Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the World English Dictionary defines ``invasion.'' Among the definitions is: invading with Armed Forces; but it is: any encroachment or intrusion; the onset or advent of something harmful, as in a disease; pathologically, the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues. Under Random House Dictionary, the definitions include: the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease; entrance, as if to take possession or overrun--and it gives the example, the annual invasion of the resort by tourists--and also, infringement by intrusion. It comes from Middle English from the 1400s. That is where we get our word ``invasion'' in the English language. It is important because, in the Constitution, under article I, section 8, it says that Congress has the authority to call for the military during times of invasion. That is the Congress has that power. That is why it is in article I. Then, as I mentioned yesterday, you have article I, section 10, which the third clause--there are three little clauses or sections there. They are not a numbered section, but the third sentence says: No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. We know that the invasion into France by the Allied Forces consisted of about 150,000 troops, about 150,000 people, was the biggest invasion in history. Since then, we come up to the year 2014, and The New York Times reported that just in recent months we have had 240,000 adults and 52,000 children--now it is being reported that it is closer to 60,000 children. Initially, as I understand, the article said since April, just 2 months, we have had nearly 300,000 people invade the United States through Texas. Then it is now being reported that there are 300,000 people making their way up from Central America to the United States. Now, the administration and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, they are coming because of this massive violence that they have been facing. Well, there is more violence there than there is in much of the United States. Perhaps it is comparable to Chicago. So, if they are wanting to come to a country where there is less violence, maybe they don't want to come to a country that includes Chicago. Perhaps if Chicago maybe had more gun control laws, maybe it wouldn't be so violent. That is my first thought. Then I realize, wait a minute, Chicago has more gun control laws than about anywhere else in the country, yet massive murders. So, obviously, if people are coming to America from Central America, they don't want to be sent to Chicago. They don't want to be sent to a place where there is more violence than where they have been living. But we are told that is why they are coming. Well, actually, when I was on the border a couple of weeks ago, and I will be there this evening, the people that I saw interviewed, the people that were there that I talked to with the help of an interpreter, they said nothing about violence they were coming from. They had gotten word that this President, this administration, was going to allow them to stay and not send them back. That is why those who had parents who had been illegally in the country--like one little girl, her mother had been here since she was 1 year old. But now that they have gotten word in Central America that if you come illegally into the United States, the Department of Homeland Security is not providing security to the United States. No, they are providing security involved in human trafficking, becoming complicit in the criminal and illegal activity going on. They actually have given up their role there on the border of homeland security and now they are involved in destroying our security. They are transporting, along with Health and Human Services--forget the word ``health.'' Do you really want people in charge of your health that right now, as I speak here on the floor of the House of Representatives, involved in transporting people all over our country with disease like tuberculosis, H1N1, which can be fatal, who knows how many kinds of flu that people may not have been inoculated for, scabies, lice, all kinds of disease that the Department, formerly called ``Health and Human Services,'' is now engaged in spreading bad health and disease around the country. Thank you so much Health and Human Services. So we are in a time when the administration in charge is engaged in more lawlessness than any time in my lifetime. They are engaged in actually violating the hippocratic oath if the national leaders were doctors and took that oath. It says, First do no harm. Yet harm is being done by this administration as they are spreading people around the country that are coming here in massive, invasive ways. And our heart goes out to them. When I see these children down on the border in the middle of the night, what kind of parent sends their child, or even sends word back home, Hey, I've got a good job. I've been working here illegally for a number of years. And even though I haven't done anything for my child over the last several years, now that the U.S. is giving benefits like feeding, providing health care, giving lawyers to people that come in--especially children--bring them on up. We may bring in lots of people. There is story today from The Washington Times, ``Obama Seeks Brisk Passage of Border Children Funding Bill.'' Of course, he wants to do that, because it would subsidize lawyers for illegal immigrants. People are fond of referring to the Constitution and saying, Well, we have got to make sure people have their constitutional rights. Well, guess what? The Constitution does not guarantee the same rights to everyone. It does not guarantee the same rights to immigrants who come in legally. For sure, it does not provide the same rights to those who come into our country in violation of our law from the beginning. It does not provide all of the same freedoms and liberties to our members of the military. As a former member of the United States Army, 4 years on Active Duty, I find it extremely offensive that an administration will seek to coddle terrorists who have killed Americans in cold blood--and been thrilled that they did so--and have written that they were thrilled that they did so, and they hope they have a chance to kill many more Americans. They coddle them and give them more rights than we do our own United States military members who are willing to lay down their lives to save this country. That's right. Under our Constitution, article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to provide what rights the military will have and what discipline will be utilized. That is how it was constitutional for Congress to pass the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I can assure you that in the military you do not have the right to freedom of assembly when and where you want to. Otherwise, I would have indicated that to my commanding officer at 4 in the morning when he wanted me to be out there to go 20 miles at 5. I would have indicated a lot of things if I were able to have freedom of speech in the Army, because there were times when my superior commissioned officer gave orders that I thought were absolutely stupid, but you don't have all those same constitutional rights everybody else does. It depends on who you are and where you fall under the Constitution. When it comes to immigration and naturalization, that is a power reserved for the United States Congress. As my old constitutional law professor David Guinn says, there is only one court in the entire Constitution that is created. Every other court owes its entire existence, jurisdiction, and actually, ability to remain in existence to the United States Congress. That is why it is actually amusing when I hear people who are fairly smart, some of them educated in the Ivy League--despite perhaps the education that they missed out on getting as good as they might have gotten from somewhere else, like Texas A&M--and they think under the Constitution everybody gets the same rights. They do not. I have heard people even from the holy Ivy League schools who say that everybody has the right to be in a U.S. District Court. Well, that is interesting because there is no right to even have a United States District Court. If Congress decided to eliminate all District Courts and create some other kind of court system, we could do that. That is totally up to us. We get to set up whatever tribunals--the word that is in the Constitution--underneath the Supreme Court that we care to, or not set it up. It is up to Congress. That is the authority of Congress. So the President thinks we need to provide lawyers for illegal immigrants, and that is so interesting. I am sure that it is the perspective he gets. I know from Ed Klein's book there were indications that his able adviser, Valerie Jarrett, according to the book, is quite concerned about who is going to be the last person to give our President advice, because he is so easily swayed. So they try to make sure that he is not last advised by someone that disagrees with Valerie Jarrett or Michelle Obama's position. Well, unfortunately, he was just at a big fundraiser in Dallas held for him by lawyers. Lo and behold, he says he wants lawyers to be paid for out of this $3.7 billion. Isn't that something? There are lawyers that are providing their services for free to illegal immigrants. There is no constitutional requirement for someone coming into this country illegally to get a lawyer. It is not there. It is not even in the shadow of a penumbra. It is just not there. Well, the President wants money for that. And when you break down what the President's wants money for, there is even money in his $3.7 billion--not for the military so that we can provide for the common defense--for leadership training for those who have come into our country illegally. Yes, that is right. We need to train them for leadership so they can be good community organizers. And maybe if they learn well at these leadership training courses and they really pick it up well, maybe they, too, can be a worker at a place like ACORN, a place where they can train people how to vote Democrat, a place where they can make sure that they take voter registration forms out to other people who came in illegally. Madam Speaker, what is happening in this country is outrageous beyond measure. There are those who say, Well, sure, it is a certainty that these people--we are told about 78 or 80 percent of the people coming are adults and 20 percent or less are actually children--are coming to avoid violence, yet there has been no big spike in violence. So why all of a sudden this huge influx? And though the administration officials say with a straight face, Well, we are just totally surprised, then we see from January they were requesting transportation in the near months for tens of thousands of children that would be coming in. So forget what is said orally. Look what they have done. They have induced, lured, encouraged people to flood into our country in an invasion, and then they have prepared for the invasion, and now they say if you don't give us $3.7 billion, we are going to let it keep happening. They don't use those words, but they might as well, when there is a far simpler solution. If you want to really get down to the bottom of what is going on, Madam Speaker, you can look at a map of Central America. These countries where most people are coming from, over a thousand miles up through Mexico, risking life and limb to travel that far--so-called unaccompanied children that couldn't possibly come that far without help--right on their borders you have Costa Rica, you have Panama, you have Nicaragua. You don't have to go 500 miles to reach one of these countries. There are some places of violence in those countries, but there are also some places of peace in those countries. So if this were really all about escaping violence, and you really cared about a child, the last thing you would do is send them over a thousand miles and put them in the hands of drug cartels that may sexually abuse them, sell them into sex trafficking, or use them as drug carriers. They could just send those kids to a neighboring country where they speak the same language and where they could be cared for. This is not about people running to America to get away from violence. Also, we shouldn't be granting asylum to people that are lawfully in Mexico. We saw the article this week where Mexico has worked out an arrangement with Guatemala where they will have legal passage through Mexico in order to come into the United States illegally. That would mean that Mexico and Guatemala are conspiring to violate United States law. Well, if they were in the United States, that would allow pursuit of those countries through RICO, but since they are countries, it is a different situation. But that is a criminal enterprise when you conspire with another to help violate United States law. An article here from The Washington Free Beacon says, as of July 10, ``Unaccompanied Alien Children Program Cost $263 Million.'' For the 57,000 children that are here, you could take the $3.7 billion and give them each $67,000, and we would be a lot better off. Because that $3.7 billion, if we do what the President wants, doesn't actually stop the invasion that is going on. We are going to have to be spending that over and over and over again. So I am not advocating we give everybody that comes in $67,000. I am just pointing out it would be cheaper to do that than what the President is proposing. A story from Breitbart says, ``Health and Human Services Secretary: Beds for Illegals Can Cost Feds Up to 1K.'' Well, I am staying at a cheap motel in McAllen tonight, and I know it doesn't cost me a thousand dollars for the bed I am staying in. There is a time for Congress to say, Enough is enough, Mr. President. Initially, we didn't want to