[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5632-5634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westerman). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are back in session and things have 
continued to proceed on. I appreciate so much my colleagues calling 
attention to this national disaster, really. Opioids are being used at 
what seem to be unprecedented levels.
  I know, since I have been here, there was basically a war against the 
use of methamphetamines. So we restricted law-abiding citizens' access 
to Sudafed, one decongestant that works on me and has since it was 
discovered.
  We have had more drugs pouring across our southern border, according 
to what DEA agents and local law enforcement have been telling me in 
Texas and Border Patrol down at our border, DPS at our border. Drugs 
pouring in seem to have more purity and be more devastating to people 
that get hooked on them.
  Obviously, we have had doctors and nurses. I have sentenced many 
professionals, a number of them at least, for crimes committed. And 
they are getting access to opioids, but it is a problem.
  What concerns me, also, is that it appears this administration is 
saying: We will help you clean up the criminal justice inadequacies as 
long as you will pass bills that will get a lot of people, thousands 
and thousands of people, released from prison early.
  We have seen from the figures that were provided to Senator Jeff 
Sessions, pursuant to his request, that, of all the people in Federal 
prison for possession of illegal substances, 77 percent of them are not 
citizens of the United States. That is 77 percent of those in Federal 
prison for possession are not U.S. citizens. So, obviously, this 
President has been giving illegal, unconstitutional amnesties out like 
they were water at a marathon.
  Hopefully, the Supreme Court is once and for all going to assure that 
that stops. But it makes sense when you look at this as being an 
election year and the Democratic Governor of Virginia makes thousands 
of felons eligible to vote.
  All they need is to get out of prison, and then this President wants 
thousands and thousands more released from prison. The old saying is 
true here in Washington: No matter how cynical you get, it is never 
enough to catch up.
  We should do criminal justice reform. I have been pushing for it for 
the years I have been here, I guess for the last 8 years.
  But if it is only going to get signed into law if it is combined with 
scrapping the sentences that were arrived at by judges agonizing over 
an appropriate sentence, then I hope and pray it will not happen until 
January of next year, when a new President is in office, so that it 
does not get linked.
  I mean, the cynicism for an administration to say, ``Yeah. We will do 
the criminal justice reform that is necessary, but only if you will 
allow us to release thousands and thousands from prison,'' which there 
is no question that people will be murdered, people will be robbed, 
people will be assaulted, shot, burglarized in crimes that never would 
have happened if the President hadn't pushed the early release of so 
many criminals.
  I hope and pray that we will be the guardians here in the House of 
those American citizens that would be killed, robbed, burglarized, 
assaulted, if the President gets his way and releases people early. We 
can't allow that to happen if we are going to keep our oath to the 
American people.
  We have heard so often in this room and, goodness, we have heard 
right here across the street in front of the Supreme Court people that 
claim to be illegally in this country.
  The only reason I am saying claim to be illegally in this country is 
we have heard that all the people in this country are in the shadows 
and we need to bring them out of the shadows.
  These people that were claiming to be illegally here protesting in 
front of the Supreme Court recently were not in the shadows. They were 
in full sunlight out in front of the United States Supreme Court and, 
in fact, blocking traffic there right in front of the Supreme Court 
building. Ultimately, the police just shut off the streets because so 
many people were in the streets.
  This story from yesterday in the Washington Examiner is entitled 
``Cashing in: Illegal Immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American 
families.''
  The story says:
  ``Illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in 
Federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average `native' 
American household, at $4,431, according to a new report on the cost of 
immigration released Monday.
  ``The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost 
figures, found that all immigrant-headed households--legal and 
illegal--receive an average of $6,241 in welfare''--
  I will point out parenthetically here that that is an average. 
Obviously, not everybody gets welfare that is here legally and 
illegally. Obviously, there are lots of households that don't get 
welfare. But this is an average.
  And the article says:
  --``41 percent more than native households. As with Americans 
receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to 
immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.
  ``The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to 
households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant 
households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of 
native households, said the analysis of Census data.''
  I would like to insert, Mr. Speaker, when Steve King and I visited in 
London, England, with the Social Security office equivalent there, they 
pointed out that, in order to receive Social Security-type benefits in 
England, the law requires proof that you have been in the country for 5 
years before you are eligible.
  We were told--I didn't see them, but we were told that, in applying 
to come to the country or being in the country, you had to agree not to 
apply for benefits for 5 years, the idea being, if they are just an 
immigrant magnet for people who want to come get welfare, they would go 
broke. That was their reasoning. And, actually, it is quite good 
reasoning.

[[Page 5633]]



                              {time}  2115

  As one of the leaders there in the office made clear, she said: 
``Look, we want to make sure that people coming into England are going 
to be contributors to our society and not just takers from our 
society.''
  I don't know if she has been successful. Apparently there are people 
who come in who are just takers there; but this idea is interesting. It 
puts to the test whether someone is just coming in to get welfare 
benefits one has never participated in, has helped pay for, or if one 
is coming in to help make America a better country.
