[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4421-4426]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               ``A REPUBLIC, MADAM, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, being argued before the United 
States Supreme Court--the eight Justices remaining--is a case of United 
States v. Texas. It will take up the President's--I started to say his 
``executive order,'' but, actually, in the case of His Majesty's 
program on amnesty, there actually was no executive order that was 
signed by the President. Like you find in a lot of countries around the 
world where there is a dictator, there was a speech made and comments 
made by the ruler. Then the Secretary of Homeland Security--in our 
case, Secretary Johnson--wrote a series of memos to carry out the 
dictation from on high, and they overrode the laws that were duly 
passed by both Houses of Congress and by previous Presidents.
  That is where we run into some trouble. That is where you run into 
trouble in doing what Benjamin Franklin suggested might be possible to 
undo. As we know, a lady asked him at the Constitutional Convention, 
``What did you give us?'' and he said, ``A Republic, Madam, if you can 
keep it.'' One of the ways you do not keep representative government--
self-government through the electing of Representatives to do the will 
of the people--is to go and have those elections and elect people who 
pass laws--I mean, the Founders wanted government to have gridlock.
  As I mentioned before, Justice Scalia, in talking to a group of 50 or 
so senior citizens from my district, explained that the reason we are 
the freest country in history--or at least we used to be. The 
indicators indicate we are not the freest country anymore, but the 
reason we became, for a while there, the freest country in history was 
that the Founders did not trust government. They knew that, if it were 
too easy for a government to make laws or to just dictate what would 
happen in a country, then people would not be free.
  They pledged their lives, liberty, sacred honor--they pledged 
everything. Many--most, actually--of the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence did not have very pleasant lives after the signing of 
that. Many lost their treasures, their fortunes. They never lost their 
sacred honor. They pledged it, and they never lost their sacred honor.
  When you look at all of the sacrifices that were made to try to allow 
us to have representative, self-government--and as difficult as it is 
to pass a bill here in the House and have the Senate pass the same bill 
or a similar bill and, if they are not the same, to go to conference 
and try to work out a bill that is the same and get it passed in both 
Houses and send it to the President and get the President to sign it 
and have the Supreme Court say, yes, that it is consistent with the 
Constitution--that is very difficult.
  All of those things have happened with regard to our immigration law 
that the President talked about, as any good ruler would; and, of 
course, as any good ruler, he had a Secretary of Homeland Security who 
did memos and said: Okay. We are going to just not pay any attention to 
that law. Here is the new law.

                              {time}  1200

  I was amazed to hear all of the major networks, including Fox News, 
talk about ``Here is the new program,'' ``Here is the new plan'' after 
memos were concocted that overrode the laws that were duly passed in 
the House and Senate and signed previously by the President, who just 
overrode the law and said: We are not going to do that. We have, in 
their opinion, the discretion to just ignore the law and do what we 
want.
  There is a good article out of the Hoover Institution journal written 
by Michael McConnell. It just came out on April 15. I thought it did a 
good job of discussing these issues that are coming up before the 
Supreme Court on Monday.
  Also, by way of further preface, the decision originated in the 
Southern District of Texas before United States District Judge Andrew 
Hanen, who happened to be one of the smartest people in his class and, 
actually, going through law school, one of the more liberal people in 
our class in law school, but a brilliant guy.
  The more he delved into issues, the better lawyer he became. He was 
with one of the best firms in Houston. He has become a profoundly good 
arbitrator of justice as a United States judge.
  So Judge Hanen wrote a very lengthy order in which he enjoined in 
carrying out the wishes that were dictated by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security because they violate the law. They say: We are ignoring the 
law. And the judge could see that there are massive consequences.
  Although right here in this very room the President said that we are 
not going to cover people that are illegally in the country with his 
ObamaCare, it turns out that that wasn't true.
  We have, apparently, massive numbers who get the income tax credit, 
whether legally or not. I have people constantly telling me they work 
for different income tax services and they provide services to people 
that don't have Social Security numbers that are legitimate.
  They all know about the earned income tax credit, and they all want 
it on there. They all claim it. Whether they can tell you where their 
kids are or not, they want that credit.
  There has been some massive projections of just how much in millions 
or billions is being paid out. We previously had reporting about, just 
in one little community, how numerous people claim to live in one home 
and claim to have as many as 30 kids or so in that home so they could 
claim all those earned income tax credits so they could get a big 
refund.
  There is massive amounts of money that is being taken from those who 
earned it and given to those who have come into the country illegally.
  I don't have the articles in front of me. There are articles out this 
week talking about that, actually, by more than the current 
unemployment rate--even the real rate, not the one that is just made 
up--it doesn't include the 94 million or so who are eligible to work, 
have tried to find work and given up trying to find work.
  But either number you care to use, we have that percentage of people 
who have immigrated to America. Thank God for legal immigration.
  Perhaps one in six people working in America are first-generation 
immigrants. That is great, but the trouble is

