Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, when we are starting to deal with the pension plans that protect America's retirements, one of the things we should do is to make a decision not to do any harm. But the fact of the matter is that this bill makes things worse in many ways for many pensioners in this country and many future pensioners.

First and foremost, we created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to be there to protect some of the retiree benefits of people if pension plans went bust or the corporations went bust. We are now told that this legislation makes that problem worse.

The speaker who was just in the well said there was some $23 billion in deficit in that plan. And what we now see is a Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that this makes it at least $9 billion worse over the next decade. So while we narrow the deficit, in fact we see that we increase this agency's deficit problems.

This is an agency that can look out into the future and can see up to $100 billion of liabilities possibly coming their way. Maybe some of them will not come because of this bill, but many of them will come because of this bill, because this bill, in fact, makes it easier, makes it easier to terminate plans. It makes it easier to put plans into bankruptcy. It certainly does not make it any more difficult to put into bankruptcy as we saw with United Airlines.

So what does that mean? That means that a plan that was designed, an insurance policy that was designed for when companies went out of business, now companies can take their pension plans, the retirement nest eggs of their workers, and put them into bankruptcy, and the company can go merrily on its way. I do not choose that term lightly, ``merrily on its way,'' because after what we saw after years and decades of manipulating the pension plans of United Airlines, about not being truthful with the employees, not being truthful with the public, not being truthful with the shareholders about their liabilities, they put them into bankruptcy. Those workers had given back billions of dollars in wage concessions, retirement concessions to try to keep that airline afloat. They were not able to because they went into bankruptcy.

Yesterday, we learned that the top executives of that corporation have now petitioned the court to distribute $235 million in stock to those very same executives that ran this corporation into the ground, that they are going to get $235 million in stock. The employees who had all of the concessions, all of the cutbacks, the employees are going to be required to service, maintain, run and staff those airlines, start all over, having fallen and been cast to the floor.

That is what is wrong with this legislation. It treats those in the corporate suites entirely differently than it takes care of the workers on the shop floor or on the airlines or in the repair facilities. That is the problem with it is that we see that this plan simply does not provide the kinds of protections necessary, the kinds of protections that are necessary for those employees who have worked so terribly long for those corporations, who invested their entire lives in these corporations.

Plus the fact that it also makes it, and we are told by a number of the employer groups, this is what makes it more likely that the companies will terminate their plans, that they will freeze their plans. What does that mean? That means a lots of people who may be 50, 55 years old today, just as we found out with the cash balance plans, this makes it easier to do a cash balance, a lot of people who are working today are going to find out that they will not have a retirement nest egg that they have been planning on. They will not be able to carry out the standard of living that they were anticipating to provide for their families.

That is what this legislation does. It makes those kinds of decisions much easier, much easier for the companies to do that.

What does that mean? That means that America is going to end up with a poorer retired population than they had before. That means that these people are going to have less of the kind of retirement that they had anticipated because of the acceleration of the terminations, because of the acceleration of the freezing of the plans and because of the ease which you can now go and apparently the acceptability in the business community of entering bankruptcy.

We changed the personal bankruptcy laws in this Congress because we said people were using it as a convenience. It is interesting now that the corporations have decided they will use it as a convenience to redesign themselves, to reconfigure themselves, to reinvent themselves. If United Airlines is the model, the only losers will be the workers and the retirees in those corporations.

That is what this legislation does not do. It does not really speak to trying to make sure that we could do all that we can to secure the retirement of current workers and of future retirees.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation when we get to that vote and understand that we should not be making the problems of America's pensioners even worse than they are today.

Madam Speaker, we are facing a serious pension crisis that has already cost employees across the Nation billions of dollars in lost benefits--benefits they were told were ironclad. If you calculate just the losses employees suffered in the Nation's four largest pension terminations it exceeds $6 billion in earned defined benefit promises.

Let's be clear what is happening to our retirement system--this Enron the sequel. This

is Enron 2 with a vengeance. This is a national disgrace.

This bill does absolutely nothing about companies who decide to use the Federal Government to dump and run on their promises to employees. Exploiting loopholes in our pension and bankruptcy laws, clever lawyers have turned a Federal agency that was supposed to be a last resort for companies that were closing shop, into a dumping ground for companies to ditch unwanted promises to reward investors at the expense of employees and taxpayers. So powerful is this gaping hole in our pension protections, companies can now exact major wage and benefit concession by merely threatening to terminate their pension plan.

Folks, if you want help fast forward to the new Wal-Mart economy-- this is your bill. If you want to further weaken employees' hand in the battle for fair wages and benefits, this is your bill. If you want to stand by and watch as companies freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans, this is your bill.

Last summer thousands of United Airline employees--mechanics, flight attendants, and pilots--lost billions in irreplaceable pension savings that changed their lives forever. These families--denied the courtesy of even a single hearing before the Education and Workforce Committee-- participated in an online hearing Democrats sponsored. Over 1,000 participated in this unique online hearing and their powerful voices were heard.

They wrote to us about the personal and financial devastation resulting from the loss of promised benefits, and the lost opportunity to earn future benefits. Listen to Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, AZ, who wrote:

Dear Congressmen,

I had worked for United for 38 years when I retired in

February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of

pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, with doing so

I missed out on many family gatherings, holidays, etc. This

was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no

complaints. But, now I am faced with large cuts to my

retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time of taking

it easy, traveling, and enjoying my ``Golden Years''. If this

cut happens both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the

work world, probably full time, if our medical insurance is

also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the

workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives, and

make this time relaxing, and enjoyable. The stress that is

being created by this turn in events is not healthy for

anyone. Please try and help all retirees, and future retirees

out of this most unfortunate set of troubles.

