[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4505-H4511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about something that is
a rather important subject. Immigration has helped make us the greatest
Nation in the world, and we want that to continue. We do not ever want
our borders closed; we want them secured.
Here to help in this conversation is my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta), to whom I yield such time as he may
consume.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I believe the problem is simple: we need
to secure our borders first. You wouldn't replace your carpet at home
if you still had a hole in the roof.
When you take that position, the question you are usually asked by
people who support open borders is: Well, what do you want to do about
the 11 million people who are here illegally?
I usually answer that question with another question: What do you
want to do with the 22 million Americans who couldn't find work this
morning when they woke up? What do you want to do about the legal
immigrants who came to America for an opportunity, with the opportunity
that America promises for those who come here for a better life? What
do you want to do about the high school dropout who has to wash dishes
and may lose their job? Where do they go? What do you want to do about
the single mom who works three jobs just to put food on the table so
she could feed her family? What happens to her?
Why when we talk about immigration reform is it always about the 11
million illegal immigrants who came here knowingly breaking America's
laws? What about the legal Americans? What about the American workers?
Where is their voice in this debate? Who's speaking for them?
When it comes down to immigration reform, I believe the answer is
simple: let's secure America's borders first and protect America's
workers.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments.
It is interesting, and it really is heartbreaking, when you see so
many people, like all of the masses that were here in Washington, to
protest over the ObamaCare bill. Anyway, it is rather dramatic. The
unions are now coming out. Of course union leaders were all for
ObamaCare. Many of us said back at the time: Do you know what, when the
union members find out what the union leaders have done to them in
supporting ObamaCare, they are going to be exceedingly upset.
Now when you look at the results of ObamaCare forcing so many people
to part-time work--as my friend from Pennsylvania was alluding to,
people now have been relegated to part-time work--they may lose that.
When you combine the devastation of ObamaCare and people that are
losing their jobs and are being forced to part-time work and now having
to do more than one part-time job with less benefits, and then you add
on it the Senate bill, especially for African Americans here, it is
absolutely devastating. It is a devastating one-two punch to the gut of
America when you look at the Senate bill and how many Americans will be
really troubled to find employment.
We have other people that are here that also wish to be heard. I
yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Louisiana, Dr.
Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank my friend, Louie Gohmert--Judge
Gohmert--for having this hour together speaking on this important
subject. My friend also is my neighbor. Our districts neighbor one
another.
We have constituents who see this issue, I think, very consistently,
that is, that when we poll them, when we talk to our constituents, they
are very clear on the issue of immigration. They say first and
foremost, Congressman Fleming, whatever you do, do what Congress and
the Presidents have not been willing to do, and that is secure the
border and put internal security in that will prevent the visa
overstays that are 40 percent of those.
We have two lingering questions on the whole issue of immigration:
[[Page H4506]]
One is, is immigration good for America? I would suggest to you that
immigration has been good for America. All of our Forefathers, they
were immigrants. They came here with the idea that they would receive
religious liberty, they would receive opportunity when it comes to the
economy, and they were quite willing and happy to contribute to that.
But do you know what, there was no safety net. You had to dig it out
of the land yourself. Over the years, particularly by the mid-60s, this
Nation began to develop a very, very steep safety net program, now 80
different welfare programs.
This has been looked at very closely by the Heritage Foundation. What
they tell us is that by having open borders, such as what we have now
and will have in the future if we were to pass something like the
Senate amnesty bill, that the cost to Americans would go up. One study
I recently read said that for every household that receives amnesty, it
is going to cost the hardworking taxpayers of America $12,433.
So I would suggest to you that immigration can be a good thing for
the economy--not open-border immigration, not illegal immigration, but
legal immigration. What do I mean by that? That means that we allow a
guest-worker program where people can come in and work our farms, work
our trees. I have a lot of that in my district. But also the high end,
the STEM workers--the scientists, technology people, engineering,
math--where they can contribute so much to our country. Physicians
coming from Asia, so many of those can do many good things.
The other thing is trust. We have a trust deficit in this country
right now. I've spoken about it before. We have the Dodd-Frank Act,
which is barely implemented even after 3 years. Much of it probably
will never be implemented. We have ObamaCare, which is about 3 years
old. Much of it can't be implemented. We have a President who couldn't
get Cap and Trade passed, so he's trying to pass regulations to do
that. We have a President who couldn't get the DREAM Act passed, so he
rolled out a regulation to make it occur as an end run around Congress.
We have a President who has tried to convert the NLRB from a very
balanced board to really manage labor unions and their relationship
with management to a very pro-union political tool for government.
