. The president of 
the ICE union has been directed to litigate against the Justice 
Department because it is a grievance with their employees rather than 
getting at the constitutional question. It has been pushed off on the 
side by a judge. So that case is still being litigated, but it remains 
unconstitutional.
  The former President of the United States knows that. Not only that, 
our current President, Donald Trump, knows that. He has said many times 
during the campaign that very early on in his Presidency he would 
eliminate the unconstitutional executive orders that bring about these 
components of amnesty. That includes DACA and DAPA.
  It needs to also include the Morton memos. I have got a nice little 
packet I can send to the White House. I really did expect that very 
early in his administration he would address DACA and DAPA and the 
Morton memos. So it was a bit of a surprise to me to learn as far as, I 
will say, as recently as January 23--and this is the only confirmation 
I have of this--that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
is still issuing DACA permits and still extending DACA permits. That is 
a number that runs up to about 800 a day at the pace, at least, that 
they were doing, with tens of thousands in backlog yet.

                              {time}  1845

  The simple thing to do would be to freeze any action on DACA and 
DAPA. I would rescind the executive order and invalidate every DACA 
permit and every DAPA permit. We have got a database also to address 
that, Mr. Speaker. The simplest thing right now would be to just simply 
suspend any action that is affirmative in continuing this 
unconstitutional act. From my standpoint--and I think it should be the 
standpoint of the President of the United States and of the Vice 
President of the United States and all who have taken an oath--his oath 
is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States; and the Constitution requires that he take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed. I think he was very sincere when he gave that 
oath, and I think that Vice President Pence was even more sincere

[[Page 2232]]