believe that anybody would intentionally lure people into the United States. We hoped that it was a reckless or a negligent act and not intentional. But look at the evidence. It hasn't been stopped. Even with $3.7 billion that is requested, there is no way, for what that is being called for, that it is going to stop the invasion that is occurring. That is why I am hoping that my Governor will utilize article I, section 10, which allows a State that is being invaded--in our case, more than twice as many, just in recent months--more than twice as many than invaded France on D-day, with a doubling of that coming en route, on their way here now. Under article I, section 10, the State of Texas would appear to have the right to use whatever means, whether it is troops, even using ships of war, even exacting a tax on interstate commerce that it wouldn't normally be allowed to have or utilize--they would be entitled, in order to pay to stop the invasion. Texas could, under article I, section 10, engage in agreements with, say, Arizona, New Mexico--I don't know that California would agree as they are too busy sending jobs to Texas right now. The States could enter a compact to work together to stop the invasion. Actually, if Texas just simply did what Woodrow Wilson did after Pancho Villa's thugs killed a bunch of American families--he crossed our border to kill them. One of my least favorite Presidents in our history, Woodrow Wilson, sent this new thing called the National Guard down. You can read all kinds of different versions of how many National Guard troops he sent to the border. Whether it was 19,000 or 159,000-- whatever it was--he sent thousands of National Guard troops to our border, and it was secured, and nobody came in that President Wilson did not want to come in. He also sent General Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa. He caught some of the lieutenants. He never caught Pancho Villa. I am not advocating an invasion into Mexico. I am advocating strongly that we stop the invasion into the United States. Do you want to talk about compassion for children? My children have now finished college, but I go to schools all over Texas. I look in those precious little faces, just as I have looked at the precious little faces of people coming in illegally, but those whose parents are paying taxes, who are law-abiding, know their schools are having trouble, in many places, staying afloat. Many school districts are in desperate trouble financially, and now, we are going to add hundreds of children in some places whose parents are not paying taxes and who are not paying property taxes to support the schools in many cases. You are going to overwhelm those schools because you refuse to do the job the Constitution requires and that an oath was taken to faithfully execute. We owe this country an obligation to protect it and to protect those little children whose educations will be impaired because you have to slow them down to bring other students along who don't speak the language. Right now, in Texas, I am told that, basically, you need to speak Spanish. You really do. Why is that? Because the President is allowing so many people in the country illegally, without stopping the invasion--and we are being forced to educate those folks. When you talk to people, as I have, down around the border--border patrolmen, constables, and others who find dead bodies--and particularly landowners find dead bodies--one border patrolman tells me, when he finds the dead body of a child, he goes home and weeps. What are we doing, Mr. President? We are luring people here, and children are dying because they think, gee, they are not enforcing the law. This President is not enforcing the law. He is not protecting the country. The security is down, so we can go rushing in. It is not to avoid violence. They might go to a less violent place around them. It is to come and get the benefits. The trouble is, now that we are a welfare country, more and more people will overwhelm the system, and it does move us toward being a Third World country. Now, I have taken a lot of abuse for saying that this action also includes an effort to turn Texas blue. People have said: How outrageous is that, that you might think that a President or an administration might actually take action or refuse to take action just for political gain? Let's see. Here is an article from RedState. A friend there on November 12, 2013, points out: Headed by a former field director of Obama for America, Battleground Texas' whole aim is to turn Texas from a so- called ``red State'' to another California--that is, almost singularly controlled by liberal Democrats. According to O'Keefe's video, Enroll America, a ``501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act,'' is sharing data with Battleground Texas. So they are actually using government money to turn Texas into a State that votes more for Democratic candidates. Another article from a Democratic group says: The Lone Star State is changing. From top to bottom of the ballot, we can change the face of Texas politics together. It goes on to point out how Texans are carrying this movement and that its success could change the face of Presidential politics in this country as we know it. With 38 electoral votes at stake, a blue Texas would be a surefire road to the White House. For the first time that I am aware of, we had a President who didn't decide to stop his campaign apparatus after he got elected for a second time and who has expressed the intent of turning Texas into a Democrat voting State. Madam Speaker, the motives have been widely expressed. It is time to stop the invasion, and we have the power to do it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, ``these are the times that try men's souls.'' Having been to the border a couple of weeks ago, going to the border tomorrow and next weekend, I know from my experiences there that it is a traumatic time for so many. But I keep coming back to what a West African told me a few years ago when my wife and I were in West Africa with mercy ships, there in the harbor in Togo, caring for people there. A number of the West Africans had wanted to meet before I left. They knew I was a Member of Congress. And the oldest, a very wise man, after we had a lovely time visiting, said, Well, we wanted to meet with you so that we could give you a message to take back to Washington. He said, we were so excited here in Africa when you elected your first black President of the United States. He said, but since that happened, we have seen America get weaker and weaker. And basically, he was saying that we know, as Christians, where we go when we die. But our chance of having peace in this life can only come if America is strong. So he implored me to go back and share here in Washington that Africa wants a strong America, that Africans who love peace want and need a strong America. When I was in Nigeria recently visiting with heartbroken, devastated mothers of daughters who were kidnapped by radical Islamists, they wept as they would talk about their experiences. Three girls who had been captured and had been able to escape, their tales of the horrors of radical Islam were sickening, especially for a father of three girls. But again, the message there in Nigeria that was conveyed--different people, different ways, different words but, in essence, just as the elderly African gentleman had said a few years ago: Please stop getting weaker. You are hurting all of us. We need a strong America. Mr. Speaker, a strong America means an America that abides by the law and does what is talked about throughout the Bible, about being impartial and fair. And that means enforcing the law impartially, that no matter who you are, we must enforce the law across the board. That means, whatever your age, wherever you are coming from, you must abide by the laws, just as the people who are American citizens do. It means that if we do not keep America strong economically by not spending more than we have coming in, have national security through our military and through our different departments and branches that are supposed to keep us secure, if we don't apply the law across the board and make sure that people attempting to come into this country have the law impartially enforced, we will not stay strong. We move into that Third World category where the law is unfairly enforced. It is enforced against different people to different measures. And as someone, like me, who has been a judge and has had to look civil litigants and felons in the eye and tell them what the law required, even at times when I disagreed with the law but I knew it was constitutional, I applied the law because it is what must be done to keep America strong. Because when we begin to play favorites, we weaken America. When we cut our Defense Department just down to the nub and require them to do so many things with much less money, we are hurting our security. We are not remaining strong. When we have a Fed that is creating money--and, as I was told at the Fed one day, oh, we can't possibly print all the money we are creating; we are just adding digits--they are cheapening the value of the dollar, and it will pay a toll someday. That weakens us. We have got to abide by the law, and that means the President of the United States must do so. It means the Attorney General of the United States, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer, as Attorney General, must apply the law fairly, not unfairly and unjustly, and showing great partiality, as this Attorney General has been doing in his coverups, in his aggressively going after political enemies of the President, in his refusing and wholly failing and refusing to go after the IRS to investigate. It is very clear: the smell gets worse daily from those involved in the scandal at the IRS. And this Attorney General does nothing. The message continues to go out around the world that the once great America no longer stands firmly on the Constitution, stands firmly on the law, and enforces it across the board. The chairman of the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, put together just a little note indicating things that the President can do without Congress doing anything more at all, things that this administration can do. And as my friend Chairman Goodlatte points out, President Obama's policies have caused the crisis at our southern border. And he has tools at his disposal to fix it. Here are several steps the President can take now to stop the surge at the border. Number one, send the strong public message that those who enter illegally will be returned. He can use the bully pulpit to make clear, you are not coming into the United States illegally. You come through our ports of entry, and you must come legally, or you will be returned from where you came. Some have been coached, apparently--we hear and read--to claim asylum once you are here. Well, even under the Wilberforce bill, you don't get asylum if you are coming in from a country where you are not at risk. Another point from Chairman Goodlatte: Stop abusing prosecutorial discretion authority. Over the past 5 years, President Obama and administration officials have abused prosecutorial discretion, a tool that was meant to give the executive branch flexibility in individual cases. Instead, he stretched this authority beyond all recognition to shield entire categories of people, not researching individual cases to determine whether prosecutorial discretion would require non- prosecution, just exempting massive numbers of people. That is not discretion. That is mass amnesty. And this President has been doing it, and it has to stop. The message sent to the world is that if you get in the U.S., you will not be deported. Stop releasing convicted criminal aliens from detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--and I don't blame them. I know too many ICE agents. They are good people. They want to do the right thing, but they have a Commander in Chief that is directing them to do the wrong thing. They have released over 36,000 criminal aliens from detention who were removed or were in removal proceedings or had been ordered removed. That is 36,000 criminal aliens. You know, Texas has statistics indicating there have been over 100,000 criminal aliens responsible for over 600,000 crimes against American citizens. And what does this administration do? It protects and encourages criminality by failing to enforce the law. Implement tougher standards for credible fear claims. Apparently, this administration is happy to just accept someone saying the words ``credible fear.'' That is not a credible fear. They can detain asylum seekers until their claims are proved valid. Instead, this administration just gives a slip of paper that people coming in illegally think is their ticket to stay in the United States illegally. And it makes sense for them to think that because it tells them, they must report to a court in the United States at some point in the future. How can they report to the court if they don't stay in the United States illegally? The President can also restore agreements with local law enforcement agencies and allow them to enforce immigration laws. That was our history. The Supreme Court, which is not concerned about precedent so much as they were supposed to be, decided that Arizona had to allow lawlessness because this administration was allowing lawlessness. The administration can employ diplomatic resources to stop the border crisis. Let's look, for example, at these numbers. Well, for fiscal year 2014, El Salvador, which appears to be happy with thousands and thousands of its people coming illegally through Mexico to America--now we read that Mexico is actually complicit with some of these countries and is encouraging them, virtually, to come to America illegally. El Salvador, for fiscal year 2014, is supposed to get $22,281,000 and for fiscal year 2015 is supposed to get $27,600,000. We are increasing by $5 million the amount of money--at least the administration wants us to. Give $5 million more to El Salvador--for what reason? Well, gee, I don't know. About the only thing they are known for right now is sending people illegally into the United States.