So when we have a situation like that, what we really have is a
President that picks and chooses the laws that he wants to enforce and
he wants to obey and he wants to acknowledge and ignore the rest. By
passing all of these massive comprehensive bills that Senators and
Members of Congress don't even read before they are passed, all we are
doing is offering a smorgasbord to the President that he can pluck just
the parts that he wants, and he could add some more if he chooses to do
that.
Well, that makes him no longer a President. That makes him a ruler,
and that is not the kind of government we have. We have a balance
between three branches of government. That's the way our Founding
Fathers determined it to be, and that's the way it should be today.
I join my colleagues, I think, in this understanding, and that is
that such legislation that passes from this House, or from the Senate
for that matter, if in fact it creates an open border, a porous border,
or in any way creates amnesty or a pathway to citizenship and we have
not dealt with and certified, made verifiable borders that are under
secure control by our government, a sovereign government, and that we
handle the visa overstay problems that we monitor and protect from
that, if we have not done that, then we have not done our
constitutional duties as Members of the House of Representatives.
I thank my friend so much. And my other friends--we are filled with
Members here who are ready to talk on this issue passionately--I think
you are going to hear a lot more from this group that's here tonight as
we talk more about this issue.
I would just say, lastly, that we need to decide what is important
for America first. We should determine what is good for the American
citizens and the taxpayers. We certainly want to handle anybody who is
here illegally in a humane way; but on the other hand, our first and
most important responsibility is to the American citizens who are
hardworking taxpayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that it is not in order
to engage in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I appreciate very much my
friend from Louisiana. We do border at our State lines there. We can be
just the best of friends and never worry about somebody being moved
into the other person's district for redistricting purposes. But I
appreciate so much the perspective. As a person who spent his
professional life and his training all geared toward helping others,
administering to others, and addressing their needs, I appreciate that
perspective of an excellent physician here.
At this time, I would also like to yield such time as he may consume
to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for pulling this
together and for yielding.
I recognize the admonishment from the Speaker. I don't think, though,
that we are constrained from raising objection when the President of
the United States willfully violates his oath of office. It is not a
personality issue; it is a constitutional issue.
I would direct, Mr. Speaker, the attention to article II, section 3,
in the United States Constitution that says that the President shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
I have pointed out to folks of less education than anybody in this
room that that doesn't mean you execute the law in a fashion you give
it the death penalty. What it really means instead is that you carry it
out, you enforce the law.
I know that the President has taken an oath to do that, and he
understands it. He gave a speech at a high school here in Washington,
D.C. on March 28, 2011. When they asked him: Why don't you enact the
DREAM Act by executive order, he said: I know you want me to do that,
but I don't have the constitutional authority to do that. You've been
studying the Constitution in high school and you know this: that the
legislature, that's Congress, passes the laws; the President's job in
the executive branch is to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch is
to interpret the laws.
Well, that is pretty clean and concise, and it is appropriate to be
coming from a former adjunct professor of law at the University of
Chicago; but he forgot his own lesson, and he forgot his own lesson a
number of times, not only with immigration, but No Child Left Behind--
waived it. It is just a directive from the United States Congress
signed by a previous President, and he waived No Child Left Behind.
How about welfare-to-work, that long battle that lasted about 2 years
here and resulted in who-knows-how-many vetoes by Bill Clinton, but he
finally signed it. There was not room in there for the President to
waive the work side of welfare, but he did it anyway.
{time} 1945
When it comes to the immigration law, the directive there is that,
when law enforcement encounters people who are unlawfully present in
the United States, they are compelled to place them in removal
proceedings. They shall be placed. That's the law. It doesn't say
``may.'' We have had to now mount litigation against the President of
the United States, in the name now of Janet Napolitano, to compel him
by pleading to the court to keep his own oath of office.
All of this is about expanding the dependency class in America. This
is about making government bigger. It is about what the end result is--
higher taxes. It's about borrowing more money from the Chinese and the
Saudis to run our government. The President got to the point where he
didn't like his own law, ObamaCare, and announced in this pretty-hard-
to-figure-out way--I wasn't actually watching the Web site of the
second in command of the U.S. Treasurer when the announcement came
out--that we're going to extend ObamaCare and the mandate on employers
by another year. He has no constitutional authority to do that either.
The ObamaCare legislation says that the employer mandate shall be
enacted each month after December 31, 2013. It doesn't say ``may.'' It
says ``shall.'' The only way
[[Page H4507]]
the President gets any of this authority that I've mentioned is by
coming back to Congress and asking us to approve it.
Now, when you see the rule of law undermined, Mr. Speaker, and when
you see that the lines between article I, the legislative branch, and
article II, the executive branch, are willfully blurred by the
President of the United States, it eventually brings out a
constitutional crisis. In the middle of all this constitutional crisis,
we have, according to the people who want to grant amnesty, 11 million
people who are unlawfully present in the United States. The law refers
to them as ``illegal aliens.'' The President has said, I will not
enforce the law against them unless they have committed a felony or
three mysterious misdemeanors.
