Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

To the gentleman from West Virginia, let me just say I know your concern about the process here. But I think that if you reviewed this situation and the process these two Border Patrol agents went through, you would understand why some of us are standing up and saying, first of all, the 10-year minimum for the commission of a crime while carrying a firearm, it was used to apply to these agents, was never meant to apply to law enforcement agents who are required by law to carry firearms. And I think we can kind of understand.

Remember when we passed that and it went through, it was sort of like, criminals, if you are going to engage in criminal activity, leave your gun at home, as a way of lowering the level of violence and the potential violence of criminals carrying firearms at the time of the commission of the crime.

This law that we passed at the Federal level is being applied to Federal officers who are required by statute to carry a firearm. And so now what we have is that we have law enforcement agents who are sworn to serve the American people, that are being prosecuted under a statute that says we are going to nail you because you were carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime when, as a requirement of their employment, they had to carry the firearm.

Doesn't anybody else find this kind of absurd, if not ridiculous?

And all I have to say is I would sincerely hope that the chairman of the committee will take a second thought about opposing this amendment, because I think in all fairness the American people are saying we have two agents who were serving their Nation as best as they could. They might have made a mistake that should have been administered through an administrative process; and those of us in local government that have worked with law enforcement know this, excessive force happens in certain situations.

But this is where a Federal law that we passed in Congress that says we are going to nail the criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime and tell them don't ever carry a firearm when you are thinking of breaking a crime, that that law is being applied to our agents who are executing the requirements of Federal law. That was never the intention of this law, but it is being applied to these two agents.

So I just have to say sincerely, I would really ask the chairman to reconsider his opposition to this amendment. I think fair-minded people that know why this Federal law was passed know that it was not meant for Border Patrol agents or any Federal agents that are required to carry a firearm, to use this law against those agents. And if you can do it to Border Patrol agents, you can do it to FBI agents, you can do it to everybody.

Now, let me just say something about the unique situation that we are seeing down at the border. At this location, Mr. Chairman, within the month of this incident you had Border Patrol agents under fire by automatic gunfire, AK-47s firing at our agents from across the border. There was good reason to think that our agents might have been a little more active with their guns than we might have preferred. But, in all fairness, it really comes down to: Are we willing to stand up and say there has been a mistake, that mistake needs to be addressed, needs to be reassessed, and do we now relinquish our responsibility of the budget to the executive branch where we say these agents have been wronged?

And if those of you that want to talk about this, in all the years I was in local government I saw excessive force cases brought very seldom. In this one sector, this Federal attorney has brought excessive force cases against three different law enforcement officers. Every one of them that we know of, or I know of, just happened to have been cases that involved illegal aliens, drug smugglers, foreign nationals committing a crime. That is really unique. I have never heard of that kind of situation occurring anywhere else.

In this case, it is time that we stand up and we say, you have the jurisdiction to prosecute, you have the jurisdiction not to give clemency on this issue, but we have the jurisdiction of saying you will not use the taxpayers' funds to prosecute these men.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think you agree, though, that when we talked about the 10-year minimum, the jury was told that they had to administer the 10- year execution based on the commission of the crime. And I think you were here when the 10-year minimum was passed. I think you would agree the idea was to try to encourage anybody that, if you are going to do something that was illegal, you don't carry a gun, because it would lower that level of potential.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I had the privilege to serve 10 years as a county supervisor in the County of San Diego serving a community that desperately needed help with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and I also happened to have been privileged enough to serve on Interstate and Commerce on the Health Committee that reauthorized the Ryan White Act.

The biggest issue here that is being discussed by the Member from Texas (Mr. Barton) is the fact that the need should follow the patient. I am sure the gentleman from Chicago recognizes that all of these agencies and all of this money is supposed to be to service the people, not to groups, not to cities. It is human beings we are talking about in need. His motion is a compromise. It doesn't say don't strike the need on everything, but it says let's take half of it or take a portion and give priority to those who need it.

Madam Chairman, this would be like somebody thinking that it would be appropriate to send as much money to an empty hospital that used to serve patients as it is to send it to the new hospital that is full of patients. All he is saying is, let's take a portion of this and commit it totally to need. Not all of it, but a portion of it. How can we go back to our districts and say the agency in a certain city was more important than the patients and the people who are sick who just happen not to be sick in that same area?

The fact is having a formula that puts weight to those who used to be served is an inappropriate formula, and we all agreed in the 1990s that we were going to phase that out. The gentleman's motion only moves forward that agreement we have always had when we talked about Ryan White, that Ryan White was a young man, not an agency. Ryan White was a human being who had AIDS.