when he gave his oath. It was very moving to me to witness that 
testimony out here on the west portico of the Capitol.
  I want to remind the administration that this action continues, at 
least as far as the report is concerned; and United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Services may just need a memo from the White House to 
cease and desist the unconstitutional actions taking place at USCIS--
very simple, very abrupt, and not very traumatic to anybody in this 
country--and then start the process of undoing the lawlessness that we 
have had to submit to under Barack Obama's regime.
  My strongest encouragement: the earlier that DACA and DAPA are 
addressed by this President in the keeping of his solemn oath--and that 
is to the American people--the easier it is going to be. I am 
encouraging that it happen early and that it not be delayed, because 
the problems created by Barack Obama are now being compounded by USCIS.
  I want to also, Mr. Speaker, speak in favor of accelerating the 
construction of this wall. That is another solemn pledge of President 
Trump's. By the way, of that agenda that he laid out for America that 
Thursday night in Cleveland, as I listened to plank after plank after 
plank in his platform, it was a solid and a strong agenda. He has 
people in place who are listening to all of the pledges that he has 
made, and he has been going down through that list in an impressive 
fashion, keeping his oath time after time after time, keeping his 
promises to the American people time after time. I am looking at the 
exceptions, but the rule has been a very consistent and a very 
aggressive approach to keeping these promises.
  I know that a week ago Saturday, President Trump sat down at a table 
with a small group of people behind him and he went through three 
executive orders. One of them was a reorganization of the National 
Security Council. The second of the three was for the Department of 
Defense to produce a strategy to defeat radical Islamic jihad--or at 
least ISIS--and to produce that strategy within 30 days. When it was 
over, I realized three executive orders had been signed, and I thought: 
How long did that take?
  I backed my television up; set my stopwatch on my iPhone; and in a 
minute and 40 seconds, the President of the United States had signed 
three executive orders and moved this country dramatically in the right 
direction again, again, and again.
  So I am not here in broad criticism. I am here with targeted 
encouragement. I am not concerned that the wall hasn't moved quickly 
enough. I am here, though, Mr. Speaker, reinforcing that promise to the 
American people, who, by the tens of thousands and event after event 
after event, chanted: ``Build the wall. Build the wall.'' We even had 
an individual come to an event in Iowa who had a ``wall'' costume on. 
It looked like he was made out of flexible cement blocks. It is a 
movement in this country, and it is a promise to America.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Donald Trump never said, ``I 
think we will build some fence,'' or ``we are going to do something 
virtual.'' He said that we are going to build a wall--it will be a big 
wall; it will be a beautiful wall; and the Mexicans are going to pay 
for it. That is the line. I have said that I think that Donald Trump 
has been an expert at building things big and that he has been an 
expert at building them beautiful. I am going to leave it up to him to 
figure out how to get the Mexicans to pay for it, but I am pretty 
confident he is going to get that done, and I am intending to be 
supportive of that effort.
  But when I hear the gentleman from California speak about how 
expensive the wall is--and his numbers were $15 billion to $30 billion, 
I think he said, to build 1,300 miles of wall--we have got 2,000 miles 
of border, and we have got, oh, a few miles built that are adequate 
barriers right now, but much of it that we even call a fence or a wall 
needs to be completely reconstructed so that we have an effective 
barrier. Of the estimates of about $15 billion to $30 billion or the 
numbers that go, on the Republican side, even up to $25 billion, if 
anybody is telling you it is a number that is $15 billion or higher, 
you should understand they don't want that wall built at all. That is 
why they have an inflated number in their heads.
  So who gives them that number?
  I read those documents, and I have questioned those numbers 
considerably, but I don't know if there is anybody in the United States 
Congress who has more years and more experience in building things and 
in being in the construction business than I do. We are in our 42nd 
year of construction with King Construction, and we do a similar kind 
of work that gives us the ability to make a legitimate estimate on the 
cost of this wall.
  I have designed a wall. Many people know, Mr. Speaker, that I built 
it down here on the floor more than 10 years ago and that I put an 
estimate into that, which is now on YouTube, that has gone semi-viral. 
That estimate that I uttered then that night holds up pretty well when 
I put our modern software estimating to work and--I will say this--
thanks to my oldest son, David King, who owns that company today, as he 
committed some days of pro bono work to put together an estimate on 
what it would take to build a concrete wall with at least a 5-foot-deep 
foundation in it and a wall that comes up to be a minimum of 12 feet 
functioning in height, with wire on top. An estimate of a wall of that 
nature is sophisticated. It is about six pages of spreadsheet--five and 
a half to be a little more accurate--but it is all built into the 
interrelational databases that are necessary to add your materials and 
your labor and your overhead and your costs to be able to build a wall.
  Now, here is what is really going on. We are spending, Mr. Speaker, 
$13.4 billion a year in defending and protecting our southern border--
$13.4 billion. That turns out to be $6.7 million a mile. The Border 
Patrol has come to the committee on numerous occasions and given 
testimony.
  I have asked them: What percentage of those who attempt to cross the 
border do you interdict successfully?
  Their answer before the committee has been: We think about 25 
percent.
  They get about one in four who try to get across the border. So, 
presumably, three out of four make it in. I would call that a 25 
percent efficiency rate.
  Then I go down to the border and I talk to the officers and the 
agents down there. This includes Border Patrol and ICE.
  I ask: So you are stopping about 25 percent?
  Their answer that comes back to me as the most consistent is: No. Ten 
percent has to come first.
  I have had estimates by ICE officers who operate near the border who 
will say they think it is closer to 2 to 3 percent. Now, I don't know 
that that is the right number, and I don't want to assert here, Mr. 
Speaker, into this Record that I think we are only stopping 2 to 3 
percent of those who attempt to get across the border. I am suggesting 
that that is certainly a number that is plausible. It comes from the 
people who should know the most, and if the Border Patrol on the border 
says 10 percent has to come first, they might be thinking that 2 to 3 
percent sounds all right. I am not even focused on those numbers of 2 
to 3, up to 10 percent. I will take it to a 25 percent number and say 
that could be an inflated number, but it is still an awful number to 
consider for return on investment if you are going to spend $13.4 
billion a year every single year and get 25 percent efficiency on $6.7 
million a mile.
  I need to put this into a context so that people understand what it 
really is. And that is that a lot of us live out in the country on 
gravel roads. And in the flat country in Iowa, we have a gravel road at 
every mile.
  Now, let's just say General Kelly came to me now--and I really would 
have said Janet Napolitano or maybe Jeh Johnson--and said: I have a 
proposal for you. I want you to secure a mile of country road--a gravel 
road out there--and I am going to offer you $6.7 million a mile to 
secure that for each year on a 10-year contract. So here is $67 million 
in contract, and you are going to have to guard this mile for a year, 
and you can let 75 percent of the

[[Page 2233]]