They have pushed legislation in the United States Senate that says,
really, this: other than those exceptions that I've mentioned--those
who have committed felonies and have been caught at it, and I suppose
if they would admit to it that would be another category in which
they'd be disqualified--and other than those who have committed those
mysterious misdemeanors, setting that aside, everybody who came to
America before December 31, 2011, gets legalized, however they got
here. Of course, especially if they arrived here illegally and if they
overstayed their visas, they get legalized under the Senate Gang of
Eight bill. Then, for those who would arrive after December 31, 2011,
there is an implied promise that they have as much moral standing as
the people who would receive the amnesty in the act of the law, so the
implication powerfully is they also would receive their amnesty in
their due time.
So that is the definition, Mr. Speaker, of perpetual amnesty--amnesty
that goes on forever. We are still working on restoring the rule of law
since Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty act. We are working to restore it.
If this Gang of Eight bill is passed or if legalization passes this
Congress, what that says is all of those years of seeking to restore
immigration law after the '86 amnesty act are all wasted. All of that
labor, all of that effort, all of that preaching on principle and going
back to the constitutional core is all wasted if we legalize people
here. It's also retroactive amnesty. Anybody who is here or anybody who
could ever get here, other than those exceptions that I mentioned, gets
the path to citizenship. Whether you make it one more step or one less
step, it's the same thing. It's a path to citizenship.
``Amnesty.'' We should understand what it is. To grant amnesty is to
pardon immigration lawbreakers and to reward them with the objective of
their violations. That's ``amnesty.'' I will debate anyone at any time
on amnesty. I'm ready to do that any time myself, and I've defined
``amnesty'' for a long time. The American people understand what it is
even if they don't articulate it exactly the way that I suggested.
Not only is it perpetual amnesty for anybody who is here and for
anybody who would come here, it's also retroactive amnesty, which
means, of those folks who were deported in the past, the bill actually
sends an invitation through the language in the law that says we didn't
really mean it. We really didn't mean it. It's retroactive. Why don't
you reapply and come to the United States. We'll put you in the same
path as those other folks who jumped in ahead of the line and violated
the law--committed the crime of crossing the border if they crossed it
illegally or overstayed their visas--committed a violation of a civil
misdemeanor, which is still serious. Then of those who worked here,
most all of them, if they were unlawfully present in the United States
and if they lawfully could not work in the United States, committed
document fraud in order to pull that off. The bill also grants amnesty
for those who committed document fraud, and it grants amnesty for those
who knowingly and willfully hired people who are unlawfully present in
the United States and legally can't work. That's the situation we're
dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the destruction of the rule of law at
least with regard to immigration law. If we can't reconstruct respect
for the rule of law in the years since 1986, how in the world would
anybody think we could reconstruct the rule of law in the years since
2013? How could anybody think that because they want enforcement in the
future that they have to sacrifice the rule of law today? How could
they think that sacrificing the rule of law today doesn't mean that
you've sacrificed the rule of law for the duration of the life of this
Nation at least with regard to immigration? If you can make the
argument that the rule of law can be set aside forever with regard to
immigration, how then do you make the argument that there isn't some
other sector of the law that has as much merit as those folks whom
they're trying to get legalized now?
There isn't anybody under the bill in the Senate or under the amnesty
provisions that have been proposed here in the House who isn't going to
be put in front of the line of those people who are in a foreign
country politely and respectfully waiting their turns. There are at
least 5 million people in various visa categories who have respected
American law, and they're waiting in their home countries for the
opportunity to come into the United States. We need to respect them. We
need to respect the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the
law to come into the United States lawfully and to follow the path of
citizenship lawfully.
I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of just last Friday when I
was invited to speak before the State convention of the American
Legion. They held it in Sioux City, Iowa. I was privileged to be there,
and I gave a speech and talked about history and patriotism and those
things that one would in that scenario. At the conclusion of this
speech, I presented the medals to an American veteran who had not
received the medals that he had earned. The certifications were not in
order, and we had put those certifications back in order and had
acquired all of his medals that he had had coming. We put them on a
framework, and I presented them to this man. The man's name is--it's in
the press in Sioux City now, I'm sure--Raul Macias.
He came into the United States from Mexico at age 22. He married an
American and was nationalized as an American citizen. He joined the
Army at age 31 and was deployed over into Germany as a cold warrior
when we were lined up against the Soviet Union. At one point, he
wandered across the border into East Germany and was picked up by those
folks wearing those uniforms. Thankfully, they released him and let him
come back. He served our country, and he served our country proudly and
honorably.