Guess what this bill says to Kenneth Schmidt and the millions of future Ken Schmidt's who have suffered from broken pension promises: Too bad, tough luck. You're on your own.

How can it be that tens of thousand of United Airlines employees like Ken Schmidt lose billions of dollars in promise benefits, and we do nothing? For example, we all know that United Airlines was permitted to terminate its flight attendants plans without ever having to show it was necessary to continue operating the company. The plan was terminated despite the testimony of a government hired economist who concluded the United plan was affordable and should be continued. This bill does nothing for them. The Democratic substitute--denied by the Republican leadership--would have restored the United plan until the company showed it couldn't afford it.

This bill does nothing for thousands of pilots whose benefits are cut by half or more by the Federal Government when a plan is terminated. When a plan is taken over by the PBGC after termination by its sponsor, the PBGC is required by law to impose a heavy penalty of those who retire at age 60--even airline pilots who are forced to retire at age 60 under Federal law. Our substitute fixes this injustice and allows pilots to get the same maximum PBGC benefit other workers receive.

H.R. 2830 rejects the Senate bill provisions that provide urgent relief to companies like Delta and Northwest airlines so these companies don't terminate their plans. Our Democratic substitute includes this urgently needed relief.

If you want to let the hard-earned pensions of airline employees across the Nation crumble into a heap of broken promises like United and USAirways, this is your bill.

Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of H.R. 2830 have referred to it as a ``pension reform bill.'' They say it will reform the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that's already $23 billion in the red and going up. And they say it will turn around $450 billion in underfunding reported by the Nation's pension plans. In truth, this bill not only fails to tackle pension reform, it actually hastens the unraveling of the PBGC and defined benefit plans. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill: ``H.R. 2830 would actually increase the PBGC's 10 year net costs by $9 billion, or by about 14 percent compared to with what it would be under current policy.'' The PBGC found the same--that H.R. 2830 would mean billions more red ink to its agency over current law.

How can a bill be reforming a system if it is increasing the PBGC's red ink over current law? It can't, and that's why this bill is a sham.

This bill also repeals two long-standing, bedrock protections for employees that, if permitted to pass, will haunt employees for years to come.

First, this bill overrides discrimination laws against older, existing workers for cash balance plans without any transition protections. It means that older workers will face up to what the GAO calculated would be up to a 50 percent cut in their benefits. These angry constituents will be calling the offices of Members of Congress in droves--just like thousands of IBM employees who spent years seeking to rectify deep cuts in pension benefits from a cash balance conversion. They will ask why Congress permitted companies to slash their benefits with no transition protections, no option to stay in the traditional plans, with no legal recourse. Tough luck to them, according to H.R. 2830. By contrast, the bipartisan Senate bill has significant protections for older workers, but this bill rejects them all.

This bill is also larded up with lots of special interest perks, but none as pernicious as the repeal of the longstanding prohibition on conflicted investment advice. Federal pension law has always required investment advice to employees to be on the level--free from self- interested, tainted financial advice. No more. This bill gives a sweetheart deal to investment houses by allowing them to offer conflicted investment advice to employees so long as they disclose to them that fix is in. And of course, it ignores years of mutual fund financial scandals involving padded fees and commissions, secret market timing, late trading, and more uncovered by the SEC, Elliot Spitzer, and other State attorneys general.

Here is what Arthur Levitt, former SEC chairman, says about the Boehner/Thomas investment advice provision.

. . . I have reservations when . . . advice comes from the

very same mutual fund company whose products are for sale to

a plans participants. One of my bedrock principles of

investing is that advice should come from mutual parties

with no axe to grind.

Financial journalist Jane Bryant Quinn and NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer have also expressed strong opposition to this change.

It's amazing that we don't lift a finger for the Ken Schmidts of the world, but we pull out all the stops to reverse a 30-year bedrock protection for employees for mutual funds and investment firms' lobbyists.

By contrast, the Senate bill does not include this repeal and goes further to actually strengthen the independent advice employees receive.

This bill does nothing to ensure fair treatment between workers and executives. Under this bill, if an employer does not fund its pension plan above 80 percent, then the workers get punished by benefit limits. What's the penalty for the executives who ran the plan down between 60 percent and 80 percent? Zero? If an employer does not fund above 60 percent, the bill requires more benefits limits for workers. For executives, only a weak provision for new executive compensation, with loopholes that allow the companies to promise future golden parachutes.

This bill doesn't reform our pensions; it actually hastens the pension crisis according to two independent Federal agencies. Rather than encouraging companies to keep their defined benefit plan in place, it encourages companies to freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans altogether. It gives the green light to companies who want to dump and run, and opens new loopholes for mutual funds to steer employees into investments that feather their own nests at the expense of employees. It overrules age discrimination laws to slash the pensions of older workers and other existing employees. And it launches new, punishing benefit cuts for employees of underfunded pension plans, while letting the very executives who ran the company and the pension plan into the ground off the hook. And it does nothing to address the urgent crisis of our airline companies and employees--where jobs and the hard-earned retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of Americans hang in the balance.

