[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 196 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9588-H9593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as folks head back to their districts--and 
I will be doing so shortly--it is important to take a look at some 
things that have been rather important here in our country.

[[Page H9589]]

  The Department of Justice does need an investigation into the matters 
that have been raised and clearly were not handled properly regarding 
the Russian Uranium One program and the sale of a significant 
percentage of United States uranium, ultimately, to Russia.
  There appears to be collusion, for sure. It is still staggering to 
think that the person who accepted the role as special prosecutor, 
Robert Mueller, would accept that, knowing that he and the person that 
selected him as special prosecutor, Mr. Rosenstein, were involved in 
the Russian investigation that went on for a number of years and 
involved a person working undercover and clearly established for 
Director Mueller, as head of the FBI, and for Mr. Rosenstein, the U.S. 
Attorney, that Russia was trying to corner the market by acquiring 
American uranium.
  Yet, while you had a man like Jeff Sessions trying to go out of his 
way to ensure that nobody could say he acted inappropriately--I think 
it was done prematurely, but he recused himself--not wanting to be a 
burden to the President.
  As much as Attorney General Jeff Sessions was trying to be fair and 
avoid even the appearance of questions about him handling the Russian 
investigation, you had Robert Mueller and the Deputy Attorney General 
acting--or appeared to be--even more inappropriately than Jeff Sessions 
was acting, beyond the pale of honor, as they are two people involved 
in the investigation of Russia acquiring American uranium, even though 
it wasn't just Hillary Clinton that signed off on it. It was also Eric 
Holder and some others.

                              {time}  1145

  All that needed to be investigated, but not by the people who covered 
up the prior Russia investigation and saw to the sealing of many of the 
documents involving that investigation. In fact, Mr. Rosenstein's name 
was actually on the motion to seal matters involved in that 
investigation.
  It seemed pretty clear that if you are going to go to the trouble of 
sealing an investigation like that, and the extraordinary measure of 
getting the person who is acting undercover, force him, threaten him, 
get him to sign a nondisclosure agreement under threat, seems to me 
that wasn't an arm's-length transaction. That was done under coercion 
by the most powerful law enforcement people in the country at the time, 
threatening to bring down the full weight of the United States 
Government on the man who was working for them, helping them find the 
evidence that showed how Russia was acting so inappropriately and 
illegally trying to get hold of our uranium.
  Just when you think, ``Well, just can't be much more in the way of 
surprises,'' The Daily Caller's Richard Pollock has a story on November 
30: ``DOD Inspector General Opens Probe Into Alleged Retaliation by 
Obama Holdover.''
  It says: ``The Pentagon's Inspector General has launched a 
preliminary investigation into charges that James H. Baker, the 
Director of the Defense Department's Office of Net Assessment, ONA, is 
retaliating against a whistleblower who warned of `rigged' contracts to 
outside consultants, The Daily Caller News Foundation has confirmed.
  ``The DCNF verified through two independent sources that the Acting 
IG, Glenn A. Fine, initiated a formal `Whistleblower Reprisal 
Investigation' September 28 to look into allegations that Baker 
unleashed various reprisals against Adam Lovinger, a senior ONA 
official. Lovinger warned about potential sweetheart deals to 
politically connected outside contractors, including one with a woman 
Chelsea Clinton has referred to as her `best friend.'
  ``The IG is investigating Baker's actions under Presidential Policy 
Directive-19, an October 2012 directive designed to protect members of 
the intelligence community who report waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
directive pointedly states that it `prohibits retaliation against 
employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.'
  ``Baker is an Obama holdover appointed by Secretary Ashton Carter in 
May 2015, who remains the ONA Director 11 months into the Trump 
administration.''
  I might insert here: This has got to be so frustrating to the 
President of the United States as the Senate Democrats continue to hold 
up efforts to get nominations confirmed so that he can start 
implementing the policies that he was elected to carry out. They are 
thwarting him by continuing to have Obama holdovers, even though that 
term apparently, we are told, offends our National Security Advisor 
McMaster--a guy who apparently can't stand the President and is 
thwarting his efforts at every turn he can.
  But the guy is an Obama holdover. He should not be making calls, yet 
he is staying around, according to this information, to carry out 
vendettas against someone who was a whistleblower complaining of 
sweetheart deals to people, including Ms. Clinton's best friend.
  Richard Pollock from The Daily Caller goes on to say: ``Lovinger 
specifically protested $11.2 million in ONA contracts awarded over a 
decade to the Long Term Strategic Group, a company owned by Jacqueline 
Newmyer, a childhood friend of Chelsea Clinton. Clinton and Newmyer 
first met each other while attending Sidwell Friends School, an 
exclusive private Quaker school in the Nation's Capital. They were in 
each others' weddings, and, in 2011, Chelsea referred to Newmyer as her 
best friend.
  ``Lovinger's attorney, Sean M. Bigley, accuses Baker of continuing 
the . . . contract''--with Chelsea Clinton's friend--``in the hopes it 
could help him in a Clinton Presidency.
  `` `We submit that Baker's interest was his awareness of the LTSG-
Clinton connection; his presumptive desire to exploit that to his 
advantage in the event of a Clinton election win; and the fact that 
contractors like LTSG served as a lucrative landing pad for ONA 
retirees,' Bigley charged in a September 13 letter to Rear Admiral 
Kevin Sweeney, chief of staff for Defense Secretary James Mattis.
  ``The IG's decision to launch a preliminary investigation occurred as 
former high-profile national security officials are beginning to 
publicly weigh in about Baker's allegedly retaliatory actions.
  ``Richard Perle, Ronald Reagan's former Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, told the DCNF of Lovinger, `He has been treated so badly. It's 
a disgrace.' ''
  He is talking about the whistleblower who pointed out this unseemly 
relationship and unfair awarding of contracts to the Clinton friend.
  Richard Pollock from The Daily Caller goes on to say: ``Perle called 
Baker `a shallow and manipulative character that should have gone with 
the change in administration.' ''
  Baker being the Obama holdover.
  In any event, it is just incredible when you think there surely can't 
be any more shoes to drop about improprieties from the last 
administration. They just keep coming.
  But as a former prosecutor, former judge, former chief justice, what 
occurred in a decision by the jury in the Kate Steinle homicide is 
really extraordinary. You know, when I was handling cases as a felony 
judge, I know sometimes juries surprised me. But in this case, for a 
jury to find that he wasn't--this person, this illegal alien who had 
been deported five times and who should have been deported the sixth, 
except San Francisco was protecting him, to the detriment of its 
residents, the jury comes back and says he wasn't even negligent in 
firing the gun that killed Kate Steinle. I mean, that is just 
staggering beyond words.
  But when a verdict is seen that just goes against what the evidence 
shows clearly, I mean, it could have easily found that, yes, they don't 
find him to be credible; but, of course, you had the judge--number one, 
you had the judge protecting him, going way beyond what would seem 
normal to many judges in order to protect this guy.