people through who are trying to get across that road, and I am still 
going to pay you.
  Does that sound like a good deal?
  There is hardly any American who wouldn't take that deal. That is not 
a very good deal. President Trump will recognize how bad a deal that 
is. It is a terrible deal. Yet we are stuck with that $13.4 billion, 25 
percent efficiency, and $6.7 million a mile. Now, these numbers, 
probably, are blurring some people in their minds, Mr. Speaker; so I 
take it back to this: $6.7 million a mile. We have built a four-lane 
Highway 20 across Iowa, with just a few miles left to go, and we will 
finish it very soon--the stretch through the expensive Iowa cornfields, 
crossing rivers with expensive bridges, and building that four-lane 
highway that is everything, except in name, the equivalent of an 
interstate highway: four lanes, a median in the middle, fences on 
either side, seeding, signage--all of the things--the bells and the 
whistles--that it takes to build an interstate highway.
  I am going to pause for just a second while people think: $6.7 
million a mile to guard our southern border, and we are building 
nothing down there? How much does it cost to build that interstate 
highway across expensive Iowa cornfields?
  $4 million a mile in the books and nearly completed. It will come in 
right at that number, and that is with buying the expensive cornfield; 
it is doing the archaeological and the environmental and the 
engineering; the land acquisition; the grading--and I have spent over 
40 years in the earthmoving business--and the paving--and we do 
structural concrete work.
  By the way, I scooped some of the concrete into the last forms up 
there in Highway 20, and I am proud of it and am happy to have had the 
privilege to have done it--painting the stripes on the highway, 
shouldering it, seeding it, fencing it. We shouldn't forget that this 
is four lanes of highway and a fence with a median in the middle and 
all of the bells and whistles that go on with an interstate highway for 
$4 million a mile. And they are telling me it is going to cost what to 
build, $15 billion to $30 billion?
  Let's see. $13 billion is 6.7; so you are at about $8.5 billion or 
so. So he is suggesting a price per mile that is multiples of the cost 
of what it is costing us to build an interstate highway.
  I don't have any doubt that we can go down there and build a concrete 
wall. I want to build a fence, a wall, and a fence. So we have two no-
man's-lands--one on either side of the wall--and I have it wide enough 
that you can turn a patrol vehicle around in that no-man's-land. If you 
catch anybody in that no-man's-land, I want it to be the presumption 
that you are unlawfully present in the United States of America, and 
then they will get an immediate deportation. If they want to appeal the 
deportations, they can do so from their home countries and not be 
sitting here on welfare in the United States of America. That is the 
objective of what we can do.
  As for the number that I put into the record back in 2005 that, I 
said, upholds today, I will just say this: it is less than $2 million a 
mile. If we reached into that $13.4-billion-a-year budget and just 
carved out $1 billion a year until we get the fence, the wall, and the 
fence constructed, we would soon have this done. We would have it done 
in a reasonable time, and we would have it done with a little squeeze 
into the budget. If they want to go into another account, that is okay 
with me, but let's get this done. We can do slip form concrete with a 
slip form notch in the center of that to drop precast panels in. We can 
pour those precast panels right down there on the job site. We can make 
them any height that the President wants it to be. They can be tongue 
and groove. They can be latched together. We can build fixtures right 
into that concrete to mount any kind of devices we like for monitoring.
  Here is what America needs to understand, Mr. Speaker: it is not a 
fence. It is a wall. The wall is the centerpiece--a fence, a wall, and 
a fence. The centerpiece is a concrete wall that is designed to keep 
people out, not to keep people in.
  My colleagues on this side of the aisle constantly are bringing up 
the topic, asking: Do you want to create another Berlin Wall?
  I looked throughout history. In fact, I asked the question of one of 
America's best historians--among the top two favorite authors that I 
have--Victor Davis Hanson of southern California. I asked him as I have 
asked the question many times: Do you know of any barrier in history--a 
fence or a wall--that was designed to keep people in that was a 
national boundary or a barrier that was built by a nation-state other 
than the Berlin Wall?
  He thought for a while, and he said: You might say that the fence and 
the structures in between North and South Korea are at least, in part, 
designed to keep North Koreans in.

