[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H75-H78]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Estes of Kansas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about action that needs

[[Page H76]]

to be taken on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. I have spent 
a lot of time down on our Nation's southern border, and I was quite 
pleased, last year, when Border Patrol friends told me information 
indicated that, after President Trump was sworn in, the number of 
people coming into the United States illegally slowed to a trickle, 
that it was a dramatic decrease, and that continued for awhile. But, 
during the summer, as discussion about DACA started coming out, I was 
told, and, apparently, the numbers indicate, the surge began anew.
  What I have heard over the years is anytime anyone in Washington 
starts talking about amnesty, legalization of any kind for people who 
have come into the United States illegally, there is a fresh surge 
across our border.
  I have been told by border patrolmen, they hear people talking who 
have come in illegally--whether before processing, during processing, 
after processing, during the holding procedure, it is made very clear, 
since they are willing to come into the country illegally in violation 
of United States laws, that they want to get here before there is any 
legalization. And it makes sense, as I am told, that they are willing 
to come in in violation of U.S. law. They are also willing to say that 
they came in a previous time and, you know, backdate it, different 
identity, different date they came in, whatever is required in order to 
get legal status.

                              {time}  1845

  I appreciate hearing from my constituents, I always do, and I 
appreciate getting the opinions and thoughts of constituents from my 
district, the First District of Texas. They are always welcome.
  In the last couple of days, I have gotten a stack of petitions in my 
office regarding a push to support what they are calling a clean 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals reform, but it raises some 
questions. The best I can tell by the words ``clean bill,'' they mean 
one that provides amnesty with no strings attached. However, all these 
petitions have been provided, actual names and addresses are only on a 
handful of them, many have names written in the same handwriting in 
ink, and there are numerous unsigned blank petitions in the stack we 
were provided.
  In addition, I want to point out that, every time DACA legalization 
is mentioned, we have greater surges of people into our country 
illegally; and every time there is a surge, there are people who die 
trying to get into this country illegally, bodies found. We have the 
reports of a dramatic number of young girls, even some boys, who are 
pulled into sex trafficking, drug trafficking, as a way to pay off 
their debt to the drug cartels that control the area of the border that 
they were allowed to come across by the gang that brought them across.
  It should be noted, every young person in America has dreams. The 
best way to achieve the greatest number of dreams for the greatest 
number of people in the United States is if we enforce the law across 
the board fairly.
  I keep being amazed, and I have asked questions at our hearings:
  So why did these people come into the United States illegally?
  Well, because there are more jobs and opportunity.
  No, but why did they leave where they left, where they fled?
  Well, there was no opportunity there.
  Why was there no opportunity? Why were there no jobs there?
  Well, there is so much corruption. They don't enforce the law fairly.
  So what we are being asked to do, instead of using political efforts 
to get these countries that people have fled to fix their political 
system, we are supposed to change our laws here so that those who have 
been working--I have helped some people 17 years trying to get into the 
country legally--they will be treated unfairly, because they have been 
trying to do things legally, in favor of people who violated the law to 
get here.
  It kind of seems like we are being asked to become the kind of 
country they fled, where the law is not enforced fairly across the 
board. It sounds like the ultimate irony.
  Until our border is made secure, we should not be discussing passage 
of any legalization bill. We should stop talking about legalization 
until the border is secure. When the border is secure, then we can work 
things out.
  It is so ironic to me, the very people who are demanding a big 
amnesty, legalization, whatever you want to call it, say, ``We don't 
want a wall, we don't want the border secure,'' which means we will 
have to come back and have this discussion in the next couple of years 
all over again.
  It was supposed to have ended in 1986. We will get border security in 
return for the amnesty. We got the amnesty, and we didn't get the 
border security.
  I am joined by a friend, a very dear friend, who wrote speeches for 
his hero, a hero of mine, Ronald Reagan, who knows very well what 
happened in 1986.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
also want to thank Mr. Gohmert for the great courage that he has had on 
this issue, the fact that he has been willing to speak up for something 
that the establishment in this country is trying to shut us up about, 
trying to put blinders on the American people about what is going on 
and how we are losing our country.
  I was there with Ronald Reagan, and, yes, he was sold a bill of goods 
in 1986. He was told there were 3 million illegals in the country; and 
that is what we are going to do, we are going to legalize their status. 
He had a good heart, Reagan had a wonderful heart, and he saw these 
people were being exploited and living in the shadows. Three million 
people, you could take care of that, but the agreement has to be that 
we are now going to control our borders.
  Of course, back then, there was never even any question about whether 
someone who is here illegally should be getting a government benefit or 
be able to be treated just like a U.S. citizen, that wasn't even in the 
works, but Ronald Reagan said: Okay. We will secure the border, and 
then we will make sure that we take these 3 million people and save 
them.
  Instead, how did it end up? The border security was done not even 
halfheartedly. We ended up, when all was said and done, with not 3 
million people, but 11 million people who eventually came here based on 
that amnesty program.
  Well, today, it is a lot worse what we are facing. Today, the 
American people are being told a lie. Maybe someone is not just lying 
directly to them, but they are feeding them a false image of what the 
issue is today.
  How many people have heard about the DREAMers, these wonderful young 
people, yes, who came here at an early age? The American people are not 
being told what we are talking about when we talk about the DREAMers. 
Most Americans think we are talking about 25,000 or 30,000 kids at the 
most. That is what most Americans think we are talking about.
  What we are talking about is 850,000 young people, who, yes, have 
dreams, and most of them are fine young people, I am sure, but they are 
here illegally, they have been brought here illegally by their parents, 
and they want their status legalized.
  What will that do? 850,000 young people, not 25,000, almost a million 
young people, and all right, what will happen when they are legalized? 
Well, what we are not being told is, as soon as they are legalized, 
they then have the rights of everybody else, as anyone who is residing 
here legally should, and, thus, they are eligible for family 
reunification, and their families that are now being brought in from 
other countries then have the right to bring in their families. So we 
have a family reunification that creates a snowball effect and millions 
and millions more.