  His story was apparently that--well, actually he had several stories. 
So anytime a jury is presented with several different stories about how 
something happened coming from the same individual who is on trial, 
normally, is my experience in noticing, that if a jury finds that you 
lied to them about one thing, they seem to find it easier to find you 
guilty of what you are charged with. That often happens.
  Even sometimes when I might have been surprised that they could find 
someone guilty of the more serious charge, when there is a lesser 
included, like there was in this case--but it went back to where the 
jury felt like he had

[[Page H9590]]

lied to us on this, so he is probably guilty of the crime. I mean, I am 
just talking from a practicality standpoint the way sometimes jurors 
look at things.
  But in this case, it didn't bother the judge. And from what the jury 
was allowed to hear, that the judge didn't obstruct, it should have 
been clear this was not an honest individual and that there is likely a 
very good chance he would lie to avoid a murder conviction, and that is 
why the different stories about how he came to shoot Kate Steinle as 
she walked along arm-in-arm with her father. Just incredible.
  This story from John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle says: ``As 
they awaited the verdict in the trial of Kate Steinle's accused killer, 
her parents and brother had one overriding wish. It had nothing to do 
with the severity of the defendant's conviction.
  ``Above all, they wanted it to mark the end of a public profile they 
neither sought nor enjoyed. Each media interview, each exploitation of 
Kate's name for political gain, each still shot of her smile on 
television only amplified the anguish of their loss. Yet they also 
wanted to convey their appreciation for the many strangers who, having 
heard their story, offered solace and assistance.
  `` `We just want to get this over with and move on with our lives and 
think about Kate on our terms. Nothing's been on our terms. It's been 
on everyone else's terms,' said Jim Steinle, who was strolling with his 
32-year-old daughter on a crowded San Francisco pier when she was shot 
and killed July 1, 2015. He, his wife, Liz Sullivan, and their son, 
Brad Steinle, sat down with the Chronicle recently at their longtime 
East Bay home for an exclusive interview they planned to be their last.
  `` `We have never had a second of anger--not a moment,' Jim said. 
`Frustration, maybe, and sadness for sure, but no anger and no 
retaliation or vindictiveness or anything like that. We're not that 
kind of people. Even if this guy gets 100 years in prison, it doesn't 
solve anything; it doesn't help anything. We would just like people to 
know . . . that's the Steinles' feelings.'
  ``They had decided not to attend court to hear the jury's decision.
  ``On Thursday, the verdict arrived: Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was 
acquitted of all murder and manslaughter charges. He was convicted 
merely of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  `` `We're just shocked--saddened and shocked . . . that's about it,' 
Jim said. `There's no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, 
but it was not served.'
  ``Brad said he was `not surprised,' considering the `epic failure' 
that led Garcia Zarate to be released on the streets and end up with a 
loaded handgun on the pier that day.''

                              {time}  1200

  ``I'm stunned that they couldn't even get him on using the weapon,'' 
Brad said.
  It really is staggering. The jury could not find him guilty of even a 
negligent-type homicide.
  Okay, you could have reasonable doubt, apparently. I don't think most 
people would. But, in San Francisco, all they hear about from the media 
and elected officials is how the illegal aliens are the victims and not 
so much someone like Kate Steinle as a true victim. That sets a jury up 
to make an inappropriate finding.
  The Washington Examiner reports today, Anna Giaritelli:
  ``Thousands of Twitter users on Friday were urging people to 
#boycottsanfrancisco after a jury there decided Jose Ines Garcia 
Zarate, a five-time deported Mexican man charged with shooting and 
killing Kate Steinle, was not guilty.
  ``The Boycott San Francisco hashtag began trending on Twitter Friday 
morning as people vowed not to travel there or buy goods or services 
produced in the city.''
  Mr. Speaker, I don't normally advocate any type of boycott, and I 
really don't here. My thought is that people need to consider their own 