Mr. GOHMERT. So it would seem to reasonable people, reasonable minds would think that, if El Salvador is costing America a huge hunk of what the President says needs to be $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis that El Salvador is helping cause, then perhaps we ought to stop sending them money when they are costing us even more money. So let's get this right. We are paying El Salvador to cost us billions of dollars in return. That doesn't seem to be a very good investment. How about Guatemala? Gee, fiscal year 2014 has had $65,249,000 appropriated to be given to Guatemala, and I have been down to the border in recent weeks and heard people say they were coming from Guatemala. Of course, they don't say, ``We are coming from violence.'' Violence seems to be down, certainly not up. It is certainly not spiking, so it makes it clear that the reason that there is a huge spike in people rushing to America is because this Obama administration is making clear to Central America and South America that, if you come, you get to stay. Why? Because they are not interested in what words politicians are saying here in Washington. They are more interested in what those politicians in the Obama administration are doing, and what they are doing is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to stay in America once they get here illegally. For fiscal year 2015, apparently, this administration thinks that Guatemala is costing America what this administration says is a need for billions of dollars. Gee, they are doing such a good job of flooding us with immigrants, this administration is now asking, for the upcoming fiscal year, that we increase the $65 million to $77,107,000. Then there is Honduras, $41,850,000 in foreign assistance to Honduras. We have got people flooding up here from Honduras. So what does this administration do? Since Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--their policies are actually causing people to rush to America because this President won't stand firm and enforce our borders and our laws. The administration says let's give them an extra $7 million for next year. Let's take $41 million to $48,176,000. Even Mexico, our dear friends in Mexico, they just, in foreign assistance, were supposed to receive $206,590,000, $206,590,000 this year. Now, it is understandable that this administration would have a guilty conscience when it comes to Mexico because it was this administration--it was this Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department that forced the sale of 2,000 or so weapons to criminals they expected to go to the drug cartels in Mexico that we know have caused at least one American agent's death--Brian Terry--and suspected hundreds of deaths in Mexico. If I were a Mexican official, I would be outraged at this administration. This is no way to perpetuate a strong America for future generations. People say: What about the children? Well, let me tell you about a 16-year-old that came to me in tears. She said that she was driving there in Tyler, and an illegal alien without a driver's license and without insurance slammed his car into hers, and it totaled her car. Since the family of this poor child consisted of this girl and her single mom and she and her mom, as she explained, were struggling to pay their bills--and to get by, she was working after school, and her mom was working all she could. Even with her mom working as hard as she could and with her working after school and trying to study, they couldn't afford to pay for comprehensive on her car. All they could afford was liability, as the law requires. You have to have at least liability, in case you cause an accident. Her car was totaled. The illegal alien's car was damaged, but he was able to drive it away--was allowed to drive it away because this administration says: Hey, States, you can't enforce immigration law, it is only us that can do that, and we are not doing it. That is what this administration's actions clearly show. For this poor child, she says: What do I do? We can't afford another car. We couldn't afford comprehensive insurance. We can't afford--we still have to pay that car off. How are we going to get by? We can't buy me another car, which means I can't get to work, which means I can't pay my bills; and my mom, she is doing all she can. She is heartbroken because now it means we can't get by. Why? Because this administration's cynicism and cavalier attitude toward our laws and our border are allowing people to flood into this country illegally; and because this administration fights so hard, legally using every measure it can to keep States from using their own law enforcement to protect themselves, the States are not able to arrest illegal aliens. So you wonder how many people have to suffer in this country before the law will be enforced and it will be impartially applied across the board. How many times do we have to do damage to people in other countries who want to come legally, who have been spending money and time, year after year, to apply to come legally, when we are sending the message and doing them damage psychologically? We make it clear: look, you ought to be cheating like these other people. Do you want to get in? Come illegally because this President won't send you back. It doesn't matter what he says. Don't look at his lips. Don't listen to his words. Look at what they are doing. They are not sending people back. Think about all the children in American schools around this country--because this administration, to their credit, is trying to be fair and impartial with all the disasters they are causing, they are shipping people with disease, people who will not be able to help pay for their educations, they are shipping them all over the country, and it is going to cost the local communities and those States all over the country because this administration will not enforce the border. Well, it is interesting, looking at one provision of the Constitution I haven't heard anybody talk about--we have been talking about it in my office. I have been talking with some friends about it. I called my constitutional law professor from Baylor University. He is looking at it. Well, what do you do? Did the Founders ever think about what a State could do when the Federal Government refuses to protect them and the State is being invaded? Mr. Speaker, what would you call it when about 300,000 people come into your State in a matter of months--short months--and then the report comes that there are 300,000 or so people in the pipeline on their way up, and then we get the story in the news that Mexico has reached an agreement to facilitate more people coming from Guatemala? Hey, we will let you come. Just come on. If you are going illegally into the United States, then consider free passage through Mexico. That would seem to be a bit of a conspiracy between countries conspiring to help violate United States law. So what is this administration's response with regard to Mexico and Guatemala? Let's keep sending them millions of dollars. Every dime ought to be cut off from any country that does not help the United States enforce our own laws, but if the United States, the Federal Government, the Obama administration won't enforce the laws, what is a State to do? Well, if you look at article I, section 10, the third clause down there--the third provision in section 10--apparently, they anticipated times--I can't find that it has been used yet--but times when the Federal Government has not or will not or cannot protect a State from an invasion, then it says--the actual wording: No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded. There is a disjunctive ``or'' for another provision, but if a State is actually invaded, this says, basically, that the State can start putting taxes on things--traveling and interstate commerce--in order to pay for its ability to defend its borders. It can call up troops. It can even use ships of war, even in times of peace. It can enter agreements with other States, say, New Mexico or Arizona, if they were interested, or even with a foreign country. If this is an invasion, Texas could enter agreements with Mexico directly, if there is an actual invasion. So, Mr. Speaker, what do you call it when 300,000 people, twice as many as invaded France on D-day, come into your State so quickly and you get word 300,000 more are on their way up, and you know that those little children sitting in schoolrooms are going to have people forced in the rooms without any more money to provide for them? So people ask: What about the children? It would seem that our oaths here in Congress should require us to provide for the common defense and to provide for those within our jurisdiction, that we should not encourage other countries against the will of the American people or against the will of any State to force them to assume hundreds of thousands of people that will bankrupt the State, bankrupt their schools, and do great damage to their children and to their neighborhoods because the people are forced there by a government that refuses to follow the Constitution or the law. We have interesting days ahead. May God give us wisdom and discernment to choose wisely. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honor to extend most heartfelt congratulations to the Tyler Junior College Apaches Baseball Team in completing an outstanding season which concluded with the team's triumph in the 2014 NJCAA Division III World Series baseball tournament. Through hard work and determination, the TJC Apaches defeated Cumberland County (New Jersey) Community College in front of a wildly enthusiastic crowd with a final score of 6-3. In spite of a rain delay which lasted two and a half hours, hundreds of devoted fans remained to cheer on the Apaches in a game which lasted until after midnight. The TJC Apaches made history for their school by bringing home the second national baseball championship title, and the fiftieth national championship for TJC since athletics was first organized back in the 1940s. The TJC Apaches exemplify what it means to work seamlessly as a team, with remarkable victorious results. Their sportsmanship, humility, determination, hard work, and skill are to be commended, admired, and emulated. The national championship team was led to victory by an outstanding coaching and administrative staff including: Head Baseball Coach Doug Wren; Assistant Coaches Travis Chick and Josh Salmon; Training Staff Eddy McGuire, Jeff Derrick, MacKenzie Stilwell, Daniel Garcia, and Martha Rascon; and Student Support Staff consisting of Trenton Buchhorn, Talyn Callucci, and Chad Cunningham. Great praise goes to the team members Manny Galvan, Tim Hunter, Daniel Brown, Dusty Lynch, Gunnar Quick, Cody Broussard, Kevin Kubeczka, Collin Lawrence, Justin Monsour, Dynas Doud, Brandon Webb, Garrett Johnston, Reid Russell, Kevin Williams, Anthony Soriano, Jarrett Dooley, Travis Johnson, Eric Polivka, Zane Otten, Will Abbott, Eric Stegent, Brandon Koncaba, Brent Ellerbee, Connor Wrye, Cody Brown, Kash Armstrong, Grant Freels, Jacob Hickman, Lane Norwood, and Tyler Gaines. Tyler Junior College has a rich history of academic and athletic achievement, and once again students and staff have risen to the pinnacle of success under the expert leadership of TJC President Dr. L. Michael Metke; Athletic Director Dr. Tim Drain; Assistant Athletic Director Chuck Smith; and Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Juan Mejia. Accolades must also be given to the players' families and the entire community of supporters who reside in east Texas and beyond, who embraced the warrior spirit for which the team was named. Without these devoted fans' support and encouragement, the Apaches' road to yet another national championship would have been much more difficult. It is with great pride that I join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2014 NJCAA Division III World Series National Champions, the TJC Apaches Baseball Team. Their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an esteemed honor to recognize and congratulate the Brook Hill Boys Varsity Golf Team on capturing the top title as TAPPS AAA Texas State Champions for 2014. The Brook Hill Boys Golf Team overcame a seven stroke deficit entering the second and final round at the course of Clear Creek in Killeen, Texas, to ultimately win the TAPPS AAA State Golf Championship for the second year in a row by twenty strokes over second place Midland Trinity. The talented athletes at Brook Hill have brought home numerous championship titles to east Texas over the years, including the State AAA Golf Championship in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 under the experienced and skillful leadership of Head Coach Tim Moore along with the unwavering support of Athletic Director Wally Dawkins and Headmaster Rod Fletcher. Senior Team Captain Jeffrey Yeager led the way to the championship crown, shooting a 169, ranking him as the 4th place medalist. Sophomore Nutchapon Pattamakijsakul was the 7th place medalist, shooting a 171. Brook Hill varsity team members also included Matt Webb--182, Brooks Garner--178, Austin Savage--184, and Jacob Yeager--alternate. It is a great privilege to extend my enthusiastic and most sincere congratulations to the 2014 TAPPS Division III State Golf Champions, as their back to back championship legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to direct attention to a robocall that was made on behalf of one of our Republican colleagues down the hall. I