[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11505-11511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about something that is 
a rather important subject. Immigration has helped make us the greatest 
Nation in the world, and we want that to continue. We do not ever want 
our borders closed; we want them secured.
  Here to help in this conversation is my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta), to whom I yield such time as he may 
consume.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I believe the problem is simple: we need 
to secure our borders first. You wouldn't replace your carpet at home 
if you still had a hole in the roof.
  When you take that position, the question you are usually asked by 
people who support open borders is: Well, what do you want to do about 
the 11 million people who are here illegally?
  I usually answer that question with another question: What do you 
want to do with the 22 million Americans who couldn't find work this 
morning when they woke up? What do you want to do about the legal 
immigrants who came to America for an opportunity, with the opportunity 
that America promises for those who come here for a better life? What 
do you want to do about the high school dropout who has to wash dishes 
and may lose their job? Where do they go? What do you want to do about 
the single mom who works three jobs just to put food on the table so 
she could feed her family? What happens to her?
  Why when we talk about immigration reform is it always about the 11 
million illegal immigrants who came here knowingly breaking America's 
laws? What about the legal Americans? What about the American workers? 
Where is their voice in this debate? Who's speaking for them?
  When it comes down to immigration reform, I believe the answer is 
simple: let's secure America's borders first and protect America's 
workers.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments.
  It is interesting, and it really is heartbreaking, when you see so 
many people, like all of the masses that were here in Washington, to 
protest over the ObamaCare bill. Anyway, it is rather dramatic. The 
unions are now coming out. Of course union leaders were all for 
ObamaCare. Many of us said back at the time: Do you know what, when the 
union members find out what the union leaders have done to them in 
supporting ObamaCare, they are going to be exceedingly upset.
  Now when you look at the results of ObamaCare forcing so many people 
to part-time work--as my friend from Pennsylvania was alluding to, 
people now have been relegated to part-time work--they may lose that. 
When you combine the devastation of ObamaCare and people that are 
losing their jobs and are being forced to part-time work and now having 
to do more than one part-time job with less benefits, and then you add 
on it the Senate bill, especially for African Americans here, it is 
absolutely devastating. It is a devastating one-two punch to the gut of 
America when you look at the Senate bill and how many Americans will be 
really troubled to find employment.
  We have other people that are here that also wish to be heard. I 
yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Louisiana, Dr. 
Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank my friend, Louie Gohmert--Judge 
Gohmert--for having this hour together speaking on this important 
subject. My friend also is my neighbor. Our districts neighbor one 
another.
  We have constituents who see this issue, I think, very consistently, 
that is, that when we poll them, when we talk to our constituents, they 
are very clear on the issue of immigration. They say first and 
foremost, Congressman Fleming, whatever you do, do what Congress and 
the Presidents have not been willing to do, and that is secure the 
border and put internal security in that will prevent the visa 
overstays that are 40 percent of those.
  We have two lingering questions on the whole issue of immigration:
  One is, is immigration good for America? I would suggest to you that 
immigration has been good for America. All of our Forefathers, they 
were immigrants. They came here with the idea that they would receive 
religious liberty, they would receive opportunity when it comes to the 
economy, and they were quite willing and happy to contribute to that.
  But do you know what, there was no safety net. You had to dig it out 
of the land yourself. Over the years, particularly by the mid-60s, this 
Nation began to develop a very, very steep safety net program, now 80 
different welfare programs.
  This has been looked at very closely by the Heritage Foundation. What 
they tell us is that by having open borders, such as what we have now 
and will have in the future if we were to pass something like the 
Senate amnesty bill, that the cost to Americans would go up. One study 
I recently read said that for every household that receives amnesty, it 
is going to cost the hardworking taxpayers of America $12,433.
  So I would suggest to you that immigration can be a good thing for 
the economy--not open-border immigration, not illegal immigration, but 
legal immigration. What do I mean by that? That means that we allow a 
guest-worker program where people can come in and work our farms, work 
our trees. I have a lot of that in my district. But also the high end, 
the STEM workers--the scientists, technology people, engineering, 
math--where they can contribute so much to our country. Physicians 
coming from Asia, so many of those can do many good things.
  The other thing is trust. We have a trust deficit in this country 
right now. I've spoken about it before. We have the Dodd-Frank Act, 
which is barely implemented even after 3 years. Much of it probably 
will never be implemented. We have ObamaCare, which is about 3 years 
old. Much of it can't be implemented. We have a President who couldn't 
get Cap and Trade passed, so he's trying to pass regulations to do 
that. We have a President who couldn't get the DREAM Act passed, so he 
rolled out a regulation to make it occur as an end run around Congress. 
We have a President who has tried to convert the NLRB from a very 
balanced board to really manage labor unions and their relationship 
with management to a very pro-union political tool for government.
  So when we have a situation like that, what we really have is a 
President that picks and chooses the laws that he wants to enforce and 
he wants to obey and he wants to acknowledge and ignore the rest. By 
passing all of these massive comprehensive bills that Senators and 
Members of Congress don't even read before they are passed, all we are 
doing is offering a smorgasbord to the President that he can pluck just 
the parts that he wants, and he could add some more if he chooses to do 
that.
  Well, that makes him no longer a President. That makes him a ruler, 
and that is not the kind of government we have. We have a balance 
between three branches of government. That's the way our Founding 
Fathers determined it to be, and that's the way it should be today.
  I join my colleagues, I think, in this understanding, and that is 
that such legislation that passes from this House, or from the Senate 
for that matter, if in fact it creates an open border, a porous border, 
or in any way creates amnesty or a pathway to citizenship and we have 
not dealt with and certified, made verifiable borders that are under