I urge you to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when United Airlines announced it was going to go into bankruptcy, the Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce planned an e-hearing so those people who were most affected by the termination of that plan and the bankruptcy of that company would have an opportunity to talk to their representatives in Congress. We were not going to have a hearing on this problem, and these people could not come to Washington and testify. So we opened up the Internet to them, and we received thousands of replies from people telling us their life stories. The amazing thing about it was how many of these people were using their retirement to care for another member of their family. It could be a spouse with an illness, it could be a child, a grandchild, and all of a sudden, half of their pensions were evaporated into the bankruptcy of United Airlines.

Mr. Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, Arizona, wrote, ``Dear Congressman, I had worked at United for 38 years when I retired in February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, and in doing so, I missed many of my family gatherings and holidays. This was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no complaints. But now I am faced with large cuts in my retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time for taking it easy, traveling and enjoying my `golden years.' If this cut happens, both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the work world, probably full time if our medical insurance is also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives and make this time relaxing and enjoyable. The stress that is being created by the turn of events is not healthy for anyone. Please try and help all retirees and future retirees out of this most unfortunate set of troubles.''

What the problem is is that this legislation does nothing for the Kenneth Schmidts of the world, he and his family. It does nothing to keep companies from simply making a business decision that they can throw the company into bankruptcy, get rid of the retirement and health care obligations to retirees and move along. This is not some unusual practice to bring shame upon a company. The steel companies did it. The airlines have done it. There is a question of whether the automobile industry will go this way.

It is really not completely about their pensions. It is about a decision of a business plan. It is about competition and a change in the marketplace. But the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, there is no showing. United did not have to show that for these pension plans they would be a solvent company. In fact, the people from the PBGC wrote and said that they thought the flight attendant plan could be salvaged, and in fact, maybe the others could. But the decision was made and they went into bankruptcy without a hearing on that issue.

Companies should have to exhaust all of their attempts to try to save the retirement plans of these Americans, these people who have worked hard. Remember, these pension plans, they traded pay. They traded health care benefits. They traded vacation days for this pension plan. That was the agreement and the guarantee. Now, unilaterally, the company gets up and walks away from it.

And to rub salt into their wounds, there were pilots required by the laws of this Nation to retire earlier. They take an additional hit on their pension because they are early retirees, not because they wanted to stop flying but because the law says they have to retire.

So we have pension plans that could have been salvaged and people who are being punished because of the Federal law in terms of their early retirements, and this bill does nothing to fix that.

We do that in our motion to recommit. We address the concerns of the flight attendants. We address the concerns of the early retirees, and we address the concerns of the airlines, but it does not do that in the majority bill because they want to go off and use those people as trading chips, the retirement nest eggs of these hardworking Americans, in the conference committee. I urge Members to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his control in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit on behalf of myself and Congressman Cardin.

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, we offer this motion to recommit to address a number of issues that are not addressed in the legislation before us and to hopefully not do some of the things that the legislation before us does. We believe that we can do these things without driving employers out of the defined benefit system.

The current bill before us provides a compilation of interest rates and premium fees and costs that we believe will drive employers to accelerate the termination and freezing of these plans. That is not because we say it; that is what the employers have told one another in their associations, the expectation that some 60 percent of the employers will freeze or terminate their plans.

We believe that our motion to recommit does not impose arbitrary benefit cuts and freezes on workers who do not control whether or not the employers fund the pension plans or not.

The motion to recommit would require companies to seek alternatives to the termination and prove that a plan is in fact unaffordable before they can cast it away in bankruptcy, as we saw United Airlines do, that cost the employees billions of dollars in pension benefits.

Importantly, the motion to recommit would actually help the employees of American, Continental, Delta and Northwest Airlines, whose pension plans are in danger of being terminated. The bill before us does not do that. It talks about doing that in the future.

The motion to recommit would also protect 9 million workers who are covered by multi-employer pension plans in the construction, food service and transportation industries. We would ensure that workers and executives would be affected equally in pension plans. Again, the horrible demonstration out of United Airlines, as the executives walked away with $235 million in a new, debt-free company and the employees walked away with wage cuts and benefits cuts and the loss of retirement benefits.

Finally, the motion to recommit would help workers who do not have access to defined benefit plans through the automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans and the expanded savers credit.

This legislation, if it is not corrected, is the greatest assault on the pension benefits and the retirement nest eggs of hardworking, middle class Americans in the history of this Congress. I say that because it is quite clear that this will expedite and will accelerate the freezing and the termination of these plans that so many millions of Americans are relying on.

One thing this legislation will do, if you want to continue to debate Social Security, you will now prove with the passage of this legislation that Social Security is the most secure retirement system in this country, that it is the only one that people can count on, because these other plans are in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Cardin from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 602, I call up the bill (H.R. 2830) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding rules, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2830.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will put this as bluntly as I can: our Nation's pension laws are outdated and broken and placing at risk the retirement security of millions of American workers. Today, we have an opportunity to change this by voting for the most comprehensive reforms to worker pension laws in more than a generation.

The Pension Protection Act is the outcome of one of the most thorough and remarkable legislative processes I have seen during my years in the House. On June 4, 2003, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held the first of nearly a dozen hearings on traditional pension plans, and from these hearings they have covered a broad set of issues, ranging from what is broken to who it has impacted to how we should go about fixing it. And, today, we stand ready to debate and vote on the product of those 30 months of deliberations.

There are three key strengths of this bill, and I would like to highlight each of those for my colleagues. It is a balanced approach, it is comprehensive in nature, and it is a benefit to American taxpayers.