really hope that he had nothing to do with it because it was dishonest, reprehensible, played the race card, and attempted to divide people, and, in fact, apparently was conspiring to try to get people who were going to vote for the Democrat in November to vote for the Republican in the Republican primary runoff, which, under their State's law, is not lawful--not legal. I certainly hope Senator Cochran had nothing to do with it, but it sounds like it helped him win his election. This is exactly the kind of thing that people in the House or the Senate should not be involved in, trying to mislead individual voters, trying to trick them into voting for themselves--because one thing is absolutely clear: if it requires trickery, deception, dishonesty, manipulation--unfair manipulation of people in another party to violate the law and vote for a particular candidate, then, very clearly, that candidate is not worthy of being elected to anything. This past weekend, I was down on our border between the United States and Mexico along the Rio Grande Valley and along the Rio Grande River itself. I had the impression, from the way some stories were written and some talk was going, that we actually had a situation on our border where people would come rushing across the Rio Grande River--even if there were law enforcement officers, Border Patrol officers--that it didn't matter. People were just rushing across, so anxious to get here. Having spent the weekend on the border, what I learned was that, yes, people are very anxious to come into this country, but the coyotes that are bringing them--from what we learned apparently--paid by drug cartels to bring people across, those coyotes don't want to bring people across if they are going to get caught because one thing our Border Patrol and the Texas Department of Public Safety does very well is, if they catch a coyote transporting people illegally across our border, for example, in a raft--which is apparently the most frequently used method of getting larger numbers of people across--then they take the raft, and they destroy it--normally right there in front of the coyote--and help destroy his current illegal business. The coyotes don't want to lose their rafts, their Jet Skis, or whatever they are using to get people illegally across the border, so they wait, even into the wee hours of the morning, which I was there to see firsthand. They don't want to be caught. They will wait until they feel like they have got time to get across and get back. I have also heard plenty of times, from friends across the aisle, from people outside of Congress, who continue to say the same thing-- and I know they don't mean to be dishonest, they are very honest people--but they keep saying they are trying to get away from the horrible murders, rapes, and terrible situations in their home countries. The thing is, if you look at the crime rates in those countries from which they come--in Central America, for example--you don't see a tremendous dramatic rise in the amount of crime. There is not a dramatic increase in areas where so many of these people are coming from, to come illegally into the United States. So the question keeps arising: Well, then if the murder rate is deplorable or horrible as the situation is, if the violence has not dramatically increased, then why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of people coming across our border illegally? The answer that this administration apparently refuses to acknowledge is that it is not because of a dramatic increase in violence in Central or South America, it is because the word has gone out in Central and South America that, if you can get to America, you will not be sent back. In the wee hours Sunday night, Monday morning, there was one group of adult women--three adult women, some small children. These were very honest people. They spoke Spanish. They didn't speak any English. Some say: well, I bet they are coming from Mexico, and they are being coached to say they are from El Salvador, Guatemala, South America, or other places. These kids could not have been coached at their age to say what they did. They are very honest people. When asked why did they come, the immediate answer was: well, we wanted these little children to get a good education. Well, most everybody in the world--there are 6 to 7 billion people in the world--most want their children to get good educations; yet, if we have an influx of even 1 billion people into the United States, our country as we knew it will be gone. It will no longer be a country where there is a rule of law, where capital investment feels safe, because you can't maintain a country unless you have the rule of law enforced. You can't just magically, one day, say: okay, now, today, we start enforcing the law as it is. It doesn't work that way. If you have raised a generation or immigrated in a generation who believes that you just ignore the law when it is inconvenient, then you are not, all of a sudden, going to have a country that follows the law and attempts to enforce it across the board. It doesn't happen. I have been told before that, gee, there may be a billion, billion and a half people in the world that would love to come to America. Well, when you have just over 300 million people in America and you are increasing the numbers here by giving out over a million visas a year-- more than any other country in the world, even though you have India or China with several times more people than we have in America, nobody is giving out more visas than we are. Even though you have a country like Mexico that condemns the United States for our treatment of people coming in even illegally--and even those legally--what they don't bother to notice in their massive hypocrisy is the way they treat people that legally or illegally come into Mexico. If we began treating Mexican nationals coming in illegally into the United States the way Mexico treats American citizens, they would be screaming, going crazy every day; but it is because we are a more fair nation than Mexico is. Of course, it doesn't really help Mexico when we have an administration, as this one, and a Justice Department, as the one run by Attorney General Eric Holder, which not only has an effort to get 2,000 or so weapons--guns--into the hands of criminals in Mexico with drug cartels, but then also engages in covering up evidence of exactly what happened during that horrible, horrible project by the Justice Department that actually put a couple thousand guns or so in the hands of criminals, resulting in deaths that would not have occurred otherwise, and yet, still, they cover it up. Clearly, it is not, under Attorney General Eric Holder, a Department of Justice. It has become a department of, number one, injustice; and a department of, number two, just us. Oh, sure, as long as the Internal Revenue Service is only going after conservative groups or Christian groups or religious groups, that is fine. As long as it is only going after groups that vote Republican, that is fine. It is okay. Oh, and you want to try to catch us? Well, our hard drives crash, and our emails disappear, and, gee, we have no idea where they went. Why? Because we are in a country where the Department of Justice becomes a department of injustice and a department of just us, where as long as you support ``just us,'' you are good. Violate the law, it is fine; we will make sure you are not prosecuted--but it is perfectly fine to go after people who vote Republican, perfectly fine to go after groups that may not support the President's position on things. Now, right down the hall, in the Senate of the United States, we actually have United States Senators who are wanting to destroy First Amendment freedom of speech rights. There are United States Senators, all from the Democratic Party, those that are pushing this, that are actually pushing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow Congress to take away people's right to make speeches. It is incredible that they don't even realize that, if the amendment to the Constitution--a bridge to take away freedom of speech rights, if it were to become part of the Constitution, and the American people got so mad at those Democrats pushing it that they gave the Republicans the majority in the House and the Senate and even gave them a veto-proof number, then you could actually have Republicans saying Hillary Clinton can't publish her book anymore. I was just talking about this with my good friend, Senator Ted Cruz, and he was talking about some of the language that is being pushed in the Senate. Senator Cruz made the point that if this gets passed, you could have Congress--if there were enough Republicans in there--say that Hillary Clinton's book is illegal, it is contraband, and she can't do it anymore. NBC and ``Saturday Night Live'' like to do satire about political officials, and some of them are pretty funny. But, actually, under the amendment that we have United States Senators of the Democratic Party pushing, Congress could actually tell NBC, the National Broadcasting Company, that they can't do political satire anymore. Why would senators who like our Constitution think it was a good idea to take away free speech rights? I think they don't mean harm. They don't mean to harm our Republic. It is because we have now gotten into an environment here in Washington, D.C., where the IRS can go after people they disagree with politically. And heaven help some candidate or some Republican that stands up and says, We have got to eliminate the IRS, because you can pretty well count on them coming right after him or her. If you say those kind of things, the IRS is about self-preservation. They will come after you if you say negative things about them. Because, like the Justice Department, it is ``just us.'' We have got to protect ourselves. So it is serious business. The environment is such here in Washington where some Democratic Senators have actually come to the idea that it would really be nice if we take away freedom of speech rights and give Congress the ability to say, You can't publish that book. You can't do that political satire on TV. No, you can't do that film because we don't like it. These are people that are supposed to be enlightened and be against censorship, and yet they are pushing an amendment that will allow Congress to basically go back to Orwellian ideas or all of those that have been written about in history when Big Brother gets so big, have book burnings. It seemed like that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. It has become dangerous here in Washington, where you have educated people that haven't thought through their constitutional amendment they have signed onto enough to realize just how dangerous it is to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They have bought in to a Justice Department that is ``just us,'' a Senate that is ``just us,'' an administration that says, Hey, if Congress doesn't do what we want them to, forget Congress. I will write my own laws and we will just ignore Congress. That is a dangerous concept if we are going to continue what the Founders referred to as ``this little experiment in democracy.'' It is a dangerous time. And then we have questions that were asked by Pete King of Secretary Johnson about what is going on at the border. He is asking: If you're a parent in Central America, in effect, this can look like a free pass because you're making the situation more humanitarian, you're making more facilities available, as Mr. Fugate said, you're providing foster families, all of which is understandable. That's our obligation as human beings. But on the other hand, if you're a family in Guatemala or El Salvador, this, in a way, is a free pass. Well, Secretary Johnson ends up saying: Well, a couple of things. First, I'm convinced that the principle reason these kids--from everything I've heard, everything I've seen, and from my own conversation with these kids, the principle reason they're leaving is the push factor from the country they're leaving. This is Secretary Johnson with Homeland Security saying this. He says: The conditions in Honduras, for example, are horrible. It's the murder capital of the world. There is this disinformation out there that this is permisos. That's what we're hearing. Permisos, free pass, like you get a piece of paper that says, Welcome to the United States. You're free. ``That's not the case. When you're apprehended at the border''--he says ``irregardless of age.'' My late mother, an English teacher, would have jumped on that and pointed out for Secretary Johnson that irregardless is not an appropriate word. It is either regardless or it is not. Anyway, our Secretary didn't have an English teacher for a mother. It is a common mistake. He says: Irregardless of age, you're a priority for removal. So they're given a notice to appear in a deportation proceeding. The way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to give that child to HHS, and HHS is required to act in the best interest of the child, which most often means placing that child with a parent who is here in the United States. But there is a pending deportation proceeding against that child. By the way, Mr. Speaker, parenthetically, he references the 2008 law which requires the Department of Homeland Security to give the child or children to Health and Human Services. We were in a hearing yesterday where I was told I was wrong about that. I was just quoting Secretary Johnson in my comments, as well as other people in this administration, who said, Look, we don't have a choice because the law from 2008 requires us to immediately provide the children to HHS. Anyway, Mr. King comes back and says: But if I were a parent in Guatemala, wouldn't I see that as being a free pass? I mean a child, a 5-year-old child getting an order to show up in immigration court, you know, are