[[Page 4422]]

that a huge portion of those are illegally in the country.
  The President can say all he wants to: Well, they are doing jobs that 
Americans won't do. When wages are lower that are being paid to 
Americans looking for work and working, it affects their homes.
  It has affected their standard of living. It has caused people to be 
unemployed who would be employed if they weren't competing with people 
that took lower wages because they are here illegally.
  Of course, yesterday we learned that the IRS Commissioner, the head 
of the IRS, Koskinen, is an accomplice. He has been complicit in the 
use of stolen, illegal Social Security numbers because he says: It is 
okay if they use stolen Social Security numbers for a good basis. We 
just don't want them to use it for a bad basis.
  Apparently, for him, somebody filing a perjured and fraudulent income 
tax return and getting a refund of money that they very well may not be 
entitled to at all and should not be entitled to is one of the good 
purposes.
  He clearly needs to be impeached and removed from office as head of 
the
Internal Revenue Service. Hopefully, that will be happening in the near 
future.
  There has to be consequences for violating the law, for helping 
others violate the law, by looking the other way and announcing you are 
looking the other way while people violate the law.
  America is in trouble. We could very well be Greece right now if it 
weren't for the United States having the dollars, the international 
currency, and having our ability to print our own money, neither of 
which Greece has.
  This case being taken up on Monday by the Supreme Court has the 
ability to basically make Congress a nullity by saying: You know what--
look, the President was elected 8 years ago and 4 years ago.
  So if he wants to just ignore laws and do what he wants that is not 
according to the law, shouldn't that be okay? It is incredible how some 
even who have advanced degrees are so uneducated on how you keep a 
republic.
  Well, Michael McConnell says:
  ``One of the most closely watched cases before the Supreme Court this 
term is United States v. Texas, the immigration case that is scheduled 
to be argued on April 18. The Supreme Court surprised most observers 
when it asked the parties in that case to address a question they did 
not raise in their briefs: whether President Obama's `Deferred Action 
for Parents of Americans'' (DAPA) order violates the `Take Care Clause' 
of Article II of the Constitution. The Take Care Clause has never 
before been enforced by the Court and most people have probably never 
heard of it.''
  Let me insert here: My dear friend from Florida, Congressman Ted 
Yoho, has been advocating for some time we pass a bill that just sets 
out an enabling statute that says what Take Care means under the 
Constitution and sets some requirements out so we actually have some 
hard requirements against which to measure a President's performance in 
order to determine whether he has violated the Take Care Clause and 
ought to be removed from office.
  Before you can determine the latter, you really need to know has the 
Take Care Clause been violated to a level that would justify high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
  I appreciate so much Andrew McCarthy's book regarding impeachment 
where he lays out, really, impeachment was intended to be a political 
issue.
  The Founders did not want impeachment to be like a criminal case 
where the prosecution has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  It is a mechanism by which we avoid revolutions and military coups, 
which have happened in countries around the world.
  Here we have not had to have ever, thank God, a military coup or 
another revolution since 1776. We have had massive movements for which 
we are grateful, like the abolitionist movement that got rid of the 
atrocity of slavery, led mainly by Christian churches, and the civil 
rights movement, of course, which the ultimate leader was Reverend 
Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Christian minister.
  So these movements have not required revolution, have not required a 
military coup, because the Founders created something called 
impeachment.
  According to Andrew's book--and I'm sorry I can't do it the justice 
it deserves--basically, impeachment is a political mechanism to allow 
people to remove from office someone who may not have violated a 
criminal statute beyond a reasonable doubt.
  But more than half of the country--more than half of those 
representatives elected in the country believe that he should be 
removed. Then we avoid a revolution, a coup, those kinds of things.
  This article from the Hoover Institute goes on:
  ``DAPA is a set of executive branch directives giving some four 
million illegal aliens who have given birth to children in the United 
States what the orders call `legal presence' -- even though they are 
here in violation of the law.
  ``This `legal presence' entitles DAPA beneficiaries to work permits, 
a picture ID, driver's licenses, Social Security, Earned Income Tax 
credits, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other social welfare benefits.
  ``Until the 2014 election, President Obama repeatedly and 
emphatically stated that he did not have authority to issue such an 
order without congressional action.''
  Then, when he didn't like the results of the election, he went ahead 
and did it anyway. He had said: I am not a monarch. I can't just do 
these things.
  And when he didn't like the result of the election, he decided to go 
ahead and be a monarch and do them anyway.
  The article goes on:
  ``Twenty-six states have sued the federal government to challenge the 
legality of DAPA. The courts below held that the orders violate the 
Administrative Procedure Act because they were issued without public 
notice and comment, as is required for agency actions with the effect 
of law, and because they are in violation of the underlying statute, 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
  ``By adding the Take Care Clause to the Questions Presented, the 
Court is taking care that the constitutional dimensions of this case 
will not be swamped by the administrative law details. But for most 
people, including most lawyers, the Take Care Clause is a great 
unknown--uncharted territory. So: What is the Take Care Clause and what 
does it mean?
  ``The Take Care Clause, found in Article II of the Constitution, the 
Executive Power Article, is comprised of only nine words: The President 
`shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
  ``But an understanding of those nine words requires an appreciation 
of their roots in English history. Like many other structural features 
of the United States Constitution, the Take Care Clause derives from 
the long struggle between Parliament and the Crown over the extent of 
`prerogative powers,' that is, the monarch's asserted powers to create 
laws or otherwise to act unilaterally.