[[Page 11506]]

secure control by our government, a sovereign government, and that we 
handle the visa overstay problems that we monitor and protect from 
that, if we have not done that, then we have not done our 
constitutional duties as Members of the House of Representatives.
  I thank my friend so much. And my other friends--we are filled with 
Members here who are ready to talk on this issue passionately--I think 
you are going to hear a lot more from this group that's here tonight as 
we talk more about this issue.
  I would just say, lastly, that we need to decide what is important 
for America first. We should determine what is good for the American 
citizens and the taxpayers. We certainly want to handle anybody who is 
here illegally in a humane way; but on the other hand, our first and 
most important responsibility is to the American citizens who are 
hardworking taxpayers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that it is not in order 
to engage in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I appreciate very much my 
friend from Louisiana. We do border at our State lines there. We can be 
just the best of friends and never worry about somebody being moved 
into the other person's district for redistricting purposes. But I 
appreciate so much the perspective. As a person who spent his 
professional life and his training all geared toward helping others, 
administering to others, and addressing their needs, I appreciate that 
perspective of an excellent physician here.
  At this time, I would also like to yield such time as he may consume 
to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for pulling this 
together and for yielding.
  I recognize the admonishment from the Speaker. I don't think, though, 
that we are constrained from raising objection when the President of 
the United States willfully violates his oath of office. It is not a 
personality issue; it is a constitutional issue.
  I would direct, Mr. Speaker, the attention to article II, section 3, 
in the United States Constitution that says that the President shall 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
  I have pointed out to folks of less education than anybody in this 
room that that doesn't mean you execute the law in a fashion you give 
it the death penalty. What it really means instead is that you carry it 
out, you enforce the law.
  I know that the President has taken an oath to do that, and he 
understands it. He gave a speech at a high school here in Washington, 
D.C. on March 28, 2011. When they asked him: Why don't you enact the 
DREAM Act by executive order, he said: I know you want me to do that, 
but I don't have the constitutional authority to do that. You've been 
studying the Constitution in high school and you know this: that the 
legislature, that's Congress, passes the laws; the President's job in 
the executive branch is to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch is 
to interpret the laws.
  Well, that is pretty clean and concise, and it is appropriate to be 
coming from a former adjunct professor of law at the University of 
Chicago; but he forgot his own lesson, and he forgot his own lesson a 
number of times, not only with immigration, but No Child Left Behind--
waived it. It is just a directive from the United States Congress 
signed by a previous President, and he waived No Child Left Behind.
  How about welfare-to-work, that long battle that lasted about 2 years 
here and resulted in who-knows-how-many vetoes by Bill Clinton, but he 
finally signed it. There was not room in there for the President to 
waive the work side of welfare, but he did it anyway.