After all of the words that I said on Friday and after I presented
him the medals, I also presented him the microphone and said, This is
your opportunity to speak. He said three words in his acceptance
speech: ``Thank you, America.''
That's a man who did it the right way--the kind of people we need to
respect by the millions in this country who did it the right way.
It's no respect to them if we destroy the rule of law. Legalization
is destruction of the rule of law, and legalization is a path to
citizenship. We must preserve, protect, defend, restore, and refurbish
the rule of law with our immigration policy in the House. We are the
last stop. We are the defense. We are the redoubt for the rule of law
right here. I'm glad to count a lot of people in this Congress my
friends. I'm glad to count those who stand for the rule of law as my
closest friends.
I appreciate the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate those observations so much, and
it brings to mind our colleague from down in central Texas who is also
a former district judge. He and I share that, but he was a district
judge twice as long as I was.
So many people say, Well, you've got to have compassion. Despite the
allegations from friends on the other side, we have compassionate
Republicans, and our hearts break for people. For one thing, there are
all of those people who are out of work who really want to work now,
and we haven't created that environment--through ObamaCare, through the
welfare state, through the problems with not respecting and adhering to
the law when it comes to securing the border. The government has the
obligation, from both a Biblical perspective and a secular perspective,
of enforcing the law and of making sure the people within its
boundaries
[[Page H4508]]
are protected who are lawfully there. That is the obligation.
Sometimes defendants would come before me as they'd come before Judge
Carter, from central Texas, during his days on the bench. They'd know
you were a Christian, and they'd bring a big Bible and try to play on
your senses--well, you've got to have compassion. I've got a big Bible
here, and God has worked in my life, so now don't sentence me harshly.
Judge Carter had one gentleman come before him who said, Judge, I know
you're a Christian, so you've got to have forgiveness, and you've got
to forgive me. Judge Carter replied, Sir, individually, I do forgive
you, but the State of Texas sentences you to 20 years in prison.
There is a difference. Individually, you can have that compassion and
should, but when you're acting as the government, people expect you to
have respect for the law, adherence to the law, so that there is a
country in which people can come and feel safe, at least reasonably so,
and understand that the law is going to be applied across the board.
We have also been joined by our friend from Alabama. I am proud to
have had him join Congress back 2\1/2\ years ago in the great sweep, so
I yield to my friend Mr. Brooks from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.
I have a firm belief that, if the people understand the truth, then
they'll make the right decision. There have been a number of arguments
advanced by the other side on this immigration-illegal alien debate
that are misleading at best, and I'm going to touch on a couple of them
with your permission.
First and foremost, there is the argument advanced that our economy
is going to do better, and, hence, Americans will do better. Half of
that is right. Bear in mind that the Senate Gang of Eight bill
legalizes, at a minimum, 11 million illegal aliens who are now present
in the United States of America. Also bear in mind that, over the next
decade, according to the Department of Homeland Security report, the
Senate Gang of Eight bill will bring into America lawfully, roughly, 33
million foreigners who are not here presently. Now put those numbers
together--11 million legalized plus 33 million to come in lawfully.
That totals 44 million lawful workers added to the American workforce.
That is out of 144 million total number of people who are employed in
the United States economy, according to the June--last month--of 2013
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If you look at these numbers--if you bring in 44 million people--of
course America's gross national product and gross domestic product are
going to increase, but the misleading part of it is this: that does not
necessarily translate into a higher standard of living for Americans
and foreigners who are lawfully in America. Let me explain.
The key is not the total GNP or GDP for our country. The key is the
total GNP and GDP per capita. If our gross domestic product goes up a
little bit but the population goes up a great amount, then we,
individually--American families, individually--are now living under
lower economic conditions. Stated differently, our standard of living
has declined; and, in that vein, rather than just making an argument, I
want to share some data that buttresses that argument.
The Congressional Budget Office, which has been rather kind in my
judgment to its evaluation of the Senate Gang of Eight legislation,
issued a report called ``The Economic Impact of S. 744.''
{time} 2000
This report was issued just last month in June of 2013. I'm going to
quote for the record parts of that report:
S. 744 would lower per capita gross national product by
seven-tenths of 1 percent in 2023.
So over the next 10-year period of time, rather than our GNP growing
per capita and America doing better individually, it declines under
this bill. It's not just stagnant, the kind of stagnation that we have
suffered for the last 5 or 6 years or so. There is a decline in GNP per
capita, which means that the amount of money each American household
has to spend to take care of their daily needs goes down because of the
Senate Gang of Eight bill, because it is both legalizing and admitting
into our country a total of 44 million foreigners who are going to be
seeking jobs that Americans already have or that Americans want.