This grant, this program was never meant to serve groups, cities, or agencies except if they were the victims of this hideous disease called

Madam Chairman, many people in this country would think the compromise being proposed doesn't go far enough. I think most people would say that the money for AIDS should follow the patient, not a bureaucracy. But it's equal protection.

Does somebody with AIDS in Fort Worth have any more or less of a right to Federal funds to take care of AIDS than somebody who lives in San Francisco? How about equal protection here?

Does an AIDS patient in Fort Worth have equal rights with an AIDS patient in San Francisco? That's the question here.

The compromise gives 75 percent preference to San Francisco. How much more preference do you want? And let's not talk about equal protection any more if you want to do this.

He has bent over backwards to try to cooperate and meet the people from San Francisco halfway at phasing this out. All we're asking for is stick to the compromise rather than continue to go. And I don't think that anybody that believes in equal protection can honestly say that an AIDS patient who happens to be in Fort Worth doesn't have the same rights and shouldn't be given the same protection and just as much money per capita as somebody in San Francisco.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you in holding the Chair tonight and thank you very much for the courtesy of allowing us to speak tonight. I appreciate the privilege.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the American people have not only asked, they have demanded, is that the Federal Government live up to its responsibility of defending our neighborhoods from forces from afar that may be entering this country with harm in their hearts and weapons and viciousness in their hands. I think that one of the things that we've really recognized in the past is the review and the oversight of who we allow to come into this country is one of our big responsibilities.

Let's face it, it doesn't take an act of Congress for a community to hire a teacher or hire police officers, but it takes an act of Congress and it takes the Federal Government to make sure that the people that are allowed into this country are people that are going to be friendly to us, to help us, to actually add to the quality and security of America rather than threaten it.

The visa system has always been sort of the minimum we've done in the past, and the visa waiver actually is an extraordinary concept of saying we are so sure that these countries are so secure and so safe that we're willing to waive the traditional international policy of having people kind of report in and prove that they are who they are and we allow them into the country.

And we've allowed this with many countries like Britain, my mother's home country, and Australia, and we've allowed it with many countries. But it's almost as if we've taken this concept that a little is good, a whole bunch must be great, where the political pressure is to expand this program to such a force that there's no counter-balance of saying, no, wait a minute, who's there really checking and keeping a tab on what is reasonable from a security point of view.

And I think what's important tonight for us to say is tonight is a way for the Immigration Caucus to sort of push back and balance. And I don't mind people that are wanting to have this waiver expanded, but I do mind that when we do not balance the perception, that those who may for business reasons or for their own special reasons want to throw away the paperwork, throw away the procedure for security and say it'd just be easier to do without it, they can say that but then there should be those of us who are willing to stand up and say, yes, but it's there for a reason and that reason is very important, the protection of our families and our homes and our neighborhoods. And only the Federal Government can provide this protection.

Remember, if we allow somebody with harm in their heart to enter this country, there is no defense once they're in this country from gaining access to those neighborhoods, those playgrounds, those schools, those hospitals that we take for granted are protected.

Local government cannot check a visa once the United States Federal Government allows them into the country. A county sheriff cannot check a visa once we've allowed them through that port of entry at the airport or at that seaport.

So it is incumbent on us that we're extraordinarily vigilant to make sure that only those that we are sure should be in this country are in this country, and it is extremely important that we only allow the waiver process in those extraordinary situations where we can look the American people in the eye and say we really believe this is a safe and prudent way of treating our immigration policy.

I think people will say then, well, why is there debate here? And I think that the gentleman from Georgia understands, there's people that want for business reasons, for personal reasons, to have people coming, going from all kinds of different countries, and they have their personal reasons to do that. Some may be profit and some may be convenience, but those reasons and those pressures need to be counter- balanced.

And the Federal Government must be reminded again and again that there's not just one agenda here, convenience of people coming into the country. There's not one agenda here, people making money by tourists coming and going. There's not one agenda, just business wanting to be able to have their partners come and go as they want. There is the major agenda that needs to be introduced into the formula, and that is the defense of the communities.

I think the real key there, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the outcome does matter when you talk about the security of our Nation, and we forget sometimes when we talk about the security of the Nation that we're talking about the security of our neighborhoods and our homes.

I had the privilege of serving as mayor and chairman of San Diego County and mayor of a small county on the border, and I know and I think any mayor will tell you that those of us in local government just assume the Federal Government's going to do its part. The trouble is the mayor and the police chiefs and the county sheriffs end up having to take on these responsibilities, and they don't have the right to

do what is the Federal Government's responsibility and, that is, check these documents and make sure that the right type of people are coming into the country.