you going to actually deport that child? To me, it's a free pass, from their perspective. Then, these astounding words from Secretary Johnson. He says: Congressman, I don't see it as a free pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over a thousand miles through Mexico into the United States, especially now in the months of July and August that we're facing. A lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains, which is exceedingly dangerous. I spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 who spent days climbing on top of a freight train, a box car, and these kids sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. They can't hold on any longer. It is exceedingly dangerous. Well, Secretary Johnson is saying that because it is dangerous to come through Mexico, then it is not a free pass that he is handing out to people when they get to America. Having been on the border in the wee hours, let me tell you, to those little children, to the adults bringing them, it is a free pass. That is why they came. And this is open territory. Anybody can be standing there. Because once these the coyotes get them across the river, then they go looking for somebody to turn themselves in to. I was there when there were different groups being processed out there in the open air; daytime, nighttime. So they are asking them questions, as their job requires, such as, Where are you from? You have got to get their names. They don't have any identification on them. They are strictly taking their names as they give it to them. One adult woman who had a couple of little girls with her said, Well, I'm not the mother, but I'm the cousin of the mother. Well, where's the mother? She's got a good job in Miami. She came in illegally some time back and she has been working in Miami. So since they can now come and stay here, this was the time to start bringing the kids in. The other two women were mothers of the other children there and they were explaining that the fathers of those children were working. They had good jobs in North Carolina. And since all they had to do was get into the United States and Homeland Security or Health and Human Services would transport them--our government is now becoming human traffickers--they have become the human traffickers and take them to North Carolina, where the fathers have good jobs working illegally over there. But, again, since they saw it as a free pass, then this is the time to try to hurry into the United States. What was particularly telling, Mr. Speaker--I don't have it with me here on the floor today--is that there was a request, a solicitation from the Obama administration back at the end of January that actually says that we anticipate in the next short months that we may have 65,000 children come across our border. Now why would they think that? Because there were only a fraction of that many the year before, and then a fraction of that many the year before that. So why would they think all of a sudden there are going to be over 60,000 children coming in in the months ahead? Well, they knew. The word is out in Central America and South America that if you just get to this country, the Obama administration is giving you a free pass. The women in the last group that the Border Patrol were talking to out there after they had turned themselves in, they had not heard the word ``permisos,'' but they knew they got a free pass. They knew they got to stay. And they said, We're here because we want these children to get a good education. And since we know they can stay--in effect, that is what they are saying--now is the time they come and get a good education. Well, we want everybody to get a good education. Unfortunately, if we in this country take tax dollars from Americans who are working and tried to pay for the education of every single child in the entire world--which I would love to do--but if we do that, it bankrupts this country and no child gets any kind of education. It is a dangerous time. It is a dangerous situation for these children to be coming across our border. In those areas the bush is thick, the river is swift. It is deep there where so many of them were crossing. And yet because this administration has the word out and it is being sent out by drug cartels--being advertised, is what we keep hearing-- the drug cartels have the best of all business worlds. They actually will charge $5,000. One lady got a real deal. She got two kids and herself for $5,000. For others, it is generally $5,000 a person. For some, it is $8,000. The drug cartels charge people to bring them up across Mexico into United States. And if they find an attractive girl, they may pull her off into sex slavery and make money off of her. Having three daughters myself, that idea is just abominable. Then, because of the masses of people that are coming across in greater and greater numbers, we have Border Patrol and ICE that are pulled away from their regular jobs. They are not out there looking for the drugs. So you have got drug cartels making money by charging people to bring them into America, and then that causes a problem for us to enforce our border against drugs, and they can get more drugs in. There is a war against the United States being staged by the drug cartels, and this administration better wake up and better start doing its job. I know my friends here on the Republican side, if the administration will start enforcing the law and enforcing our border and protecting us from the massive amount of drugs that are coming in, and enforce the border, we will get an immigration reform bill done so fast, people will be amazed how quickly we get it done. There is no sense at all doing an immigration reform bill right now when the President is ignoring the enforcement of the law the way it is. The President needs to enforce the law as it is. Once he does that, then we can talk about amending it. In the meantime, very quickly here, I had a quote from the President on June 11. He was saying: I mean, the truth of the matter is, that for all the challenges we face and for all the problems we have, if you had to choose a moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be or who you were going to be, you would choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better than it has ever been. It is more educated than it has ever been. Then I thought about this cartoon, Mr. Speaker, and I will finish with this. In effect, we borrowed the cartoon here, but it is like the President has gone off a cliff, and all of the way down, he is able to say, ``We are doing all right so far.'' The day is coming when the country will not do all right--when there will be a crash--because we failed to recognize the dangers on the way down. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the Appropriations Committee for the appropriations process. I think we are all better when we have open amendments and have a chance to have everybody have input. It is a nasty process, but it is a good way to do it. Input is important, because when you don't listen to proper input, you can end up having a judgment, as did the Pelletier case where a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts took away custody from her parents, and finally a victory yesterday as the court, Judge Joseph Johnston, wrote in his ruling: Effective Wednesday, June 18, 2014, this care and protection petition is dismissed and custody of Justina is returned to her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier. His first statement there is: I find that the parties have shown credible evidence that circumstances have changed since the adjudication on December 20, 2013, that Justina is a child in care and protection pursuant to G.L. c. 199, 24-26. Clearly, the only thing that had changed was not credible evidence. It was a judge who finally did his job, which was not to take parents' kids away from them. It reminded me of comments made by a daycare director in the Soviet Union back when I was an exchange student during college days. The daycare director was bragging that the children belonged to the state, that parents are only temporary caregivers that serve at the whim of-- she didn't say ``whim''--but basically at the discretion of the government. Back then, in the Soviet Union, if you ever told your child anything negative about the Soviet Union--the Soviet Government, Soviet leaders--and they found out, they would whisk in, take your child away, and as the director said, give them to more deserving parents. It appears that is really what happened in the Pelletier case. Some bureaucrats refused to consider all of the evidence as they should have and decided that they would play God for a while and give custody of this poor child to the State instead of her parents who gave every indication of loving her and caring about her, trying to do the right thing for her. Instead, the State caused great damage. Unfortunately, that happens too often in many different areas when the State thinks they know better than the people personally involved. What gets even worse is when you have a Federal administration that believes they know better than the law, that they don't have to follow the law because they are better than the law, which would make them right on par with Chavez in Venezuela or pick out the dictator. They are right there, because they know so much better than anybody else in the country. That is why they are called dictators. One of the most shocking things about the lawlessness of this administration is that they could have spokespeople with straight faces come out and say: We really don't know what is causing this wave of humanitarian crises on the border. We just really don't understand why this wave is coming now. Well, all they have to do is review some of the reports from Border Patrolmen, ICE agents--particularly the Border Patrolmen who have been interviewing these kids, especially the older ones, 15, 16, 17: Why did you come to the United States illegally now? And the Border Patrol reports so many of the children just say basically the same thing: It is because of your new law that is going to let us come and stay legally. It is the new law that we get amnesty, that all we have to do is come. It is incredible the humanitarian crisis that this administration has caused. There is some blame to go around for Republicans as well, that have entered into this discussion about providing amnesty, providing legal status when, if they would simply listen to the people in the field on the border and understand the trauma that they have been going through trying to protect this country, they would find out, as Chris Crane has said before, he said again yesterday, when people in Washington talk about amnesty or legal status, we see a massive influx of people coming because they want to get here for the legal status, the amnesty. That is why it is so critical that we not talk about any kind of legal status or amnesty being awarded to anyone, that we wait until we have a President, hopefully a change in this President's heart so he will start enforcing the law and start faithfully executing the laws of the country. It is unconstitutional for anyone in the United States, including the President, to say: I don't like the law the way it is. Congress hasn't changed it, so here's the new law. One rather shocking thing is when the President said, you know, that Congress hadn't fixed it so here is the new law on who is going to be allowed to stay and be given legal status that we are not going to throw out. Here is the new law; here are the new requirements. I couldn't believe conservative news media, liberal news media, they are all reporting the same thing. Gee, here is the new law. Here are the new requirements that the President just pronounced into law. Fortunately, there are many levelheaded folks that understand that we are supposed to act within a Constitution, who pointed out you can't just stand up and say, ``Here's the new law.'' You actually have to have it pass through Congress. Yeah, it is a tough thing to do, and that is exactly what the Founders intended, because they knew the easier it was to pass laws, the quicker Americans would lose their liberty. Ever since the 17th Amendment was ratified, the States lost their check and balance over the Federal Government not usurping the power reserved to them in the 10th Amendment. Some have incorrectly reported that I want to repeal the 17th Amendment, go back to selecting Senators by State legislatures making the selection. There were some abuses there. Some legislators figured out how to game the system through the Senators they selected. All you would have to do is say: All right. We are going to select you to be our Senator, but here is our laundry list of things that we want. So it was susceptible to being abused as well, but the point should not be lost that there has to be a way for States to regain the check and balance over the Federal Government usurpation of rights of the various States, the powers of the State. If the States still had the check and balance over the Federal Government, you wouldn't see a report like John Roberts of FoxNews reported this week. ``Wave of humanity,'' he reports: ``Border Patrol overwhelmed by flow of illegal immigrants.'' He says: At daybreak in this border town, two women from Guatemala-- one with a small child strapped to her back--wait patiently on the levy overlooking the Rio Grande. They have been instructed by the ``coyote'' who ferried them across the river for an exorbitant fee--as much as $1,000--to simply wait for the Border Patrol to pick them up. After processing, they will likely be given a notice to appear before an immigration judge and a bus ticket to wherever in America they may have friends or relatives. That's the way it goes, day in and day out, in what has become ground zero of the latest immigration crisis. Thousands upon thousands of people from Central America exploiting the porous border of the Rio Grande Valley to enter the United States. To quote: ``If we don't send the message that they can't just come in and stay here, it's gonna continue, this wave of humanity,'' said Texas Representative Henry Cuellar. Cuellar is a Democrat, but an outspoken critic of how President Obama has handled this crisis. Another story from Brandon Darby from Breitbart reports: Vice President Moran invoked the case of Robert Rosas, a Border Patrol agent who was ambushed by illegal immigrants in 2009 in southern California. In that instance, Agent Rosas was dispatched alone to check on a sensor activation. Breitbart News has covered that issue extensively and revealed that one of the men involved had been on supervised release from U.S. authorities. The illegal immigrants wanted Agent Rosas's night-vision equipment, so they lured, trapped, and murdered him, according to the U.S. Attorney's office. ``A repeat occurrence of an incident like this is what we fear, especially now without full staffing in the field,'' said Vice President Moran. Shawn Moran is vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, the NBPC. He stated: ``The administration was already putting budgets before securing the border. Our jobs are immensely dangerous as we interrupt cartel activity on U.S. soil. Their border security policy failures have already reduced the number of agents securing the border, and now they have fewer agents out there to back each other up. The lives of Border Patrol agents should not be pawns in the political games of Washington, D.C., and this administration is literally risking our lives.'' The loss of Agent Rosas is an example of what happens when an administration is lawless. It breeds more lawlessness, and that is exactly what we have now on our United States border in the south. The story says: Though Border Patrol are often heavily grouped in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexican border, they are often alone in desolate rural areas--and most of the U.S.