[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 95 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5016-H5018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, just to follow up on what my good friend 
from Iowa (Mr. King) was saying, there is an article here from this 
week--Hans A. von Spakovsky says: ``Alabama is arguing that by 
including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, it 
deprives the State of representation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. The key to Alabama's case is the definition of 
`persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. This is 
not an issue the court has addressed before.''
  That is interesting.
  ``Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit 
against the U.S. Census Bureau. If the State wins, it could have major 
political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political 
representation in Congress.''
  And I might insert parenthetically here, I heard my friend, the 
delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was talking about 
hoping to have a vote, whether it was making D.C. a State or whatnot. 
But in the little research that I ended up doing after I got here is I 
have seen the license plate, ``Taxation without representation.'' I 
thought: Well, you know, of course, that was something that was said 
during the Revolution, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' 
Ben Franklin said, if we don't get to elect even one of the members of 
parliament that put taxes on us, then they should not be able to put 
taxes on us.

  So I am familiar with that situation, but I didn't know, until after 
I had been here awhile, I find out that territories, like--or any U.S. 
property that is not part of a State, they do not have a U.S. 
representative because the Constitution is very clear, very succinct, 
it says that the representative shall come from the several States.
  In the late 1970s, all of the proponents of giving Washington, D.C. a 
representative, a U.S. representative, they understood there is only 
one way to do that, and that is to have a constitutional amendment to 
amend where it says the representative shall come from the several 
States and include, and the District of Columbia, something like that.
  Well, they passed it with a significant percentage in the House and 
the Senate that allowed it to go forward as a constitutional amendment, 
but they never got--in the late 1970s, they never got the requisite 
number of States because I guess, from the State standpoint, they are 
thinking: Well, if we ratify this as a constitutional amendment, it 
slightly, but still does, dilute a little bit of our power in the House 
of Representatives. So it didn't get the requisite number of States.
  But, again, after I was here, I was talking to a friend from Puerto 
Rico, and I said: I know there have been votes in the past about 
whether Puerto Ricans want to be a State or not. Why has that not 
passed previously? This is several years ago.
  And he said: Well, there are people that kind of like the current 
situation in Puerto Rico. It is the same as in Guam or the Mariana 
Islands or the U.S. Virgin Islands--all the areas that are not States, 
they are territories--because in those, as in Puerto Rico, because they 
do not elect a full voting representative into the U.S. House or 
Senate, then the Founders, up through the current time, have said it is 
not fair. Just like Ben Franklin said, it is not fair to make them pay 
Federal income tax, Federal tax, if they don't elect a full voting 
representative.
  So there is no U.S. territory, no non-State U.S. property that has to 
pay Federal income tax if they are not a State that elects a 
representative, except for the District of Columbia.
  And once I realized that, I went: Well, it may not seem to people to 
be a Republican issue, but that really is not fair for the District of 
Columbia, because the people in the District of Columbia pay Federal 
income tax.
  So if we are really going to be consistent, we are really going to be 
fair to the people of the District of Columbia, there is only one thing 
to do: Either make them a State, which a form of that was tried in the 
1970s and it didn't work, or the other--actually there are three 
things. The other is to make the law as it is for every other non-
State, that the residents of that non-State do not pay Federal income 
tax.
  So I filed that bill in a number of the Congresses, including this 
one. It was very basic, you know--residents of Washington, District of 
Columbia, will not pay Federal income tax, just like all the other 
territories. And I have been intrigued that I have not gotten support 
from Democrats, including the delegate from the District of Columbia.
  I understand, you know, folks like my colleague want to have a full 
voting U.S. representative. Fine. But why not let your constituents at 
least be treated like every other resident U.S. citizen of a non-State. 
Don't make them pay income tax until you get what you want. Maybe some 
day you'll get it, but until you do, why don't you join forces with me 
and just say: We want to pass this law; we are going to be fair to the 
residents of Washington, D.C. just like we are to all the other non-
States that are U.S. territories; we are going to say you don't pay 
Federal income tax.
  But I have been amazed that I am still not getting support from the 
other side of the aisle, just to be fair, until they--I am not in favor 
of making the District of Columbia a State. I like what the Founders 
did, with that one exception, they should not have to pay tax since 
they don't elect a full voting representative.
  So, anyway, I am hoping that at some point at least one or more of my 
Democratic friends will join forces with me and maybe we can push that 
issue to the floor so we can treat the residents of the District of 
Columbia fairly. But until the person representing the people here in 
the District of Columbia disagree, then it is