Local government, the mayors, the city council members, the county supervisors, county commissioners, sheriffs, police chiefs, they have to live with the repercussions and the challenges once someone's here, but they don't get the chance to be able to review and approve this. And so that's why it's essential that the Federal Government, which is the only agency that can do this, the one line of defense that we have over inappropriate entry in this country, has to be strong and vigilant and effective.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's kind words, and let me just say that in the words of the former Inspector General of Homeland Security, specifically said that we should be abolishing the waiver system, not expanding it. So, on a minimum, we've got to stop the expansion.

I think that it just shows a lack of understanding of just how far the pressure's going to back off on our due diligence when it comes to border security by those people that don't see the big picture, and to think that at this time where we're talking about threats, especially what just happened in England, where somebody who they thought was a safe immigrant, literally drove a fire bomb into the front door of a terminal, if I remember right, and what will happen when we allow somebody to do that?

Frankly, I haven't spoke a lot about this, but on 9/11, I was in the immigration commissioner's office the day the plane started crashing into American buildings.

I was actually in the office, and we watched the second plane crash into the second tower. That commissioner said, can you imagine being the agents who let these guys into the country. Now, we didn't know who did this. We didn't know who was responsible. We had no idea.

But the immigration commissioner had the foresight of saying, my God, somehow I know I am responsible, and you imagine being the agent who personally let these people in.

I don't think we think about this, but tightening up and controlling the waiver process is going to be one of the things we have got to do so we don't look back and say, my God, we were warned, we knew this was coming, and why didn't we do more. Why weren't we there to stop this from happening?

All I have got to say is that I was out of politics. I was just meeting with them about immigration issues, but I saw the anguish and the frustration in his eyes and his voice realizing that somehow he knew the immigration agency that he was in charge of somehow contributed to this disaster.

The fact is, I hope all of us start looking at this as being what are we doing today to make sure that we are not faced off in saying, my God, why didn't I do more. Why didn't I push harder? Why wasn't I the bothersome one that told the administration, I know you are being pressured by these guys, but I am going to pressure you back? I am going to give some balance to the process here in Washington?

I think that's all the American people have asked for, a little balance. Again, as the Inspector General said, now is not the time to expand this program. If the President and the administration honestly believes that this country is under a threat, that this country must do extraordinary things to defend our neighborhoods, then the minimum is not to expand this program.

I think reasonable people should say the administration, rather than looking into expanding this program, should be looking to reduce it, at least temporarily, and ratcheting down and reducing the opportunities for people to come in here unreviewed. Because for every country, for every person

that we allow in this country that we have not done our due diligence, we are exposing the Nation to that threat, and we are exposing ourselves to a lifetime of regrets that we did not do the right thing by the American people.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate was shocked, the White House was shocked at what they saw was a groundswell from America against a proposal that America rightfully thought was amnesty. They wonder why is there so much animosity against Washington on the immigration issue.

It's exactly because of things like the US-Visit system. The American people think that the political leaders of Washington just don't get it and aren't willing to do the heavy lifting. It has been how many years that since, is it 1996, that the US-Visit system was supposed to be implemented. It still hasn't been implemented. Now we have people at a point where they say let's just forget about it.

This is much like the commitments and promises, much like building the fence that the American people have heard so many promises and seen their promises broken so often that they assume this town just does not care or, worse, has been enticed by whatever forces for whatever reason not to do the right thing.

I think when it comes down to developing confidence on the immigration issue, the American people are saying, before you ask us to trust you one more time, we want you to prove to us that you deserve to be trusted.

Go back to the things that you have been promising us for 20 years and do those, get your House in order and take care of it. Things like finish the visit system to where you know who has come into the country and who has gone out of the country. Without that, both, you don't know who stayed in the country.

What's your excuse, Washington? Why are you doing all of these other things that everybody talks about? You can talk about health care. It doesn't take an act of Congress to hire a doctor. It does take an act of Congress to stop a terrorist from crossing the border.

I want to say that it was very scary in February that the Senate was actually looking at expanding the visa waiver. Frankly, I was very proud of one move my Senators, Senator Feinstein, for standing up and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we are going a little faster. I want to thank her for that.

It's important that we have bipartisan effort here. The American people are tired of both parties finding excuses and not doing the right thing. They want both parties working together to protect their neighborhoods. When a neighborhood gets blown up, it's Democrats, Republicans and independents whose lives are at stake.

It doesn't draw political lines where the threat is.

Frankly, the issue of being able to address these commonsense things like implementing the US-Visit system, to implement or reduce the impact of the waiver system is something that we need to work together. I want to publicly thank Senator Feinstein for standing up on that issue. I think that we need to push more on that.