-Mexico border is desolate. It is really tragic what is happening, and this administration wrings its hands--well, some do. Some play golf. Some wring their hands. Some make sure they have got a good grip on their 7 iron, but others wring their hands about the losses of life and the tragedies occurring on our U.S.-Mexico border. A story from the LA Times, Molly Hennessy-Fisk: The call went out on Border Patrol radios just before sundown one day this week: 31 immigrants spotted illegally crossing the Rio Grande on a raft. No sooner had the migrants been found hiding in the mesquite brush then another report came in: a woman and boy were walking up riverbank. The Rio Grande Valley has become ground zero for an unprecedented surge in families and unaccompanied children flooding across the Southwest border, creating what the Obama administration is calling a humanitarian crisis as border officials struggle to accommodate new detainees. Largely from Central America, they are now arriving at a rate of 35,000 a month. Anzalduas Park, a 96-acre expanse of close-cropped fields and woodland that sits on a southern bend of the river, has turned from an idyllic family recreation area into a high-traffic zone for illegal migration. The number of children and teenagers traveling alone from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is expected to reach up to 90,000 across the southwest border by the end of the year. This story was written June 13. We have information that that number hit 60,000 by May, and originally 60,000 was expected to be the top. So I think it would be a good estimate to expect if we got more than 60,000 and they are coming faster and faster, and that 60,000 was hit by early May or the 1st of May, I think you can pretty well count on more than 90,000, perhaps more than 120,000, and that is this year. As these teenagers and others are given legal status, then their parents, they will be able to be anchors to bring other family members in with them. So you are talking about just in 1 year adding maybe 1 million people when you start looking at all the other ways people are coming in. We bring in over 1 million people with visas legally every year. No other country in the world does that. Countries a number of times our size don't allow that many visas. We do because we are an open country. But we understand there is an obligation. You have to maintain some kind of semblance of order. At a time when you have got tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people coming in illegally, and you don't know who they are, you have got drug cartels that are taking advantage of that, as ICE and Border Patrol are pointing out. They are taking advantage of it, they are moving more drugs than ever. As some have said this week, we--Border Patrol, ICE agents--were changing diapers while they are stepping up the number of drugs they are bringing in. So how is this all happening? It comes back to the administration. If you have an administration that is lawless and refuses to enforce the law, as this administration has, you are going to reap the whirlwind. There is another story from U.S. News, from Hidalgo County, ``Migrant Surge Jams Border'': Sergeant Dan Broyles once had to battle through the spiky thicket of border vegetation here to find an immigrant illegally sneaking into the country. But all he had to do on a recent day was to wait in plain sight along a dirt road, as a group of Salvadoran migrants, including a 7-year-old girl with a pink Hello Kitty backpack, deliberately walked up and surrendered to him a mile north of the Rio Grande. ``They're all giving up,'' said Sergeant Broyles, 51-years- old, a Hidalgo County Constable's official whose main responsibility is supposed to be serving court papers. As he waited for Border Patrol agents to pick up the migrants, another group was coming up behind them. And on and on and on it goes. It is what happens when an administration refuses to enforce the law, refuses to follow the law themselves. When you have an Attorney General that obfuscates and is complicit in the hiding of evidence and keeping evidence secret of what happened with a couple of thousand guns being forced by the government to be sold to people that never should have gotten them in the operation called ``Fast and Furious.'' We have known about it for a number of years, but we have always felt like even in the John Mitchell Department of Justice, even when there was illegality somewhere, even at the top with the Attorney General, that there would be good people in the Department of Justice that would stand up and say: This is wrong, you are going to destroy our country because we are supposed to be the department that ensures justice across the country. It seems like what we are doing here in the DOJ is going after political enemies of the administration instead of being fair across the board. The rest of the world notices these things, and they notice that we are not being fair and just and righteous, as we once were. All the time this humanitarian crisis, illegal immigrants flooding into the country from our south, and the administration saying: We don't know why this is happening; why are they rushing here? Well, then here is a story this week: The White House to honor young illegal immigrants. The White House will honor 10 young adults on Tuesday who came into the United States illegally and qualified for the President's program to defer deportation actions. I might remind, Mr. Speaker, that this is the President's program where he decided to change the law unilaterally, without Congress, to say he didn't like the existing law, so he pronounced new law into existence. The story from Rebecca Shabad says: Each person has qualified for the government's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which delays removal proceedings against them as long as they meet certain guidelines. They were honored as ``Champions of Change.'' So the White House is glorifying people that came in illegally and then is shocked that more people want to come in and be glorified for coming in illegally. There is another story from Reuters of New York: A New York lawmaker wants to grant many of the rights of citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and noncitizen residents, including the right to vote in local and State elections, under a bill introduced on Monday. So let's give benefits, let's give a place to stay, let's give food, let's give legal counsel, as this administration is doing all, and let's give them incentives. Let's give them the right to vote so that they can vote for more people to come in illegally. Because once you give the right to vote to people who have not respected the law, and you give them that right to vote before they can be educated on the importance and the responsibility of maintaining a republic--madam, if you can keep it--you are going to lose that republic, you are going to lose the ability to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It becomes lawless. Might makes right. A story from Breitbart this week: Pro-Bono Lawyers: Most Unaccompanied Border Children Eligible for Amnesty. A story by Sylvia Longmire: Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act, the federal government transfers custody of illegal immigrant children who are apprehended alone at our borders to the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement. Their primary goal is to reunite them with a family member or legal guardian already here in the U.S. So, as U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has said, now we are engaging in human trafficking. This is a good lesson in how you lose a great nation because you refuse to enforce your laws. This country has never had perfect laws, never will have perfect laws. They are made by man. But the thing we are supposed to internally perpetually strive for is making them better and better. You don't have to study all that much history to understand that no nation ever lasts forever. They never have, they never will, not in this life. So the question is: How long are you able to sustain a great nation? Some have gone for hundreds and hundreds of years. The United States has never been, will never be, an empire like the Greek or Roman empire or the British empire because the United States has never been imperialistic. When we go in and fight for freedom, Americans die for freedom, people still speak their same language, still have their same currency. We help them to set up a government. Well, it is time we quit nation- building. Now Iraq. So many of us warned about this, and after my last visit to Iraq, Dana Rohrabacher and I pointed out problems to Prime Minister al- Maliki, and he didn't like it. We each pointed out promises that were made and had been broken, and he didn't like it. Even 3 or 4 years ago, it was very clear to us that Maliki was either going to totally sell out to the Iranians, who had been killing Americans who were there, or he would get knocked off, just like in Afghanistan. President Karzai is either going to have to sell out to the Taliban or he is going to be killed, or he can take money that people say he has not actually embezzled that maybe some of his family has, take off with the money and try to live on that somewhere outside of Afghanistan. We don't have to nation-build. We should just make it clear to a country: Look, you can pick whatever government you want, but when you are a threat to us and you announce you want to destroy us as the great Satan, destroy Israel as the little Satan, and you are working on the bomb that will do that, then we need to take your government out. We need to take out all of your areas where you are working on nuclear weapons and keep bombing until we have satisfactorily done that, and then let the nation pick whatever government they want. But if it is one that wants to come after us again, as the Khomeini administration has, then we need to take them out too. The problem is this administration has been floating ideas of working with Iran, which had been killing American soldiers the entire time that U.S. soldiers were in Iraq, providing IEDs, providing weapons, providing the means and people to help kill Americans, and which has made clear they want to wipe our country off the map, wipe Israel off the map, and this administration has people who say: Let's work with Iran to control Iraq. That is sheer insanity. Who is thinking of these things? Allies of the United States all over the world are asking: Are we the next ally to be thrown away as the United States continues to embrace its enemies and throw away its friends? Take your pick of the way nations have been lost over time, great nations have lost what freedom they had, what self-control they had. Look at the way they have been lost. Some have lost it internally. They spent too much money on themselves, overspent, they lost the country, became a bankrupt nation. Or sometimes they let their defense down and people came in and overwhelmed the nation. Or sometimes they were attacked by armies who destroyed their power, their government. Everywhere you turn, it appears we are taking the steps--this administration and Congress is not doing enough yet to stop them--but it appears the administration repeatedly is taking all of those roads that lead to destruction. You cannot keep punishing your friends, rewarding your enemies. You cannot keep encouraging your enemies and allowing them to develop weapons that will destroy you. You cannot leave your borders open when people have made clear: We are bringing drugs in, and we are coming in with weapons now. We are taking over gangs in your cities. We are going to destroy you from within. You can't keep doing that. Then, all that time, we are cutting spending on our defense to keep evil out. We are still overspending. Sure, we