                              {time}  1945

  When it comes to the immigration law, the directive there is that, 
when law enforcement encounters people who are unlawfully present in 
the United States, they are compelled to place them in removal 
proceedings. They shall be placed. That's the law. It doesn't say 
``may.'' We have had to now mount litigation against the President of 
the United States, in the name now of Janet Napolitano, to compel him 
by pleading to the court to keep his own oath of office.
  All of this is about expanding the dependency class in America. This 
is about making government bigger. It is about what the end result is--
higher taxes. It's about borrowing more money from the Chinese and the 
Saudis to run our government. The President got to the point where he 
didn't like his own law, ObamaCare, and announced in this pretty-hard-
to-figure-out way--I wasn't actually watching the Web site of the 
second in command of the U.S. Treasurer when the announcement came 
out--that we're going to extend ObamaCare and the mandate on employers 
by another year. He has no constitutional authority to do that either. 
The ObamaCare legislation says that the employer mandate shall be 
enacted each month after December 31, 2013. It doesn't say ``may.'' It 
says ``shall.'' The only way the President gets any of this authority 
that I've mentioned is by coming back to Congress and asking us to 
approve it.
  Now, when you see the rule of law undermined, Mr. Speaker, and when 
you see that the lines between article I, the legislative branch, and 
article II, the executive branch, are willfully blurred by the 
President of the United States, it eventually brings out a 
constitutional crisis. In the middle of all this constitutional crisis, 
we have, according to the people who want to grant amnesty, 11 million 
people who are unlawfully present in the United States. The law refers 
to them as ``illegal aliens.'' The President has said, I will not 
enforce the law against them unless they have committed a felony or 
three mysterious misdemeanors.
  They have pushed legislation in the United States Senate that says, 
really, this: other than those exceptions that I've mentioned--those 
who have committed felonies and have been caught at it, and I suppose 
if they would admit to it that would be another category in which 
they'd be disqualified--and other than those who have committed those 
mysterious misdemeanors, setting that aside, everybody who came to 
America before December 31, 2011, gets legalized, however they got 
here. Of course, especially if they arrived here illegally and if they 
overstayed their visas, they get legalized under the Senate Gang of 
Eight bill. Then, for those who would arrive after December 31, 2011, 
there is an implied promise that they have as much moral standing as 
the people who would receive the amnesty in the act of the law, so the 
implication powerfully is they also would receive their amnesty in 
their due time.
  So that is the definition, Mr. Speaker, of perpetual amnesty--amnesty 
that goes on forever. We are still working on restoring the rule of law 
since Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty act. We are working to restore it. 
If this Gang of Eight bill is passed or if legalization passes this 
Congress, what that says is all of those years of seeking to restore 
immigration law after the '86 amnesty act are all wasted. All of that 
labor, all of that effort, all of that preaching on principle and going 
back to the constitutional core is all wasted if we legalize people 
here. It's also retroactive amnesty. Anybody who is here or anybody who 
could ever get here, other than those exceptions that I mentioned, gets 
the path to citizenship. Whether you make it one more step or one less 
step, it's the same thing. It's a path to citizenship.
  ``Amnesty.'' We should understand what it is. To grant amnesty is to 
pardon immigration lawbreakers and to reward them with the objective of 
their violations. That's ``amnesty.'' I will debate anyone at any time 
on amnesty. I'm ready to do that any time myself, and I've defined 
``amnesty'' for a long time. The American people understand what it is 
even if they don't articulate it exactly the way that I suggested.
  Not only is it perpetual amnesty for anybody who is here and for 
anybody who would come here, it's also retroactive amnesty, which 
means, of those folks who were deported in the past, the bill actually 
sends an invitation through the language in the law that

[[Page 11507]]