But this one right now is that if we can't get the visit system in, what are we doing expanding the visa waiver? That's an extraordinary, extraordinary challenge.

Again, this is why the American people are saying, I don't understand it. How can you ask me to trust you with another law that could be 300 or 1,000 pages when you haven't taken care of the promises you have made over the last 20 years?

I appreciate that. And, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about a visa and we talk about a proposal to go to a $10 visa processing fee, I go to Latin America on most of my family's casual time; it is kind of the untold story that the chairman of the Immigration Caucus spends so much time in Latin America. But they charge $10 for a visa and you go through a process down there. And as a visitor, I don't feel put upon to participate in their security in places like El Salvador or Nicaragua or Mexico. But here, when you talk about these countries that are under the visa, you are talking about some of them with massive amounts of immigration. So somebody could come in from Iran, immigrate to Australia, like I said, my mother's former country, could immigrate from Morocco into France, and then once they get their citizenship in that country then use that citizenship as being a free ride into the United States. So in reality, because immigration has become so fluid and nationalization of foreign nationals has become so easy in so many countries, that the issue of allowing some countries to be exempt from review and oversight and others not really are becoming antiquated, and we

need to get back there. If you do not want a terrorist coming in from the West Bank, going through France and coming into this country, then we have to review everyone who comes into this country.

So, in reality, we should be reducing the visa waiver, because we are not talking about people who have come from those countries, born in those countries, and have long term loyalty to those countries. We are also talking about people who have moved to those countries and might have moved there just a few years ago with the intention of getting their citizenship or getting legal residency to use that residency for the next move. And I think the doctors that tried to kill so many in England this last few months is an example that we really do have to be careful how we get it. Who would have thought that doctors from England could be terrorists. History has proven that those assumptions are wrong. And how many other assumptions are we making today that could be proven wrong in a much more graphic way?

I appreciate the chance, Mr. Speaker, for your patience of allowing us to address you here tonight and the American people here tonight, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this issue. And I do thank the Georgia delegation for standing so strong and so firm and defending our national sovereignty and defending our neighborhoods by standing strongly for immigration control and proper regulation.

Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Clean Air Resources Board in California, as I think a lot of people in this town know, one of the premier air pollution agencies in the world, the one thing that we have got to send a message out there is ``do no harm.'' Even though the chairman may think that there isn't a need to send a message, I think we need to say very clearly that climate change is a threat, something we need to address. We have to be willing to make sure we do the right things now.

This amendment is really a way for us to start off right from the get-go that we are not going to allow a mistake to happen that could cause major impacts on climate emissions and that we just didn't care enough to pass this resolution.

I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) because I think we should say right off, our first step at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to make sure we do not decommission any zero generators from this point forward unless it is part of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases. So please, here is a motion at least we can stand up and say, we did no harm; we made sure that a mistake wasn't made.

Mr. Chairman, the American people have listened to Democrats and Republicans blame each other about budget crises. I became a Member in 1995. I left for 5 years. How things change. The parties change names, but it is the same tactics.

The American people want us working together on the budget. This amendment is a minimal effort of just saying to the American people, look, we recognize that even the best operation and the best budget can still be operated on 99 percent of what was projected. It is a minimalist kind of approach to this. If you can't vote for a 1 percent across-the-board cut, go to your town hall meetings, go into your communities and say, well, I really didn't want to do it because of what it symbolized. The fact is that this is the minimum of what we can do to say, look, we are trying to get back in the discipline of doing the right thing by the American taxpayer.

And if you can't vote for a 1 percent, how can you expect in the long run to be able to control the Federal budget, and that is exactly what the constituency wants us to do.

So I just say dump the Republican and Democrat argument. You get back to the fact that you have a motion that says quite clearly: we will make the effort of a 1 percent reduction across the board. That is a very small, little step towards fiscal responsibility and let's get together, Democrats and Republicans, and do the right thing and support the new Hefley amendment as authored by the gentleman from Georgia. If you can't do that, please don't think you can stand up and carry the mantle of self-righteousness when it comes to budget. We all bear the responsibility. Even those of us who weren't here bear the responsibility of doing the right thing and dumping the jargon about being Democrat or Republican and the other guy is at fault. We all bear that responsibility, and the voters and the taxpayers will blame all of us, regardless of our party affiliation, if we can't even make this minimal stance of a 1 percent across-the-board.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

My dear colleague from California, we've worked on environmental issues. I was a border mayor. I saw groups that were trying to use environmental regulations to stop the construction of the border fence in San Diego when the fence ended up being the best benefit to the protection of the environment, and the use of environmental issues as an excuse to stop the fence.

Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe my dear colleague from California can really believe that an unmanned observation platform like the Predator is not more cost effective than having a rotor wing with twin crews that have to switch off at least every 6 hours. Where you are able to do an unmanned observation, you can switch off crews while they're on site. You don't have to take the vehicles off station to be able to do the transformation from one crew to the other.

And I don't know what data, where you're getting the saying that the unmanned vehicle is somehow not as cost effective as having rotor- winged manned vehicles on site in very remote areas. It just doesn't pencil out. This is the same kind of argument we heard 5 years ago in the military saying unmanned vehicles would never work in some place like Afghanistan, where you and I know the great hero of the Afghan war was the Predator. So I've just got to say sincerely, you've been in government long enough to understand that putting a rotor wing, a major helicopter up with two individuals to do aerial observations compared to an unmanned vehicle that has proven its technology over time and time again, that is able to stay on station, and this is one key along the border that most people won't talk about, they are able to stay on station so that the smugglers don't know when they're coming off station to switch crews to go down. A crew actually switches in the trailer on site. One guy says, you've got it now, Joe, I have it now, and the smugglers never know when you're going through. And to do the same kind of test to your manned vehicles and other aerial observations that you are proposing for this technology, this technology is the greatest success in the world.

I will yield.

Would the gentleman yield?

You and I have both operated in local and State government and we've worked on this. If you really think that you should place that kind of condition on one technology that is a proven technology that even the military originally did not think was going to be cost effective and which

now admits that they were wrong to underestimate the cost effectiveness of, the fact is, why apply it to this technology and not apply that condition to every other application along here?

The fact is, this technology has been the breakthrough that has shocked the world. And it is absolutely astonishing that we would pick out the hero and the technology that opened the eyes to the fact that remote technology was a great break through for effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Why would you back off from the fact of doing that and not apply to every other technology going except for this one?

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your concern. But again, I come back to the fact that you do not place the same condition on the other technologies. And if you want to do this, then let's talk about it through the entire technologies, that we are not going to apply that. And the fact is, history has proven, and even though you may not like to admit it, the things like the fence in San Diego that some people thought wouldn't work and the so-called experts said wouldn't work have worked extraordinarily well because we gave it a chance to work before we started cutting it off. And that is exactly what we are seeing here. This is a technology that has proven itself around the world, but you don't want to give it a chance to prove itself along our national frontier.

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

Mr. Chairman, after the tragedy of 9/11, the 9/11 Commission came forth with some very distinct recommendations. And one of their most distinct recommendations was that we need to have a secure minimum standard for identification within the United States. The REAL ID bill was our answer to that and it was a bipartisan effort to make sure that we correct a deficiency that was identified by the 9/ 11 Commission. My amendment is very clear. It strikes $150 million out of the integrated Deepwater system program which has been identified with major problems, moves it over to a program that we all admit is underfunded and needs to be addressed and aids in the implementation of this most essential program.

All it says is that we now are going to commit $150 million to the program which will raise it up to $200 million to help our States fulfill their responsibility to provide viable, verifiable identification for every American and every legal resident within the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, there have already been three States that have opted out of REAL ID because they say they don't have the money to implement it. The terrorists of 9/11 did not slip through the Coast Guard along our coastline. I represent a coastal district. The fact is we need to make some priority decisions here. What is the real threat to the American people? The threat is the use of false identification to get on airplanes, to get access into government buildings, to do other types of wrongful deeds against the American people is because we do not have a secure ID today. The 9/11 report did not say a critical national defense purpose to defend our Nation from terrorism is that we need Deepwater. But they did say we absolutely need to have secure documentation within this country.

So we have to make a priority decision. And as somebody of a naval family, somebody of a coastal community, I understand the Coast Guard is important, but this is a priority decision. REAL ID not only should and needs to be implemented now, it should have been implemented years ago. But the lack of funding should not be an excuse for us to do the right thing that is essential. If you're not going to follow the 9/11 report, then why the heck even have the committee report? If you're going to follow the bureaucracy that says let's keep defending America the way we did for the last hundred years and not upgrade to the realities of today?

The 9/11 report has said, one of the first priorities must be securing our documentation. With this amendment, we will be saying we will not only be economically viable, we will be intellectually smart in the way we defend our country.