  Then, of course, we also have, with the legalization, the eligibility 
for government benefits, which, as I say, during Reagan's time, there 
wasn't any question you are not going to give benefits to illegal 
immigrants. Well, now we find illegal immigrants receiving education 
and healthcare benefits just as if they were American citizens.
  In California, they have even treated criminals as if they are 
citizens, setting up sanctuary cities and sanctuary States.
  Let me note that, with free education and free healthcare, there is 
no limit to the number of people around the world who will want to come 
here. By the way, there is no securing the border as long as we are 
giving education and

[[Page H77]]

healthcare benefits to people who have come here illegally.
  In fact, what we are talking about now is basically opening up major, 
major expenditures in our budget, that right now we can't afford even 
to take care of our own people, yet we are going to have an obligation 
not just for these 850,000 young people, but all of the people whom 
they will bring in as well, not to mention the millions of other young 
people throughout the world who will say: My gosh, if I could get 
there.
  And mothers and fathers throughout the world: We have got to get our 
child there so they can get the education and healthcare that is being 
provided to young people even when they come there illegally.
  Now, let us note, for funds for our education system, our own young 
people are suffering from a lack of funds for their education; we lack 
money to have a very good healthcare plan for our people, yet the 
millions of other people who have come here illegally, we are going to 
let them drain that money and invite millions more people to come here 
from overseas.
  This is the most dishonest debate that we have had. That whole 
concept of having millions and millions more coming in because of DACA, 
the DREAMers? No, no. This is being kept out of the debate; this isn't 
going to be part of America's vision of what is going on.
  The idea that we now have veterans whom we cannot afford to take care 
of, we have children of our own people whom we cannot afford to 
educate, we have seniors whom we are trying to take care of, all of 
these are expenses that we have, and we are already in the hole, yet we 
are going to take care of millions of other people who have come here 
illegally, starting with the DREAMers?
  There are not just 10 million, by the way, 11 million people here 
illegally. Let me be clear. We have got, I am guesstimating, 20 
million, but I bet there are other people who are much more 
sophisticated in their analysis than I am on this who say it is even 
more than 20 million people who have come here illegally.
  So what happens? We are draining our resources for people who have 
come here illegally.
  What does that mean? We don't care enough about our own people. That 
is what we are really saying. Those people are more important than our 
own people.
  Then, of course, you have the fact that people are coming here, and, 
yes, they are able-bodied, yet they still get education and healthcare, 
but they get jobs, and, yes, they bid down the wages of people at the 
lowest end of our spectrum.
  I used to be an ice cream scooper at Marineland snack bar. That is 
what I did when I was in high school. I scooped ice cream.
  You know what, those jobs now, what we have got are people who have 
gone into those jobs so that in order to get people to work for them, 
they haven't had to increase the wages of the people at that level. And 
if they have increased wages, they haven't increased the wages as much 
as they would have had to had they not had groups of people there who 
say: I will do that work at half the price.
  Something else I was, I was a janitor in college. I was a janitor, 
and I cleaned toilets. There is nothing wrong with anybody, whatever 
work they have got. We know that we respect every working person in 
this country.
  Yes, I cleaned toilets, and guess what? I looked back a few years ago 
and found that the salary, the wages, of people who clean toilets has 
not gone up, the janitors are not making more money.
  Now, why is that? Are we saying that people who work at lowly jobs 
aren't worthy of having a pay raise, they shouldn't benefit? The income 
of our Nation now is three or four times higher than it was, yet those 
people in the lower scale have not been going up with that. The main 
reason is those lowly jobs that they get, they have been bid down, the 
salaries have been bid down by this massive flow of illegals.
  Now, if we care about our people, we have to ask: What is America? 
America is not one race, not one religion, not one ethnic group. 
America is a country in which we believe in freedom and we have come 
from every ethnic group and race in the world.
  What makes us Americans, then, is that we have to care for each 
other. We are an American family, but that being an American family 
means we must take care of those people who are less fortunate in our 
country before we spend and even borrow more money in order to take 
care of the needs of people who have come here illegally.
  Let us just note the worst part of this whole debate is that 
Republicans and others who are concerned about this are being labeled 
like we are anti-immigrant. Well, in fact, we know that immigration is 
an important part of our country.