                              {time}  1215

  ``Absolute monarchs rule by whim. What they say goes. Even before 
Parliament existed, however, the barons of England insisted that 
monarchs rule in accordance with law rather than mere executive whim or 
decree. King John, 1199-1216 AD, was a major offender against the rule 
of law. He arbitrarily increased taxes, abused the king's court, 
mustered soldiers for military misadventures foreign and domestic, and 
hanged innocents in Wales. Things came to a head in 1215 at Runnymede. 
Faced with armed insurrection, John agreed to the Great Charter, which 
established the principle that the king is not a law unto himself; even 
the king must act through settled law to bind his subjects.
  ``Thus began a centuries-long struggle between law and royal 
prerogative. The term `prerogative' refers to powers invested in the 
executive that are not governed by law.''
  John Locke, who was read by so many of our Founders and discussed

[[Page 4423]]

during our Nation's founding, ``John Locke defined the term in his 
Second Treatise on Government.'' John Locke said this: ```This power to 
act according to discretion, for the public good, without the 
prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which 
is called prerogative.' The king's prerogative powers included the 
veto, the pardon, the powers of war and peace, the power to create and 
fill public offices, and the power to dissolve the Parliament. All 
these he could do without the need for statutes passed by Parliament, 
and statutes passed by Parliament could not touch, limit, or regulate 
these prerogative powers.
  ``Prerogative powers are not all inconsistent with constitutional 
government. Under the Constitution, for example, the President has 
certain defined prerogatives, such as the pardon power and the veto, 
which are committed to the President's discretion.''
  Of course, we know the prerogative of veto can be overridden by 
Congress, so it is not an ultimate prerogative.
  ``But much of constitutionalism consists of replacing prerogative 
with law. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution carefully reflected on 
the various prerogative powers claimed or exercised by the English king 
and granted, denied, or limited those powers when creating the Article 
II executive.''
  Now, the early controversies over prerogative powers left that ``one 
of the most dangerous prerogative powers asserted by English monarchs 
was the proclamation power. That is the power to create new law without 
parliamentary approval. The term modern Americans would use for 
proclamations is `executive orders.' Disputes over the proclamation 
power came to the fore during the Tudor dynasty, which was 1485 to 
1603.
  ``Henry VIII believed his royal proclamations should have the force 
of law, as `though they were made by act of Parliament.' The great 18th 
century historian and philosopher David Hume later called this `a total 
subversion of the English Constitution.' After Henry's death, 
Parliament repealed the Act of Proclamations.
  ``The struggle over prerogative accelerated under the four Stuart 
kings prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. James I was an ardent 
believer in the divine right of kings; he wrote a book on the topic 
shortly before he ascended to the English throne called `The Trew Law 
of Free Monarchies.' In James I's view, kings are unrestrained by law; 
their authority comes from God, and therefore the king is accountable 
only to God--never to man or law.
  ``In 1610 James I issued a royal proclamation prohibiting `new 
buildings in and around London' and `the making of starch of wheat.' 
The legality of these orders was tested in Case of Proclamations. Lord 
Ellesmere, the royalist jurist, argued that the courts should `maintain 
the power and prerogative of the king' and that `in cases in which 
there is no authority and precedent,' the judges should `leave it to 
the king to order it according to his wisdom.' Chief Justice Coke--
whose whiggish constitutionalism later informed the views of American 
Framers--held that the king could not lawfully `change any part of the 
common law, nor create any offense by his proclamation, which was not 
an offense before, without Parliament.' Coke concluded, `the law of 
England is divided into three parts: common law, statute law, and 
custom; but the king's proclamation is none of them.'
  ``Chief Justice Coke reiterated the point in the Case of Non 
Obstante, or Dispensing Power. Coke observed that the king does have 
some prerogative powers. For example, a royal pardon grants mercy 
notwithstanding--or, as English lawyers said at the time, non 