safety. When they are in dangerous places in the world, our State 
Department will issue a travel warning to Americans: Be careful. Try to 
avoid this area. It is not safe. It is dangerous.
  And I think that the Nation should have gotten a picture that in San 
Francisco they are far more concerned about making sure that illegal 
alien felons have a place for a hangout--a hideout. The Hole-in-the-
Wall Gang would have been, apparently, very welcome there if they had 
only been illegal aliens, instead of simple outlaws.
  It is as if they want a monument in the Bay with a sign reading: Give 
us your outlaws, so long as they come in illegally.
  I have an article, also in the Washington Examiner by Anna 
Giaritelli. The headline is: ``Trump: Kate Steinle verdict more reason 
to `Build the Wall!' '' The President is exactly right; he is exactly 
right.
  I go back to the case of the gentleman who was, obviously, in the 
country illegally. I recall he had had nine DWIs. On a third DWI in 
Texas, it can be raised up to a felony. That is how he ended up in my 
court, but not on the third DWI. He had had many DWIs. It was not 
brought to the DA's attention, because we had a terrific DA, but it 
just wasn't brought to his attention that this guy already had so many 
DWIs.
  The immigration authorities hadn't done anything, until, finally, he 
was driving drunk, hit another car, and did serious injury to people in 
the car. They were very loving, caring people. But he was clearly an 
alcoholic.
  So I sent him to prison, considering the safety of people in Texas. 
This guy was out there driving drunk that many times. It was a wonder 
he hadn't killed somebody. He certainly would kill somebody if he was 
not stopped. And, since he had not been deported, I felt, considering 
the need for deterrence, for punishment, for public safety, all that 
dictated that I needed to send him to prison; so I did.
  I was shocked that, within about 6 months, he was in my court again. 
I recognized him, and I asked him what he was doing back in my court. 
He said that he was charged with another DWI as a felony. I said: But I 
ordered him to prison. How does he end up, just in a matter of a few 
months, being back in my court for another felony?
  And he explained that, about 3 months after I sent him to prison, he 
was picked up by the immigration authorities at the prison, taken to 
the border, ordered to walk across the border, and he did. And he said 
that he waited until they drove away, and then he walked back across 
the border and ended up back in Smith County, Texas.
  So, on that occasion, I thought: Man, they are going to only deport 
the man if I send him to prison. And we don't have a wall. President 
Clinton certainly was not enforcing the border sufficiently during 
those years, so I thought: I still have to protect people here; so I 
will send him to a lockdown felony substance abuse facility where he is 
in a lockdown, he can't go anywhere, a confined place, with others who 
are either drug addicts or alcoholics.
  I got a report 3 or 4 months after he went into the felony punishment 
for substance abuse defendants that the immigration authorities at the 
time picked him up and took him to the border. And if it happened the 
way that he was deported the time before, as he told me, they told him 
to walk across the border, he did, he waited until the border 
officials, the immigration officials, left, and then he came right back 
across the border immediately.
  The only thing I don't know is where he ended up, if he continued to 
follow the trend and continued coming back into the country. A law 
enforcement officer said: Well, one thing for sure, he knows he doesn't 
want to come back to your court because he is going to get locked up 
one way or another. So, in all likelihood, after the immigration 
officials drove away, he probably came back and went to somebody else's 
county where he heard they didn't have a judge like me who would 
enforce the law.
  But it put people at risk, and Americans have known that. And 
Candidate Trump promised to do something about it, and he sure is 
trying, but he needs Congress' help.
  I still don't have any doubt that, at some point, we are going to get 
concessions from Mexico that will pay for the wall, but it needs to be 
done for our own safety, our own benefit. And even though there are 
those who say that is an outrageous thing to do to Mexico, it actually 
is the kindest, best thing we could ever do for Mexico.
  Those who have been there--my wife and I honeymooned in Mexico--it is 
a

