[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 146 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8361-H8364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
words of my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). I 
think this body has been blessed by Rob Woodall being here, and his 
words tonight just reinforce that.
  The President has declared an amnesty. The law of the land is if 
someone is in this country illegally, they are not allowed to legally 
work. To change that law requires a bill. As Saturday Night Live 
pointed out in their version of Schoolhouse Rock, a bill has to pass 
the House, it has to pass the Senate, and then it goes to the President 
and gets his signature if it is going to change existing law.
  For anyone to just pronounce ``here is the new change'' is an 
indiscriminate approach to changing the law without following the law.

       I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both 
     unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about 
     coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for 
     such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more 
     illegal immigration, and it would also ignore the millions of 
     people around the world who are waiting to come here legally.
       Ultimately, our Nation, like all nations, has the right and 
     obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency 
     and citizenship, and no matter how decent they are, no matter 
     their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be 
     held accountable. That is what I believe.

  All of the words--every one of the words I just spoke, beginning with 
``I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and 
unfair''--were words directly out of the mouth of the United States of 
America's Barack Hussein Obama.
  He was right. In everything he said in that quote, he was exactly 
right. There are millions of people lined up around the world who are 
wanting to come here legally. Most of those who would be coming would 
have to have some way to support themselves; yet the President spoke 
into law and signed his oral fiat saying: ``You know what, I am going 
to disregard everything I have previously said that was exactly right,

[[Page H8362]]

change the law without a bill going to the House or the Senate or 
without coming to me for my signature after it has passed both.''
  Our President also said:

       I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest 
     problems that we are facing right now is the President trying 
     to bring more and more power into the executive branch and 
     not go through Congress at all, and that is what I intend to 
     reverse when I am President of the United States of America.

  The trouble is he said that on March 31, 2008, and when he became 
President, he forgot that promise. Somebody needs to get that promise 
in front of him again.
  Also, in 2008, before he got elected, he said:

       We have got a government designed by the Founders so there 
     will be checks and balances. You don't want a President who 
     is too powerful or a Congress that is too powerful or a court 
     that is too powerful. Everybody has got their role. Congress' 
     job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or he 
     can sign it.

  Senator Obama said:

       I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the 
     Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use 
     signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around 
     Congress.

  I had a practice court instructor at Baylor Law School. He was an 
incredible trial lawyer before he came to be a professor at Baylor Law 
School. He talked even slower than I talk. I can still hear Matt Dawson 
saying, when he caught a witness saying something different one time 
than he said another time, he would say to the witness: ``Well, were 
you lying then, or are you lying now?''
  Let the shoe fit on the foot that wears that size.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about the law, and I have been 
called anal and everything else around this House floor, even by people 
in my party, for actually reading bills and reading laws, but 8 United 
States Code section 1324a(a)(1) says:

       It is unlawful for a person or other entity--(A) to hire, 
     or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the 
     United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized 
     alien, as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section, with 
     respect to such employment; or (B) (i) to hire for employment 
     in the United States an individual without complying with the 
     requirements of subsection (b) of this section; or (ii) if 
     the person or entity is an agricultural association, 
     agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor, to hire, or 
     to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United 
     States an individual without complying with the requirements 
     of subsection (b) of this section.