                              {time}  1900

  I will concede that point. There is a fence and a wall between North 
and South Korea designed to keep the subjects of Marxism in their 
country because they want to escape to freedom. And the Berlin Wall was 
designed to keep the people in East Berlin from a Marxist society 
because they wanted to escape to freedom. Those barriers are immoral 
for those reasons, because they are fencing people in that want to 
escape to freedom.
  But when you are a nation-state, and you are having a flow of people 
coming from without, there are many examples in history where there 
have been barriers, particularly walls, that have been built to keep 
people out. It is fundamentally different to have a wall to keep people 
out rather than a wall to keep people in.
  If we forget the history of what built the Great Wall of China, think 
of this: the Great Wall of China was built originally to keep the 
Mongols out of greater China. As they were running raids down and doing 
the things that happen with raids--raping, pillaging, stealing, and 
heading back to Mongolia--the Chinese decided that they only had a 
couple of things they could do. They could submit and be raped, 
murdered, and robbed incessantly and relentlessly; and the fruit of 
their labor would be taken by the people who would kill them and 
assault them. They could mount raids to go back up to Mongolia and 
punish the perpetrators and maybe they would quit coming back in.
  They concluded that that wasn't going to stop it. The punitive raids 
that were coming down into China were not going to end. So they began 
building the Great Wall of China.
  They had many segments of the Great Wall of China. It wasn't a 
continuous 5,500 miles, as we used to declare it to be. It is now 
13,000 miles long. It was segments where they thought it would do the 
most good.
  Then, by 245 B.C., that is Before Christ as Western civilization 
counts time, the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, came to power. 
He decided that he would connect the segments of the Great Wall of 
China so it was one continuous wall. He sent the laborers to work doing 
that, and they completed the Great Wall of China.
  In the last few years, the Chinese have examined that wall with 
satellite images and concluded it was longer than 5,500 miles. It was 
13,000 miles long altogether, which means it had to be ziggity-zaggity 
or it would have run a long ways from there. That is an impressive 
structure.
  We are not talking about 13,000 miles or 5,500 miles. We are talking 
about 2,000 miles. And we are not talking about something that you can 
march troops on top of, which the Japanese surely did when they invaded 
China.
  Instead, we are talking about a barrier that is roughly 6 inches 
thick of concrete that goes up as tall as the President wants it to go 
with wires on top that have a signal in them. And if anyone attempts to 
breach the top of that wall, that signal will send it to our control 
stations. It will immediately focus enforcement to that location. It 
will have vibration sensors so that if anybody tries to dig underneath 
it, it will pick that up as well. It will have monitoring cameras and 
all the bells and whistles, the accessories necessary for us to protect 
all of it. It will

[[Page 2234]]