have given some and helped wonderful companies like Solyndra and paid $600 million or so for a Web site for ObamaCare and friends of the administration when we are told: gee, you could have done a better Web site for $4 million. Sure, we have spent it on all kinds of things like that, but the spending of future generations' money has to stop because you can lose the country just in that way as well. Just when you think the lawlessness of the administration could not get any worse--just when you think, wow, it is absolutely incredible-- it is very clear now that this administration's Internal Revenue Service was using IRS laws to persecute political opponents of the administration, so they could not be effective and do again in 2012 what they did in 2010. Guess what? It worked. At first, we were told: No, they were going after liberal groups and conservative groups the same way. Well, now, we know that is not true. They were going after conservative groups, and when any administration has IRS officials that send out questions asking about the content of your prayers, it is time to start firing people right and left. Since that hasn't happened, it tells you that there is a disease running through this administration, a cancer that needs to be stopped. We know that the Attorney General himself is in contempt of Congress, and we know that he sat there and told me that I was not to ever think it was a big deal for him to be found in contempt, when he knew that a year before he told ABC it wasn't a big deal to him because he didn't have any respect for people in Congress that voted to hold him in contempt. He couldn't even get his story right when he was testifying before Congress. He needs to go. Since the administration has refused to move out an Attorney General who has repeatedly failed to do his job, has repeatedly failed to do justice, has repeatedly allowed the law to be used to go after political enemies while protecting political friends, while they have refused to go after people who believe that this country ought to be part of a great radical Islamist caliphate--and we protect those people. Not only do we protect them, according to Egyptian periodicals that were controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, they bragged about the people in this administration who were in positions of power, amazingly--maybe it shouldn't be that amazing--but eventually, truth does have a way of coming forward. Yes, we have the IRS, at this point, losing emails. Of course, that triggered ideas in my head because there are criminals laws about obstructing Congress. There are criminal laws about obstructing investigations. There are criminal laws about IRS agents abusing their positions. So anyone anywhere in the administration that is in any way assisted or encouraged in any way the losing or the reported loss of emails-- this active coverup that is going on--they committed a crime, and it isn't just a 6-month statute of limitations, and they should be worried. So the IRS, despite the laws regarding redundancy, despite the requirements that they are to keep records, they haven't done so. There was a great letter that was sent by an attorney for True the Vote, one of the persecuted conservative groups. Cleta Mitchell, the attorney, writes to the counsel for the IRS and says: As you know, True the Vote filed its lawsuit in the above- referenced matter on May 21, 2013. By the time True the Vote filed its suit, the Internal Revenue Service and its employees and officials were on notice of the commencement of several congressional investigations. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance Committee have each provided notice to the IRS of their ongoing investigations into the IRS and, specifically, defendant Lois Lerner and her activities related to the issues involved in the True the Vote litigation for over a year now. Late Friday, the IRS apparently advised the Ways and Means Committee that the IRS has ``lost'' Lois Lerner's hard drive, which includes thousands of Defendant Lerner's email records. However, several statutes and regulations require that the records be accessible by the committees and, in turn, must be preserved and made available to True the Vote in the event of discovery in the pending litigation. Those statutes include the Federal Records Act, Internal Revenue Manual section 1.15.6.6, IRS Document 12829, 36 CFR 1230, and 36 CFR 1222.12. Under those records retention regulations and the Federal Records Act generally, the IRS is required to preserve emails or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for preservation. Therefore, the failure for the IRS to preserve and provide these records to the committees would evidence further violations of numerous records retention statutes and regulations or obstruction of Congress. Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the bad faith destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. It then cites a Federal case. That is called the doctrine of spoliation. The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve these records, yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they have been ``lost'' appears to be evidence of bad faith. 18 USC 1505 makes it a Federal crime to obstruct congressional proceedings and covers obstructive acts made during the course of a congressional investigation, even without official committee sanction. It cites authority for that proposition. Further, by letters dated September 17, 2013, True the Vote provided notice to counsel for the individual IRS defendants in this litigation. The individual defendants are: Steven Grodnitzky, Lois Lerner, Steven Miller, Holly Paz, Michael Seto, Douglas Shulman, Cindy Thomas, William Wilkins, Susan Maloney, Ronald Bell, Janine L. Estes, and Faye Ng. True the Vote's September 17, 2013, correspondence reminded you and your clients of the individual defendants' obligation ``not to destroy, conceal, or alter any paper or electronic files, other data generated by and/or stored on your clients' computer systems and storage media, e.g., hard disks, floppy disks, backup tapes, or any other electronic data, such as voice mail.'' We identified the scope as encompassing both the personal and professional or business capacity of your clients and involving data ``generated or created on or after July 15, 2010.'' See attached letters to Ms. Benitez and Messrs. Lamken and Shur. As the D.C. District Court has found, ``a party has a duty `to preserve potentially relevant evidence . . . '' once that party anticipates litigation.'' ' '' It cites the authority for that. In fact, ``that obligation `runs first to counsel, who has a duty to advise his client of the type of information potentially relevant to the lawsuit and of the necessity of preventing its destruction.' '' It ``also extends to the managers of a corporate party, who `are responsible for conveying to their employees the requirements for preserving evidence.' '' By letter dated September 25, Ms. Benitez acknowledged receipt of our ``litigation hold'' letter and vociferously objected to our having the temerity to send such a letter, ``rejecting'' our characterization of documents to be preserved. Indeed, Ms. Benitez, you indicated that you took great offense at having been put on notice to preserve and maintain documents related to the issue of this litigation. You further advised, however, that you would continue to advise ``your clients as appropriate and, as always, will abide by my legal and ethical obligations.'' The public reports released late on Friday, June 13, 2014, stated the IRS now claims to have ``lost'' the emails of defendant Lois Lerner. I have got to inject. Ms. Benitez apparently wasn't being honest. She apparently didn't know how to properly advise her clients and properly abide by the legal and ethical obligations that she had. This letter goes on: These reports are particularly astonishing in light of your representations, Ms. Benitez, that you would ``advise your clients, as appropriate, and would abide by your legal and ethical obligations.'' The ``lost'' emails, from press reports, appear to cover a time period from January 2009 to April 2011. We are deeply troubled by this news and are concerned about the spoliation of information and documents pertaining to this case and the apparent failure on your part to, a, protect and preserve all potentially relevant information and, b, to advise us of such failure and spoliation when you first learned of it. We are even more concerned after receiving your assurances that you would ``abide by your legal and ethical obligations.'' Accordingly, we hereby request that you advise us of the following. Then it goes on with demands. They are quite reasonable. It says: In addition to seeking responses to the questions in this letter, we also seek your consent to immediately allow a computer forensics expert selected by True the Vote to examine the computers that is or are purportedly the source of Ms. Lerner's ``lost'' emails, including cloning the hard drives, and to attempt to restore what was supposedly ``lost'' and to seek to restore any and all ``lost'' evidence pertinent to this litigation. We also seek access to all computers, both official and personal, used by any and all of the defendants from and after July 1, 2010, in order to ensure preservation of the documents of all defendants in this action. We wish to resolve our concerns amicably; but, absent your consent, we will file such motions as deemed necessary and appropriately asking the court to require that you respond to the questions contained in this letter and to permit such forensic examination described herein and for such other relief as may be appropriate for this egregious breach of legal authority and professional ethics. Anyway, the judge in that case needs to go ahead and order all kinds of sanctions against the Internal Revenue Service. It needs to order all kinds of sanctions against the attorneys and the employees involved in that litigation who have failed to produce what was required. The judge needs to make clear that justice, including from our own so-called Justice Department, will not permit this kind of lawlessness. It is outrageous. It is simply outrageous. Just when you think the ignoring of the safety of American citizens couldn't get much worse by this administration, they brag that they are bringing a known terrorist to New York City. Nobody on the left seems to be terribly bothered by the fact that they say they are putting him on a slow ship to the U.S. when they should have put him on a fast plane to Guantanamo Bay. It is better kept than many prisons I have been to that actually meet the requirements of the law, including the requirements of liberal judges. It is better than so many prisons. Yes, they get to play soccer, and when they continue to throw feces or urine on our guards, then they do lose some of their movie time watching. When I was down there a couple of times, somebody lost movie privileges because he figured out a way to throw urine or feces on guards. There actually was a guard who yelled back at the person who threw feces on him, and he ended up being punished, I was told, by Article 15 because you are not allowed to respond when a terrorist throws feces or urine on you. They will take care of the adequate punishment, and they think it is enough to take away some of their movie watching time or television watching time or to maybe take away some of the time they get to be outside, playing soccer. They don't need to be in the United States if they have committed an act of war against the United States, and the evidence seems to indicate clearly that this defendant had. I am very pleased and I applaud the administration for finally picking up this guy who was so available to international media that they could get interviews with him. Yet the administration didn't want to pick him up. If they had, they could have gotten him at any time. I guess, last year, they picked up this terrible terrorist in Libya, and when I was over there, the Libyans said his address had been on the Internet for a year. The U.S. could have gotten him any time they wanted to--they knew where he lived--but the administration finally decided to do something about it, so they did. This is an article from CBS News: ``Benghazi Suspect Expected to Face Criminal Charges in D.C. Federal Court.'' When Americans say someone who commits an act of war against the United States should be brought to a Federal district court because it is his constitutional right, it tells you immediately they don't know the Constitution because, under the Constitution, there isn't even a U.S. District Court created. How can somebody have a right to a United States district court under our Constitution when there is no U.S. district court created in our Constitution? As David Guinn used to say, who was my old constitutional law professor, there is only one court created in the entire Constitution. That is the Supreme Court. Every other Federal court in America owes its existence and jurisdiction to the United States Congress. As Bill Cosby said his father used to say, ``I brought you in this world, and I can take you out.'' The Congress brought these courts into this world. We can take them out of this world. Nobody has a constitutional right to a U.S. district court. If you commit an act of war, you have got a right to a tribunal if we so choose, and we have. You may have a right to a military court. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, why in the world liberals in the United States think that someone who commits an act of war against the United States should have more constitutional rights than our United States military, and this administration thinks one does. How do you know? Look at what they are doing to our military. Go talk to some of our military members who have been put in prison. They say: We believed our lives were in jeopardy, that we were in immediate danger of death or of serious bodily injury, so we defended ourselves. You shouldn't have because you hit a civilian or you hit somebody else or you hit somebody who was messing with an IED, but that didn't mean that he actually planted it. There are all kinds of people we have in prison now who are serving our United States military, and they were not given near the rights that this person--this radical Islamist who wants to destroy America-- is now being told he is going to get. So they say they are questioning him, but the Federal Government said that about the last suspect they arrested and put on a slow boat to the U.S., and there were people here who were saying this is great, that this may be the one guy they say they wouldn't mind having waterboarded in order to get all of the information out of him they could. Then we hear from an international arms dealer who says: Yes, I was the one who negotiated the arms deal for the U.S. State Department. They wanted to get arms to Libyan rebels, and I proposed just their buying them, and then I would get them to the rebels. But they said: No, no, no. We don't want it that direct. So he says he bought the weapons for the State Department and got them to Qatar and then, from Qatar, got them to the rebels who were infused with al Qaeda rebels. Anyway, the international arms dealer sent me a statement saying he wanted to testify before Congress because the people he worked with who were representing the U.S. Government and others were either dead or they were on a boat somewhere so that nobody could talk to them. He figured, if he could get his story out before Congress, then maybe there wouldn't be any need to kill him or to stick him on a boat somewhere so he couldn't talk. That was what the statement of the international arms dealer has been--the statement that was sent to me-- and yet they want to bring here someone they say they are certain committed an act of war against the United States. I heard on the news today that, gee, they have had evidence of this al-Shabaab involvement since the event happened. Since the event happened? That would mean all of the time that Secretary Clinton was out there--saying it was the video and looking family members of the deceased of Benghazi in the eye and saying: We are going to get the guy who did the video--she knew that the evidence was nothing of the sort, that the video had nothing to do with the loss of these four American lives. There is no right of someone who commits an act of war against the United States to get an immediate trial. He is not entitled under our Constitution to get a speedy trial. He is not under our Constitution entitled to get a trial before a U.S. district court. He is entitled under the current law to go to Guantanamo Bay--where no one has ever been waterboarded by the way--and have a trial in that courtroom. I went through it, and I was impressed at how well equipped it was for trying terrorists, even to the extent of having bulletproof glass for the gallery. There could be all kinds of horrible scenarios to arise out of this administration's insistence on bringing an enemy combatant--a warrior against the United States--who should be considered either an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. He shouldn't be brought. There are too many bad things that can happen. New York has suffered enough. I do want to finish with this one article, published this week by Breitbart and written by Kerry Picket. I have talked for some time about a Texan named Mohamed Elibiary. I questioned our Secretary of Homeland Security about her giving him a secret security clearance when he clearly should not have met any of the requirements to get such a clearance. We knew that he had downloaded two documents from using his secret classification. According to reporter Patrick Poole, not only did he download them, but he offered them to national media for publication. Mr. Elibiary has gotten so cocky now because I have been talking about this for a number of years. The administration has not bothered to revoke his secret classification, and he continues to be one of the top advisers to Homeland Security. It is our homeland security for heaven's sake, and he sends out this tweet on June 13 that says: Kind of comical watching pundits on some U.S. TV channels freak out about an ISIS caliphate. Easy, folks. Take deep breaths and relax. Kerry Picket reports: Mohamed Elibiary, a member on the Obama administration's Homeland Security Advisory Council, is at the center of a controversy involving allegations that former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano gave him secret clearance, which led to his downloading classified information. According to Representative Louie Gohmert, Elibiary later shopped that classified material around to a reporter. Elibiary, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, who regularly goes after the Sisi-led Egyptian Government, is also an active participant on Twitter, and mocked the ``freak out'' by U.S. talking heads discussing the terrorist activities relating to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOHMERT. My inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman. Can the Chair tell me how reducing one account by $57 million is not adequate to cover a $41,492,000 increase in another account? It is $15.5 million more we are reducing than the amount we are increasing. So my inquiry is, please, Mr. Chairman, explain how the increase of $41,492,000 is more than the $57 million reduction.

Mr. GOHMERT. Because under the math of CBO, as fuzzy as it is, by reducing one account by $57 million, even CBO says, yes, that takes care of equalizing the outlay of $41,492,000 in the account to increase that for the National Guard. So it should have been addressed with the first amendment that I made. But this second one certainly addresses the fuzzy math that CBO provides. This does not increase the amount of expenditures over what is being taken from another account.

Mr. GOHMERT. The rates are addressed, Mr. Chairman, by this $15.5 million amount. That is covered. Even CBO admits that. So I don't know where the chairman is getting his numbers. They are certainly not supported even by the fuzziest of math of our CBO.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, anticipating the fuzzy math from CBO that taking $41,492,000 from one account and putting that same amount in another account would not be considered equal, I went ahead and have another amendment that reduces the one account by $57 million, over $15 million more than we are transferring into the account that could be used for National Guard troops, so that, according to the fuzzy CBO math, the reduction will equal the increase. But with that said, no matter how fuzzy the accounting is here in Washington, there is a massive problem on our border, and for this body to turn away when we can force the President's hand--he is not faithfully executing the laws of his office, he is not enforcing the immigration laws, and he is not enforcing the border. We can force his hand by making the proceeds available, the $41,492,000, to get the National Guard, make them available for this purpose, and then we think the outcry from America will force the President's hand to get these people there, and the Governors will have a stake in this claim, but it is a Federal problem. I continue to insist on this. Americans across the country are watching what we are doing. We need to be responsible and faithfully execute the laws of this country, and that is without regard to whether or not the President does. We have an obligation to get this money where it is needed. We believe this will do that, and so, Mr. Chairman, we move this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, as read, this would transfer $35.956 million into an account under the bill that specifies, ``shall be for National Guard counterdrug program.'' We have spoken with people on the border. They know the problems they are having. They need equipment. This amount would allow eight UH-72 helicopters to help with drug interdiction on the border. It is not like there are not enough helicopters to go around. There are 100 National Guard helicopters. This would only be utilizing eight of them, putting them in a place where they could be used on the border to help with the problem. Mr. Chairman, right now, with so many of our ICE agents and so many of our Border Patrol engaged, as ICE agents said yesterday, in changing diapers instead of being involved in interdicting, as they should be, they need this equipment. This would be National Guard equipment that would allow them to participate in stopping the drugs that are flowing. It is very apparent, from what is going on, that we even have drug cartels that are taking advantage of the situation. As ICE agents have explained, they are using this time--with all of the attention toward the children and the humanitarian crisis on the border--to step up their game in getting drugs into the United States. According to the figures from CBO and from the figures we have gotten from the committee, this will not create an increase in outlays and should be in order in that regard. I would like to point out that, since 2012, aircentric operations have resulted in an almost 70 percent increase in detection and interdiction, compared to the ground-based operations. So this could make a real difference in providing for the common defense, which is our duty here in Congress, as well as the duty of the executive branch. This would make their job easier. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention that the committee has given to the issue and that, in the past, the National Guard may have had extra funds that were moved and able to be used elsewhere, but these are recent developments that have been going on even since our Appropriations Committee has been having hearings, and so this is such a dramatic problem that it is escalating every day. I would like to correct the record. Actually, this proposal will not purchase any new helicopters. There are 100 National Guard helicopters. This would just pay for the use and the crew and the maintenance and upkeep of eight of those they already have. It won't purchase any more. I wish we could get helicopters that cheaply. It will keep eight of them in use with the drug interdiction on our border right now because there is an invasion going on at our southern border. It is an invasion, and it is increasing, as I say, every day. With that request, I don't think it is asking too much to have eight helicopters that have already been purchased--they just need crews, equipment, and upkeep--to help in the interdiction of the invasion in which drugs are being brought across our border in the south. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, right now, as I speak, there are thousands of unaccompanied minors, many of whom are 15, 16, and 17 years of age, but nonetheless, they are classified as minors, under 18, and our Border Patrol is being overwhelmed. Our ICE agents, who are supposed to deport people improperly here, are being overwhelmed. As one ICE agent said yesterday, Chris Crane, that is the union president for the ICE agents, he said, basically: We are having to change diapers, and so there is no criminal interdiction going on. We are not able to do our jobs because of the thousands of children that are coming. I saw a report today from CBP, the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and they were saying the interviews they are doing yield results from the children saying that they are coming to America now because of a new law that the President has that allows children to come in and stay here if they just get here quick enough. It has caused a national emergency. So what $41,492,000 does is provide for 1,000 National Guard troops. We know in the amendment we cannot legislate, but in order for the money to be available for the National Guard troops to assist on the border, the money needs to be available, and, therefore, we are asking that the money be moved from one account over into an account that could be utilized for National Guard troops to help with what has been termed by so many people as a humanitarian crisis. Why is it a crisis? Because people in the administration are refusing, and failing to refuse, to do the job and faithfully execute the laws of this Nation. They have done a terrible job, and it is a great injustice to all those children who have been sent by aunts and uncles, by parents, and by others. Just get to the border, and if their parents are sending them, we get reports that the parents are hoping once they get in then they can bring the parents in in order to take care of them. There are other reports, as we have seen from a Federal judge in south Texas, that the Department of Homeland Security is now engaging in human trafficking. It is part of the lure of these thousands and thousands of children every week coming in, that if they get to the border and either one of their parents or any relative is in the country, then DHS will engage in human trafficking and try to take them wherever in the country they think their parents might be, even though they may be here illegally. So this money is to help with a Federal problem that should not be costing the States. It is a Federal problem, as the Department of Justice has indicated through our Attorney General's suing States like Arizona and saying that you can't deal with this problem, this is a Federal issue, you must have hands off. Well, the locals need help. This will provide help. And that is why I am asking to move $41,492,000 over in the DOD budget so that we can help with National Guard troops when and where they are needed. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.