[[Page H9591]]

beautiful, beautiful place, a wonderful place. We have vacationed 
there, certainly not in recent years. But it is incredible, the beauty 
that lies in different places in Mexico.
  And we know--from people there and from people who have come from 
Mexico into the United States: many of them I have gotten to know and 
love, people I went t church with, people who came legally--these are 
hardworking, God-fearing folks. And although it might be an over 
generalization, still the fact is that most of the people who emigrate 
to the United States from Mexico whom I have ever gotten to know--and 
it is a lot--they love God, they love their family, and they are 
hardworking.

  I also have to think an abundance of those three feelings are what 
made America the greatest, freest, most opportune country in the 
history of the world.
  I was reading again last night about Solomon's reign in Israel. 
Israel didn't even have the individual assets during that incredible 
wise man's reign--well, wise until he started having so many wives. 
That will take anybody's wisdom away from them. But an incredible place 
to have lived, with all of the advantages that were found in Israel, 
back during Solomon's reign.
  But they didn't have individual opportunity, individual assets, 
individual freedoms, like we have in America. And some people get to 
thinking--because they don't know the history of the world--they get to 
thinking that: Gee, even if things don't work out and we lose our 
freedom here in America, another America will pop up somewhere: a 
country that loves freedom to the extent that its own citizens will 
travel to other places in the world and fight and die for other 
people's freedom. I mean, there has just never been a place like the 
United States of America.
  And I have mentioned him before, and I will mention him again. The 
gentleman from west Africa named Ebenezer, an older gentleman, who, 
with other west Africans, met with me before I left. My wife had been 
there with Mercy Ships. And, ultimately, at the end of our reception 
together, he pointed out and said: America has been getting weak, and 
we were excited when you elected your first Black President, but we 
have seen America get weaker and weaker. And you need to know and tell 
people in Washington that when America gets weak, we suffer. He said: 
You know, we are Christians. We all know where we are going when we 
die. But our only chance of having peace in this life is if America is 
strong.
  There has not been another country, that I can find, in the history 
of the world that fought for, not imperialism, as some ignorant of 
history have said about the United States. Obviously--it should be 
obvious--not imperialism, because people in Germany and France speak 
German and they speak French, and people in Japan speak Japanese.
  I mean, we were not out for imperialism, we were out for freedom. We 
liberated Kuwait under George H. W. Bush. We didn't demand that they 
become colonies of the United States. They are an independent nation.
  In Bosnia, in so many places, we have spilled American blood for the 
freedom and benefit of others. There has never been a nation like this 
that had so many individual assets and opportunities. But whether or 
not they will continue has a lot to do with what this body does.
  A wall between us and Mexico--where it is appropriate, where it is 
needed--would be the best thing that we could do for Mexico because 
they have the natural resources, they have a better location for trade 
than the United States. They have hardworking, God-fearing people. So 
why are they not one of the top ten economies in the world?