First, the bill's greatest strength is its balanced approach to the pension crisis that we face. While some are calling for suffocating pension funding rules which would place an incredible burden on employers who voluntarily offer retirement benefits, our bill makes certain not to tighten the rules so much that employers leave the defined benefit system altogether.

While others call for relaxation of pension rules, our bill ensures that employers and unions keep their promises to workers and retirees who are counting on their pension benefits. In short, our bill aims to shore up the traditional defined benefit pension system to which we and our parents have grown accustomed so our children and grandchildren might have a chance to be part of it as well.

The second major strength of the Pension Protection Act is inherently comprehensive in nature. As you can see on the chart that is next to me, the measure would ensure that pensions are fully funded to restore worker and retiree confidence; it has enhanced disclosure requirements so that workers and retirees are no longer kept in the dark about the health of their pensions; it would improve the financial condition of the Federal agency charged with ensuring some 30,000 private pension plans; it would reform outdated laws that deny workers access to professional and secure investment advice while providing even more workers with 401(k)-type plans; and it would end sweetheart deals like those we have seen at some airlines and other corporations that have terminated their plans in which executives enjoy a windfall of cash while workers and retirees are left wondering about their futures.

Incidentally, these five reforms are only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that this bill offers to workers and retirees, far more than this chart could ever tell us.

Finally, yet another strength of this measure is its benefit to American taxpayers. Each of us remembers all too well the savings & loan bailout of more than a decade ago. By enacting the Pension Protection Act, we can be more confident that history will not repeat itself with regard to our pension system.

As you can see on this second chart, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures nearly 30,000 private worker pensions, is in dire financial condition. With some $450 billion in pension plan underfunding among financially weak companies looming on the horizon, the PBGC's debt could balloon even further than its current $23 billion.

Even though no taxpayer funds fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, could American taxpayers be called upon to bail out the agency if its financial condition continues to deteriorate? I think so. That is why the Pension Protection Act includes responsible increases to employer-paid premiums for the first time since 1991, along with substantial reforms to place the defined benefit system on more solid ground. For taxpayers who may be left holding the bag otherwise, I think this is good news.

Madam Speaker, throughout this process I have made every effort to include my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And even after my Democratic friends voted ``present,'' that is right, they did not vote ``no,'' they voted ``present,'' when our committee approved the bill back in June, I was hopeful that they would join us and the ever- growing coalition of labor and employer groups in support of these reforms.

However, some of my colleagues have offered nothing more than rhetoric based on quirky accounting schemes and purposely skewed modeling in an effort to characterize the Pension Protection Act in a negative manner. I expect these hollow and misleading arguments will continue today as they seek to detract from a debate which they have largely been absent from for the last 30 months. It is my sincere hope, however, that many of my Democrat colleagues will look beyond the rhetoric and support these long-overdue reforms. This bill definitely deserves bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act would not be before us if it were not for the work of my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas; the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee chair and vice chair, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kline; my friend from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, a committee colleague who worked tirelessly to garner support for the bill; and all of the others on my committee and throughout the House who understand how imperative it is to reform our Nation's outdated pension laws for the benefit of workers, retirees, and taxpayers alike. I thank them for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Employer-Employee Subcommittee of the Education and Workforce Committee.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I will be happy to do so.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for his work on this issue for lo these many months. I know that my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has similar concerns, and I am happy to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as has been the case all year, the lines of communication between those of us that are interested in this, both on and off the committee, and those on the other side of the aisle as well, the lines of communication are open and will remain open.

As we move into conference, the process, I remain committed to ensuring that the concerns of all stakeholders involved are addressed in a bipartisan fashion as we complete action on comprehensive reforms in an expeditious manner.

I remain committed, as I believe both of my colleagues do, that airlines do, and that we need to find a solution that will allow airlines to maintain their plans and ensure employees of both plans are adequately funded.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my colleague that I agree with his comments regarding the importance of shutdown benefits to workers who may suddenly find that the plant for which they have worked, for 20 years in your father's case, happens to be closed.

I think the gentleman knows that I am troubled by the fact that shutdown benefits are often paid from a company's pension plan, despite the fact that they are not technically retirement benefits in the true sense of the word. These benefits resemble severance-type pay benefits, and more importantly, these benefits are not funded.

But I want to make clear, for the benefit of my colleagues, that our bill does not prohibit shutdown benefits, as some have suggested.

Instead, with further modifications that we have made over the last few days, it merely requires that shutdown benefits be paid from corporate assets and not pension plan assets, if the pension plan is funded at below 80 percent. I think this is an important change, and I believe it will help restore the financial integrity of this important benefit.

My colleague from Ohio correctly notes that we still have work to do on this issue of shutdown benefits, specifically as it relates to the steel industry, and as such, I pledge to him and other Members who may have an interest in this as well that on this issue we will continue to work on this matter throughout this legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I assume so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell you that I am confused. Some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business, while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the bill is just right.

Yes, these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans. They certainly are better than current law. But I do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system.

My good friend from California believes we are going to drive up the deficit. Now, if the rules were not strong enough, I would not have had virtually every employer in America who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing. I would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right.

The fact is, if you look at the chart that we have here, plans must meet a 100 percent funding target. That is not the law today. If they are in the 80-90 percent range, it is good enough. But then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road, it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble. So requiring plans to be 100 percent funded, I think, is a very good idea.