                              {time}  1900

  But this is the greatest lie of all because we believe that our 
country has been prospered by having a legal immigration system. We, in 
fact, take in a million legal immigrants a year. So anyone who is 
thinking about this should think about it. That represents more legal 
immigration into our country than all the other countries of the world 
combined, allowing people to immigrate into their country, all the 
other countries of the world.
  Yet, because we don't want to destroy this system, we don't want it 
to go out of control, we are being labeled as anti-immigrant, even 
though we sing praises for those people who have come here legally.
  In fact, the people who are the most anti-immigrant are the ones who 
mix the title ``illegal'' and ``legal'' together. And what we have got 
now is the worst possible outcome in that we have limited resources 
being drained away from our own people of every race, religion, and 
ethnic group, and jobs that are being bid down by illegals; and 
everyone, including legal immigrants, are being hurt.
  But what we have now is a recognition that we cannot even enforce the 
law. We have sanctuary cities in which criminals are being kept from 
being arrested by Federal agents.
  What is that all about? Who do we care for?
  Now we are saying our police can't even protect our families; and 
that if there is some criminal gang from another country that comes 
here, that we are going to have a sanctuary State or a sanctuary city 
for these people.
  This is absolutely ridiculous. It is a horror story, and it is up to 
us to alert the American people that we are losing our country. We are 
losing our country. And when I say ``our country,'' us, United States 
is us, every race, every religion, every ethnic group.
  Let us care for each other. Let anybody who is saying we care more 
about someone who is coming here illegally from another country, I 
don't care how old they are, their children, yes, are less important 
than our children. Those people's well-being, yes, are less important 
than the well-being of all Americans, whatever their status in this 
society. We need to make sure we make that clear.
  And DACA, if we bring in 850,000 young people and encourage millions 
more to come in by doing that, we have betrayed the interests of our 
own people, and they are looking to us to protect them.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman personally witnessed what 
happened after the amnesty of 1986. President Reagan rightly said that 
we can't have an amnesty unless we have proper border security. They 
put it in the same bill. They got the amnesty and there was no follow-
up.
  Let's say we want to do the best to help young people, the world 
over. My friend here has already illustrated what happens. There are 
rules for radicals. You want to bring down the United States, 
apparently you bring as many people into being totally reliant on the 
government, so you bankrupt the government, destroy the government. 
That is how you eliminate the greatest, most representative government 
in the history of the world.
  Then what happens to young people around the world when there is no 
America to stand up against repressive regimes? What happens?
  Who is benefited by bringing down the United States by overwhelming 
our system, running the $20 trillion debt up much higher? Who is 
benefited?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are people who, 
with sinister motives, are trying to destroy the United States of 
America. They are

[[Page H78]]

there. There are people out there who hate us for what we stand for. 
They have always hated America. We have been what stood between the 
forces of evil on this planet for 200 years now.
  If it wasn't for our guys--my mom and dad left North Dakota, these 
small farms--out to fight in World War II, we saved the world from 
Nazism and from Japanese militarism.
  And then during the Cold War, we stood firm until communism--that 
evil that wanted to create atheistic dictatorships throughout the 
world, thinking that that is going to cleanse us from our profit 
motive, the idea that we are going to change human nature but we are 
going to establish dictators and dictatorships and murder millions and 
millions of people, we defeated that evil. We held firm until it had a 
chance to collapse on its own.
  Now we face radical Islam, which is not a force, by the way, that--it 
is a powerful force. There are Muslims who hate us. There are Muslims 
who love us as well. But there are Muslims who hate us, who have lots 
of money and lots of oil. We cut deals with them, so they have lots of 
money and resources.
  And what did they do?
  They have financed terrorism to try to terrorize us into retreat. 
They hate America. They hate America. These are forces. And there are 
still forces in the world today that hate us, and that group is 
applauding when we lose control of our borders.
  And you know darn well the terrorists of this world have seen those 
open borders to the South, and the terrorists are among us.
  But we also have lost control of what you are talking about; that 
loss of control will destroy our chance to have an economic activity 
that succeeds in establishing a currency and a system in which 
prosperity and a good life for ordinary people can exist.
  No, it is going to go down unless we stop this massive flow. And the 
massive flow is already gone, but it will become a flood of people if 
we send the message: Kids who get here get free education, free 
healthcare, legalized status, and they will bring their parents in.
  We will have tens of millions of more people flooding our country. I 
can't agree to that.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been to Iraq a 
number of times together, to Afghanistan, to different places in the 
world. It seems pretty clear, after our effort to create a democratic 
republic in Iraq, that if a nation's people have not been properly 
prepared and educated to maintain a democratic republic, they won't 
keep it. It seems pretty clear from the places we have been together.

