[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8448-8452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CLANDESTINE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

  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, tonight I wanted to discuss issues 
regarding the PATRIOT Act. As I understand it, we will be taking up a 
vote, come Thursday, on what is called the USA FREEDOM Act, I believe. 
I know that there was a lot of work put into negotiating a compromise 
there, but I still have a concern, as I did when I was a freshman, with 
the language in the PATRIOT Act.
  This is language here from the PATRIOT Act, 50 U.S.C., section 1861, 
that allows the Federal Government to go into very personal matters and 
very personal documentation of individuals. Some of us felt like it was 
allowing the Federal Government to get more than the Federal Government 
should be entitled to get. There is similar language in the FISA Act.
  But this language says that the Director of the FBI or a designee of 
the Director may make an application for an order requiring the 
production of tangible things, including books, records, papers, 
documents, and other items for an investigation to obtain foreign 
intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to 
protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 
activities.
  And there was a provision put in there that says such investigation 
of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of 
activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  And back when I was a freshman and this language was being discussed 
back in '05, '06, during that time frame, I pointed out that it seems 
like throughout the PATRIOT Act they keep referring to 
``international,'' ``foreign,'' as this does, foreign intelligence 
information, international terrorism, other language with similar 
references. So I thought, well, that is strange, though, that when it 
mentions clandestine intelligence activities, that is a vague enough 
term, it doesn't include the words ``foreign,'' ``international.'' So I 
was quite concerned about that. And the Bush administration 
representatives made clear: Look, Congressman, ``foreign,'' 
``international,'' that is all the way through this stuff. You don't 
have to worry about it. It has to do with foreign contacts.
  So if there is no foreign contact, then the PATRIOT Act doesn't apply 
because that is throughout the act. It has got to be foreign. It has 
got to have an international element to it. And so much so that I 
encouraged my colleagues that were concerned about their own phone logs 
being gathered that, if they simply avoided using their phone or had 
foreign terrorists call another number and not their own phone, they 
ought to be okay, being a bit sarcastic.
  Well, it turns out that my concerns about the use of the terms 
``clandestine intelligence activities'' were apparently spot-on, that 
despite the assurances from the Gonzales Justice Department that, oh, 
no, it has to be foreign, it has to be international, if there is not 
that element in it, then it doesn't really comply. And I said: But it 
doesn't say that with regard to clandestine intelligence activities.
  I mean, clandestine. So somebody peeping over a wall to see what they 
can see. I mean, technically, that could be considered clandestine, 
gathering intelligence. Look up the word ``intelligence.'' It is pretty 
all-encompassing, anything that gathers information.
  So it wouldn't take much to get an order granting virtually any 
information the Federal Government is seeking, even though there is no 
contact with a Federal agent, Federal Government, a foreign entity of 
any kind. It is not there, and it needs to be there.