pay for itself, and it will pay for itself likely before we even get it 
completed. Here are some of the reasons why.
  I had some law enforcement officers in my office today, and they are 
fighting the drug problems that we have in the United States. They 
would assert that in the upper 90th percentile is the percentage of 
some of the illegal drugs that come into the United States of America, 
like the opioids, the heroin, the methamphetamines. The ratios of those 
are in the 90th percentile and above.
  Marijuana is a little bit lower than that because Colorado and 
California are taking some of that market. Thanks, Colorado and 
California, and a number of other States. What they have done is spread 
marijuana in big numbers across this land, and it is a gateway drug.
  The illegal drugs consumed in America, according to the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, are 80 to 90 percent. And these categories I am 
talking about with heroin, opioids, and methamphetamines that are in 
the 90th percentile, they come from or through Mexico.
  So it doesn't mean that they are producing them all in Mexico, but 
they might be produced south of Mexico. They might be produced in China 
and come on into Mexico and then be brought into the United States 
because the border is so porous.
  It is not just the illegal aliens. It is also the criminals, the drug 
smugglers, and the drug trade. The Mexican Government has announced, in 
less than a decade, they have had 100,000 people who were killed in the 
drug wars. The drug wars are coming about because there is a huge 
demand in the United States for these drugs, some $60 billion market 
for illegal drugs in America. So that demand is being met by, in many 
cases, Mexicans, but also Central and South Americans who set this 
network up and this drug distribution chain.
  I asked the Drug Enforcement Agency: What happens if magically 
tomorrow morning everybody wakes up in their home country and there is 
not a single illegal alien in the United States of America, not one 
person unlawfully present in America; what happens to the illegal drug 
distribution system then?
  They tell me it severs at least one link in every distribution chain 
of illegal drugs in America. It severs at least one link and, in some 
cases, every link and, in most cases, many links. That means that we 
have an illegal immigration problem and an illegal drug problem that 
are tied together, it creates the stream within which this traffic 
flows, and it brings about the crime and the death.
  Mr. Speaker, we have people now who are sitting in there thinking: 
Well, but how did 100,000 people become victims of a drug war homicide 
or drug wars? How did 100,000 people get killed in Mexico? We don't 
have anywhere near that level of death in the United States.
  Oh, we don't categorize it that way is why. There were 762 homicides 
in Chicago last year. How many of those were drug related? Well, I 
would say most of them, to some degree or another.
  When I ask our law enforcement personnel: How many people would be in 
prison if there was no abuse of illegal drugs or alcohol? Would there 
be 10 percent?
  Their answer is: Probably not. Probably fewer than 10 percent would 
be the population of our prisons if we could put an end to drug abuse. 
Also included in that is alcohol abuse, substance abuse.
  So a lot of lives were lost in Mexico distributing the $60 billion 
worth of illegal drugs into the U.S. economy. How about the lives lost 
in Chicago and the major cities when you have the drug wars, the gang 
wars that are fueled by drug abuse and fueled by the drug distribution? 
That is only a small part. The 762 homicide victims in Chicago are a 
small part.
  The National Institutes of Health has some data out that shows that 
over 55,000 Americans died in the last fiscal year due to drug 
overdose. So the Mexicans lost 100,000 people in the drug wars over a 
period of less than a decade. In America, we are losing that many 
people in 2 years just to drug overdose; and that doesn't count the 
homicide victims who are part of these drug wars that are going on in 
the streets of America.
  There is a disaster in this country. We can't tolerate the 
lawlessness that exists in this country. We have to address the border 
security. And for those who say that we don't need to build a wall, we 
can build a virtual wall, well, if you look up the word ``virtual,'' do 
you know what it says? ``Not real.'' It is not real.
  So that means, if they want to build a virtual wall, they want to 
build a not real wall. I recall being down there to weld some landing 
wall on the Arizona border with then-Secretary of Homeland Security 
Michael Chertoff, who I happen to appreciate his personality. He was a 
good enough judge to pick up the welder and weld some of that himself 
with his own hand. But I welded some, and that is more my trade than it 
was his.
  I handed the welder back, and I said: Now, I have welded the literal 
wall here. Why don't you hand me that virtual welder, and I will weld 
the virtual wall with that?
  I wanted to make my point that it didn't work.
  They promoted the virtual wall under the Bush administration, and I 
don't know if they actually even tried to even do that under the Obama 
administration. They came in and set up cameras and towers. They had 
ground-based radar, and they were going to track everybody that came 
into America and chase them down and abduct them. They ended up with 
cameras laying out in the desert that were never installed and a 
software package that was supposed to coordinate that never happened. 
And, in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted trying to 
build a virtual wall.
  So I say this: If you want a virtual wall, if you want to put 
balloons in the air, if you want to do vibration sensors in the ground, 
if you want to run electric signals up on top of the wall, if you want 
to set cameras up there, I am fine. Do all of that.
  Let's build the wall, as the American people demanded and chatted and 
as President Trump promised. Let's build a solid, structural, 
reinforced, concrete wall that is thick enough and tall enough and deep 
enough so that it is difficult to get over, under, around or through. 
If we do that, we have to man it and defend it. And if we put on the 
accessories, the bells and whistles, the vibration sensors, the 
cameras, and we build a fence, a wall, and a fence so that there is a 
double no-man's-land--one on either side of the wall--we can do that 
with far less manpower.
  If I am assigned to guard my one-mile road that runs west of my house 
in the country in Iowa, and they hand me a contract for $67 million, I 
can tell you, I would build a fence, a wall, and a fence right down 
through the middle of that road. I would have a patrol road on either 
side. I would have the fences and the road ditches the way they are. I 
would grade that thing out so I would have fast track to patrol it. I 
would have sensors along there. I would make the infrastructural 
investment that would not be $4 million a mile. It would be someplace 
around that zone of a couple million dollars a mile.
  Then I would monitor that, and I would have some people who are 
assigned to patrol it just enough that I could call in the 
reinforcements when we needed them. We would get a lot more than 25 
percent efficiency out of that wall. We would get someplace equivalent 
to Israeli-level security efficiency if we build that entire structure 
end to end.
  Now, I have said that we don't have to build a full 2,000 miles of 
it, but we have to be certain that we don't equivocate on the mission 
to build it until they stop going around the end. If they stop, fine. 
If they don't stop, we have got to be committed to add another section 
and another section until such time as we have completed this in the 
same fashion that the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, did when 
he completed the Great Wall of China, 13,000 miles long which the 
armies marched on top of.
  Build a wall and enforce the laws that we have on the books and bring 
into play local law enforcement so that

[[Page 2235]]

we can work in cooperative fashion. Every level of law enforcement has 
always cooperated with the other levels of law enforcement. I grew up 
in a law enforcement family. I believe that the men around me all wore 
uniforms. It just was a natural thing to see. And if they weren't in 
uniform, they weren't at work. If they were either on their way or at 
work, coming home from work or at work, they wore uniforms.
  Each level of law enforcement, whether it was city police, whether it 
was county sheriff and deputy, whether it was highway patrol division 
of criminal investigation--DCI in my State or DPS in a State like 
Texas, for example--or whether Federal officers, Federal Marshals, FBI, 
they cooperated with each other. No one took the posture that said it 
is not my job. When they encountered somebody violating the law, they 
enforced the law against them. There is Federal statute that reinforces 
such a thing.
  Who would think that we could get to a place in this country where 
city police, county officers, or State law enforcement officers would 
be directed to plug their ears and close their eyes--and I am saying 
this figuratively--and essentially not gather any information on people 
who are unlawfully present in the United States of America, bringing 
about the circumstances where a Kate Steinle would be murdered or where 
a Sarah Root would be murdered or where a Dominic Durden would be 
murdered, or where a Jaz Shaw would be murdered? All were murdered by 
criminal aliens who had no business being in this country, all who were 
murdered by those who had been encountered by law enforcement and who 
had later on turned them loose onto the streets of America resulting in 
the death of these innocents, including Brandon Mendoza. There are 
many, many others. There are thousands of others.
  President Trump has said thousands of families are grieving the loss 
of their loved ones at the hands of illegal aliens who are violent, who 
should have been deported. They were not deported; they were turned 
loose on the streets of America, usually in sanctuary cities, sanctuary 
counties, sanctuary States.
  Now we have the emergence of sanctuary campuses or sanctuary school 
districts. I will make the mention that it is a quarter after 6 p.m. in 
Iowa now, Mr. Speaker. And in an hour and 45 minutes, the Des Moines 
public school board is preparing to pass a sanctuary resolution that 
tells all the employees of the school district that you can't work 
with, cooperate, transfer, disseminate information, or allow access to 
students or family to any Federal immigration officers. It all has to 
go through the superintendent, and he has to approve it. They won't 
even allow an ICE officer to talk to a parent of any of the students 
there, unless the superintendent approves it. Of course, it is designed 
for him to say: No, sorry. We are going to close the door in your face, 
and we are a sanctuary school system, and we are going to defy Federal 
law.