  Of course, some think: If I come to America and if they are paying me 
benefits, obviously, America is a better country because my getting 
welfare makes it a better country. But most of us would not necessarily 
agree with that. At least, I hope most would not.
  But in seeing this figure that the total cost is over $103 billion 
for welfare benefits to households that are headed by immigrants, 
possibly as much as anything else, it ought to indicate that our 
immigration policies and certainly this administration need dramatic 
changes. Perhaps it would be good to put a pause on immigration until 
we get this worked out because we are doing great damage to our country 
and we are doing great damage to other countries.
  Anyway, this goes on to read: ``Immigrants receiving the most, in the 
study of 2012 figures, come from Mexico and Central America. Their 
average annual taxpayer-funded welfare collection is $8,251, 86 percent 
higher than the benefits received by native households, said the 
report.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is pretty staggering. These are, apparently, 2012 
figures? Mexico and Central America? Immigrants from Mexico and Central 
America are receiving, on average, $8,251 per year.
  It is pretty clear. You don't have to be that great of a 
mathematician. I was good at math in junior high and in high school. In 
college, I only had to study for 15 minutes for the final to make an A 
in algebra. But you don't have to be good at math to know that no 
nation can sustain itself when it is giving people who are rushing into 
the country over $8,000 without their ever contributing a dime to the 
ongoing of the country.
  In any event, the article reads: ``The new report follows another 
that found President Obama seeking $17,613 for every new illegal minor, 
more than Social Security retirees get.''
  That is just mind-boggling. In the words of Bo Pilgrim, that is mind-
boggling. It is $17,613 that President Obama sought to provide to every 
illegal immigrant minor--a person under 18. They have come into the 
country, breaking our law to get here. Yes, I have been there at all 
hours of the day and night on the border. No one comes across that 
border unaccompanied. You can't get across the Rio Grande, in the areas 
they were coming across, unaccompanied--4-year-old, 6-year-old, 8-year-
old children as they stand there. I have seen them come up from the 
bank, and they are being helped. You see a woman helping this child, 
and the child is looking to her for answers, looking to her for 
instructions, looking to her for help. Then she gets up there, and she 
asks: Oh, is this your child?
  Oh, no. I don't know her at all. She is not accompanied. Nobody is 
with her.
  Yes, you are with her, and all of these other people are with her, 
but we call it unaccompanied.
  Then, of course, the President wants $17,613 for every new illegal 
immigrant who is under 18, which, as the article points out, is more 
than he would seek for Social Security retirees.
  Again, from The Washington Examiner, it is talking about author Jason 
Richwine, who noted that illegal immigrants are barred from directly 
receiving welfare, but, instead, they get it via their legal children.
  ```Illegal immigrants are barred from directly accessing most, though 
not all, welfare programs, but they can receive welfare through their 
U.S.-born children. Legal immigrant households, which have greater 
eligibility for welfare, cost $6,378, on average,' he wrote.
  ``The average household''--again, this is just an average household--
``headed by an immigrant, legal or illegal, costs taxpayers $6,234 in 
Federal welfare benefits.
  ``The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash 
welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid 
dollars than the average native household.
  ``At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and 
Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region.
  ``The greater consumption of welfare dollars of immigrants can be 
explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger 
number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant 
households are headed by a high school dropout compared to just 8 
percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant 
households have three or more children versus just 6 percent of native 
households.''
  So when you do the math, as some people actually have, our Nation is 
not long for the world unless we get on a lawful track. I have seen and 
had signs shoved in front of my face over in front of the Supreme Court 
that Jesus was an immigrant and that Jesus was a refugee. This thing I 
know from everything we have been taught, from everything that is in 
the Bible, is that Jesus was never an illegal immigrant. Jesus made 
clear you render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. You follow the 
law. He never broke the law nor advocated breaking the civilian law; 
though, those who crucified him clearly violated the law.
  An article here from The Washington Free Beacon today, by Adam Kredo, 
reads: ``Report: Homegrown violent extremists planting roots across 
U.S.; foiled ISIS attacks, plots, and terror funding grows across 
Nation.''
  ``At least 75 homegrown violent extremists were found to be operating 
across the United States in 2015, with the largest portion of these 
individuals pledging allegiance to the ISIS terror group, according to 
recent figures published by New Jersey's Office of Homeland Security 
and Preparedness.
  ``The largest number of homegrown extremists were caught providing 
material support to various terror organizations, while at least 21 
percent of the terrorists were found to be planning attacks in the 
United States, according to the figures.
  ``Another 10 percent successfully carried out terror attacks in 
California, New York, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, according to the 
data, which shows that the New York City area was home to the largest 
number of violent extremists.''
  That term ``violent extremists'' is so beloved by this administration 
so they don't have to use the term ``radical Islamists'' or ``Islamic 
jihadists.''
  Yet, here is an article from Craig Bannister today: 
``Administration's Censorship of State Department Video Mirrors 
Deletion of Hollande's `Islamist' Remark.''