                              {time}  2030

  Unfortunately, when I raised this glaring hole, the people who 
negotiated this bill, my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, and 
I think Bobby Scott, they were a bit defensive. Gee, we have our deal, 
and so you can't--we can't allow an amendment even though it has got 
very wide and bipartisan support. If one goes back and looks at how the 
vote on my amendment went when it passed, it was very bipartisan. We 
had some folks that would be considered very liberal Democrats along 
with some of us who are considered very conservative. But the united 
concern that allowed my amendment to pass was about having terms 
``clandestine intelligence activities'' that would allow the Federal 
Government basically to get an order to go snooping on fishing 
expeditions based on very little, and certainly nothing to do with 
terrorism. It opened the door to orders for information, even though 
they had no link whatsoever of any kind or in any way to terrorism, 
just if they want to do a fishing expedition.
  Although we were assured by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--a 
great Texan and a smart man--he assured us the National Security 
Letters were not being abused that allowed them to gather information, 
that there were no abuses here in the PATRIOT Act. An IG inspector's 
report indicated that there was widespread, massive abuse from Federal 
agents who were simply on fishing expeditions, just gathering 
information and gathering documents as they saw fit that had no link 
and no tie to any type of foreign terrorism.
  So I was hoping to get this fixed. It is a hole big enough in the 
PATRIOT Act that a truck could be driven through it by Federal agents 
coming to unload all kinds of private information that American 
citizens may have, even though such American citizens have no ties with 
terrorism, no ties with foreign agents, and no ties with foreign 
governments. They left a gaping hole in what is being called a fix to 
the PATRIOT Act abuses.
  Unfortunately, though my amendment passed to remedy this problem, 
though it passed in committee, a few amendments later, maybe one or two 
amendments later, we had votes we had to come to the floor for, and I 
had a conflict, and by the time I got back, they had already called a 
re-vote on my amendment, and without requiring a recorded vote, it was 
voice voted and the amendment was voted down.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that people in America will get the 
message that this administration wants to protect its ability to get 
information on any American, whether they have any ties to terrorism, 
whether they have got any ties to foreign governments, any ties to 
foreign agents, any ties to anything that might give some of us 
concern--you don't have to have those.
  If they can assert that you may be gathering clandestine 
intelligence--intelligence meaning any information; you may call a 
Federal office and ask for information--they may decide, gee, that is a 
clandestine attempt to gather intelligence. Mr. Speaker, there used to 
be an old joke that is not so funny anymore about the guy that called 
the FBI office and said, here is my name, and I demand to know if you 
have got a Federal FBI file on me, and the answer was: ``We do now.'' 
That used to be a joke. ``We didn't have one until now.'' And that used 
to be cute. It is not so cute anymore because under the language that 
so-called negotiators drafted, that massive hole that allows the 
gathering of information on American citizens will remain in the bill, 
and will remain part of the PATRIOT Act unless it is fixed.
  I will have an amendment to this bill. The Rules Committee may or may 
not allow it to come to the floor. If the Speaker doesn't want it to 
come to the floor, it is not likely it will come to the floor. And if 
that is the case, I will have to vote against this so-called fix to the 
PATRIOT Act because it doesn't fix it. It just allows more cover for 
the Federal Government, with a massive hole for anybody that wants to 
gather information on anybody.
  We need to fix it. We don't need to have an act that allows Federal 
agents, whether it was the Bush administration, as they were doing, 
whether it is the Obama administration, as they have been doing, or a 
future administration--whether Republican or Democrat--we need to stop 
fishing expeditions.

[[Page 8449]]

  That should be bipartisan. It was bipartisan until the negotiators of 
the so-called fix got very protective and decided they were not 
accepting such an amendment that would close this gaping hole that 
allows abuse by the Federal Government.
  I hope it will be reconsidered, but unless there is a lot of push 
from the public, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that they are going to be any 
less protective of their negotiated work, and so it will allow this 
administration to continue spying and getting information on American 
citizens that I would contend is not appropriate at all.
  That terminology is used a number of other places in the PATRIOT Act. 
There is another place, 18 U.S.C., 1844, regarding pen registers, you 
know, phone logs, trap-and-trace devices to allow the Federal 
Government to trace calls and all, they use similar language. There, in 
that part of federal law, it authorizes the Attorney General or 
designated attorney for the government to get an order against anybody 
who is attempting to obtain foreign intelligence information as long 
as--it says this--it is not concerning a United States person, number 
one, or number two, to protect against international terrorism, or 
three, clandestine intelligence activities. And that is what I was 
concerned about 9 years ago in my freshman term.
  I said, wait a minute, clandestine intelligence activities, that 
doesn't protect American citizens. Oh, but look up there in the part 
before. It says, it has to be information not concerning a U.S. person. 
I said, yeah, but then it has the disjunctive word ``or.'' Yeah, but 
then in that next part it says, international terrorism, it has to be 
international. No, but after that, it has another disjunctive ``or,'' 
so any one of these can apply, or it can be for clandestine 
intelligence activities even if it is a United States person, even if 
it is not involving international terrorism, or someone who has had 
contact with a foreign agent.
  In another part, it references a certification by the applicant. 
Well, this is the exact wording:

       There must be a certification by the applicant that the 
     information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence 
     information not concerning a United States person, or is 
     relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against 
     international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence 
     activities.