[[Page H5017]]

doubtful the Speaker would ever bring my bill to the floor so we could 
treat them fairly.
  Now, there is one other way that that could be handled, and I did 
file this bill some Congresses back, but it had even less support, so I 
didn't bother to file it again. So one way to be fair to the residents 
of the District of Columbia would be to say: No Federal income tax, 
since you don't elect a full voting representative.
  The other would be to do what was done in the late 1840s when there 
were major complaints from residents of the District of Columbia. They 
were part of the 10-mile-by-10-mile square District of Columbia, but 
were on the western side of the Potomac River. They were protesting. 
They were upset. Look, you are not using any of our land as Federal 
land, so why don't you just cede the land west of the Potomac back to 
Virginia and then we can participate in the election of not only 
representatives, but also two Senators? We will get to participate in 
that since you are not using the land.

                              {time}  1430

  Well, of course, nowadays, the Federal Government is using a lot of 
that land. You have not only Reagan National Airport, you have 
Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, and so many other things 
across the river.
  But back in the late 1840s, that was ceded back to Virginia. That is 
why when people look at a map of the District of Columbia, it is no 
longer a 10-mile-by-10-mile square. It is uneven on the west side 
because it follows the Potomac, going back to that ceding of land back 
to Virginia.
  So I have filed a bill before, and I am not planning on filing it 
again because it just didn't get any real support at all. But we drew a 
line with a metes and bounds description around all of the nonresident 
Federal buildings in the District of Columbia. We keep those as Federal 
enclaves, and then cede all of the other land east of the Potomac back 
to Maryland.
  I remember my friend from the District of Columbia, across the aisle, 
asking me one time on this floor, when I was talking about this bill: 
But what if Maryland didn't want to take this land back?
  And I looked at my friend, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, and I said--I am 
sure that our friend here, Mr. Hoyer, would say--any State would be 
thoroughly pleased to have you and your constituents as residents of 
their State. I didn't get an ``amen'' or ``sure, of course'' from Mr. 
Hoyer, but I am sure, deep in his heart, he felt that way. But, like I 
said, I never got any real support for that.
  So I am hoping, at some point, my friend from the District of 
Columbia will join me and say: Okay, at least until--and even if it 
doesn't happen--at least until it did happen, the residents of the 
District of Columbia should be treated fairly, like we do those from 
any other non-State, and don't pay income tax.
  I appreciate bringing those issues back up again. It is an easy 
solution. And I just feel like if we had a bipartisan effort to pass 
that, then we could get that done on behalf of the residents of 
Washington, District of Columbia.
  But, anyway, back to this article from the Heritage Foundation, June 
5, talking about the lawsuit about counting illegal immigrants in the 
Census. It says: ``Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of 
counting illegal immigrants in the Census gives States that protect 
them (California, for example) seats and votes they are not entitled to 
have.
  ``The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that 
Representatives in the House `shall be apportioned among the several 
States . . . according to their respective Numbers' ''--just like I was 
talking about--``with the `Numbers' determined by `counting the whole 
number of persons in each State.'
  ``After every Census, House seats are reapportioned according to the 
population of each State. Electoral College votes are reapportioned 
according to the number of each State's congressional Representatives.
  ``Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. 
Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. 
It is unjust to allow States to gain a political advantage over other 
States by flouting Federal immigration law.
  ``The number of Representatives in the House--435--has been fixed by 
the law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment 
is `a zero sum proposition: Each State's gain is another State's loss.'
  ``Alabama argues that by including illegal immigrants in 
apportionment, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are 
unfairly distributed.
  ``Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a 
seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana 
failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California 
gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and 
Texas each gained one seat and one vote.
  ``As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit: `four House seats and 
four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of 
illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.'
  ``Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census 
will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral 
College vote. It says this `will rob the State of Alabama and its legal 
residents of their rightful share of representation.
  ``This also violates the `one person, one vote' equal representation 
standard of the 14th Amendment. According to Alabama, `the gains from 
including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who 
live in State with large numbers of illegal aliens.'
  ``Why? Because it means that `in a State in which a large share of 
the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who 
live in States where a larger share of the population is made up of 
American citizens.' '' Which is an interesting argument.
  ``This results in `representational inequality' by devaluing the vote 
of Alabama's legal residents. This redistribution of political power 
`disincentivizes States with large illegal alien populations from 
cooperating with Federal immigration authorities (lest they lose 
political power that comes with additional Representatives and votes in 
the Electoral College),' Alabama argues.
  ``Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the Census `punishes 
States who do cooperate with Federal immigration authorities in the 
identification and removal' of illegal aliens, Alabama's lawsuit 
states.
  ``Alabama's final complaint is monetary. Including illegal immigrants 
in the Census, it says, will likely cause it to lose its fair share of 
the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the Federal Government 
in grants and other funds.
  ``The key to Alabama's case is the definition of `persons' who should 
be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues the term 
`persons' was understood at the `time of the founding and when the 14th 
Amendment was ratified' to mean the `inhabitants' of a State.
  ``Furthermore, `in the public law of the founding era, the term 
`inhabitant' did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitance 
was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by 
the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside,' Alabama 
argues.