  The article reads: ``The State Department's censorship of an on-
camera confession made by spokeswoman Jen Psaki appears identical to 
the recent censorship by the White House of video of French President 
Hollande speaking the words `Islamist terrorism,' exposed by MRCTV.
  ``FOX News' James Rosen reported on Monday that the State Department 
edited out an on-camera admission by Psaki in 2013 that it is Obama 
administration's policy to lie to the American people, and that the 
Iran nuclear deal was `a good example' of a time it did.
  ``The administration used the same censorship tactics earlier this 
year when it edited out audio of President Hollande calling `Islamist 
terrorism' the root of terrorism today . . .' The White House Web site 
has censored a video of French President Francois Hollande saying that 
``Islamist terrorism'' is at the ``roots of terrorism.'' The White 
House briefly pulled video of a press event on terrorism with President 
Obama, and when it reappeared on the whitehouse.gov Web site and 
YouTube, the audio of Hollande's translator goes silent, beginning with 
the words ``Islamist terrorism,'' then begins again at the end of his 
sentence.'
  ``The two censorships by the Obama administration follow the same 
pattern:

[[Page 5634]]

  ``A comment objectionable to the administration was edited out of the 
official video posted on a government Web site,
  ``The censorship was discovered and documented because the official 
government transcript had not been edited,
  ``The missing video was, somehow, found and restored to the version 
on the government Web site--after the censorship had been exposed, and
  ``The administration pleaded ignorance of the editing once it had 
been made public.
  ``Rosen's revelation begs a question posed to MRCTV multiple times 
since it broke the Hollande story:
  ``Is this an isolated incident, or are there other times the 
administration has edited out comments it doesn't want the American 
people to hear?''
  Consistent with actions like preventing people from hearing the 
French President point out the truth that Islamic terrorism is at the 
root of all terrorism--most terrorism it certainly is--here is a front 
page magazine story: ``Obama Frees USS Cole Bombing Terrorist. American 
lives don't matter,'' from Daniel Greenfield.
  ``On Thursday morning, sailors on board the USS Cole were lining up 
for an early lunch. Seventeen of them died as an al Qaeda bomb on board 
a fishing boat tore through the hull outside the gallery. The dead 
included 15 men and two women, one of whom had a young child. For 3 
weeks, the crew of the USS Cole struggled to keep their ship from 
sinking while working waste deep in water with bucket brigades, 
sleeping on the deck, and living surrounded by the terrible aftermath 
of the terrorist attack.
  ``The survivors, wounded and whole, received the words `Glory is the 
Reward of Valor,' written on the bent steel removed from the site of 
the explosion that tore through their ship and their lives.

                              {time}  2130

  ``The President of the United States promised that justice would be 
done:
  ```To those who attacked them, we say: You will not find a safe 
harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail.'''
  As the article says: ``Despite Clinton's words, justice did not 
prevail.''
  The article goes on to point out all the injustice of what President 
Obama has done in freeing this bomber involved in the USS Cole bombing. 
He is a murderer of 17, wounder of three dozen or so in an attack on a 
United States military ship.
  The United States cannot long exist when this is the way we treat 
those who are trying to destroy us.
  In a May 5 account in The Weekly Standard's story, ``Obama's Foreign 
Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran 
Deal,'' it says:
  ``It's hardly any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben 
Rhodes has a `mind meld' with his boss, the President. According to a 
David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday 
and already posted to the Web site, Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is 
contemptuous of `the American foreign-policy establishment.' What Obama 
calls the `Washington playbook' dictating the sorts of responses 
available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the `Blob.'''
  This article points out what is in the news right now, that the Obama 
administration--and I am being careful--that the Obama administration 
was responsible for a lie perpetrated against the American people. They 
claim they were dealing with moderates in Iran. They knew they were 
dealing with radicals, and Ben Rhodes is lying. He brags about all the 
lying they did to keep the Senate from standing up and having the 
courage to say this is a treaty. It is being done with radical 
Islamists in Iran. It hurts all our friends, helps our enemies. We will 
not allow that to happen. We are taking a vote on the Iran treaty as a 
treaty.
  And then when they did, if the Democrats tried to block it, then 
this, more than anything else they have ever taken up, would be 
something they should say, as Harry Reid did, we may not have 60, but 
this is critical. We vote on the Iran treaty and vote it down.
  So 51 votes sets aside cloture, and they drive forward. It doesn't 
get the two-thirds vote, and we stop the radicals in Iran from getting 
the hundreds of billions that will flow not just in 1 year, but over a 
period of time.
  I met with Baloch people, Baloch leaders today. The southern part of 
Iran, southern southwest part of Pakistan, those are indigenous Baloch 
areas. The most productive oilfields of Iran are Baloch areas.
  They have been so unfairly terrorized and mistreated. They know what 
terrorists the leaders of Iran are.
  We have friends in those areas of Iran and Pakistan, and this 
administration chose to lie to the American people to get the Senate to 
do nothing to stop them. And people around the world will die as a 
result of the lies that Ben Rhodes has now admitted to.
  God help us all.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________