  Again, that third part, even in this statute, leaves that gaping 
hole, ``clandestine intelligence activities.'' That is such a wide open 
phrase. It is such a hole. It doesn't limit it to foreign agents. It 
doesn't limit it to U.S. citizens who have contact with foreign 
terrorists, foreign agents. It doesn't have to be part of some kind of 
some international terrorism scheme. It allows Federal agents to gather 
information about--as it did under the Bush administration, as it has 
been allowing under the Obama administration, and as it would allow 
under future Republican or Democratic administrations--any American 
citizen that the Federal Government contends might be getting 
information about something that they consider private.
  ``Clandestine intelligence activities.'' A lovely triple term, 
triple-word term, that could be a gaping hole and is a gaping hole in 
federal law that needs to be fixed. But unless Members of both sides of 
the aisle come forward--as they initially did when I first proposed the 
amendment to fix this gaping hole--and vote in a bipartisan manner to 
close that gaping hole, then it is going to continue to be a problem 
with the Federal Government gathering information on U.S. citizens who 
have nothing to do with terrorism--nothing. There is no requirement 
that they have anything to do with terrorism; they can still be caught 
in this Federal web if they determine you have been picking up 
information somewhere. Maybe you visited a Federal Web site, and from 
the inquiry you made, they thought, hmm, that may be looking like they 
are trying to clandestinely gather information. Let's go get an order 
and see what all they have been doing lately.
  So that is the bad news. The law needs to be fixed. The PATRIOT Act 
needs to be fixed desperately. There is a bill apparently coming on 
Thursday that says it will be fixing the problem, but it doesn't fix 
the problem. It leaves the hole for the Federal Government. You might 
as well not have a bill even though there are some good things in it.
  So I hope that people will wake up. I know the bill's proponents 
don't want any amendments. They say it will mess up their ticklish deal 
that they negotiated, which is a bit of a problem. I am sure there will 
be people who come to the floor and say, this bill is a freedom act 
that has gone through the regular order. That means normally that it 
has gone through a subcommittee legislative hearing, subcommittee 
markup, full committee legislative hearing, full committee markup where 
we vote on amendments, and anybody can bring any amendments. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I would humbly submit that when somebody negotiates a backroom 
deal and then they come to committee and convince the chair, the 
Speaker, that this deal is too ticklish, you can't allow any amendments 
to actually pass at committee, that is not regular order.
  Regular order is when you are allowed to bring amendments, you have 
full debate, and if you make your case, as I did, and the vote passes, 
the amendment becomes part. It does not mean that you come back because 
the proponents of the bill have convinced the chairman and a few 
others, gee, we have got to slip this amendment back up for another 
vote and vote it down because we don't want any amendments to the deal 
we negotiated. That is not regular order. That is not getting full and 
fair debate and vote at committee level when someone negotiates a 
backroom deal and then says that you can't ever amend it because we 
have got a special backroom deal here.