obstante--the lawful conviction. But Coke insisted that the king's non 
obstante, or dispensing, power never can be used to annul statutes. If 
the king attempted to dispense with a statute, Coke held, the king's 
effort would be `void,' for `an act of Parliament may absolutely bind 
the king.'''
  Parenthetically, of course, since our laws were derived through this 
knowledge of what was done here, the Framers believed that the law 
would absolutely bind the king that lives in the White House.
  ``The principles of the Case of Proclamations and the Case of Non 
Obstante are part of the American constitutional tradition. The Steel 
Seizure Case of 1952, our Supreme Court's foundational separation-of-
powers decision, held that the President cannot make law; that is 
exclusively Congress' job. In other words, executive orders have the 
force of law only when implementing statutes, treaties, and the 
Constitution . . . Notably, many if not all of these controversies over 
the reach of royal prerogative arose when the king took a precedent 
that prior monarchs had used in modest and relatively uncontroversial 
ways--as Elizabeth had funded defense against the Spanish Armada--and 
stretched it to cover significant usurpations of power in ways contrary 
to the will of Parliament. That has continued to be the pattern in 
American separation of powers struggles, including the one over DAPA.''
  It is a very good article that goes on and discusses other concepts, 
but Dan Stein had a good article regarding why United States v. Texas 
is the most important case the Court will decide this year.
  According to Stein: ``The Supreme Court has decided to review certain 
elements in United States v. Texas.'' He goes further than that. He 
says: ``The most dramatic of these actions were two programs designed 
to grant de facto amnesty and work authorization to an estimated 4.7 
million illegal aliens. The first of these amnesties was an expansion 
of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA--a 2012 executive 
action that has thus far benefited some 800,000 illegal aliens who 
arrived in the U.S. when they were under the age of 16''--or, at least 
I will add parenthetically, based on what I have observed at the border 
who said they were under 16. I have been there all hours of the day and 
night on the border and have been astonished beyond mildly, being 
amused that people who clearly could grow full beards would claim to be 
under 16. I have seen them in the middle of the night when a group of 
them would have to go through being processed by the Border Patrol 
reading their little pieces of paper they had and exchanging, and then 
each of them showing, this is what I have for identification purposes. 
I was amused how their identities seemed to be interchangeable because 
they could pass them among each other and decide which identity each 
wanted to take.
  But this article points out that ``U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen 
issued a temporary injunction halting implementation. That injunction 
was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit. The Obama administration appealed that decision to the Supreme 
Court,'' and they will hear arguments. That will be on Monday. ``While 
Hanen's injunction was based on the government's failure to comply with 
the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the High Court 
has indicated that it will also consider whether the executive amnesty 
programs violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.''
  I also want to insert here, since I know the intellectual integrity 
and brilliance of Judge Andrew Hanen--I have not talked to him in a 
number of years, but when I read the order that he drafted, he could 
have just had a one-page, one-paragraph order implementing in the 
injunction, but it was lengthy and thorough, and I knew what Judge 
Hanen was doing, having been a judge and chief justice. I understood 
exactly.
  There are times when you don't want the lawyers, as smart as they may 
be, to misinterpret the actions you have taken, and you know that you 
are capable of writing a good law review article, as Judge Hanen was 
more than capable and by himself has won an award for a law review 
article. I knew, as a judge, what I suspected Judge Hanen felt in this 
case, this could end up before the Supreme Court, and I don't want any 
misunderstanding or some court coming back down the way that says, oh, 
I probably meant this or I intended to do that when that was not my 
meaning and it was not my intent.
  So Judge Hanen issued a very eloquent and lengthy order so that even