  Basically, it makes clear, and it is easier for me to see it in 
print, but when I see it in print, it is very clear, it is illegal for 
someone to get a job in America who is not an authorized alien.
  If you are an illegal alien or an unauthorized alien, as the language 
is here, then you are not entitled, it is illegal for you to get a job 
in the United States, and it is illegal for someone to hire you.
  It really raises an interesting question, and I haven't seen this in 
the President's fiat, the royal decree that he made, I haven't seen if 
he is providing amnesty for every employer that hires someone who is 
here illegally because the President is saying, basically, ``I'm giving 
you amnesty, so you can go work wherever you want to,'' but as the law 
makes clear in section 1324 of volume 8 of the United States Code, it 
is illegal to hire someone that is illegally in the country.
  Is the President going to pardon every employer that hires one of the 
5 million that is going to get a permit? We know that the President 
wants to give pardons to folks who are here illegally, but the trouble 
is a pardon doesn't work for someone wanting to grant legal status. A 
pardon only works if you want to forgive a crime that has been 
committed, like President Clinton did.
  President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, he kept 
them waiting. The service was supposed to start, and President Clinton 
was over there, just signing pardons as fast as he could. It took him 
awhile to get that done.
  He left President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney 
waiting. They were late starting the service that day on Inauguration 
Day for George W. Bush because he was signing those pardons as fast as 
he could, because he had to sign the individual pardons.
  Well, the President hasn't signed 5 million pardons, and even if he 
did, a pardon forgives the committing of a crime. It does not change 
the status of someone that is illegally in the country. A pardon 
pertains to criminal law.
  The changing of status is under naturalization and immigration, and 
that power is strictly reserved to this House and the body down the 
hall, the U.S. Senate.

                              {time}  2000

  We have the power under article I, section 8, to make the law on 
those things; the President does not. And there is no provision that 
allows him to pardon someone from the requirements of the 
naturalization or immigration laws.
  Now, something else caught my attention. It is down in the 
miscellaneous provisions of section 1324, because I am always looking: 
Okay, does the President have a loophole here? And at first I thought 
maybe he did. It turns out he doesn't. But under the definition of 
``unauthorized alien,'' it says:

       As used in this section, the term ``unauthorized alien'' 
     means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a 
     particular time, that the alien is not at that time either:
       A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or
       B) authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the 
     attorney general (now the Secretary of Homeland Security).

  So I thought maybe this is their loophole here that the President 
might try to use, even though that is not what was said in a basis that 
was provided.
  But then when you get over here, it says this exception may not be 
provided to the alien unless the alien is lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence or otherwise would, without regard to removal 
proceedings, be provided such authorization.
  So again, it kicks it back to the law as Congress has decreed it in 
the past, by both Houses passing it with a majority and a President 
previously signing it, that you have to follow the law in order to get 
this lawful permanent resident status. You have to be lawfully 
admitted. You are not even eligible for that miscellaneous exception 
under section 1324.
  There are people that have violated the law to come into the country 
in such a way that it is not necessarily a crime, but if they go to 
work, under volume 8 of the United States Code, section 1324, it will 
be a crime for anybody that hires them, and it will be a crime for 
them. That is where the crime may get committed.
  I guess at that time if the President wants to sign 5 million pardons 
for 5 million employers, well, he could do that. He has that authority 
under the Constitution. He can sign pardons for all 5 million employers 
that employ people who are unauthorized aliens in this country. No 
matter what the President gives them under the law, that person is 
still an unauthorized alien under this criminal provision.
  There are some interesting days ahead, and the statute of limitations 
will not have run out when a new President comes into office. The only 
way that wouldn't happen is if the President got a third term, and, of 
course, we know that would be as unconstitutional as the President 
legislating, and surely that wouldn't happen.
  Now, it is interesting, too, that in the manner in which the 
President has given this amnesty and is authorizing these work permits, 
he has actually doubled down legally on his violation of the law 
previously under DACA in which he had said that--well, this is the way 
he doubled down on it. Basically, he expands his previous 
unconstitutional action that the House passed a law the last week of 
July canceling but the Senate didn't take it up. That is why, when the 
President says Congress hadn't done anything, the House did. They 
talked about the Senate passing a comprehensive bill, and they forget 
to mention that the Senate's bill is unconstitutional. We are not 
allowed to take it up because it raised revenue, and under the 
Constitution, such a bill has to originate in the House.
  If the Senate gets around to sending it down here, we don't get to 
bring it on the floor. It would be what is called ``blue slipped,'' 
where you put a blue slip on there and say the House cannot take this 
up. It raises revenue. It has