  ``In other words, `persons' does not include individuals who are in 
the U.S. illegally, without the permission of the Federal Government.
  ``The `Residence' rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 
Census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated 
to the State where their `usual residence' is located, regardless of 
whether they are legally present.''
  There is some hypocrisy, I have noticed, among some of our friends 
here. On the one hand, they are constantly saying: We have to bring 
these illegal aliens, undocumented people, whatever they want to call 
them, we have to bring them out of the shadows.
  And I remember, on one occasion, we had a bunch of folks claiming to 
be illegal aliens in the gallery right here. They were shouting and 
proud to be illegal aliens at some point. I looked up, looked around 
the gallery at all of these people making noise, have T-shirts, and I 
thought: It doesn't look like they are in the shadows to me. I mean, it 
looks like there is plenty of light up there.
  They keep using the term that they are ``in the shadows,'' yet 
Alabama has

[[Page H5018]]

this lawsuit and they are saying: We need to know who is in the country 
illegally and who is not so we can get a fair count.
  And people that have been saying, on the one hand: We want everybody 
that is coming into the country illegally to come out of the shadows; 
when it comes to apportionment, they are saying: No, no, no, no, we 
want them counted, but you can't ask them whether they are here 
illegally or not. So we want their status to stay in the shadows. We 
want to keep their status secret.
  Sanctuary cities are basically doing the same thing. They might as 
well put the Statue of Liberty out in San Francisco harbor saying: Give 
us your tired, your poor, your felons, your people that like to shoot 
other people and rob them, because that is basically what San Francisco 
has been saying: We don't care if you are a felon, we don't care if you 
kill people, you rape women, or raped anybody, we want you here, and we 
won't tell on you, so you come right in here.
  I am going to file a bill. I have been working on it too long. I 
haven't gotten the cooperation I thought I should from some folks. But, 
anyway, basically, I think it ought be a civil right living in a city 
in the United States that is violated when a city says: We are going to 
welcome, encourage, really try to recruit people to be in our city who 
are felons, who are here illegally and felons.
  And when that kind of action under State law robs people of their 
lives or their sexual purity or any other thing, there ought to be a 
cause of action against that city or that State that is saying: We 
encourage people that are here illegally and who are committing 
felonies, we want you here.
  That really ought to be a right of the others who are U.S. citizens 
that is being violated by the sanctuary city or the sanctuary State. So 
if a State or city wants to keep encouraging felons to live within 
their bounds and it costs people their lives or their property, there 
ought to be a civil rights lawsuit lodged against that State or city 
government, or county government for that matter.
  So we will get it done and we will get it filed. That way it is fair. 
So, say, if San Francisco, for example, wants to keep encouraging 
people, like the guy that shot Kate Steinle, to come into the city, and 
that way others may be similarly situated, as was Kate Steinle, and get 
shot and killed as they beg their daddy to help them, I mean, I just 
can't imagine anything much worse than that as a father.
  The father should not have his lawsuit thrown out of court, as 
happened in the Steinle case. We ought to give the means to the 
aggrieved party to say to San Francisco, or say to the city or State 
when they are acting as a sanctuary city or State: Do you know what, 
you can do that if you want, but you are going to monetarily pay to the 
people who are harmed under your State or city color of law. It just 
seems fair.
  So, hopefully, we will get something done on that and let the 
lawsuits commence against the sanctuary cities. As a former lawyer who 
tried a lot of cases, I have seen the good that can come. Sometimes 
there are places where the litigation system is abused, often a topic 
on FOX News, but there are some laws we don't really have to pass if 
you have a good court system that aggrieved parties can come in and 
they can sue and collect.
  And just the threat of that suit and collection voids the needs for 
us to come in here or run in and pass a law every time there is some 
illegality or impropriety or some damage done to other parties. Let the 
courts mete it out.
  When somebody is penalized financially in a sufficient amount, then 
it will change their conduct. I think you would see sanctuary cities 
change once their taxpayers realize they are going to keep paying out 
multimillion dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars constantly in 
court costs and damages assessed.