This amendment is quite simple. It says, you have problems with the Deepwater project right now, let's talk about it and work those problems out, but we know right now we do not have the time to delay at implementing a secure identification system for this country. Let's work with our States, let's give them the grants so they don't have an excuse not to do the right thing, to make sure that when our citizens get on an airplane, we know that everyone who got on that airplane got on with a secure document and that they can be reassured that it's safe to fly in America and that America is safe because the Congress did the right thing and gave the resources for secure identification so we can have a secure Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The Governor of California supports this legislation. The fact is, the Fraternal Order of Police, because they say we have a standard now, it is REAL ID, but allow us to implement it. It is a time-sensitive issue. I understand Deepwater needs to be addressed. But you have to admit, there are major problems with Deepwater. But right now, there is a major crisis in getting the resources to the local States to implement the REAL ID bill.

You may not agree with the REAL ID bill, but our own Governor and the Fraternal Order of Police understand. This is one of those little things that don't seem important, but law enforcement and the Governor say please, this is one of the things that local government can do to fulfill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention today the many outstanding achievements of Mr. Michael Metts, the outgoing president of the Carlsbad Hi-

Noon Rotary Club. Michael's leadership during 2006 and 2007 has contributed significantly to the Hi-Noon Rotary Club and the community of Carlsbad. During his tenure, membership exceeded one hundred people and the Hi-Noon Rotary Club awarded $28,000 for high school scholarships. In addition, under his leadership the Carlsbad Hi-Noon and Carlsbad Evening Rotary clubs partnered to sponsor the annual Oktoberfest fundraiser, a community event which provided over $26,000 to the Carlsbad Women's Resource Center, The Boys and Girls Club of Carlsbad and Community Youth Services.

During his presidency, a number of other projects were completed. These projects included providing volunteers to help maintain public and private property, provide food and clothing for the needy and the homeless and assist in the distribution of food, clothing and toys to needy Carlsbad families in conjunction with the Carlsbad Christmas Bureau. A Children's Christmas party and dinner for very needy elementary school students was also provided. In an effort to improve literacy, badly needed bilingual dictionaries were provided and distributed in English and Spanish speaking elementary schools. In addition a book a week was contributed to a school library and mentors were also provided for the ``City Stuff'' program. This program promoted an understanding of the working of city government for young Carlsbad school children.

Michael's leadership also contributed to the hosting of exchange students from 11 foreign countries, the sponsorship of a Model UN Project, the building of a house for a needy family and dental care and financial aid for impoverished children in Mexico. Support was also provided to our deployed service personnel overseas.

I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the many fine achievements of Michael Metts. Without question, his leadership and the fine work of the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club are worthy of recognition by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to, first of all, thank the chairman from Oregon and the ranking member for

supporting my bill, H. Res. 446, in recognition of the life of Wally Schirra. I would just have to say that when we go through the record of the life of Wally, he was a San Diegan for a long time; and we celebrated Wally as a neighbor and as a friend and as a national and international hero.

The fact is that he did serve extensively, like many San Diegans, in the military, with three Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, more than a MIG or two on the side. He obviously went into the space race with a lot of accomplishments.

Being the only individual to fly in all three of the first stages of manned space flight for America was unique, but I think, as was pointed out before, Wally is a man that filled in so often when others might have hesitated.

After the terrible disaster of losing astronauts in a major fire, he did not hesitate to look forward to being the first to step back into those capsules and move on and move up with our space race. That kind of bravery we didn't really take into consideration at the time. What a huge challenge it must have been to explain to your wife, ``Honey, I am going to get in this capsule. Somebody has to do it, and I will be the one.'' We don't think about that family, that personal aspect of being a hero and moving forward with those kinds of accomplishments.

I also would like to say that we forget that, without the docking procedure that Wally was able to master, there was not going to be any trip to the moon. It was an essential component, as important as any missile, any rocket, any control system. The ability for man to dock with another spaceship was an essential part, and Wally was a major part of that.

But I want to thank all my colleagues for supporting this bill. Wally was our neighbor, he was our friend, and he really did live a life that San Diegans are proud of in public service. He spent his later years working with the local museums for flight history, and he also spent a lot of time on his sailboat in San Diego.

But I want to thank all of you, because Wally was not just a hero to the world and to America; he was a neighbor and a friend to those of us in San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, from the Revolutionary War to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our wounded warriors have returned from combat with varying degrees of injury. Some of these physical injuries, such as bullet wounds or losing a limb have been diagnosed and treated since the dawn of our Republic. Others, such as Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, have required the practices of treating veterans to evolve and adapt so that we can give our returning service members the quality of care and the quality of life they deserve.