says we didn't really mean it. We really didn't mean it. It's 
retroactive. Why don't you reapply and come to the United States. We'll 
put you in the same path as those other folks who jumped in ahead of 
the line and violated the law--committed the crime of crossing the 
border if they crossed it illegally or overstayed their visas--
committed a violation of a civil misdemeanor, which is still serious. 
Then of those who worked here, most all of them, if they were 
unlawfully present in the United States and if they lawfully could not 
work in the United States, committed document fraud in order to pull 
that off. The bill also grants amnesty for those who committed document 
fraud, and it grants amnesty for those who knowingly and willfully 
hired people who are unlawfully present in the United States and 
legally can't work. That's the situation we're dealing with.
  Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the destruction of the rule of law at 
least with regard to immigration law. If we can't reconstruct respect 
for the rule of law in the years since 1986, how in the world would 
anybody think we could reconstruct the rule of law in the years since 
2013? How could anybody think that because they want enforcement in the 
future that they have to sacrifice the rule of law today? How could 
they think that sacrificing the rule of law today doesn't mean that 
you've sacrificed the rule of law for the duration of the life of this 
Nation at least with regard to immigration? If you can make the 
argument that the rule of law can be set aside forever with regard to 
immigration, how then do you make the argument that there isn't some 
other sector of the law that has as much merit as those folks whom 
they're trying to get legalized now?
  There isn't anybody under the bill in the Senate or under the amnesty 
provisions that have been proposed here in the House who isn't going to 
be put in front of the line of those people who are in a foreign 
country politely and respectfully waiting their turns. There are at 
least 5 million people in various visa categories who have respected 
American law, and they're waiting in their home countries for the 
opportunity to come into the United States. We need to respect them. We 
need to respect the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the 
law to come into the United States lawfully and to follow the path of 
citizenship lawfully.
  I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of just last Friday when I 
was invited to speak before the State convention of the American 
Legion. They held it in Sioux City, Iowa. I was privileged to be there, 
and I gave a speech and talked about history and patriotism and those 
things that one would in that scenario. At the conclusion of this 
speech, I presented the medals to an American veteran who had not 
received the medals that he had earned. The certifications were not in 
order, and we had put those certifications back in order and had 
acquired all of his medals that he had had coming. We put them on a 
framework, and I presented them to this man. The man's name is--it's in 
the press in Sioux City now, I'm sure--Raul Macias.
  He came into the United States from Mexico at age 22. He married an 
American and was nationalized as an American citizen. He joined the 
Army at age 31 and was deployed over into Germany as a cold warrior 
when we were lined up against the Soviet Union. At one point, he 
wandered across the border into East Germany and was picked up by those 
folks wearing those uniforms. Thankfully, they released him and let him 
come back. He served our country, and he served our country proudly and 
honorably.
  After all of the words that I said on Friday and after I presented 
him the medals, I also presented him the microphone and said, This is 
your opportunity to speak. He said three words in his acceptance 
speech: ``Thank you, America.''
  That's a man who did it the right way--the kind of people we need to 
respect by the millions in this country who did it the right way.
  It's no respect to them if we destroy the rule of law. Legalization 
is destruction of the rule of law, and legalization is a path to 
citizenship. We must preserve, protect, defend, restore, and refurbish 
the rule of law with our immigration policy in the House. We are the 
last stop. We are the defense. We are the redoubt for the rule of law 
right here. I'm glad to count a lot of people in this Congress my 
friends. I'm glad to count those who stand for the rule of law as my 
closest friends.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate those observations so much, and 
it brings to mind our colleague from down in central Texas who is also 
a former district judge. He and I share that, but he was a district 
judge twice as long as I was.
  So many people say, Well, you've got to have compassion. Despite the 
allegations from friends on the other side, we have compassionate 
Republicans, and our hearts break for people. For one thing, there are 
all of those people who are out of work who really want to work now, 
and we haven't created that environment--through ObamaCare, through the 
welfare state, through the problems with not respecting and adhering to 
the law when it comes to securing the border. The government has the 
obligation, from both a Biblical perspective and a secular perspective, 
of enforcing the law and of making sure the people within its 
boundaries are protected who are lawfully there. That is the 
obligation.
  Sometimes defendants would come before me as they'd come before Judge 
Carter, from central Texas, during his days on the bench. They'd know 
you were a Christian, and they'd bring a big Bible and try to play on 
your senses--well, you've got to have compassion. I've got a big Bible 
here, and God has worked in my life, so now don't sentence me harshly. 
Judge Carter had one gentleman come before him who said, Judge, I know 
you're a Christian, so you've got to have forgiveness, and you've got 
to forgive me. Judge Carter replied, Sir, individually, I do forgive 
you, but the State of Texas sentences you to 20 years in prison.
  There is a difference. Individually, you can have that compassion and 
should, but when you're acting as the government, people expect you to 
have respect for the law, adherence to the law, so that there is a 
country in which people can come and feel safe, at least reasonably so, 
and understand that the law is going to be applied across the board.
  We have also been joined by our friend from Alabama. I am proud to 
have had him join Congress back 2\1/2\ years ago in the great sweep, so 
I yield to my friend Mr. Brooks from Alabama.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.
  I have a firm belief that, if the people understand the truth, then 
they'll make the right decision. There have been a number of arguments 
advanced by the other side on this immigration-illegal alien debate 
that are misleading at best, and I'm going to touch on a couple of them 
with your permission.
  First and foremost, there is the argument advanced that our economy 
is going to do better, and, hence, Americans will do better. Half of 
that is right. Bear in mind that the Senate Gang of Eight bill 
legalizes, at a minimum, 11 million illegal aliens who are now present 
in the United States of America. Also bear in mind that, over the next 
decade, according to the Department of Homeland Security report, the 
Senate Gang of Eight bill will bring into America lawfully, roughly, 33 
million foreigners who are not here presently. Now put those numbers 
together--11 million legalized plus 33 million to come in lawfully. 
That totals 44 million lawful workers added to the American workforce. 
That is out of 144 million total number of people who are employed in 
the United States economy, according to the June--last month--of 2013 
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  If you look at these numbers--if you bring in 44 million people--of 
course America's gross national product and gross domestic product are 
going to increase, but the misleading part of it is this: that does not 
necessarily translate into a higher standard of living for Americans 
and foreigners who are lawfully in America. Let me explain.

[[Page 11508]]

  The key is not the total GNP or GDP for our country. The key is the 
total GNP and GDP per capita. If our gross domestic product goes up a 
little bit but the population goes up a great amount, then we, 
individually--American families, individually--are now living under 
lower economic conditions. Stated differently, our standard of living 
has declined; and, in that vein, rather than just making an argument, I 
want to share some data that buttresses that argument.
  The Congressional Budget Office, which has been rather kind in my 
judgment to its evaluation of the Senate Gang of Eight legislation, 
issued a report called ``The Economic Impact of S. 744.''

                              {time}  2000

  This report was issued just last month in June of 2013. I'm going to 
quote for the record parts of that report:

       S. 744 would lower per capita gross national product by 
     seven-tenths of 1 percent in 2023.

  So over the next 10-year period of time, rather than our GNP growing 
per capita and America doing better individually, it declines under 
this bill. It's not just stagnant, the kind of stagnation that we have 
suffered for the last 5 or 6 years or so. There is a decline in GNP per 
capita, which means that the amount of money each American household 
has to spend to take care of their daily needs goes down because of the 
Senate Gang of Eight bill, because it is both legalizing and admitting 
into our country a total of 44 million foreigners who are going to be 
seeking jobs that Americans already have or that Americans want.
  Further in the report:

       Average wages for the entire labor force would be one-tenth 
     of 1 percent lower in 2023'' because of Senate bill 744. By 
     2016, just 3 years from now, that would be four-tenths of a 
     percent lower, where our wages again are going down.