                              {time}  2045

  It is time to wake up and fix the PATRIOT Act, and if it is not 
fixed, then we get rid of it. It is that simple.
  On the other hand, if you are a big fan of Big Brother, the all-
seeing Orwellian eye watching everything that an American citizen is 
doing, then you will be encouraged because, under ObamaCare, the 
Federal Government is going to have everybody's health care records.
  If you see a psychiatrist, the Federal Government will have those 
records. Whoever you see, whatever it is for, no matter how personal 
and private it is, the Federal Government will have your records.
  Now, you might say: well, but the Federal Government has firewalls, 
they don't let people see records who are not supposed to.
  Well, tell that to the thousand or so people whose FBI records were 
found in the Clinton White House. Just possessing one FBI file 
inappropriately sent Chuck Colson to prison, yet the Clinton White 
House had a thousand of them.
  Fortunately for the Clinton administration, they had an Attorney 
General who was not about to prosecute their bosses at the White House; 
but as I understand it, a thousand FBI files could be 2,000 years in 
prison. It could be 4,000, but I think it is 2,000. I think it is two 
minimum per file that you have.
  If I recall correctly, I think Chuck Colson did about a year and a 
half for having one FBI file. So it is interesting.
  Some people we were told whose FBI files were located at the White 
House may have changed their position on legislation that was before 
the Congress. When you know the most secret--most intimate secrets 
about people in this country, it is just amazing what you can get them 
to do.
  The Federal Government, if they have all of your health care records, 
they know everything; and having listened to friends across the aisle 
stand down here and berate Republicans--we don't want the Federal 
Government in our bedroom--and yet, they turn around and vote for a 
bill without a single Republican vote that puts the Federal Government 
in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, dining room, it puts the Federal 
Government in every aspect of your life.
  Then we have this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who apparently

[[Page 8450]]

has now determined, gee, they need people's credit card, debit card 
records, so they can protect them; they will service them.
  Back home, I grew up and heard cattlemen talk about taking the cow 
down the road to be serviced by a bull, and I can't help but wonder 
what kind of service it is that the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau is giving to the American citizen. They say: we want to gather 
up everybody's records so we can protect them.
  When the Federal Government has everybody's personal information, 
Americans are not protected. They are subjected to being subjects 
because the Federal Government can manipulate people as they wish.
  This is the very kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of, one 
of the many they were afraid of and thought that they had protected us 
from because they gave the Congress the power of the purse; and they 
really believed that, if an executive branch becomes too abusive, as 
with the Gonzales Justice Department--and I don't believe for a minute 
that Attorney General Gonzales had any idea that all of these thousands 
of letters were going out with the power of a subpoena to get people's 
most personal information, just a fishing expedition, I don't think he 
knew.
  But just like if someone is in charge of the VA for 5-and-a-half 
years and the VA has become abusive to the detriment and death of 
people they were supposed to be taking care of, it is time to get a new 
coach--somebody, whether they are a war hero or not, as the current 
head of the VA, somebody that will come in and clean house and demand 
accountability and get it. It is time.
  We have been hearing discussions also here in Washington for quite 
some time about how we have got to provide legal status, some kind of 
amnesty to young people who came into the United States without being 
adults, so they really didn't have a say; therefore, we need to give 
them some type of amnesty.
  As I have repeatedly contended and submit, we have got to stop 
talking about legal status amnesty, anything of that kind, until the 
border is secure. Anyone who says I have ever advocated for the border 
being sealed is a liar.
  I have advocated and continue to advocate for the border to be 
secure. I want immigration. We need immigration in the United States, 
but it needs to be legal. It needs to be people that are authorized to 
come into the United States.
  We also need immigration reform, but until we have a President--I 
would welcome it being this President--but until we have a President 
who will secure the border and make sure it is only people who legally 
come into the country, then there is no reason to pass an immigration 
reform bill because he will continue to ignore the law he doesn't like 
and only follow laws he does like, just as he has already done on 
immigration issues.
  We have heard from Chris Crane, as the union representative for the 
Border Patrol. I have talked to a number of border patrolmen. They say 
the same thing, that when people talk about legal status or amnesty 
here in Washington, it creates a magnet drawing people from foreign 
countries into this country because they think: gee, I have got to get 
there quickly before the border is secured because I am going to get 
amnesty if I can just get there.
  It hasn't been that many years ago when there were only a handful of 
children who came into the country illegally, that we knew of. The 
estimates were many, many, many times that. It was estimated this year 
that there will probably be 60,000 children come into this country by 
the end of this year. Now, we hear that we have had more than 60,000 
come in already, and it is just May.
  The conservative bastion of newspapers, The New York Times--Mr. 
Speaker, I am prone to sarcasm--had an article dated May 16, ``U.S. 
Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone.''
  This an article by Julia Preston that says the following:

       With border authorities in south Texas overwhelmed by a 
     surge of young illegal migrants traveling by themselves, the 
     Department of Homeland Security declared a crisis this week 
     and moved to set up an emergency shelter for the youths at an 
     Air Force base in San Antonio, officials said Friday.
       After seeing children packed in a Border Patrol station in 
     McAllen, Texas, during a visit last Sunday, Homeland Security 
     Secretary Jeh Johnson on Monday declared ``a level-four 
     condition of readiness'' in the Rio Grande Valley. The alert 
     was an official recognition that Federal agencies overseeing 
     borders, immigration enforcement, and child welfare had been 
     outstripped by a sudden increase in unaccompanied minors in 
     recent weeks.

  Mr. Speaker, let me interject here. When I talk about the fact that 
we hear from border patrolmen that legal status and amnesty is talked 
about here in Washington, it becomes a magnet and draws people in, and 
for all of the children that are drawn in illegally, you know that some 
get sucked into sex slavery.
  Human trafficking becomes an even bigger business, and reporters 
wonder: Gee, what makes you think they are coming in greater numbers 
just because people are talking about amnesty here in the United States 
Congress?
  The proof is there for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.
  This New York Times article goes on:

       On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services 
     officials will open a shelter for up to 1,000 minors at 
     Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, authorities said, and will 
     begin transferring youths there by land and air. The level-
     four alert is the highest for agencies handling children 
     crossing the border illegally and allows Homeland Security 
     officials to call on emergency resources from other agencies, 
     officials said.
       In an interview on Friday, Mr. Johnson said the influx of 
     unaccompanied youths had ``zoomed to the top of my agenda'' 
     after his encounters at the McAllen Border Patrol station 
     with small children, one of whom was 3.
       The children are coming primarily from El Salvador, 
     Guatemala, and Honduras, making the perilous journey north 
     through Mexico to Texas without parents or close adult 
     relatives. Last weekend alone, more than 1,000 unaccompanied 
     youths were being held at overflowing border stations in 
     south Texas, officials said.
       The flow of child migrants has been building since 2011, 
     when 4,059 unaccompanied youths were apprehended by border 
     agents. Last year, more than 21,000 minors were caught, and 
     Border Patrol officials said they were expecting more than 
     60,000 this year, but that projection has already been 
     exceeded.
       By law, unaccompanied children caught crossing illegally 
     from countries other than Mexico are treated differently from 
     other migrants. After being apprehended by the Border Patrol, 
     they must be turned over within 72 hours to a refugee 
     resettlement office that is part of the Health Department. 
     Health officials must try to find relatives or other adults 
     in the United States who can care for them while their 
     immigration cases move through the courts, a search that can 
     take several weeks or more.
       The Health Department maintains shelters for the youths, 
     most run by private contractors, in the border regions. 
     Health officials had begun, several months ago, to add beds 
     in the shelters, anticipating a seasonal increase. But the 
     plans proved insufficient to handle a drastic increase of 
     youths in recent weeks, a senior administration official 
     said.

  Mr. Speaker, I spoke with someone with a church group that was called 
for help from the Department of Homeland Security saying: We have 
exceeded our capacity to protect these children. We are asking church 
groups that can help, please come help.
  This person said it was clear that some of the young children, 
females had been raped, and you can't help but wonder for the thousand 
that made it across last week in that one area in Texas, how many got 
lured into sex trafficking.
  Oh, sure, we will get you to the United States. As a young child, we 
will get you there, and once you are there, President Obama will make 
sure you are taken care of, and you just come with us.
  For heaven's sake, one of these was 3 years old, and we have people 
here in this building saying: Oh, no, children never come by 
themselves. They would never make that choice to come by themselves. 
The only people who would ever come illegally would be parents who 
bring the children without choices.