The bill before us today is an example of how our system must adapt to these increasingly devastating injuries, specifically TBI. H.R. 2199 would require that Veterans Affairs, VA, screen every combat veteran for TBI and submit a report to Congress on the number of returning soldiers that have this debilitating injury, and how we can improve upon the care they receive. Additionally, the VA would be required to establish transition sites so that those service members who are diagnosed have the ability to choose various recovery programs that are most comfortable to them.

What makes TBI such a frightening injury is that the symptoms are not instantaneous. A service member might not know if he or she has TBI until weeks after the initial jolt or blow to the head. If treatment is not readily available, then permanent brain damage and loss of motor skills and cognitive thought may be the end result.

For this reason, I am pleased that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has taken up this legislation and continues to seek ways to better the care that our returning men and women will receive. H.R. 2199 is similar to legislation that was passed during the 108th Congress which increased research and outreach activities to service members with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.

I am proud to serve on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and I look forward to supporting further legislation that addresses the complex needs of our Nation's veterans. As Memorial Day approaches, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the sacrifices our veterans have made to preserve freedom and how much work we need to do to properly honor that sacrifice. I believe that passing H.R. 2199 is a good first step in showing that we in Congress recognize the evolving needs of our brave veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak before the House today, and it's about an issue that many Americans all over this Nation are discussing, are listening about, and, frankly, are very concerned, if not outraged, and that is the proposal before the Senate this week that would actually not only allow, but demand amnesty for 12- to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country while millions wait patiently outside to immigrate into our country legally.

Tonight I am honored to be able to have colleagues here to be able to address the issues and actually talk about what's going on in their districts and address the issue that where does America go from here? How do we stop the Senate from making this terrible mistake? How do we turn the President and the Senate away from the path of amnesty that was followed in 1986, which caused the greatest influx of illegal immigration? How do we get the elite here in Washington to wake up to the fact that you do not stop illegal immigration by announcing to the world that you are now going to reward up to 20 million people who are illegally in the country?

I have the privilege to recognize the gentleman from Texas at this time.

One of the things, I think, people misunderstand when they talk about the amnesty, that people that are here illegally working in the United States are not just violating immigration law. A lot of people don't realize that about 73 to 75 percent of everyone who is here illegally is working illegally because they acquired false documents, stole somebody's ID or identification to work, which is a felony.

The Kennedy proposal in the Senate not only gives amnesty, an exemption from prosecution, for being illegally in the country, but exempts them and gives amnesty for the felony they committed when they used somebody else's identification or used false documentation to acquire a job.

So we have got to remember that we are not only giving amnesty for immigration, we are now proposing that we will pick a certain population to be exempt from a felony violation and not only forgiven for that violation, but to be given a special program, the Z visa, that only those who have broken the law qualify for. Those individuals who have been waiting patiently to immigrate into this country illegally are not allowed, under this proposal, to have the Z option, to go for the Z visa.

That is a concept of rewarding illegal behavior, a little felony illegal behavior, when you are telling those who have not broken our laws that you are not going to offer them the same thing.

Reclaiming my time. I am chairman of the Immigration Caucus, and I am proud that my mother is an immigrant, a legal immigrant. She came here, played by the rules; and, as she reminds me again and again, it is an insult to her and everyone else who played by the rules to gain legal status in this country to watch anybody, let alone the Senate of the United States, announce to the world that they are going to give up to 20 million people the cherished ability to live permanently in the United States and to give them a vehicle towards citizenship.

At this time, I have the honor to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

If I may reclaim my time. I think the one thing we don't talk about enough in this country is that there is this perception that we don't allow very much legal immigration inside.

The United States today, Mr. Speaker, accepts more legal immigration than all the rest of the world combined. We are accepting more legal immigration today than at any other time in the history of our Republic. This country is one of the most gracious and welcoming countries, the most welcoming country in the history of the world. And so we have nothing to apologize for when it comes to accommodating, except for the fact that we made a terrible mistake in 1986.

When you were talking about the definition of amnesty, it actually comes from the Latin word for amnesia. And maybe what the Senate is forgetting in having this amnesia is what happened the last time they proposed this type of amnesty.

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Let's just look at what happened when Mr. Kennedy, who promised in 1986 this would be the last amnesty that America would ever have, clearly stated, ``It will never happen again.''

Twenty years ago, we tried this experiment of rewarding illegal immigration. We were promised that it was only going to be 1 million illegals that were given amnesty. It turned out it was 3 million. Now, 20 years later, rather than having 3 illegals in our country we have 12 to 20. Mr. Kennedy, did your amnesty really eliminate illegal immigration?