  Also notably, in another admission, S. 744 will ``slightly raise the 
unemployment rate through 2020.''
  So not only do we have a suppression because of this amnesty, because 
of this open-borders nature of the Senate Gang of Eight bill of 
individual incomes, we also have more Americans who are unemployed, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office
  I think that their numbers, quite frankly, are rather kind to the 
Gang of Eight bill. I think it's going to be much worse. In that vein, 
let me share some other data points. According to The Heritage 
Foundation report that was issued a few months ago:

       Unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-
     skill U.S. born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, 
     or $2,300 per year. Unlawful immigration also drives many our 
     most vulnerable U.S. foreign workers out of the labor force 
     entirely.

  That's a big number, a drop in wages of $2,300 per year for low-skill 
American born and lawful immigrant workers.
  Here's another study, a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center that 
concluded that there were 7.8 million illegal aliens who were holding 
jobs in America. Okay? Stated differently, that's 7.8 million job 
opportunities that Americans have lost. Why? Well, quite frankly, 
because illegal aliens are often willing to work under the table, get 
paid under the table; because illegal aliens are often willing to work 
for less than Americans are; quite frankly, because illegal aliens are 
often willing to look the other way with respect to the worker safety 
laws that we have imposed in order to protect our American workers from 
bodily harm. There were 7.8 million job opportunities that were lost. 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform thinks that number is 
low. They have it at 8.5 million job opportunities lost to American 
citizens, and that's today before the Gang of Eight bill gets 
implemented.
  Harvard professor George Borjas found in a study released in April of 
2013, again just a few months ago:

       Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by 
     an estimated $99- to $118 billion a year.

  Let me read that again:

       Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by 
     an estimated $99- to $118 billion per year and generates a 
     gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107- to 
     $128 billion per year.

  Is it any wonder the United States Chamber of Commerce is spending 
millions of dollars to try to induce America to go with the Gang of 
Eight bill that will legalize 11 million foreigners and add another 33 
million foreigners over the next decade? They see profits coming from 
this increase in the size of the workforce, which in turn will decrease 
the wages that they pay not only to illegal aliens, but also to lawful 
immigrants, and also to American citizens. So that's where the United 
States Chamber of Commerce is coming from. They certainly have a 
financial interest.
  Now I want to emphasize something. We should not be debating bringing 
in these mass numbers of foreigners into the American workforce in this 
kind of context. America currently suffers a 7.6 percent unemployment 
rate. Asian Americans suffer a 5 percent unemployment rate. White 
Americans suffer a 6.6 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, Hispanic 
Americans suffer a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Even worse, African 
Americans suffer a 13.7 percent unemployment rate. And even worse, 
American teenagers suffer a 24 percent unemployment rate.
  Does it make sense to anybody that when we have unemployment in so 
many different segments of our economy so high that we should legalize 
another 11 million workers and bring in an additional 33 million 
workers over the next decade to compete for jobs when Americans are 
having such a difficult time in this economy not only getting jobs, but 
getting quality jobs?
  That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is a myth 
that the economy is going to become better because of this large 
importation and legalization of immigrants. Sure, America's GDP will go 
up, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the quality of life 
for individual Americans goes up, and under this legislation, virtually 
every study I have seen, in fact, says that it goes down. That's one of 
the reasons why we have to stop this.
  I've got one other myth that I would like to talk about. The whole 
premise of this immigration law debate is that the laws need dramatic 
changing, they aren't working. I would submit that that's not the case 
at all. The problem is not so much with our immigration laws. Sure, 
there's some tweaking that can be done in order to make sure that we 
admit into our country those individuals who have particular skill sets 
or educational levels or wealth that will enhance our economy. Sure, we 
can do that kind of tweaking. But it's a myth to say that we have 11 
million illegal aliens in America because of our laws. That's not the 
case at all. We have 11 million illegal aliens in America, quite 
frankly, because the White House, the executive branch of our 
government, has absolutely refused to enforce the laws that are on the 
books. And I'm not talking about just this administration. I'm talking 
about 20 years of neglect by the White House and the executive branch.
  Let me share some numbers with you on that point, and then I'll defer 
back to my good colleague, Mr. Gohmert.
  In 2011, the number of Border Patrol returns plus illegal aliens 
deported by court order was 715,495 individuals. That's an important 
point to note. Okay?
  You've heard the myth that this administration deports more than any 
administration in history, or words to that effect. That's kind of 
true, but it's misleading because that's only half of the number that 
you need to look at. It's not just the deportations by order that you 
look at. It is also how many times has our Border Patrol caught 
individuals and returned them. So in 2011, we have roughly 715,000 
Border Patrol returns plus deported by court order.
  Let's go back to 2008, the last President before the current 
President. During that year, you put those two numbers together, and it 
was 1.1 million that the Border Patrol returned plus deported by court 
order. That's a big number--64 percent more returned than in 2011, the 
most recent year for which I have information.
  A decade ago, it was again 1.1 million Border Patrol returns plus 
deported by court order--62 percent more than this