Further in the report:
Average wages for the entire labor force would be one-tenth
of 1 percent lower in 2023'' because of Senate bill 744. By
2016, just 3 years from now, that would be four-tenths of a
percent lower, where our wages again are going down.
Also notably, in another admission, S. 744 will ``slightly raise the
unemployment rate through 2020.''
So not only do we have a suppression because of this amnesty, because
of this open-borders nature of the Senate Gang of Eight bill of
individual incomes, we also have more Americans who are unemployed,
according to the Congressional Budget Office
I think that their numbers, quite frankly, are rather kind to the
Gang of Eight bill. I think it's going to be much worse. In that vein,
let me share some other data points. According to The Heritage
Foundation report that was issued a few months ago:
Unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-
skill U.S. born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent,
or $2,300 per year. Unlawful immigration also drives many our
most vulnerable U.S. foreign workers out of the labor force
entirely.
That's a big number, a drop in wages of $2,300 per year for low-skill
American born and lawful immigrant workers.
Here's another study, a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center that
concluded that there were 7.8 million illegal aliens who were holding
jobs in America. Okay? Stated differently, that's 7.8 million job
opportunities that Americans have lost. Why? Well, quite frankly,
because illegal aliens are often willing to work under the table, get
paid under the table; because illegal aliens are often willing to work
for less than Americans are; quite frankly, because illegal aliens are
often willing to look the other way with respect to the worker safety
laws that we have imposed in order to protect our American workers from
bodily harm. There were 7.8 million job opportunities that were lost.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform thinks that number is
low. They have it at 8.5 million job opportunities lost to American
citizens, and that's today before the Gang of Eight bill gets
implemented.
Harvard professor George Borjas found in a study released in April of
2013, again just a few months ago:
Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by
an estimated $99- to $118 billion a year.
Let me read that again:
Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by
an estimated $99- to $118 billion per year and generates a
gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107- to
$128 billion per year.
Is it any wonder the United States Chamber of Commerce is spending
millions of dollars to try to induce America to go with the Gang of
Eight bill that will legalize 11 million foreigners and add another 33
million foreigners over the next decade? They see profits coming from
this increase in the size of the workforce, which in turn will decrease
the wages that they pay not only to illegal aliens, but also to lawful
immigrants, and also to American citizens. So that's where the United
States Chamber of Commerce is coming from. They certainly have a
financial interest.
Now I want to emphasize something. We should not be debating bringing
in these mass numbers of foreigners into the American workforce in this
kind of context. America currently suffers a 7.6 percent unemployment
rate. Asian Americans suffer a 5 percent unemployment rate. White
Americans suffer a 6.6 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, Hispanic
Americans suffer a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, African
Americans suffer a 13.7 percent unemployment rate. And even worse,
American teenagers suffer a 24 percent unemployment rate.
Does it make sense to anybody that when we have unemployment in so
many different segments of our economy so high that we should legalize
another 11 million workers and bring in an additional 33 million
workers over the next decade to compete for jobs when Americans are
having such a difficult time in this economy not only getting jobs, but
getting quality jobs?
That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is a myth
that the
[[Page H4509]]
economy is going to become better because of this large importation and
legalization of immigrants. Sure, America's GDP will go up, but that's
not the issue. The issue is whether the quality of life for individual
Americans goes up, and under this legislation, virtually every study I
have seen, in fact, says that it goes down. That's one of the reasons
why we have to stop this.
I've got one other myth that I would like to talk about. The whole
premise of this immigration law debate is that the laws need dramatic
changing, they aren't working. I would submit that that's not the case
at all. The problem is not so much with our immigration laws. Sure,
there's some tweaking that can be done in order to make sure that we
admit into our country those individuals who have particular skill sets
or educational levels or wealth that will enhance our economy. Sure, we
can do that kind of tweaking. But it's a myth to say that we have 11
million illegal aliens in America because of our laws. That's not the
case at all. We have 11 million illegal aliens in America, quite
frankly, because the White House, the executive branch of our
government, has absolutely refused to enforce the laws that are on the
books. And I'm not talking about just this administration. I'm talking
about 20 years of neglect by the White House and the executive branch.
Let me share some numbers with you on that point, and then I'll defer
back to my good colleague, Mr. Gohmert.
In 2011, the number of Border Patrol returns plus illegal aliens
deported by court order was 715,495 individuals. That's an important
point to note. Okay?
You've heard the myth that this administration deports more than any
administration in history, or words to that effect. That's kind of
true, but it's misleading because that's only half of the number that
you need to look at. It's not just the deportations by order that you
look at. It is also how many times has our Border Patrol caught
individuals and returned them. So in 2011, we have roughly 715,000
Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order.
Let's go back to 2008, the last President before the current
President. During that year, you put those two numbers together, and it
was 1.1 million that the Border Patrol returned plus deported by court
order. That's a big number--64 percent more returned than in 2011, the
most recent year for which I have information.