                              {time}  1215

  It is clear the answer is corruption.
  Why is there so much corruption in Mexico? Because of the drug 
cartels and the drug money, the tens or hundreds of billions of 
dollars--billions, with a B, of dollars--that has gone to the drug 
cartels through the purchases of drugs, and, of course, they have 
gotten into bringing people across the border illegally.
  Border patrolmen have told me on many occasions I have been down 
there during the night that there is not an inch of the border between 
Mexico and the United States that is not under the auspices of some 
drug cartel.
  Some drug cartels, I was told, allow some Mexican gangs to carry out 
their jurisdiction and enforce their jurisdiction on that part of the 
border they control, but what the border patrolmen would tell me is 
that there is no one who comes across the border illegally in that drug 
cartel's sector who does not pay or does not do something to get the 
permission of the drug cartel to come in; because they are all told, 
when they are brought in illegally, that for those who still owe money 
and have agreed to work in the city where you are ordered to go by the 
drug cartel, if you fail to keep paying the drug cartels the money you 
owe them, you keep selling drugs to repay the money or engage in 
prostitution to repay the money, if you fail to do that: We have people 
all over the U.S. They will come and they will kill you.
  This stuff is going on in the United States.
  When Woodrow Wilson was President, certainly not my favorite 
President, but even Woodrow Wilson, after a Mexican gang led by Pancho 
Villa came across the U.S. border one time too many and killed a bunch 
of American families, Woodrow Wilson said enough is enough. They didn't 
have the wherewithal to build a wall where they needed it back then, so 
he sent American troops. Something new called the National Guard was 
also utilized.
  I have asked for the official number of U.S. troops that Woodrow 
Wilson, as President, sent to the border to enforce the border, and I 
have gotten anywhere from 15,000 to 150,000. I continue to get 
different figures. It may have been 75,000. Regardless, Woodrow Wilson 
sent American troops to stop people from illegally entering the 
country. He also sent a general after Pancho Villa.
  In the last administration, I have heard it said that no one has done 
more than the Obama administration to protect our border.
  I know no one said that intentionally misleading. They just were not 
aware that Woodrow Wilson sent potentially tens of thousands of 
American troops to the border so that nobody came across into the 
United States illegally to kill Americans the way Pancho Villa had done 
that invoked President Wilson into sending the troops.
  President Trump doesn't want to have to send so many precious 
American lives to stand around the border protecting us. Why should 
they, when, in so many places, all we need is to build a wall and have 
it enforced the way Israel enforces its wall.
  The irony about the Israeli wall, as I have visited and been shown 
around their so-called wall, 75 percent of the Israeli wall that has 
saved an abundance of children's lives who were being killed by 
Palestinian radical Islamists--they could walk across, right into a 
basketball court or a schoolyard, blow themselves up, killing as many 
children as they could; walk into a restaurant where innocent people 
were sitting, having pleasant times together, many families, and blow 
themselves up to kill as many Israelis as possible. They did a 
remarkable job of cutting the violence by building a wall, 75 percent 
of which is a fence. The difference is, though, that their fence is 
monitored 24/7, and nobody comes across without them noticing and 
having people on the spot before the person can actually get across.
  We could do that. If Israel can do that, we could do that.
  Although there are Mexican leaders who have appeared to have been 
outraged, they have to know deep in their heart that, if we build a 
wall and stop the flow of American money, billions of American dollars 
into Mexico's drug cartels, they can't fund the corruption; they can't 
keep killing any police official that gets in their way, putting their 
heads on pikes to set an example for others that you don't mess with 
the drug cartels in Mexico.
  If we bring that flow of billions of dollars to a tiny trickle, then 
Mexico can begin to experience the kind of success that they should be 
experiencing. We could be the best neighbor Mexico could ever have if 
we just help them by building a wall, stopping anything from crossing 
the border illegally, including drugs, and you would have people 
wanting to go to Mexico and live permanently from America if they could 
trust the law enforcement situation there, which they really can't 
right now.