                              {time}  1915

  Well, Mr. Speaker, we have existing laws to address this, and I want 
to remind the school district that there are a couple of sections of 
the code that apply, and one of them is U.S.C. 1324, harboring illegal 
aliens. There is a penalty of from 5 to 10 years for violation, 
depending on whether it is a class D or a class C felony. Anyone who 
harbors or shields from detection, including in any building or any 
means of transportation; anyone who encourages an alien to come to, 
enter, or reside; anyone who engages in any conspiracy; anyone who aids 
or abets the commission of such crimes is guilty of a class D or a 
class C felony, facing potential penalty of a maximum of 5 or 10 years, 
depending on the class.
  I have the section of the code here, Mr. Speaker, and I include in 
the Record this copy of 8 U.S.C. 1373 and also 1324.

    8 U.S. Code Sec. 1324--Bringing In and Harboring Certain Aliens

       (a) Criminal Penalties
       (1)
       (A) Any person who--
       (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or 
     attempts to bring to the United States in any manner 
     whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated 
     port of entry or place other than as designated by the 
     Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received 
     prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in 
     the United States and regardless of any future official 
     action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
       (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an 
     alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States 
     in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to 
     transport or move such alien within the United States by 
     means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such 
     violation of law;
       (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an 
     alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States 
     in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from 
     detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from 
     detection, such alien in any place, including any building or 
     any means of transportation;
       (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or 
     reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard 
     of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or 
     will be in violation of law; or
       (v)
       (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the 
     preceding acts, or
       (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding 
     acts,
       shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each 
     alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs--
       (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or 
     (v)(1) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose 
     of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined 
     under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
       (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned 
     not more than 5 years, or both;
       (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), 
     (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the 
     person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 
     1365 of title 18 (/uscode/text/8/1365)) to, or places in 
     jeopardy the life of any person, be fined under title 18, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
       (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), 
     (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any 
     person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of 
     years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
       (C) It is not a violation of clauses[1] (ii) or 
     (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph 
     (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to 
     come to or enter the United States, for a religious 
     denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious 
     organization in the United States, or the agents or officers 
     of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, 
     call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United 
     States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary 
     for the denomination or organization in the United States as 
     a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, 
     notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical 
     assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the 
     minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination 
     for at least one year.
       (2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the 
     fact that an alien has not received prior official 
     authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United 
     States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States 
     in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any 
     official action which may later be taken with respect to such 
     alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of 
     this paragraph occurs--
       (A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not 
     more than one year, or both; or
       (B) in the case of--
       (i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to 
     believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United 
     States will commit an offense against the United States or 
     any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
       (ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial 
     advantage or private financial gain, or
       (iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival 
     immediately brought and presented to an appropriate 
     immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
       be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the 
     case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(ii), 
     not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second 
     violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or B(ii), not less than 3 
     nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less 
     than 5 nor more than 15 years.
       (3)
       (A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly 
     hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual 
     knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in 
     subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned 
     for not more than 5 years, or both.