[[Page 11509]]

administration in 2011. In 1993, two decades ago, 1,285,952 illegal 
aliens were returned pursuant to Border Patrol returns or deported by 
court order--80 percent more than in 2011. In 1983, it was 950,000--33 
percent more than 2011. In 1973, four decades ago, it was 585,000. And 
in 1963, it was 77,000 Border Patrol returns plus deported by court 
order. And I want to note something about the gap between 1963 and 
1973. You'll remember these welfare programs that got passed as a part 
of the Great Society program where America started paying foreigners to 
come into our country where they start accessing welfare benefits? I 
would submit that that is a huge incentive for why these individuals 
have come to America who previously would not have come here under 
illegal terms. But because we've got laws in place that pay and 
incentivize illegals to come here, that is, in fact, a major reason why 
they're here.
  Nonetheless, the myth that the laws are the problem, is not it. It's 
a lack of enforcement of the laws on hand. And the myth that this 
administration has been really good at returning illegals, that's true 
only if you look at half of the problem. If you look at the whole 
problem, then, quite frankly, this administration in 2011 was doing far 
worse than previous administrations have done or as has been done in 
2003, one decade ago, two decades ago, three decades ago, and four 
decades ago.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. Those were really 
amazing numbers that you provided, and we'll talk about those further.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to my friend from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) for such time as she may consume.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Representative Louis 
Gohmert, and I also thank my colleagues who preceded me and all the 
marvelous comments they have given: Mr. Brooks from Alabama and the 
statistics that he has just given and all the other stories.
  I look at the context of this issue, Mr. Speaker, and the issue of 
dealing with the whole strata of illegal immigration. What are we 
talking about? There are so many aspects. One of those aspects, of 
course, is the issue of why in the world isn't America's border secure 
today? This is something that is incomprehensible to the American 
people because there is something that the American people should 
demand and that they have a right to expect, and it is that their 
country has a secure border at every level. Not only just at the point 
of entry, but for people who come into the United States on a lawful, 
legal visa. The American people have a right to expect that those 
people also will stay for the time that we have granted those people 
and that they will not overstay.
  The one thing that we've learned, Mr. Speaker, is that 40 percent of 
the problem of illegal immigration, 40 percent--4 out of 10--people are 
overstaying their visas. That included some of the terrorists that were 
involved in the 9/11 bombing. That's why this is so important.
  We aren't talking just about an academic exercise, Mr. Speaker. We 
are talking about a national security issue. We're also talking about 
an economic security issue. Because for those of us who are here on the 
floor this evening having this conversation, we were elected by the 
American people. We were elected by American citizens who have the 
privilege to vote in this country. We are elected by Americans, and we 
are here representing the interests of American citizens. And it is 
American citizens, Mr. Speaker, who have the obligation to pay for all 
of the programs that we fund here in this Chamber because our 
Constitution provides that all of the spending begins right here in the 
House of Representatives.
  Spending is something we're pretty good at. We spend a lot in this 
House. As a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago I was sworn in. I 
took the oath of office right here in this Chamber, and America was 
$8.67 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, on that January in 2007 when I 
took my oath of office.
  We were horrified. How were we ever going to pay off $8.67 trillion 
in debt? 2007. Today that number has been running, and officially, 
according to our Treasury Department, it is something under $17 
trillion. But that's kind of unusual because that number has actually 
stayed exactly the same, according our Treasury Department, for about 
56 days running.