A decade ago, it was again 1.1 million Border Patrol returns plus
deported by court order--62 percent more than this administration in
2011. In 1993, two decades ago, 1,285,952 illegal aliens were returned
pursuant to Border Patrol returns or deported by court order--80
percent more than in 2011. In 1983, it was 950,000--33 percent more
than 2011. In 1973, four decades ago, it was 585,000. And in 1963, it
was 77,000 Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order. And I
want to note something about the gap between 1963 and 1973. You'll
remember these welfare programs that got passed as a part of the Great
Society program where America started paying foreigners to come into
our country where they start accessing welfare benefits? I would submit
that that is a huge incentive for why these individuals have come to
America who previously would not have come here under illegal terms.
But because we've got laws in place that pay and incentivize illegals
to come here, that is, in fact, a major reason why they're here.
Nonetheless, the myth that the laws are the problem, is not it. It's
a lack of enforcement of the laws on hand. And the myth that this
administration has been really good at returning illegals, that's true
only if you look at half of the problem. If you look at the whole
problem, then, quite frankly, this administration in 2011 was doing far
worse than previous administrations have done or as has been done in
2003, one decade ago, two decades ago, three decades ago, and four
decades ago.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. Those were really
amazing numbers that you provided, and we'll talk about those further.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to my friend from
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) for such time as she may consume.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Representative Louis
Gohmert, and I also thank my colleagues who preceded me and all the
marvelous comments they have given: Mr. Brooks from Alabama and the
statistics that he has just given and all the other stories.
I look at the context of this issue, Mr. Speaker, and the issue of
dealing with the whole strata of illegal immigration. What are we
talking about? There are so many aspects. One of those aspects, of
course, is the issue of why in the world isn't America's border secure
today? This is something that is incomprehensible to the American
people because there is something that the American people should
demand and that they have a right to expect, and it is that their
country has a secure border at every level. Not only just at the point
of entry, but for people who come into the United States on a lawful,
legal visa. The American people have a right to expect that those
people also will stay for the time that we have granted those people
and that they will not overstay.
The one thing that we've learned, Mr. Speaker, is that 40 percent of
the problem of illegal immigration, 40 percent--4 out of 10--people are
overstaying their visas. That included some of the terrorists that were
involved in the 9/11 bombing. That's why this is so important.
We aren't talking just about an academic exercise, Mr. Speaker. We
are talking about a national security issue. We're also talking about
an economic security issue. Because for those of us who are here on the
floor this evening having this conversation, we were elected by the
American people. We were elected by American citizens who have the
privilege to vote in this country. We are elected by Americans, and we
are here representing the interests of American citizens. And it is
American citizens, Mr. Speaker, who have the obligation to pay for all
of the programs that we fund here in this Chamber because our
Constitution provides that all of the spending begins right here in the
House of Representatives.
Spending is something we're pretty good at. We spend a lot in this
House. As a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago I was sworn in. I
took the oath of office right here in this Chamber, and America was
$8.67 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, on that January in 2007 when I
took my oath of office.
We were horrified. How were we ever going to pay off $8.67 trillion
in debt? 2007. Today that number has been running, and officially,
according to our Treasury Department, it is something under $17
trillion. But that's kind of unusual because that number has actually
stayed exactly the same, according our Treasury Department, for about
56 days running.
{time} 2015
Of course we know that isn't true. We overspend by billions of
dollars every day. The number is actually something pretty close to $17
trillion. So let's think about that: $8.67 trillion and, today, $17
trillion in debt. Why do I bring that up? Who cares about these
numbers? They're so big, we can't even comprehend them. Well, I care.
I'm a mother. I have five great children and 23 foster children, and
parents across America are scared to death about the kind of America
their children will inherit, because any fair-minded person realizes
you can't spend more money than you take in, otherwise you go to the
poor house and you declare bankruptcy. And we don't want our children
in that position where they declare bankruptcy.
Maybe that explains part of the reason why we have 22 million people
in this country today who are looking for full-time work, and they
can't find it. Twenty-two million people looking for full-time work,
and what are we doing here in Congress? The Senate can't wait to give
amnesty to illegal aliens, so we'll have a minimum of 11 million
immediately who'd have legalization status in this country; and we
would have, as Mr. Brooks said, up to 44 million people before long in
this country.
So now what are those 22 million Americans supposed to do? Mr.
Speaker, I say it is America first, and the interests of the American
people first. The American people need jobs. They deserve jobs. It's
Americans first that we need to think about. So we have unemployed. We
have a terrible debt that's growing, and we have less than anemic
economic growth.
[[Page H4510]]
One thing Mr. Brooks mentioned, when President Obama took office in
2008, the average household income was somewhere around $55,000 a year.