[[Page 4424]]

some of the normal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would have to 
really twist and abuse his words in order to get the wrong meaning of 
what he was doing. He laid out his legal basis. He laid out the facts, 
and he made very clear that both the law and the facts supported what 
he did and the reasons for which he did them.
  So it should be a lesson. I know, as a judge, often it is easier when 
a litigant, prevailing litigant--the way it usually goes, they supply 
an order with their motion, with their petition for injunction. Here is 
the order. And it is a lot easier for a judge just to sign that and go 
on.
  But on important matters, I hope other judges who truly appreciate 
the Constitution the way Judge Hanen does, will take the time to write 
their own order, as he did, and scrupulously so. And I certainly hope, 
Mr. Speaker, that come Monday, during and after oral arguments in this 
case, the Justices on the Supreme Court, some of whom may not be quite 
as smart as Judge Hanen intellectually, will at least give credence to 
the trouble that he endured in order to write his own order and make 
sure his legal reasoning was as clear as Judge Hanen made it.
  Well done, good and faithful Judge Hanen.

                              {time}  1230

  This article says: ``Under these two newly announced programs''--
talking about DAPA and DACA--``nearly 40 percent of the Nation's 
estimated 12 million illegal aliens would be granted legal presence and 
permission to work in the U.S. According to an analysis by the 
Migration Policy Institute, an organization that is generally 
supportive of President Obama's immigration policies, combined with the 
40 percent of illegal aliens covered by DACA, DACA+, and DAPA, the 
other policy directives issued by Secretary Johnson would have exempted 
87 percent of all illegal aliens from enforcement actions.''
  That is extraordinary. If the President doesn't like the law, he 
says: I have the power to exclude certain people from prosecution and, 
hey, I can issue pardons in specific cases. So I am specifically making 
87 percent of those illegally in the country legal.
  We might as well pronounce the next President king or queen if they 
are going to have this kind of power.
  Further down in the article, Mr. Stein says: ``To the contrary, 
Congress has taken explicit actions to limit the discretionary 
authority of the executive in the area of immigration enforcement. In 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Relief Act of 1996, which Congress 
passed and President Clinton signed, Congress indisputably intended `to 
prevent delay in the removal of illegal aliens.'
  ``Under the INA, Congress has enumerated two mandatory statutory 
responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security: the `power and 
duty,' to administer and enforce all laws relating to immigration, and 
the mandatory duty to guard against the illegal entry of aliens.
  ``Under the Obama administration, neither Secretary Johnson nor his 
predecessor, Janet Napolitano, have faithfully complied with these 
statutory responsibilities. In fact, through his acts of November 20, 
2014, the Secretary has affirmatively shirked those responsibilities 
and blatantly attempted to substitute Presidential policies in the 
place of a comprehensive system of constitutionally enacted Federal 
laws that define who may enter and remain in the United States and 
under what conditions.
  ``Needless to say, when the Supreme Court delivers its ruling in 
June, the implications for U.S. immigration policy will be profound. 
What is at stake is nothing less than the entire premise of more than a 
century of immigration policy: namely, the legitimacy of laws that 
restrict immigration in order to protect the social, economic, and 
security interests of the American people.''
  Let me insert here. Let's look at who is most harmed by these vast 
amnesty programs of millions of millions of people to compete with 
people legally in America for the jobs. You have got over 94 million 
Americans that are so tired of looking for work and being turned down 
for jobs, they quit looking. Perhaps some of those 94 million should be 
given the chance to have those jobs.
  And, of course, knowing the way free markets are supposed to work, 
labor is paid what the free market would require. But you convolute the 
free market by bringing people in. And I do say bringing them in, 
because Homeland Security, as Border Patrolmen have told me, are called 
logistics by the drug cartels because they get them across the river, 
and then Homeland Security becomes logistics and ships them wherever 
they want to go in the United States. Or they may be so callous as to 
just give them a notice, whether they are a killer, as has happened 
here lately, and say: By the way, come back to court some time in the 
future, for which they, of course, do not return.
  But in any event, the article concludes: ``Even those Justices of the 
court who might agree with the President's views on immigration policy 
generally should appreciate the precedent-setting decision they would 
be making by allowing the President to run roughshod over the 
constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine.
  ``Those who support granting amnesty to illegal aliens should 
recognize that a ruling in favor of his vast new claims to power to 
change the law would be a Pyrrhic victory. It would emasculate the 
abilities of Congress to set immigration limits and standards, and it 
would render the courts irrelevant in ensuring the enforcement of the 
very same.''
  So this is a big case coming up. The Supreme Court also has heard 
oral arguments on whether or not the President can order the violation 
of deeply held religious Christian convictions and order folks like the 
Little Sisters of the Poor, who have dedicated their lives to poverty 
and helping those less fortunate.
  If they want them to violate their religious convictions, as was made 
clear during oral argument, then the administration ought to be able to 
order any American, including churches, according to them, to violate 
their Christian beliefs. Because after all, they are the government. 
They work for the President.
  Sure, they can order people to violate their Christian beliefs. For 
heaven's sake, these people have no sense of history. They don't even 
know that one of the things that just infuriated Americans and caused a 
revolution was a king believing that he could just order people to 
violate their religious convictions. That is why religion is the first 
thing mentioned in our Bill of Rights.
  It has been so misconstrued, but the government was to never do what 
the King of England did when he ordered a new church. The Church of 
England is the official church. They never saw it as a problem to have 
different denominations agree to pray in the name of Jesus and to have 
the same type of prayers begin each day in the Congress and then, 
again, when we started our first congresses under the Constitution. 
That was never a problem. They knew they were not violating the First 
Amendment, because many of them helped craft it. We are not 
establishing a religion and we are not going to prohibit the free 
exercise thereof.
  So the Court has this before it, with eight Justices sitting, after 
the untimely death of a real American hero, who has no doubt already 
heard, as John Quincy Adams said when he stood downstairs before the 
Supreme Court and prayed that the Justices of the Supreme Court that 
have already deceased would have already heard those words: Well done, 
good and faithful servant. Enter now into the joy of the Lord.
  That is what John Quincy Adams said specifically before the Supreme 
Court in the hearing on the Amistad case downstairs when the Supreme 
Court was here in this building. I have no doubt Justice Scalia has 
already heard that. He has been a very faithful servant, standing up 
for religious liberty.
  So we will see what the other eight Justices, do, and then we will 
see whether or not politics has become so