                              {time}  1445

  I bet you would see a whole lot of folks say: Do you know what? Maybe 
it is time that we quit having a sanctuary in our city for people who 
came in illegally and who also commit violent felonies or property 
theft or whatever it is. Let's protect people and give them that right 
through litigation.
  Now, this article from Bob Price says: ``Border Patrol Agents Arrest 
Sex Offenders, Gang Members in South Texas.'' It points out that: 
``Border patrol agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley Sector stopped 
sex offenders and gang members from making their way to their U.S. 
destinations over the weekend. During a 4-day period, agents arrested 
four child molesters and three gang members after they illegally 
crossed the border. The arrests include fugitives who fled the country 
to avoid prosecution and previously deported criminal aliens.
  ``Rio Grande City Station agents arrested a man who illegally crossed 
the border near Roma, Texas, on Sunday. During processing, agents 
learned the Salvadoran national was convicted in Angleton, Texas, in 
February 2015 for a 2014 charge of sexual assault of a child. The 
Salvadoran national received a 5-year prison sentence and was deported 
after being released early by prison officials.''
  And then obviously coming back, some other child was probably saved 
from another sexual assault, because I know from my experience as a 
prosecutor and a felony judge, when somebody is that kind of evil that 
they would commit that kind of assault on a child, it just seems to be 
the kind of evil that they keep coming back to.
  So it is something that needs to stop. Thank God we have Border 
Patrol officers who are protecting us.
  I would just encourage our own Republican leadership, what got 
President Trump elected was he was promising that we would build a 
wall. He was promising an end to the unconstitutional DACA that Obama 
did. He was promising no amnesties. So I think in the time we have left 
in this year, wouldn't it be a good idea if we as Republicans in the 
House quit worrying about a discharge petition and started being 
concerned about keeping our promises to the American people?
  Let's get the wall built where it is needed, but for heaven's sake, 
get the border secure. Secure the border so people coming in are coming 
in lawfully.
  We should not have to process anybody who comes in anywhere except 
through an authorized entry point into our country. If you try to come 
in another way, the Federal officers ought to do like the State of 
Texas officers do, and that is stand in the way: You are not coming 
into our country. You are not putting a foot on American soil until you 
come in legally.
  But the Federal officers haven't been doing that, and we need to make 
that happen as well. That is what we do. Once we have secured the 
borders, then we can work something out about who is here and who 
stays, who goes.
  But until then, the border patrolmen again reaffirmed for me this 
last week, every time we mention DACA, amnesty, any kind of 
legalization, any kind of stay, any kind of path to this, that, or the 
other, there is another surge of people illegally coming into the 
country. Let's stop the surges. Let's do whatever it takes to secure 
the border. Let's forget about discharge petitions.
  Concentrate on that secured border. That will keep our oath. That 
will keep our promise. That defends the Constitution, and it also 
actually helps people get reelected, because we kept our promises.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________