                              {time}  2100

  Well, because of the talk of amnesty in this town and because we do 
not

[[Page 8451]]

have a secured border, then this administration and this Congress also 
is complicit in helping lure people into sex trafficking, into horrible 
situations, even people trying to cross deserts who don't make it. That 
should not be.
  We owe Americans, we owe the world the obligation to keep our oath, 
to follow, to support the Constitution of the United States. That 
requires us to follow the laws, not pick and choose which Federal laws 
we care to ignore because we don't like them, as our Attorney General 
has advocated. That makes him a violator of his constitutional oath. We 
should be following in our oaths, not breaking them.
  When you hear about children being lured into this country by 
promises made by people in this town as to how good it is going to be--
oh, we are going to get amnesty through, and for any child that can get 
here before the border is secured so we only allow legally approved 
people in, just come on, however you can get here--we are luring people 
into horrible, horrible situations.
  It is time to start acting responsibly. That does not mean that we 
continue to send the message that is being signaled by this 
administration that, gee, if you can just get to the United States as a 
child, we will take care of you. If we can't find your parents who are 
illegally in the country, then we will find somebody to take care of 
you legally. We are going to allow you to overwhelm this country.
  We have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that is 
here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in. People that are 
working are already paying taxes, and we have an awful lot of people 
that are working who are not legally here, who are getting vast amounts 
of money for their child tax credit that allows them to get back more 
money than they put in.
  There can be no debate that young children who are not working, even 
if they are legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at 
all the tax money that the Federal coffers will be getting if we just 
legalize everybody here, that is a bogus argument. It is a strained 
argument by people who want more people coming in illegally.
  It is time we took our oath seriously, began enforcing our laws, not 
sealing the border, but securing the border. Once it is secured, as 
confirmed by border States, not by Homeland Security that can't be 
trusted, but by border States, unanimously telling us, okay, Federal 
Government, we can affirm, we can certify that the border to our State 
is secure, then we can move ahead with immigration reform. Until that 
time, we need to quit talking about it. Anybody that is tempted to 
continue talking about it needs to go down to the border and see a 3-
year-old that got lured into this country because of that kind of talk: 
Just get here.
  Obviously, a 3-year-old had someone convince them that they needed to 
try to get here and helped to get them here. I wonder how many other 3-
year-olds got talked into coming along for the ride and didn't make it? 
Maybe their parents or some loved one paid money to human traffickers 
thinking, gee, if I can get my really young child into the United 
States, then they get amnesty, then they can claim me as their parent 
so I can come in, and then I can take care of them even though I am not 
an American citizen, and that will allow them to draw more people in. 
So it is foreseeable that parents could send children.
  It is tough to ever give up a child. Moses' mother did it to try to 
secure a better life for him.
  How many parents have let their child go with human traffickers, 
hoping for a better life for their child, only to find out later their 
child never made it to America? Sending them from South America, from 
Central America, across country, clear across the length of Mexico has 
got to be a risky move.
  This story from The New York Times says:

       Mr. Johnson said the young migrants became a more ``vivid'' 
     issue for him after he persuaded his wife to spend Mother's 
     Day with him at the station in McAllen. He said he asked a 
     12-year-old girl where her mother was. She responded 
     tearfully that she did not have a mother, and was hoping to 
     find her father who was living somewhere in the United 
     States, Mr. Johnson said.
       Mr. Johnson said he had spoken on Monday with the 
     ambassadors from Mexico and the three central American 
     countries to seek their cooperation, and had begun a 
     publicity campaign to dissuade youths from embarking for the 
     United States.
       ``We have to discourage parents from sending for their 
     children to cross the southwest border because of the risks 
     involved. A south Texas processing center is no place for a 
     child,'' Mr. Johnson said.
       Officials said many youths are fleeing gang violence at 
     home, while some are seeking to unite with parents in the 
     United States. A majority of unaccompanied minors are not 
     eligible to remain legally in the United States and are 
     eventually returned home.