It was shocking to learn after 4 years in office, the average household
is now looking at something like $50,000 a year. That's a tremendous
loss in income for the average American. As Mr. Brooks told us earlier,
Mr. Speaker, about $1,300 a year is attributable in lost income
strictly because wages are depressed because illegal aliens are working
for less than the American people.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it's the American people first. It is American
wages first. It is American benefit packages first. What in the world
are we doing, Mr. Speaker, if we aren't thinking about how we can
create more jobs for the American people first. And higher wages for
the American people first. And more benefits for the American people
first.
Why did the President 2 weeks ago have to unilaterally have a press
conference, or release a press statement--that's apparently the way he
governs these days--and say that his employer mandate for big
businesses will have to be delayed a year? Why did he have to do that?
Because he knows it simply doesn't work.
And yet if we have legalization for illegal aliens in the United
States, we will see that very quickly we will have literally tens of
millions of new people who'll have access to all of these benefits
because it's not cheap, you see. Amnesty costs a fortune, you see.
Because this year alone, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at $54 billion a
year. Do illegal aliens pay taxes? Yes, they do. They pay sales taxes,
gas taxes, various forms of taxes. But when you take what illegal
aliens are paying into the U.S. Treasury versus the benefits that they
take out, that means that American citizens have to cough up an extra
$56 billion a year. It is a net drawdown on the U.S. Treasury. You see,
it has consequences, Mr. Speaker, not only for the Treasury but for the
American people, for my children, for Representative Gohmert's
children, and I dare say for your children as well, Mr. Speaker.
This is something we have to realize, that by year 13 of the bill
that's already being considered in the United States Senate, it won't
be $56 billion a year that illegal aliens are costing the U.S.
Treasury. It will be over $100 billion a year. And when those illegal
aliens come into retirement age, because you see the average age of an
illegal alien is 34 years of age with less than a 10th grade education,
by the time those illegal aliens come into their retirement years, it's
not $56 billion a year that it will cost the taxpayers. It is adjusted
for inflation, $150 billion a year because we're talking very expensive
retirement packages.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, at the worst possible time when baby boomers
like myself are getting to the point of drawing down the Social
Security benefits that we earned and the Medicare benefits that we
earned and accessing whether it's ObamaCare or the 80-other means-
tested welfare programs, at the worst possible time, Mr. Speaker, this
Chamber is looking at adding over 40 million new illegal aliens into
the system to redistribute wealth from American citizens who worked
hard and earned that money, to redistribute it to illegal aliens that
we have given legalization status so that they can have Social Security
and Medicare and ObamaCare and 80 different means-tested welfare
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you this: When we go from $8.6 trillion in debt to
nearly $17 trillion in debt, we've doubled it in about 6, 7 years'
time, and then you add in 40-some million new illegal aliens, you up
the benefit package from ObamaCare, all while we're seeing increased
levels of unemployment, we're seeing lower rates of increases in GDP, I
ask you, Mr. Speaker, how compassionate is that to American children
that are born in this country? How compassionate is it when their wages
have gone, the average household, has gone from $55,000 down to
$50,000? How compassionate will it be, Mr. Speaker, when our children
can't even afford to have a savings account anymore because they're
scraping by and their wages are lowered and their benefits are lowered
and the jobs are fewer and inflation is going sky high? How is that
compassionate?
Because, you see, I remember, Mr. Speaker, that my parents left me a
country that was better than the one that they inherited from their
parents. And my grandparents, Mr. Speaker, inherited a better country
than my great grandparents left for them, and so on and so forth going
back in time.
You see, I can't fathom, Mr. Speaker, nor can I fathom that Mr.
Gohmert also would do anything that would leave less than a better
country for the next generation because, you see, that's what this is
about. We were sent here by the American people to be about America
first and, Mr. Speaker, about our children first, and whether this
America that they inherit will be a better America.
And that's why this discussion that Mr. Gohmert brought to the
country tonight is so vitally important, and we can't stand by and
watch our country change forever and watch our children shortchanged.
And so I'm going to yield back to the gentleman from Texas because he
has profoundly put in front of the American people the issue that will
structurally change our country forever. You see, Mr. Speaker, there's
no going back once we go down this road. And I know I've heard the
gentleman from Texas speak on this many times so eloquently. I thank
the gentleman for all he has done.