Having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever. We have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan's liabilities. Under this modified yield curve proposal, they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce, 0-5 years, 5-20, and those employees who will retire after 20 years. It will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans.

Third, it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years. We want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time, what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace.

Fourth, it restricts unlimited use of credit balances. We all know that the current rules about credit balances are, frankly, some of the most irresponsible public policy that I have seen. Beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will, in fact, strengthen these plans.

Fifth, it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans. We all know there are plans that were underfunded, severely underfunded, and yet increasing benefits at the same time. That is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping.

Last, it shores up the finances of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

All of these will bring more funding to company pension plans, it will bring more funding to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put our pension system for American workers on a stronger foundation.

Why else do I think we are just right? I have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill. It is a balanced bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Let me thank my colleague and my friend and classmate, Mr. Camp, for yielding me time, and thank all of my colleagues for what I think has been a very healthy debate today about how we strengthen America's pension system.

We have heard Members argue that the bill that we are bringing before us is too difficult, that we will force companies out of pension plans and leave their employees hanging; while others

have argued that the rules are not tough enough, and we are keeping the door open to irresponsible practices.

I truly do believe that we have a bill that is balanced, that will not push employers who have these plans out of the system and will protect American workers who have been promised these benefits.

If we do not act, we know exactly what is going to happen: Millions and millions more Americans are going to lose an opportunity for a defined benefit pension plan, and millions of Americans who already have one are going to be at risk that they will not have their plan. So Congress must act.

Not only did we deal with single-employer pension plans, but we have not talked much about multiple-employer pension plans that you find traditionally in the trucking industry, the food industry and others. And while they have not been talked about much today in this debate and the administration did not propose changes, there are serious changes to the multi-employer pension system in this plan that will help strengthen that system.

Those plans, by and large, are healthier than single-employer plans, and we have labor and management on both sides in the multi-employer sector come together to put rules in place so that their plans can never get into a very weakly funded position. I am glad they are in the bill.

Lastly, let me point out that there are large numbers of groups supporting this bill. Every major labor organization, with the exception of several, is supporting this bill. Many in the management sector in every large business organization is supporting this bill. Why would all of the labor organizations and the business organizations all be on board in support of this bill? Because they think it is balanced. They think it is the right thing to do, and they know that Congress needs to act.

Is everything perfect in the bill? No. As the gentleman pointed out, we have got airline relief that we will probably be talking about again soon. Our commitment is to deal with this in conference.

My colleague from Ohio talked about the need to go further on cash balance language. I certainly agree with her. There are 7 million Americans who have cash balance plans or other types of hybrid plans. We need to provide legal certainty for those who have converted to a cash balance plan so that we do not put in jeopardy the 7 million Americans counting on benefits from those plans.

We have a good bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo. Unfortunately, what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of American pensions.

Let me make five points. First, the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent, instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill. It just does not pass the straight-face test.

Second, they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan. Pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination, threatening the benefits of workers and retirees.

Third, they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension

plan underfunding we see today. We know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy. They must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system. And to allow those rules to stay in place, again, does not pass the straight-face test.

Fourth, they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups.

Last, they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter.

The modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should, in fact, stay in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced. It really does strengthen American pensions, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to advise both sides as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation which is nothing more than a xenophobic attack on immigrants who were in search of a better way of life for them and their children.

The United States has long been a shining example of inclusion and diversity. Even in some of our darkest days of intolerance, we have always managed to rise above our differences and fuel the flame beneath the world's melting pot. By resolving these differences, we have cultivated a strong Nation of citizens from around the world.

That is why I find it so troubling that some here today are determined

to extinguish that flame with so-called immigration reform that does little to address current immigration challenges or make our borders safer.

Even worse is the manner by which this legislation is being brought to the floor today. Under the rule, part A, a meager 15 of the 130 amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee are actually made in order. That means that 115 amendments, 115 ideas, 115 voices are all shut out from debate under this rule, and you multiply that by their constituents.

Included in these 115 blocked amendments is an amendment offered by my good friend from south Florida (Mr. Meek) which sought to remedy some of the double standard immigration practices that apply to Haitian immigrants. Also blocked from consideration under the rule are the Sanchez-Conyers substitute and the President's very own guest worker visa program offered by Representatives Kolbe, Berman, Flake and Gutierrez.

I heard the chairman a moment ago say that we should have this guest worker program. Well, he did not put it in this rule, and all we had to do was do that to at least give some credibility to that argument. I was confused as I heard him. I did not know whose side he was on.

Clearly, the autocracy in this Republican-controlled body has reached an all-time high when a Republican President cannot get a vote on his own proposal.

I offered an amendment to the rule this morning at 7 a.m., barely 3 hours ago, that would have made the Kolbe-Berman amendment in order, but Republicans on the Rules Committee, except one, rejected my amendment and blocked this amendment from being considered by the House.

I understand that the House leadership has told many in the majority that it intends to consider the President's proposal on the floor sometime before the House recesses this week. If that is, in fact, the case then why did the chairman of the Rules Committee specifically tell his assembled Republican colleagues this morning to vote against making the President's proposal in order?

Perhaps it is because the majority do not want to consider what they cannot defeat or perhaps they have zero intention of ever considering the Kolbe-Berman amendment.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dollar for every time the Republican leadership promised a Member something and failed to keep that promise since 1995, well, I would be a Republican. Words are cheap until they are backed up with action, and if anybody thinks that this part A is getting ready to have the necessary appropriations to undertake the meager measures on border security, then I have a bridge in Mr. Nadler's general area that I would like to sell them.