  Well, Secretary Johnson can say we need to dissuade more young people 
from trying to make the perilous trip across Latin America, Central 
America to try to get into the United States, but actions speak louder 
than words. When the actions are that, if you can just get to the 
United States, Mr. Johnson's Homeland Security will take care of you, 
will get you three hot meals, a bed to sleep in, if we can't find your 
parents illegally in the United States, then we will find you some 
other parents, people are being drawn in.
  They know if their child comes in and is given a legal place, a legal 
status, then they will be able to come in on the backs of their 
children's legal status so they can take care of them.
  It is time to stop the luring of young children across the border by 
the activities of this administration. It is time for Congress to stop 
luring people across the border by talk of amnesty. It is time to stop. 
And as if that wasn't bad enough, there was an article today, from 
Breitbart, by Caroline May. It says:

       The Department of Homeland Security has only requested that 
     the State Department invoke visa sanctions against a country 
     that refuses or delays accepting an immigrant facing 
     deportation back to their country once, over a decade ago.

  The article says:

       A State Department official confirmed to Breitbart News 
     Monday that the only time the State Department invoked visa 
     sanctions at the request of DHS was in 2001 against Guyana.
       Last week the Center for Immigration Studies reported that 
     an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document 
     revealed that last year ICE released 36,007 criminal 
     immigrants awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings.
       According to ICE, many of the releases were mandatory, some 
     as required by court cases--it mentions one--in which the 
     Supreme Court held that the government cannot indefinitely 
     detain an immigrant if there is ``no significant likelihood 
     of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.''
       Over the weekend, CIS experts postulated that Secretaries 
     of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry bear partial blame 
     for some of the 36,007 criminal immigrants released last 
     year, estimating that 3,000 releases were ``mandatory''--due 
     to the Supreme Court case--because of their apparent failure 
     to invoke a statute requiring the DHS Secretary to request 
     the Secretary of State to stop issuing visas to those 
     countries that do not take back or delay taking their 
     citizens back.

  There is a total breakdown in the protection of this country and our 
borders when it comes to enforcing the law. There are some areas where 
the law is being enforced. There are some areas where Border Patrol is 
doing absolutely everything they physically can to enforce the law. But 
because the President's commitment is to having navigators as being 
more important than having Border Patrol, then we have a leaking sieve 
at our borders.
  Because the Federal Government, this administration is more committed 
to having new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare, agents, navigators, 
bureaucrats that will never so much as put a Band-Aid on a hurt, this 
administration considers them more important for health care than 
doctors, nurses, people that actually do good.
  I have been hearing this last week in my district about doctors and 
nurses being laid off but bureaucrats being hired right and left by the 
Federal Government, health care bureaucrats. They are not going to save 
a life. They are going to create more paperwork. They are going to 
create more burden for people that actually do the healing and 
treating. They are currently making their lives miserable with 
paperwork and with computer work.
  Some doctors have already told me they were retired or retiring 
because

[[Page 8452]]

they are just not going to be answering to bureaucrats that don't know 
about the treatment they provide. Yet this administration thinks more 
bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more navigators--who, by the way, we hear 
reports are getting voter registration forms to people that they are 
signing up. So, gee, they may not be providing health care, they may be 
providing misinformation about health care, they may be telling people 
to get on Web sites that don't work, but they are getting them 
registered to vote. How about that?
  Mr. Speaker, look, it is time that the Federal Government, through 
the executive branch, started fulfilling their oaths to enforce the 
laws as they are. It is time that this Congress, like in the case of 
the PATRIOT Act and the so-called USA FREEDOM Act that is going to 
leave a gaping hole in the manner in which the Federal Government can 
continue to get personal information that has nothing to do with 
terrorism, it is time for all of us to step up to the plate and do our 
jobs and follow our oaths.

                              {time}  2115

  Once that is accomplished, there will be more jobs for people because 
the economy will improve. There will be more health care for people 
because we get more doctors and nurses and fewer bureaucrats. It is 
time we started living up to our commitment to the American people.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________