[[Page 2236]]

       (B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien 
     who--
       (i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 
     1324a(h)(3) of this title (/uscode/text/8/
     iii.usc:t:8:s:1324a:h:3)), and
       (ii) has been brought into the United States in violation 
     of this subsection.
       (4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the 
     United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence 
     otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years 
     if--
       (A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial 
     organization or enterprise;
       (B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
       (C)
       (i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered 
     their lives; or
       (ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to 
     people in the United States.
       (b) Seizure and Forfeiture
       (1) In general
       My conveyance, including any vessel vehicle, or aircraft, 
     that has been or is being used in the commission of a 
     violation of subsection (a), the gross proceeds of such 
     violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or 
     proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
       (2) Applicable procedures
       Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be 
     governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 (/
     uscode/text/18/lii:usc:t:18:ch:46) relating to civil 
     forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except 
     that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under the customs laws described in that section 
     shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other 
     persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney 
     General.
       (3) Prima Facie Evidence in determinations of violations In 
     determining whether a violation of subsection (a) has 
     occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence 
     that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not 
     received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or 
     reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, 
     entered, or remained in the United States in violation of 
     law:
       (A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in 
     which that alien's status was an issue and in which it was 
     determined that the alien had not received prior official 
     authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United 
     States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained 
     in the United States in violation of law.
       (B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of 
     State showing that the alien had not received prior official 
     authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United 
     States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained 
     in the United States in violation of law.
       (C) Testimony, by an migration officer having personal 
     knowledge of the facts concerning that alien's status, that 
     the alien had not received prior official authorization to 
     come to, enter. or reside in the United States or that such 
     alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States 
     in violation of law.
       (c) Authority to arrest
       No officer or person shall have authority to make any 
     arrests for a violation of any provision of this section 
     except officers and employees of the Service designated by 
     the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a 
     class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce 
     criminal laws.
       (d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
       Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of 
     Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually 
     preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of 
     subsection (a) who has been deported or otherwise expelled 
     from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, 
     may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that 
     violation if the witness was available for cross examination 
     and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules 
     of Evidence.
       (e) Outreach program
       The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with 
     the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as 
     appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program 
     to educate the public in the United States and abroad about 
     the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in 
     violation of this section.
       (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, 274,66 Stat. 228 
     (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=66page=228); 
     Pub. L.95-582 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/
 L?d095:./list/bd/d095pl.lst:582(Public_Laws)), Sec. 2, Nov. 
     2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2479 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=92&page=2479); Pub. L.97-116 (http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d097:./list/bd/
     d097p1.lst:116(Public_Laws)), Sec. 12 Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 
     1617 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=95&page=1617); Pub.L. 99-603, title I 
     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d099:./list/bd/
     d099pl.lst:603(Public_Laws)), Sec. 112, Nov. 6, 1986, 100 
     Stat. 3381 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=100&page=3381); Pub.L. 100-525, (http:/
     /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d100:./list/bd/
     d100p1.lst:525(Public_Laws)), Sec. 2(d), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 
     Stat. 2610 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=102&page=2610); Pub. L. 103-322, title 
     VI (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d103:list/bd/
     d103pl.lst:322(Public_Laws)), Sec. 60024Sept. 13, 1994, 108 
     Stat. 1981 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=108&page=1981); Pub.L. 104-208, div. C, 
     title II (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/
PLAW-104publ208.htm), Sec. Sec. 203(a)-(d), 219 title VI, 
     Sec. 671(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-565 (http://
uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=110&page=3009-565), 
     3009-566, 3009-574, 3009-720; Pub. L. 106-185 (http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ185/htm/PLAW-
106publ185.htm), Sec. 18(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat 222 
     (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=114&page=222); 
     Pub. L. 108-458, title V (http://www.gov.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
108publ458/htm/PLAW-108publ458.htm), Sec. 5401, Dec. 17, 
     2004, 118 Stat. 3737 (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=118&page=3737); Pub. L. 109-497, title 
     VII (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ97/html/PLAW-
109publ97.htm), Sec. 796, Nov. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 2165 
     (http://uscode.house.gov/
statviewer.htm?volume=119&page=2165).)