[[Page 4425]]

extraordinarily the purpose of the Supreme Court rather than the 
Constitution. Because, clearly, there is information that is passed and 
gotten to the Supreme Court. Apparently it occurred during the decision 
on whether or not to extend the 24-hour hold on the bankruptcy order 
that violated the Constitution.
  And God bless Justice Ginsburg when she put that 24-hour hold on an 
unconstitutional, illegal order. According to what one of the Justices 
told me--without going into detail--the White House submitted 
information ex parte, behind the scenes, that if they left that 24-hour 
hold in place, everybody that had any kind of job that related to the 
automobile industry would lose their job. And it would all be the 
Supreme Court's fault if they left the 24-hour hold in place.
  It certainly appears they got information that affected Chief Justice 
Roberts. It looked like he changed a dissenting opinion into a majority 
opinion in the ObamaCare case. This is serious. And this will determine 
whether or not we are going to follow the Constitution.
  I am so pleased to be here on the House floor with my friend from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the former Governor.
  Mr. SANFORD. I just want to borrow maybe 5 minutes worth of your time 
just to talk about this issue of Puerto Rico. You have touched on it in 
different ways. You were talking about constitutional issues just a 
moment ago, and I want to follow up on that thought because I think 
that what is occurring here has far bigger consequences than we may 
realize.
  I would say that at a couple different levels. One is, Charles 
Dickens once talked about Christmas past, Christmas present, Christmas 
still to come. I think that this is a snapshot of Christmas to come if 
we don't watch out here in the United States.
  As my colleague from Texas well knows, we are at a financial tipping 
point, the likes of which our civilization has never seen before. We 
have never before been at this level of indebtedness in a peacetime 
situation. We are, again, about to find ourselves between a rock and a 
hard place, which is very much the story of Puerto Rico, as it relates 
to their financial situation.
  So you think about the number of 2025. In basically less than 10 
years, we are only going to have enough money to pay for interest and 
entitlements and nothing else. You think about the way in which 
interest payments--by congressional budget numbers--are expected to 
balloon from around $200 billion a year to $800 billion a year and the 
fact that we are going to spend more on interest payments than we will 
on defense.
  You can walk through a lot of different numbers that say that we are 
about to be at a profound, bad spot, which is, again, the way in which 
Puerto Rico, I think, is foretelling. It really talks about the fact 
that they went out, spent too much, obligated themselves too much, made 
promises they couldn't deliver on. And so we find ourselves in this 
pickle.
  I would also say this. This is an exercise in free markets. If you 
think about the notion of free markets and what that means, what we 
would agree on as conservatives is that there are certain absolutes. On 
the rule of law and private property rights and market-based 
principles, Thomas Friedman talks about a flat world and how a kid in 
Texas or in South Carolina competes with kids in Shanghai or New Delhi 
in ways that they never did before.
  So if you have a corporate rate that is too high, not surprisingly, 
corporations aren't going to come to your island. If you have a minimum 
wage that doesn't fit with the prevailing wage rate of that area, 
corporations or businesses, local and small, may not be able to start 
up and compete. If you think about so many of the different building 
blocks that make for a vibrant economy, this is, again, a reminder of 
how important those things are.
  And so I look at this and I am perplexed. I am really struggling with 
this issue.
  I looked just a little while ago. Puerto Rican bonds are still 
trading between 65 and 70 cents on the dollar, even though we have a 
pure math trap, which is to say financial markets are still betting 
that, in some form or another, those bondholders are going to get 
bailed out.
  So that is on the one hand. On the other hand, you look at the plight 
of the people in Puerto Rico, you look at what might come next. I 
empathize with leadership of how do you deal with this issue. But I 
want to go back to one thing that I think is central to both of us, and 
that is the rule of law.
  I actually pulled up a general obligation bond. This was a 2012 
issue, Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
$400 million in size. It says on the first page: ``The bonds are 
general obligations of the Commonwealth. The good faith, credit, and 
taxing power of the Commonwealth are irrevocably pledged for the prompt 
payment of the principal and interest on the bonds. The Constitution of 
Puerto Rico provides that public debt of the Commonwealth, which 
includes bonds,'' whatnot, whatnot, whatnot. This on the front page.