[[Page H9592]]

  I know there are plenty of Americans who have bought property there, 
but the restrictions on Americans buying property in Mexico is so 
significant, if we applied the same terms on Mexicans seeking to buy 
property in America, the whole of Mexico would be absolutely outraged 
that we were treating them the way they treat us.
  As this article in the Washington Examiner points out that President 
Trump said it, and he is accurate in saying it, the Kate Steinle 
verdict is one more reason to build the wall. I hope and I pray we 
won't have to wait until more people are killed, as is occurring 
regularly, by illegal aliens.
  It doesn't even have to be deaths. I mean, constituents of mine have 
been harmed by people who come into this country illegally, driving 
without a driver's license or driving without insurance, hitting cars, 
whether they do injury to the occupant or not.
  I mentioned before, a girl weeping. She is in high school. She has to 
work. An illegal alien rammed her car, had no insurance, and she and 
her mom, single mom, could only afford the insurance for others, 
liability insurance; they couldn't afford the insurance to cover 
themselves, so she couldn't replace her car. If she can't replace her 
car, she cries that: I can't work, and my mother and I can't live.

  How can you let people come in illegally and do such harm to 
Americans and wreck our lives? He even drove away in his car without a 
license, without insurance. He drove away in his car after he totaled 
hers.
  It is time that we did the job we took an oath to do. If we enforce 
the Constitution, the laws of the land, then Americans will be 
protected and we become stronger.
  Because of the idealistic nature of this Nation, it has assured the 
freedom of more and more people: first the people in our own Nation--
the Constitution eventually came to represent what it said, all people 
were to be treated equally--and now to the point that, for 100 years, 
we have been in wars off and on that ensured freedom for others as 
well.
  It is time to build the wall.
  In the meantime, hopefully, we are about to have a major tax reform 
bill. I would like to have seen a flat tax across the board. You make 
more, you pay more. The more you make, the more you pay. That is not 
what we have done, but it is a reform.
  It will mean that even more poorer Americans pay no income tax, and 
the poorer working poor, fewer of them will pay any income tax, and 
people will pay less tax.
  The only rate that is not lowered in the tax proposal the House and 
Senate had was the wealthiest Americans. That was left at 39.6 percent.
  Some of us think we should have had a smooth, even percentage cut 
across the board for everybody. How could you argue that that was not 
fairness? Republican leaders thought: No. We will leave the highest 
rate on the wealthiest Americans. We will leave that percentage right 
where it is so we can't be accused of taxing the poor to help the rich.
  Now, some will take the actual numbers of the amount of money that 
will be saved and say: See, people who are making more are saving more.
  Well, yeah. People who pay a lot more in income tax will save a 
little bit, but not nearly the percentage that people who are the 
working poor will save percentagewise.
  The best thing for the American economy will be the cut in corporate 
taxes. The corporate tax has been a gimmick by both parties for so many 
years, telling people: Oh, no. These rich, greedy corporations, we will 
make them pay.
  Well, that is hiding the ball, because the fact is no corporation can 
stay in business unless they pass on the cost of the corporate tax to 
their customers, their clients, for their goods and services. They have 
to pass on that cost or they can't stay in business. They just can't.
  We have the highest corporate tax of any industrialized nation in the 
world. China is a little less than half of our 35 percent. That is why 
President Trump was pushing so hard, as were many of us: Let's at least 
take it to 15 percent.
  Whatever the percentage is, unless it is zero, it is a tariff on 
Americans' goods and services. How insane for a country to put a tariff 
on its own goods and services so that it makes us less competitive in 
the world market.
  If you took away the 35 percent tariff called the corporate tax on 
American-made goods, we could compete globally; but because we put such 
a huge tariff on our own goods, 35 percent, then our goods are far too 
often not competitive in the world market.