Our immigration laws are in dire need of revision. Everybody in this House knows, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration laws are broken. The current system is rife with double standards, quota limit, wet foot-dry foot, air foot-boat foot, student visas, just to name a few.

The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address these shortcomings in the law. Instead, it is a harsh set of laws that favor heavy-handed enforcement in the guise of protection.

Mr. Speaker, my south Florida-based district staff, as I am speaking, work every single day, and today as I speak there are immigrants lined up throughout the halls of the office that I am privileged to serve, lined sometimes as many as 30 or 40 people deep snake through the hallways of that office. Some came here legally. Others arrived illegally. Regardless, all of them share the same American dream with one another and all of us. Our rich and diverse cultural backgrounds are our strength.

The underlying legislation, however, mocks that diversity and creates a system under which simply applying for citizenship would be risky. Arbitrary factors could deny naturalization on the basis of whether an alien is a person of good, moral character.

If this bill becomes law, anyone who has ever had an illegal presence in the United States will be arrested, convicted of a felony and jailed. Even those who seek asylum from honor killings, human trafficking, and forced prostitution would immediately be branded as felons and thrown into American jails.

This wide net of prosecution is also cast upon American citizens accused of helping, hiring or transporting potential immigrants. We have a wonderful and rich history of churches and philanthropic groups who serve as a lifeline for newly arrived immigrants who diligently seek legal status.

Business owners could also be fined and penalized for not verifying the citizenship of every worker through a new system of stringent checks that is an unfunded mandate at best. These checks would require approximately 7 million American employers to screen almost 140 million workers. These are the people who do not believe in big government.

We owe it to all who live here, whether born on this soil or not, the chance to contribute in a fair and meaningful way that protects our safety, provides for our prosperity and values our distinction.

Let me go back and say that there are people in this country, there are elected officials in this country whose parentage may very well have been brought here under certain circumstances, forced here under others, came here of their own volition, and likely were here illegally. Many of those persons are some of the stellar citizens in our respective communities. I look no further south than my district and can tell you the significant number of Cuban Americans and Haitian Americans that all of us ought be proud they are here and Jamaican Americans, the whole Caribbean basin, many from South America, everybody ain't in this category of 11 million people who we are getting ready to felonize.

We need look no further than our own families to appreciate the richness and diversity of this country. Most of us here today in this House are no more than two to three generations away from an ancestor who traveled to America by boat, plane or even on foot or were brought here by others to work for nothing. Many came at great risk and sacrifice. Thousands died on the way here. They journeyed here not for a free ride but for a better way of life, not for a handout but for a hand up.

I went a few months ago to the Statue of Liberty, and I had my grandson with me. We stood and we looked and he began to understand what it meant more and more. He is 11 years old, and I could see the pride as he thought of his many friends that he goes to school with that come from other countries and his understanding the need for tolerance that that great symbol signifies for this Nation.

As a nation of immigrants, it is beyond irresponsible to address this issue with such closed minds. It is time for us to undertake comprehensive illegal reform, and I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to my classmate and good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler).

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, December 15, 2005.

Members of the United States House of Representatives: As

you prepare to debate the rule on H.R. 4437, the ``Border

Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control

Act of 2005,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this

legislation due to its adverse impact on employers, and asks

that you reject House Resolution 610. The process that led to

the development of this legislation and its consideration on

the floor has been seriously flawed. The Chamber remains

strongly opposed to this legislation.

We have been urging Congress to fix our broken immigration

system for years, which would include securing our borders,

creating an employment verification system that is fast and

reliable, designing a temporary worker program that meets the

future demand for workers, and reasonably addressing the

legal status of the undocumented workers and their families

currently in the United States. With the notable exception of

border security, this bill, particularly the provisions of

Title VII, would make our dysfunctional immigration system

even worse.

The bill mandates that all employers of all sizes comply

with a new government-run electronic/telephonic verification

system to ensure that all employees are authorized to work.

The concept is based on past, very limited pilot projects,

and it is doubtful whether a new mandate of this breadth,

applicable to over seven million employers and over 140

million employees, can realistically be implemented,

particularly under this legislation's deadlines. These pilot

projects were limited to approximately 3,600 employers and

only new hires, while the legislation will also apply to

existing employees. Further, there have been many practical,

documented compliance problems under the program. While

improvements have been made, the extension of this program to

a much broader universe creates serious questions as to its

practicality in the real world. The proposal also includes

massive, in some cases uncapped, increases in penalties

against employers. Paperwork violation penalties are

increased 25 fold--up to $25,000 per individual.

Furthermore, the bill would now transform into a felony

with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for

unauthorized presence in the United States subject to fines

and deportation. This provision is directly inconsistent with

the President's proposal, which recognizes the economic

contributions of these workers, and that there should be a

pathway for these workers to earn legal status. The debate

over the proper status of these workers should have been left

to the context of comprehensive reform initiatives.

The Chamber continues to support the concept of a workable

verification system as part of a comprehensive reform

package, but new laws that simply place more burdens on

employers through worksite enforcement alone are not the

answer. The Chamber has repeatedly called for legislation to:

1) provide for increased national security and control of our

nation's borders; 2) create an efficient temporary worker

program that allows employers to recruit immigrant workers

when there is a shortage of domestic workers; and 3) provide

legal status for qualified, screened undocumented migrants

now in the country. As the President has stated, all three of

these elements must be part of any initiative.