                              {time}  1245

  The issue of what is occurring in Puerto Rico has everything to do 
with the sanctity of the rule of law in this country. It has far-
reaching implications well beyond the 3\1/2\ million people that make 
up the Island of Puerto Rico but, really, the whole of the United 
States.
  We have a municipal market in this country of about $2.7 trillion in 
size. What comes next? Because, if they can change it in the front page 
of what was a $400 million issue for Puerto Rico, can they change it 
for Illinois? Can they change it for California?
  Obviously, territories and States are very different, but I do worry 
about the degree of precedent it sets, because what we are worried 
about is a public exodus from Puerto Rico. We are worried about a lot 
of different ramifications. Is that not true if Illinois was to end up 
in a real problem spot financially, in terms of what comes next?
  So I think it has real implications there. I think it is a reminder 
of how important it is that we look at the ingredients of growth.
  One of my problems with this bill is it is asymmetrical. The cram-
down provision, section 3, is absolute and certain. The certainty of 
economic reforms on that island are not certain. It is asymmetrical in 
that form.
  So I look at the Jones Act. I was in a transportation hearing 
yesterday, and it was pointed out that the cost of delivering a 20-foot 
container from the East Coast of the United States is double the cost 
of what it would be to deliver that same container to the Dominican 
Republic or to Haiti.
  I look at the corporate tax there. They used to have a very 
competitive corporate tax rate on the island of Puerto Rico. That 
Federal clause lapsed, and now they are not so competitive.
  But why don't we have it in this bill? In other words, if we are 
going to have a cram-down provision, which really deals with the 
sanctity of law, general obligation bonds, what they do or don't mean, 
why wouldn't we have incorporated, as well, other provisions that could 
make the island more competitive, whether that deals with the Jones Act 
corporate tax--or, for instance, we have a bill on the minimum wage.
  If you look at what has happened in American Samoa, or if you look in 
the Northern Mariana Islands, other territories of the United States, 
what we did as a Congress is to say: You know what? The prevailing wage 
of that region of the Pacific is not the same as what you would see in 
the domestic United States. Therefore, let's give them discretion in 
how they set their minimum wage.
  Our bill says that same thing. The prevailing wage of the Caribbean 
Basin is not the same as you would see in the domestic United States. 
Why not give them that same option so that they can become more 
competitive as they compete with Haiti and the Dominican Republic and 
other neighboring islands down that way?
  So I am going to continue to study this issue, but I am genuinely 
concerned about what it could mean.
  I just want to take one second--can I take one more second?--to read 
the