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, 8 U.S.C. 1373 addresses sanctuary 
cities, and it prohibits the sanctuary jurisdictions by Federal law. 
And that is exactly what they intend to carve out at 8 o'clock tonight 
in Des Moines, Iowa, to establish themselves as a sanctuary 
jurisdiction for the entire school district, the largest school 
district in the State of Iowa--not the most proficient in educating our 
precious Iowa students, but the largest.
  So they make a political statement just at the time when the 
President has said that he is prepared to suspend all Federal dollars 
going to sanctuary jurisdictions, and that would include school 
districts and it would include, of course, cities and counties and 
States and any campus that decides they want to be a sanctuary campus.
  This President will keep his word.
  I would equate this showdown that they are building here, thinking 
that they can stare the President down and that he will blink and that 
somehow he won't have the nerve to address sanctuaries, the law-defined 
jurisdictions in America, the hole-in-the-wall gang holed up in San 
Francisco with more people being murdered in San Francisco--when I say 
``hole-in-the-wall gang,'' I want to remind people, Butch Cassidy and 
the Sundance Kid, they had a place in a canyon where you ride through a 
hole in the wall, and then they had a sanctuary for robbers and 
murderers and killers, but they had a code among them that they didn't 
kill each other very often. So they lived in this sanctuary. They were 
protected from the law; and they guarded and protected each other, and 
they guarded the notch through the stone wall in the canyon.
  That is what these cities are and what the campuses are and some of 
the States and the counties, sanctuary jurisdictions like the hole-in-
the-wall gang where they are harboring lawbreakers. Somehow, we are 
supposed to let this grow in America and not address it?
  We had a Presidential election that focused exactly on this.
  And, by the way, I brought amendments to the floor time after time to 
defund these sanctuary jurisdictions. Every one of them here in the 
House of Representatives since I have been here has succeeded. There is 
no unconstitutional act and no amnesty act that has been unchallenged 
here in the House of Representatives--by amendment, at least--that I 
and others have brought. Every time the rule of law prevailed.
  Now we have elected a President on the rule of law, and this 
President will not blink. I will remind the public as I speak to you, 
Mr. Speaker, that when Ronald Reagan was elected President, the air 
traffic controllers decided they would go out on strike. The President 
warned them: If you go on strike, you have got a contract, and you are, 
by law, prohibited from striking because it puts too many people at 
risk.
  They said: Too bad. If we don't get what we demand, we are going on 
strike anyway.
  They challenged the President of the United States. And what did 
Ronald Reagan do? He said: If you don't go back to work on the date 
that I tell you, I will fire anyone that doesn't show up.
  And so they called the President, thinking it was a bluff. Mr. 
Speaker, it wasn't a bluff. Ronald Reagan fired

[[Page 2237]]

every air traffic controller that didn't show up for work in defiance 
of the Federal law, and he put the military air traffic controllers to 
work to control the skies over America without one single fatal 
accident brought about by any of that. Ronald Reagan was called out by 
the air traffic controllers. They thought he was bluffing. He was not 
bluffing.
  Now we have jurisdiction after jurisdiction that think they are going 
to be leading a national movement to accelerate the sanctuary city 
jurisdiction endeavor, and they think that President Trump is going to 
back up from them because there are a lot of them and somehow he won't 
be able to take this on.
  I will submit this: If Ronald Reagan had blinked in the stare down 
between the air traffic controllers union, his Presidency would have 
collapsed. His power base would have diminished. He would have been an 
asterisk in history except for the snickers behind the hand of people 
that would have laughed at him because he would have caved in the face 
of first adversity.
  Donald Trump faces a similar circumstance here with sanctuary 
jurisdictions. He has no choice. If he is going to have an effective 
Presidency--and I guarantee you, he is committed to an effective 
Presidency--there will be no sanctuary jurisdiction left in this 
country within several months or a year as this grinds through and as 
people like Mayor Rahm Emanuel are brought to bear and they begin to be 
reminded by, hopefully, the new Attorney General, maybe as soon as 
tomorrow, Jeff Sessions, that 8 U.S.C. 1324 means what it says: It is a 
felony to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection or attempt to 
conceal, harbor, or shield from detection any such alien in any place, 
including a building or transportation--meaning anywhere. It is a 
serious felony.
  8 U.S.C. 1373, sanctuary cities, just the policy is a violation of 
Federal law. And then when you have control of the purse strings, Mr. 
Speaker, and you cut off the Federal funds going to these 
jurisdictions, there isn't hardly anybody that is going to face this. I 
think I would start with maybe the mayor of Chicago, then the mayor of 
New York. I bet he can communicate with Mayor de Blasio.
  The center of it all is this: Restore the respect for the rule of 
law. You have to enforce it if you are going to have laws. Once we do 
that, we will respect each other and America can go back to its 
constitutional foundation, and we can turn our focus to building our 
families, restoring our country, and helping other countries get up to 
speed into the first world.
  Mexico can get to the first world, but they can't be there if it is 
going to be corrupt. They can't be there if they are going to be the 
main provider of $60 billion worth of illegal drugs in this country. 
They can't face another 100,000 people murdered, we can't face 55,000 
drug overdose deaths in this country every year, and I haven't yet 
mentioned even the terrorists that are sneaking across that border on 
at least an irregular basis.
  Mr. Speaker, it is serious business, and I urge that we get this 
done. I urge that the American people follow through and encourage the 
President of the United States, let's end DACA, let's end DAPA, and 
let's end the sanctuary jurisdictions. Build a wall. America will be in 
a better place.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention and your ear this evening. It 
has been my honor to address you here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________