  I will never forget Christian friends that I made in west Africa, who 
sat me down at the end of the week and said they wanted me to 
understand that they were so thrilled when we elected our first Black 
President. But since he was elected, they said: We have seen America 
get weaker and weaker, and we wanted to make sure you took a message 
back to Washington that we are Christians, we know where we go when we 
die. But our only chance of having peace in this life is if America is 
strong.
  I will never forget those words.
  They said: Please stop getting weaker. We suffer when you are weaker.
  And most of the people who are pouring across the United States for a 
better way of life, they are not coming to weaken us. They are coming 
with their own hopes and aspirations.
  But I ask: What would be better? What better neighbor would we be to 
continue until so many come in, our system fails and goes bankrupt, as 
California is doing now?
  Or would we be better to say: Let's build a wall where it is 
necessary. Let's totally secure our border. Let's cut off the 70 to $80 
billion that is flowing from the United States into the drug cartels of 
Mexico, that allows them to corrupt the Government of Mexico and the 
local governments and terrorist people and put police heads on stakes 
to terrorize us. Let's cut off that 70 to $80 billion, however much it 
is.
  Let's totally secure the border. And people who love their Mexican 
heritage are--other countries in Central and South America, they love 
their heritage, but they can't make it.
  Why don't we help cut off the corruption by cutting off the flow of 
money out and drugs into our country? Why don't we work on that? 
Wouldn't that be a better neighbor to our friends to the South?
  There is no reason Mexico is not one of the top 10 economies in the 
world. They have got the wonderful people, hardworking folks. They have 
got the resources. They have got a fantastic location. There is only 
one reason that they are not, and that is because of the corruption 
that their drug cartels bring from U.S. money flowing into Mexico.
  Maybe we would be better off helping all of those millions of people 
who want to come here by helping them be a country that is one of the 
top in the world.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, establishing the rule of law here will 
not only protect our own people, will not only make sure that our own 
less fortunate people are bid into low-paying jobs so that people who 
work as janitors, as I did, and as decent people are doing now, that 
their wages aren't bid down; they can live a decent life so their 
families can live with some security here. So by doing that, we will 
also take away this major instability that we are creating throughout 
the world by not obeying the rule of law.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I so much appreciate my friend. I don't 
like to use ``colleague'' with Dana Rohrabacher because he is so much 
more than that. He is a dear friend and a brother, and I will treasure 
most of the times that we have spent together in traveling, trying to 
do right for the United States and the world.
  One other thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on before we finish up, 
and that is the issue that is coming, we are told, this week, regarding 
Section 702 reauthorization.
  We are told that the folks in the deep state have made very clear 
they want what they call a clean reauthorization. Nothing clean about 
it when you look at how 702 is spent.
  So just spend a couple of minutes here, based on an article entitled 
``How the FBI and DOJ Intelligence Units Were Weaponized Around 
Congressional Oversight'' from January 8, 2018. It goes through this 
scenario.
  Sometime in early 2016, Admiral Rogers--talking about Admiral Mike 
Rogers, not the Mike Rogers that was here in Congress--became aware of 
an ongoing and intentional violation of Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act Section 702 surveillance, specifically item 17, which 
includes the unauthorized upstream data collection of U.S. individuals 
within NSA surveillance through the use of ``about inquiries,'' where 
they do a surveillance of someone foreign, capture American citizens, 
which would violate our Fourth Amendment rights, except that those 
names are masked and, supposedly, all kinds of efforts to protect that, 
so it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, supposedly.
  But this article points out that they get all of these conversations 
in the database, and then they can do inquiries about people, subjects, 
and capture that information about Americans, basically allowing them 
to get around the Fourth Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend this article. We see what occurs when we don't 
have proper oversight. And Section 702, as being proposed, does not 
give us the proper oversight, and I hope that we will look further at 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________