The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical

issues, and is dismayed that the House rule essentially

forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas.

Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business

community and our nation's economy, the Chamber will use the

vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings.

Again the Chamber urges you to vote `no' on House Resolution

610, the rule on H.R. 4437.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of this letter states, ``The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical issues and is dismayed that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business community and our Nation's economy, the Chamber will use the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again, the Chamber urges you to vote no on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R. 4437.''

The Chamber's display is the same dismay that we have seen in a bipartisan fashion here. It is not that we do not need reform. But what is needed is comprehensive reform. And simply put, we are not reaching that with the legislation that we are making a rule on at this time. And we cannot do that, I might add, with a restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border Security, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation has lost control of its borders, which has resulted in a sharp increase in illegal immigration and has left us vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists and criminals. Estimates indicate that there are currently more than 10 million illegal aliens already here, and that population continues to grow by an estimated half million additional aliens each year.

Large majorities of Americans support efforts to restore the security of our Nation's borders and to assure accountability of those who illegally enter the United States. America is a compassionate Nation that welcomes legal immigrants from all corners of the world. But it is also a Nation of laws. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, and H.R. 4437 reflects this.

This legislation, which I introduced with Homeland Security Committee Chairman King, will diminish the lure of higher-wage employment that drives illegal entry into the United States while enhancing border security. This legislation will re-establish respect for our laws by holding violators accountable, including human traffickers, employers who hire illegal aliens, and alien gang members who terrorize communities throughout the country.

I am pleased that this bill incorporates vital border security provisions from legislation reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and congratulate Chairman King for his committee's important role in drafting this component of the bill.

H.R. 4437 will deliver on the unkept promise of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by providing employers with a reliable method of determining whether their employees are eligible to work. The bill expands on the premise of Representative Calvert's legislation, H.R. 19, to build upon a successful pilot program that currently enables employers to verify the employment eligibility of their workers. Currently, employer participation in this program is on a voluntary basis. Within 2 years, this bill provides that all employers must check new hires against this database.

The bill also increases penalties for alien smuggling. Those who suffer most from alien smuggling are often the most vulnerable and desperate, entering the country in perilous conditions that sometimes result in injury or even death.

Moreover, debts owed to alien smugglers by those transported into the country illegally often create a form of indentured servitude that enriches criminal syndicates. The GAO has found that convicted smugglers, including those responsible for death or serious injury, receive an average prison sentence of only 10 months. Only 10 months, far less than that imposed for transporting illegal drugs or committing other serious crimes. The bill corrects these disparities by increasing criminal penalties for alien smugglers.

The legislation also gets tough on alien members of violent street gangs. It incorporates H.R. 2933, the Alien Gang Removal Act, which was authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes). Alien gangs are a threat to communities across the country and represent a problem that is international in scope. We should not have to wait until alien gang members commit violent crimes before we can remove them from our communities.

The legislation also increases penalties for previously deported aliens who illegally re-enter the United States. These provisions are incorporated from H.R. 3150, the Criminal Alien Accountability Act, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Another crucial provision of the legislation remedies the current situation in which the Department of Homeland Security is required to release dangerous alien criminals who cannot be deported. This has compelled the release of nearly 1,000 criminal aliens, including murderers and rapists, onto our streets. One such alien shot a New York state trooper. The legislation allows for the continued detention of these violent criminal aliens.

The bill also contains commonsense provisions that would bar aliens who are terrorists or security risks from being naturalized U.S. citizens, making aggravated felons inadmissible to the United States, and facilitate the deportation of aliens who sexually abuse minors.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a critical step in helping to regain control of our borders and to prevent illegal immigration. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, I think, has exposed what the difference is between those who are for this bill and those who are against this bill.

Earned legalization is a nice word for amnesty for illegal aliens. The American public is against amnesty for illegal aliens. This bill does not give amnesty to illegal aliens, and it should not because it rewards somebody for breaking our laws.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who is an emeritus member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify everything, if someone entered the United States illegally, they have committed a Federal misdemeanor. If they overstayed their visa, they have committed a civil grounds of inadmissibility. So the people who snuck under the fence are already criminals, and what this bill does is criminalize the 40 percent who entered legally and did not go home when they were supposed to. And that is fair and that is equal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I was here in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed. I voted against it because I didn't think it was a balanced bill, and I didn't think it was a workable bill, and I think that what has happened in the last 19 years showed that a no vote was the right vote.

That bill was based on the fact that we would solve the illegal alien problem by giving those who are already here amnesty and then we would impose sanctions on employers who hired new illegal aliens. The reason it didn't work, as my friend from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) has stated, is that the employer sanctions were never enforced. As a result, illegal aliens came across the border in increasing floods.

The current system gives an incentive to an employer to hire an illegal alien in an entry-level job that is labor intensive because illegal aliens work for less money than either documented aliens with green cards or United States citizens. As a result, the bad actors in areas like the hotel and restaurant business, agriculture, landscaping and the construction business, are able to have such a competitive economic advantage because of the low wages over those who are trying to do it the right way.

I can understand why the Chamber of Commerce is against this bill because of the employer verification system. I guess if I were lobbying for them, I would be, too, because they have benefited from the low wages, and the low wages that these corporations have benefited from have depressed the wages of honest, hardworking, middle-income American people and those who are trying to get these entry-level jobs who are authorized to work in this country.