                              {time}  2015

  Of course we know that isn't true. We overspend by billions of 
dollars every day. The number is actually something pretty close to $17 
trillion. So let's think about that: $8.67 trillion and, today, $17 
trillion in debt. Why do I bring that up? Who cares about these 
numbers? They're so big, we can't even comprehend them. Well, I care. 
I'm a mother. I have five great children and 23 foster children, and 
parents across America are scared to death about the kind of America 
their children will inherit, because any fair-minded person realizes 
you can't spend more money than you take in, otherwise you go to the 
poor house and you declare bankruptcy. And we don't want our children 
in that position where they declare bankruptcy.
  Maybe that explains part of the reason why we have 22 million people 
in this country today who are looking for full-time work, and they 
can't find it. Twenty-two million people looking for full-time work, 
and what are we doing here in Congress? The Senate can't wait to give 
amnesty to illegal aliens, so we'll have a minimum of 11 million 
immediately who'd have legalization status in this country; and we 
would have, as Mr. Brooks said, up to 44 million people before long in 
this country.
  So now what are those 22 million Americans supposed to do? Mr. 
Speaker, I say it is America first, and the interests of the American 
people first. The American people need jobs. They deserve jobs. It's 
Americans first that we need to think about. So we have unemployed. We 
have a terrible debt that's growing, and we have less than anemic 
economic growth.
  One thing Mr. Brooks mentioned, when President Obama took office in 
2008, the average household income was somewhere around $55,000 a year. 
It was shocking to learn after 4 years in office, the average household 
is now looking at something like $50,000 a year. That's a tremendous 
loss in income for the average American. As Mr. Brooks told us earlier, 
Mr. Speaker, about $1,300 a year is attributable in lost income 
strictly because wages are depressed because illegal aliens are working 
for less than the American people.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, it's the American people first. It is American 
wages first. It is American benefit packages first. What in the world 
are we doing, Mr. Speaker, if we aren't thinking about how we can 
create more jobs for the American people first. And higher wages for 
the American people first. And more benefits for the American people 
first.
  Why did the President 2 weeks ago have to unilaterally have a press 
conference, or release a press statement--that's apparently the way he 
governs these days--and say that his employer mandate for big 
businesses will have to be delayed a year? Why did he have to do that? 
Because he knows it simply doesn't work.
  And yet if we have legalization for illegal aliens in the United 
States, we will see that very quickly we will have literally tens of 
millions of new people who'll have access to all of these benefits 
because it's not cheap, you see. Amnesty costs a fortune, you see. 
Because this year alone, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at $54 billion a 
year. Do illegal aliens pay taxes? Yes, they do. They pay sales taxes, 
gas taxes, various forms of taxes. But when you take what illegal 
aliens are paying into the U.S. Treasury versus the benefits that they 
take out, that means that American citizens have to cough up an extra 
$56 billion a year. It is a net drawdown on the U.S. Treasury. You see, 
it has consequences, Mr. Speaker, not only for the Treasury but for the 
American people, for my children, for Representative Gohmert's 
children, and I dare say for your children as well, Mr. Speaker.
  This is something we have to realize, that by year 13 of the bill 
that's already being considered in the United

[[Page 11510]]