Mr. GOHMERT. Those are wonderful points, and it brings back to mind
what someone has said before. The example of being on an airplane, the
instruction we're all given when you get on an airplane is if there's a
loss of cabin pressure, you lose oxygen, then you must put your own
mask on before you help others. Let's face it, America is struggling
right now in a number of ways, but particularly economically. This is
the worst recovery from any recession we've ever had, the longest, the
poorest recovery from any recession. We're still struggling, having
millions and millions of Americans out of work; and it's not because of
a lack of compassion that we say we need to follow the law, we need to
respect the law. It is out of respect for the rule of law, for this
country. We're in a position as government, we have got to make sure
that we follow our oath, that we do the best we can to make this
country as strong as possible because we know there is no other country
in the world that has as many people wanting to come visit or live in
this country. This is number one in the world for people wanting to
come visit or live.
But if we do not keep it viable, keep it strong, get the mask on, get
the oxygen flowing again, get the patient strong again, then this is
not going to be a place that others in the world are going to want to
flee to as a refuge. It is very critical what we do here.
My friend from Minnesota brings up the point about taxes being paid.
Congress some years back passed--and there are a couple of different
kinds of child tax credits where actually if you're an American that's
authorized to file income tax and you have a Social Security number,
then you can claim those child tax credits. So we have people who are
getting more money back because of the tax credit than they actually
paid in, and Congress made clear you have to have a Social Security
number in order to do that. But as I understand it, there were some
people at the IRS who in between line dancing sessions had determined
that, you know what, there's a lot of money out there by people who
don't have Social Security numbers that if we got them to pay taxes,
even though they're not legally here, if we got them to pay taxes,
think about all the extra money that'll flow into the Treasury.
So why don't we, as a regulatory body, and we know Congress didn't
authorize it, but why don't we just give them a tax ID number, even if
they're illegally here, so they can be paying in all of the taxes to
help the country. And an analysis earlier this year by different groups
indicated that we may be, because the IRS authorized people to pay
taxes into the system with tax ID numbers rather than Social Security
numbers, we're probably paying out between $1 billion and $4 billion to
people who are claiming child tax credits that are not authorized to
claim those because they're illegally here.
We had newspaper reporters go out, people in the media, go out and do
their own investigations and find a house here or a house there where a
whole bunch of different people are
[[Page H4511]]
claiming that they live and that children are living there by the
scores that aren't actually living there. And so it comes back and
raises the issue, like Mr. Brooks was pointing out and my friend, Mrs.
Bachmann, was pointing out that it doesn't necessarily follow that just
because you give people legal status, all of a sudden you're going to
be flooded with new tax dollars coming in.
I also want to point out there's this issue that keeps coming up
about compassion. There is no more compassionate people in the world
than the American people as a group. You'll find individuals extremely
compassionate around the world. I've been in places where I'm deeply
moved by how wonderful they are; but as a Nation of people, this is the
most compassionate Nation in the history of the world. And
individually, people in this Nation have done more to assist those
suffering around the world, and it would seem to be the healthiest
thing to do as a Nation, to make sure there is respect for our law,
adherence to our important laws, and then make the country healthy.
Capital, we know--money, that is--investment money comes in. It
flows, as the saying goes, capital is a coward. It flows into countries
where it feels the safest. Make this country a strong country again
economically so then we are able to go, as so many churches have, to
Latin American countries, to countries around the world, and reach in
and help them not by giving them a fish, as the old adage goes, but by
teaching them to fish and providing them a means to have food and to
make a living. That's a compassionate kind of thing.
There is no reason that Mexico should not be one of the top 10 or
even top five economies in the world; and if we were the proper kind of
neighbor, we would lure the hardest working Mexicans into America. We
would help them have a strong, vibrant economy. But that will never
happen until they have respect for and adherence to the law, and that
means ending corruption. So it is critically important we live up to
our oaths here. Some of us have even paid parking tickets we didn't owe
because we had a Park policeman that didn't know the law.
{time} 2030
It doesn't matter. The law is important to respect and to follow, and
we cannot become a healthy Nation until we have that out of the
Government of the United States.
We have a couple of minutes left, and I'd like to yield to my friend,
Mrs. Bachmann, to finish our time.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I wanted to add on to the child care tax credits that you were
speaking of.
There's also another redistribution of wealth item in the Tax Code.
It's called the earned income tax credit. It's one of the largest
redistribution of wealth programs that we have in the United States. We
give away to people who are virtually paying no taxes under the Income
Tax Code, income taxes, $70 billion a year. So people who aren't paying
into the system now for income tax, they're receiving $70 billion a
year. The estimate is that, after amnesty, once we grant amnesty to
illegal aliens, we'll raise that to $80 billion a year. So we're going
to increase the cost.
So what we're seeing happening, by granting amnesty to illegal
aliens, we're importing a group of individuals who are tax consumers,
revenue consumers out of the Treasury. And one thing that we need in
this country are more people who are paying into the system, not people
who are taking out of the system.
But bottom line, we need to have a country where America comes first,
where the American people know that our borders are secured, that our
laws will be upheld, and that the American people will come first.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________