The key in this bill is Mr. Calvert's employer verification system because that will flush out those who hire large numbers of illegal aliens, and they can go into the marketplace and pay a decent wage to people who are legally entitled to work here. I think that this is the main reason why this bill should pass.

We have heard a litany of complaints about all of the enforcement provisions, fences on the border, making a criminal offense overstaying one's visa, giving the sheriffs in border counties the authority to enforce the immigration law which they don't have now. The fact is that those people who are against this bill don't want any changes in the existing system except perhaps amnesty or, excuse me, earned legalization and ultimately citizenship for those who have broken the law.

This bill has our priorities straight. We have to secure the border. We have to provide law enforcement the tools to apprehend those who have broken the law, and we have to force our employers to flush out all the fake documents that are out there that are held by people who are illegally in this country, which is what the verification program proposes to do.

This is a good bill. It is a necessary first step, and if this bill is defeated, as all of those who have been saying no to everything goes down, the consequence is going to be the continuation of the intolerable existing system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 610 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 610 is a structured rule. It provides 2 hours of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.

This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. It provides that the amendments printed in part B of the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against amendments printed in part B of the report, and it provides that after disposition of the amendments printed in part B of the report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion, and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 610 and the underlying H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

Today, this Congress continues an ongoing and difficult debate. The need for fundamental immigration reform is critical and long overdue. In 1986, President Reagan pushed for reforms to address this problem. In 1996, the 104th Congress pushed for more reforms to address the problem. Now here we are 10 years later. This Congress once again has an opportunity to debate how to best secure our borders and remove incentives for illegal immigration by enacting meaningful changes.

I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King for this bill to close our borders to illegal immigrants and potential terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, since the attacks of September 11, 4 years ago, the debate on immigration is a fundamentally different debate. Border security is no longer just a legal or economic issue, which of course it still is. Secure borders now are also a matter of national security.

Procrastination and ignoring the problem will simply not make it go away. Every day we put off debating and passing comprehensive reform creates more and more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our laws and violate our borders with the social, economic and political repercussions. For instance, there are an estimated 376,000 illegal immigrants who live in my home State of Georgia and bear an incredible toll on our social services and health care system.

The burden of illegal immigrants continues to increase for the American citizens as hospitals and schools are filled with illegal immigrants who cannot pay for their education and medical expenses.

Mr. Speaker, some of our schools continue to struggle simply because of the inherent burden of some illegal immigrants who require extensive remedial education at the expense of the American taxpayer and our schoolchildren. Regardless of their intention, this effect on our schools highlights the fact that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.

As this Congress continues to contemplate ways to relieve escalating medical costs, part of that expense is to reimburse doctors, nurses and hospitals who have treated illegal immigrants who could not pay their medical bills. I am a firsthand witness to doctors who have treated patients, only to have them skip out on a medical bill because they are here illegally and they do not want to be traced.

Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the immigrants themselves. I do not think this can be stated too forcefully; illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the immigrants themselves. Just ask the families of the 19 illegal immigrants who were found dead in the back of a tractor-trailer truck in Victoria, Texas, in May of 2003. As long as incentives for human border smuggling persist, we will continue to see people manipulated, abused and, yes, even killed through this deplorable process.

As I mentioned earlier and as is clearly evidenced and described, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and H.R. 4437 goes a long way to combating it on multiple fronts, from the provision against illegal immigrants themselves to those who would either incentivize or aid them in illegally entering this country.

First, Mr. Speaker, this bill will make illegal immigration into this country a felony offense, thereby increasing the penalties for jumping the border. H.R. 4437 will combat the economic incentives for illegal immigration by transferring the current employment verification system that validates Social Security numbers from a voluntary program to a mandatory program.

This bill also would increase civil and criminal penalties for those employers who knowingly and repeatedly employ or hire an illegal worker. Further, this

bill would mandate detention for all aliens apprehended at the border while also stiffening the penalties for aliens already removed once from this country who try to reenter.

Additionally, H.R. 4437 would increase existing and establish further mandatory minimums for alien smuggling and would vigorously combat through deportation members of alien street gangs. From the border to the street of every city, this bill takes a holistic approach to reforming our immigration laws, strengthening our border in defense of our country against a very real threat to not only American security but also, Mr. Speaker, American sovereignty.

I ask for my colleagues' full support of the rule and this underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

(Mr. KING of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is well aware that we will be having another rule and additional amendments made in order under that rule. Many of the ones that he mentioned hopefully will have that opportunity to be made in order and to be discussed.

I want to point out also that the give and take between the Democrats and the Republicans on the Rules Committee brought to the attention this potential problem of criminalizing existing illegal aliens, and we will have a manager's amendment in the next rule that corrects that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my physician colleague from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will draw this first debate to a close by again congratulating the Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Sensenbrenner, as well as the Committee on Homeland Security and Chairman King for bringing this comprehensive bill before the House today.

As I stated in my opening remarks, the problem of illegal immigration poses multiple threats and must be addressed in multiple ways, and I am pleased that this bill before us today goes a long way and is a great first step to attacking the problem, both from the supply-and-demand sides of the equation, as well as from the security side.

Mr. Speaker, through both strengthening our borders and diminishing economic incentives for illegal immigration, we stand a much better chance of truly reducing this problem in a meaningful way. And, yes, we do intend, in an expeditious manner, to address the issue of a solution for the existing 11 million illegals, most of whom are working hard to support their families.

Again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule so we can move forward with the initial consideration of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.