                              {time}  1230

  If we make our own products competitive anywhere, people around the 
world, if American prices were more competitive, they would love to buy 
American products.
  When some of us went to China, talked to CEOs about why they moved 
there, I heard the number one answer being the corporate tax.
  I loved hearing them say: Now, our best quality control was in 
America.
  We have got better quality control. We have got better quality of 
workers. I love hearing that around the world. Yeah, the best workers 
are in America, best quality control for our products is in America, 
lowest margin of error among our plants is in America. We make good 
stuff. Those who take pride in what they do, that is an American way.
  People would love to buy them, but not when our 35 percent tariff we 
put on our own corporate-made goods are not able to compete as they 
would if we removed it.
  But at least at the 15 percent the President and some of us were 
pushing for--we would have undercut China's income tax for 
corporations, and just even a point or two undercutting China's income 
tax or corporate income tax would have brought so many manufacturing 
jobs back to America.
  I know there are elitists in America who say: Well, yeah, but those 
manufacturing jobs, those are not for classy countries like America. 
No, we have evolved upward into a service economy. We provide elegant 
services. We are not into manufacturing goods. We leave that to more 
developing nations.
  But the historical fact is clear: any powerful nation that cannot 
manufacture what it needs in a time of war will not be a powerful 
nation past the next war.
  Just as Jesus assured there will always be wars and rumors of war, we 
have to be aware. As long as we are in this world, we have to protect 
our country, protect ourselves, and it doesn't matter if you are a 
Christian or not a Christian. Those who are Christian sometimes say: 
Oh, yeah, but Jesus said we have got to love our neighbors as 
ourselves. Blessed are the meek, his Sermon on the Mount and all.
  That is absolutely the way Christians are supposed to live, but when 
they are acting as the government, we are to be mindful of Romans, 
Romans 13. The government is to be an encourager of good conduct. We 
are not supposed to design programs to lure people away from their 
productivity, lure them away from their potential and that wonderful, 
awesome feeling of multiple employers wanting you to come work for 
them.
  Too many young people have never experienced that. I really believe, 
with a major tax cut like we have passed in the House, there will be 
more and more young people that will know that feeling. It is such a 
gratifying feeling when multiple firms want you to work for them. You 
can decide whether you want to be on your own, start your own business, 
or go to work for someone. It is just an awesome feeling.
  The economy has struggled so, never hit 3 percent growth in any year 
in the last 8 years, and now we have had 2 months back-to-back where we 
hit over 3 percent growth. If we can do that, we are going to bring in 
more Federal revenue, even with the lower taxes. It is going to be 
great for America. People are going to see what it is like to have more 
companies wanting you.
  We do need to come to grips with the number of people we are allowing 
in this country, both illegally and legally. No country in the world 
allows a million people to come into its country legally like the 
United States does. We allow that many legally.
  I happen to be helping a fellow Texan who emigrated from Mexico, has 
been here on visas legally for 15 years. She is trying to get her 
citizenship. She has done everything she can legally, but it gets 
really frustrating for someone from Mexico who is following the rules,

[[Page H9593]]

following the law, doing everything according to American law.
  That is the kind of person we want to come here, someone who has 
respect for the law.
  We are helping her try to get her citizenship, but, unfortunately, 
that part of our government is only now looking at applications from 
September of last year. Hoping not to have to get yet another visa, 
surely this greatest Nation in the world could move faster on 
applications for citizenship and visas. Surely we could at least work 
as fast as Third World nations that don't have computers. Apparently, 
in some cases, we don't.
  We owe it to all of those who have sought to come into America 
legally and to all of those who were born here, at least born here and 
are American citizens. The children of diplomats who are born in the 
United States are not U.S. citizens.
  Originally, when the 14th Amendment passed--and you can go back and 
look at the debate, back at the time--the advocates for the 14th 
Amendment were saying obviously there will be people who have children 
born in America whose children will not be citizens. They contemplated 
that would be diplomats from foreign countries who are in this country 
legally as diplomats of foreign countries. Their children would not be 
citizens, and they are not.
  They also contemplated that, if you snuck into this country 
illegally, certainly your children would not be citizens. That would be 
insane. Yet what they thought would be insane is the way things have 
been interpreted for far too long.
  We ought to be able to say who can come into the country legally and 
approve anybody who comes in, whether legally or illegally, for 
citizenship on our own terms. That is the way it needs to be if we are 
going to perpetuate this amazing blessing of a country.
  I didn't deserve to be born here, but I was. And if we are going to 
continue to be a light on the hill that so many hundreds of millions of 
people around the world want to come to, then we can't let hundreds of 
millions of people come here or it would overwhelm the country and it 
would no longer be a place anybody wanted to come. At that point, the 
greatest hope for peace in the world, the United States, would cease to 
be the United States we have come to know and love.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________