[[Page H8363]]

to originate in the House. Therefore, the House is not allowed to take 
it up.
  Since the Senate passed a bill that was not allowed under the 
Constitution, we took one up ourselves and we passed that one, and it 
was constitutional and it was a good bill. There was more that needed 
to be done, but for what it did, it was a good bill. It dealt largely 
with securing our border. Because the question people are not asking 
and the President is not answering is a very important question.
  If this act of amnesty, unconstitutional, illegal as it is, if this 
act of amnesty is allowed to stand, and obviously the border is not 
secure, we still have thousands and thousands continuing to come across 
our border illegally, and nowadays nobody apparently is being turned 
away, then the big question I am getting to that has to be answered is: 
How often should we go ahead and have an amnesty? Because clearly, 
since the President has chosen to provide an amnesty unconstitutionally 
without securing the border first--and the vast majority of Americans 
do, and even a majority of our Hispanic friends that are legally here 
want the border secure before we do anything else.
  I have said over and over, if the President will just secure the 
border, as we get confirmed by the border States, not by anybody over 
at Homeland Security--we have already seen their kind of work, at least 
the people at the top--but if it is confirmed by the border States that 
the borders are now factually secured, then people would be amazed at 
what the House and the Senate can negotiate on and get accomplished.
  But until the border is secured, then we have to decide, if this 
amnesty is going to stand, as unconstitutional and as illegal as it is, 
how often should we give an amnesty? The President has given amnesty to 
5 million this time. And, of course, those 5 million are in this time 
where there is already over 92 million people of working age who are 
not working, they have given up even trying to get a job, and there are 
millions more that are looking for jobs and can't find them. So we will 
put 5 million Americans out of work, middle class, poor working 
Americans that are legally here. They will be put out of work. Why? 
Because people that have just gotten an amnesty, as unconstitutional as 
it is, they will surely take jobs for lesser pay than what the American 
citizens or legal permanent residents were getting paid, so they will 
bump them out of a job.

  And then also for any employer that hires more than 50 employees, 
they have learned over the last few years since ObamaCare passed, 
actually in 2010, employers have learned if you have got more than 50 
employees, then you are going to end up paying a $3,000 fine for 
anybody that you don't provide what the Federal Government considers 
adequate insurance for.
  So, for example, today, our friend Dennis Michael Lynch was pointing 
out that he has about 200 or so employees that are either American 
citizens or legally here, and the law is clear he is going to have to 
provide insurance that is approved by this government. That means even 
if they are 60 years old and they are a single man, they are going to 
have to have maternity coverage. Or as the couple I saw on TV, the gay 
or lesbian couple, women in their sixties, saying, ``We don't need 
maternity care.'' Well, it won't matter because they require it.
  If you don't provide that very expensive insurance for your 
employees, if you have more than 50 employees, then you are going to be 
paying the $3,000 fine, penalty. As Chief Justice Roberts called it at 
page 14 and 15 of his opinion, clearly it is not a tax, it is a 
penalty, it is a fine. Never mind what he said 40 pages later. But you 
are going to have to pay this fine, this penalty, of $3,000 per 
employee.
  So for somebody like our friend Dennis Michael Lynch, this President 
has, by his act of amnesty, conveyed to Dennis Michael Lynch: If you 
will let those 200 American citizens or legal permanent residents who 
have done everything the right way, if you will allow them to be fired, 
let them go, and then hire these people who are illegally in the 
country, then my administration has put in place a law called, 
informally, ObamaCare that will save you $600,000.
  So basically, Dennis Michael Lynch, how would you like to take home 
an extra $600,000 this next year? All you have got to do is let your 
American citizens go, hire people illegally in the country, because 
under this royal decree from the White House they don't have to be 
provided insurance.
  So Dennis Michael Lynch can save at least $600,000. It may be he had 
300 employees, in which case he gets to pocket an extra $900,000 if 
he'll just let the American citizens go and hire those folks that are 
illegally here. And since there are 5 million of those folks that are 
going to be looking for jobs, then 300 is a drop in the bucket compared 
to the 5 million. But $600- to $900,000 for one person in extra income, 
that is some serious money. Even for people in Congress, that is 
serious money.
  But that also doesn't address the issue of whether or not Dennis 
Michael Lynch, if he went ahead and did that and made himself an extra 
$600- to $900,000 next year, it doesn't address the issue of whether a 
new President that comes in in January of 2017 might have their Justice 
Department actually follow the law, and even though might not be able 
to pursue the aliens illegally here that got jobs, certainly would be 
able to prosecute the employers.
  But here again, the President could do what President Clinton did and 
leave his successor sitting there waiting on Inauguration Day while he 
signs 5 million pardons, and he could do that. That doesn't seem to 
have been this administration's history. If you get thrown under the 
bus, someone else has said before: When this administration throws you 
under the bus, they mean for you to stay there. So you probably 
shouldn't count on a pardon in the future for people that violate the 
law and don't have a pardon in their hand before this President leaves 
office.
  Now, there has been a lot of discussion among Republicans here in the 
House and among some of our friends. In fact, some of us have been 
talking tonight about what is the best way to address this 
unconstitutional amnesty. And I know our leadership has talked about, 
well, we could fund all of the government with an omnibus, taking 
appropriations bills that have been done already by the House--there 
have been seven of those--adding four to them, and then not funding the 
Department of Homeland Security and only funding them until March, and 
then by March of next year we could try to overturn the amnesty action 
taken by the President.