[[Page 4426]]

cram-down provision because, in the bill, under title III, it 
incorporates 1129(b) of the Federal Code. Let me just read that so it 
is on the record.
  ``Notwithstanding section 510(a) of this title, if all of the 
applicable requirements of subsection (a) of this section other than 
the paragraph (8) are met with respect to a plan, the court, on request 
of the proponent of the plan, shall confirm the plan notwithstanding 
the requirements of such paragraph if the plan does not discriminate 
unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of 
claims or interests that is impaired under . . . the plan.''
  I could go on. It is Greek. It is written in legalese. But the point 
is this bill has an absolute cram-down provision, which is to open up 
new territory with regard to how territories handle debt, and I think 
we need to be very, very, very wary of that provision; and, at minimum, 
if we are going to include something like that, include whole-scale 
changes that would make the island more competitive so that they can, 
in fact, pay off their debts because, if you don't do anything to 
improve the economy, we are going to end up back in this same problem, 
whether it is 12 months from now or 12 years from now.
  Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is exactly right. It seems like the big 
push is to resolve the issue of what is owed to the bondholders who 
invested money; and, apparently, they are the ones running commercials 
in some people's districts about, oh, don't do a bailout, because they 
want to get their full money on what they invested. I sure understand 
that.
  But as my friend has pointed out, we can't be sure that there will be 
any reforms. I know some of our friends, we think, well, there is such 
massive unemployment. Well, one cure in some places to help with 
massive unemployment is to lower the minimum wage and get more people 
to work, and that is being suggested; but in Puerto Rico, I was reading 
that, for a typical family of three, if someone works a 40-hour-per-
week minimum wage job, at the current minimum wage before it is lowered 
like some people are advocating, the take-home is under $1,200. 
However, the welfare payments they would be entitled to, typically, on 
average, would be about $1,800 a month; so sometimes lowering the 
minimum wage would be a solution.
  In Puerto Rico, where--and of course I think it is totally 
appropriate and fair, as the Founders said: If they don't elect one 
representative to the body that makes taxes, then they have no right to 
make taxes on us. So, in Puerto Rico, which is also true of Guam, 
Samoa, the Mariana Islands, any territory where they elect a delegate 
or they don't elect a full voting Representative, because those come 
from the several States, they don't pay any Federal income tax.
  So I had in my mind that, wow, Puerto Rico could be the American Hong 
Kong. They have all the Federal benefits. I read one estimate that 20 
percent of all of the income made by people in Puerto Rico is actually 
welfare benefits, paid by people of the 50 States.
  But some of the towns--I saw a chart--I think the highest was right 
at 46 percent of the local community work for government. And, you 
know, you have got communities, 28,000, 35,000, where 40 percent of the 
whole population works for the government. Something has to be done 
about that.
  Our friend, fellow Republican Luis Fortuno, got elected Governor, and 
he could see the handwriting on the wall. We have got to get our 
government down and under control because, if we are going to expect 
anybody to help us at all, we have got to show we are able to take care 
of our own problems. He was promptly fired at the next election for 
trying to get the massive government bureaucracy under control. That 
hasn't been dealt with. There is no indication it will actually be 
dealt with.
  President Obama will make all the appointments of the board we are 
talking about that will have oversight, but those will come from 
recommendations from Minority Leader Pelosi, Speaker Ryan, Majority 
Leader McConnell, and Minority Leader Reid; and the President will make 
what will be the deciding vote on close calls. So there are no 
assurances that there is going to be reform in these areas.
  As my friend, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, has pointed out, Puerto 
Rico had the only area, he was telling me, in the world where all of 
our military branches could come together and do tactical exercises, 
you know, storm the beach type of things. And that was taken away; and 
that land, 17,000 or so acres, is owned by the Department of the 
Interior.
  Puerto Rico, apparently, is part of this deal. They don't want to 
sell any Puerto Rican land, but they are willing to let the Department 
of the Interior sell their land and give that money to Puerto Rico. So 
we are not giving them direct payments, but the Department of the 
Interior, part of this deal is going to be selling things.
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman would yield, and then I will leave it 
to you.
  You hit on Luis Fortuno, and I do want to shout out, I worked with 
him in a former role in government, and you are absolutely correct. 
What he tried to do, I think, was brave in political terms, courageous, 
and he paid a price for it in the political world; but I think that the 
record will show that he was trying to do the right thing on that 
front.
  I think also, what has happened here is a reminder of how, if 
everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. And too much of what we 
see, again, I absolutely empathize with the plight that leadership 
finds themselves in in terms of: How do you manage these competitive 
interests of the need to have financial stability on an island like 
Puerto Rico, and how do you manage that with the precedent that it 
might set for other States and other territories and the overall notion 
of financial responsibility?
  I see your time is about to wind up, so I am going to stop for you 
since it was your time. Thank you for letting me borrow a few minutes 
of it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________