States Senate, it won't be $56 billion a year that illegal aliens are 
costing the U.S. Treasury. It will be over $100 billion a year. And 
when those illegal aliens come into retirement age, because you see the 
average age of an illegal alien is 34 years of age with less than a 
10th grade education, by the time those illegal aliens come into their 
retirement years, it's not $56 billion a year that it will cost the 
taxpayers. It is adjusted for inflation, $150 billion a year because 
we're talking very expensive retirement packages.
  So you see, Mr. Speaker, at the worst possible time when baby boomers 
like myself are getting to the point of drawing down the Social 
Security benefits that we earned and the Medicare benefits that we 
earned and accessing whether it's ObamaCare or the 80-other means-
tested welfare programs, at the worst possible time, Mr. Speaker, this 
Chamber is looking at adding over 40 million new illegal aliens into 
the system to redistribute wealth from American citizens who worked 
hard and earned that money, to redistribute it to illegal aliens that 
we have given legalization status so that they can have Social Security 
and Medicare and ObamaCare and 80 different means-tested welfare 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you this: When we go from $8.6 trillion in debt to 
nearly $17 trillion in debt, we've doubled it in about 6, 7 years' 
time, and then you add in 40-some million new illegal aliens, you up 
the benefit package from ObamaCare, all while we're seeing increased 
levels of unemployment, we're seeing lower rates of increases in GDP, I 
ask you, Mr. Speaker, how compassionate is that to American children 
that are born in this country? How compassionate is it when their wages 
have gone, the average household, has gone from $55,000 down to 
$50,000? How compassionate will it be, Mr. Speaker, when our children 
can't even afford to have a savings account anymore because they're 
scraping by and their wages are lowered and their benefits are lowered 
and the jobs are fewer and inflation is going sky high? How is that 
compassionate?
  Because, you see, I remember, Mr. Speaker, that my parents left me a 
country that was better than the one that they inherited from their 
parents. And my grandparents, Mr. Speaker, inherited a better country 
than my great grandparents left for them, and so on and so forth going 
back in time.
  You see, I can't fathom, Mr. Speaker, nor can I fathom that Mr. 
Gohmert also would do anything that would leave less than a better 
country for the next generation because, you see, that's what this is 
about. We were sent here by the American people to be about America 
first and, Mr. Speaker, about our children first, and whether this 
America that they inherit will be a better America.
  And that's why this discussion that Mr. Gohmert brought to the 
country tonight is so vitally important, and we can't stand by and 
watch our country change forever and watch our children shortchanged. 
And so I'm going to yield back to the gentleman from Texas because he 
has profoundly put in front of the American people the issue that will 
structurally change our country forever. You see, Mr. Speaker, there's 
no going back once we go down this road. And I know I've heard the 
gentleman from Texas speak on this many times so eloquently. I thank 
the gentleman for all he has done.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Those are wonderful points, and it brings back to mind 
what someone has said before. The example of being on an airplane, the 
instruction we're all given when you get on an airplane is if there's a 
loss of cabin pressure, you lose oxygen, then you must put your own 
mask on before you help others. Let's face it, America is struggling 
right now in a number of ways, but particularly economically. This is 
the worst recovery from any recession we've ever had, the longest, the 
poorest recovery from any recession. We're still struggling, having 
millions and millions of Americans out of work; and it's not because of 
a lack of compassion that we say we need to follow the law, we need to 
respect the law. It is out of respect for the rule of law, for this 
country. We're in a position as government, we have got to make sure 
that we follow our oath, that we do the best we can to make this 
country as strong as possible because we know there is no other country 
in the world that has as many people wanting to come visit or live in 
this country. This is number one in the world for people wanting to 
come visit or live.
  But if we do not keep it viable, keep it strong, get the mask on, get 
the oxygen flowing again, get the patient strong again, then this is 
not going to be a place that others in the world are going to want to 
flee to as a refuge. It is very critical what we do here.
  My friend from Minnesota brings up the point about taxes being paid. 
Congress some years back passed--and there are a couple of different 
kinds of child tax credits where actually if you're an American that's 
authorized to file income tax and you have a Social Security number, 
then you can claim those child tax credits. So we have people who are 
getting more money back because of the tax credit than they actually 
paid in, and Congress made clear you have to have a Social Security 
number in order to do that. But as I understand it, there were some 
people at the IRS who in between line dancing sessions had determined 
that, you know what, there's a lot of money out there by people who 
don't have Social Security numbers that if we got them to pay taxes, 
even though they're not legally here, if we got them to pay taxes, 
think about all the extra money that'll flow into the Treasury.
  So why don't we, as a regulatory body, and we know Congress didn't 
authorize it, but why don't we just give them a tax ID number, even if 
they're illegally here, so they can be paying in all of the taxes to 
help the country. And an analysis earlier this year by different groups 
indicated that we may be, because the IRS authorized people to pay 
taxes into the system with tax ID numbers rather than Social Security 
numbers, we're probably paying out between $1 billion and $4 billion to 
people who are claiming child tax credits that are not authorized to 
claim those because they're illegally here.
  We had newspaper reporters go out, people in the media, go out and do 
their own investigations and find a house here or a house there where a 
whole bunch of different people are claiming that they live and that 
children are living there by the scores that aren't actually living 
there. And so it comes back and raises the issue, like Mr. Brooks was 
pointing out and my friend, Mrs. Bachmann, was pointing out that it 
doesn't necessarily follow that just because you give people legal 
status, all of a sudden you're going to be flooded with new tax dollars 
coming in.
  I also want to point out there's this issue that keeps coming up 
about compassion. There is no more compassionate people in the world 
than the American people as a group. You'll find individuals extremely 
compassionate around the world. I've been in places where I'm deeply 
moved by how wonderful they are; but as a Nation of people, this is the 
most compassionate Nation in the history of the world. And 
individually, people in this Nation have done more to assist those 
suffering around the world, and it would seem to be the healthiest 
thing to do as a Nation, to make sure there is respect for our law, 
adherence to our important laws, and then make the country healthy.
  Capital, we know--money, that is--investment money comes in. It 
flows, as the saying goes, capital is a coward. It flows into countries 
where it feels the safest. Make this country a strong country again 
economically so then we are able to go, as so many churches have, to 
Latin American countries, to countries around the world, and reach in 
and help them not by giving them a fish, as the old adage goes, but by 
teaching them to fish and providing them a means to have food and to 
make a living. That's a compassionate kind of thing.
  There is no reason that Mexico should not be one of the top 10 or 
even top five economies in the world; and if we were the proper kind of 
neighbor, we would lure the hardest working Mexicans into America. We 
would help them have a strong, vibrant economy.

[[Page 11511]]

But that will never happen until they have respect for and adherence to 
the law, and that means ending corruption. So it is critically 
important we live up to our oaths here. Some of us have even paid 
parking tickets we didn't owe because we had a Park policeman that 
didn't know the law.

                              {time}  2030

  It doesn't matter. The law is important to respect and to follow, and 
we cannot become a healthy Nation until we have that out of the 
Government of the United States.
  We have a couple of minutes left, and I'd like to yield to my friend, 
Mrs. Bachmann, to finish our time.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I wanted to add on to the child care tax credits that you were 
speaking of.
  There's also another redistribution of wealth item in the Tax Code. 
It's called the earned income tax credit. It's one of the largest 
redistribution of wealth programs that we have in the United States. We 
give away to people who are virtually paying no taxes under the Income 
Tax Code, income taxes, $70 billion a year. So people who aren't paying 
into the system now for income tax, they're receiving $70 billion a 
year. The estimate is that, after amnesty, once we grant amnesty to 
illegal aliens, we'll raise that to $80 billion a year. So we're going 
to increase the cost.
  So what we're seeing happening, by granting amnesty to illegal 
aliens, we're importing a group of individuals who are tax consumers, 
revenue consumers out of the Treasury. And one thing that we need in 
this country are more people who are paying into the system, not people 
who are taking out of the system.
  But bottom line, we need to have a country where America comes first, 
where the American people know that our borders are secured, that our 
laws will be upheld, and that the American people will come first.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________