                              {time}  2015

  Most of us believe if those permits are issued before Congress stops 
them, it is going to be difficult to get enough votes to withdraw the 
permits. Once they are out there, it is going to be so tough to get 
them withdrawn. Some of us have been saying we don't think we can wait 
until March because, if you wait until March, there is a real risk that 
permits are done.
  Maybe if we just do a short-term CR until January, when we get the 
new Senate in, then we can act on that, but another problem there is 
that it is not just the Department of Homeland Security that is 
involved in this process for people that are here illegally.
  You have the Department of Homeland Security. You also have the 
Bureau of Consular Affairs that is involved in this unconstitutional 
amnesty. That is the State Department that is involved. You have the 
Department of Defense that has been involved in housing for the next 
influx of people as they flood in. DOD housed many of those people 
initially.
  You have got Health and Human Services, who takes custody of minors 
that comes in and ships them all over the country. You have got Social 
Security that is going to be issuing Social Security numbers. You have 
got the Department of Justice and CJS for immigration court processing. 
You have got HUD for housing.
  There are a lot of issues here, and as somebody once said, you should 
never take a hostage that the other person you are trying to influence 
by taking hostage is willing for you to shoot. It doesn't do you much 
good to take a hostage that the other side wants you to shoot.
  We need to be concerned that if we say, ``All right. We are not 
funding the Department of Homeland Security until you cease this 
illegal and unconstitutional action,'' the President might say, ``So 
you mean you're not

[[Page H8364]]

going to fund the Border Patrol? In other words, you're going to leave 
the border wide open, so that anybody wants to come in, can. And that's 
your threat. You are going to leave the border wide open for anybody to 
come in unless I back off of my amnesty.''
  Well, good luck. That is not going to do the trick. We need a short-
term CR to get us into the first of the year. For example, the House 
has defunded ourselves over a 4-year period by over 20 percent. We cut 
our own budgets over 20 percent. Nobody noticed, nobody cared, except 
those of us in the House. We had to make real adjustments.
  If we can make those adjustments, I think the White House ought to be 
able to make those adjustments. Maybe they could do with a few less 
czars--maybe we defund all the czars--but there are smart ways to 
defund the waste, fraud, and abuse in the executive branch, and I don't 
think it is a good idea to start with Homeland Security.
  At the same time, what happens when those employers that hire the 5 
million people that have just been given amnesty are able to save 
millions of dollars? What happens to them? They are going to make more 
money than ever, and that is during a President's administration who 
has presided for the first time in our history over a Nation where 95 
percent of all the income has gone to the top 1 percent. It has got to 
stop.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________