I will tell you as somebody who was down at the border, I was actually the chairman of San Diego County on the border, a county of 3 million. The greatest influx of illegal immigration that we have seen in this country happened immediately after the last amnesty. And anyone who says that we are going to stop illegal immigration by announcing to the world that 20 million illegals got rewarded is either ignorant of the facts or willing to fabricate verifications that are absolutely outrageous. And you cannot stop illegal immigration when you announce that you are going to reward it, and the proof is in history. Last time, Mr. Kennedy, you did this, we had the largest illegal immigration population.

And, frankly, I think there are people who are proposing this amnesty who know what it will do but will not come clean with the American people. And I think the one thing we saw this week, and I think all of us will agree, is that the elite in Washington think that the American people don't understand this issue. Well, the American people understood it. Within 45 minutes after Mr. Kennedy and the Senators were doing their press conference, the American people started making phone calls, they started e-mailing, they started faxing. They sent a signal to the Senators and they sent a signal to us that, Washington, we are watching and we are not going to fall for it this time. We are going to stand up and defend our grandchildren's birthright, and we are going to start demanding that you start doing the right thing.

And I think the guilt goes both ways. The public is fed up with the Republicans and Democrats, because they have not seen an administration enforce the law. We have to gain credibility that we really can be trusted with the security of this country by being willing to do the right thing and enforce the immigration laws here. And not until we do that, no matter who is President, no matter what party is in power, will the American public trust us to move on with a lot of other agendas.

I appreciate that. And actually, I guess we've got to remember that 11 months ago, I was standing exactly where you are and gave my acceptance speech for being sworn into Congress. And there were 18 candidates for the 50th District in California. And the people of San Diego wanted to send a clear message to Washington that this illegal immigration issue is something that people need to address. And I think today you're hearing not just one district scream loud and clear that they want the illegal immigration issue addressed, but you're seeing people calling from all the districts, calling their Representatives and demanding that we finally do the right thing and not sell out on this issue.

I'd like yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time. I mean, the American people are such a patient, humanitarian people that maybe sometimes we forget there's a fine line between being the nice guy and being a patsy. My mother immigrated from Australia. She got her citizenship, and she's very proud that she was one of the first Australian war brides to get her citizenship, April 1946. And when she sees that there are not only illegals in the country saying they want to be legalized, they want amnesty, what shocks her is that the United States allows people to be here illegally and demand, demand that America change its laws to accommodate them because they do not want to play by the rules.

What other Nation on Earth would allow people to be illegally in their country and then demand that their duly elected representative government modify its statutes to accommodate them because they do not want to be bothered by following the laws of their host country?

What kind of relationship do we expect to come from a situation to where we accommodate people who come to this country illegally, while we tell those patiently that want to come here legally, sorry, you get put on the back of the list?

And, you know, I'm very impressed. Learning a new language is always a big challenge, and your wife did that. My wife didn't immigrate from a foreign country. She came from New Orleans, and we're still trying to understand some of the things she says. My mother immigrated from Australia, and the Australians are going to have to learn English someday themselves.

But I think the real sad fact is that there are actually people that think that there's some good that can come out of this not only for America, but for the immigrants and immigrants around the world if we think breaking the law is now going to be a standard. If you want to live in a country where their law is bought and sold and shifted around by politicians just for political expediency, there's a lot of countries you can go to. Those countries tend to be poor, downtrodden, and poverty-stricken, and, by the way, happen to be the places that a lot of these illegal immigrants are coming from. But why transfer that corruption from those Third World countries into this country and destroy the mother's milk of freedom, the concept of the rule of law, while at the same time you're saying that the economic backbone of freedom, the middle class, is expendable at the same time?

In fact, there are people that try to accommodate illegal immigration to such a point that this bill that the Senate is proposing will say that an illegal alien qualifies for in-State tuition, even though a United States citizen doesn't qualify. And this really hits me personally, because in the State of California, where I have been a resident since the day I was born, I have paid taxes my entire adult life, I was told that my children, to get in-State tuition, I had to show a personal tax return. But somebody that they suspect is an illegal alien doesn't have to show their personal records; they just have to show utility bills. And when I said, I'll show you my utility bills, I'll show you all the way back to the '70s; oh, excuse me, sir, you don't qualify because we don't think you're illegal.

So if the American people think this is just about illegals and just about, you know, 12- to 20 million, they've got to remember that they are going to be put in a position of having to prove more than somebody who is illegally in this country; that American citizens will become second-class citizens to those who are not even citizens and not even legal. This is how absurd this line goes if you follow Mr. Kennedy off the edge.

And remember, this is the same man, in 1986, that said no more amnesties anymore. I guarantee it. That is a sad state of affairs that the American people are facing, that same big lie, 20 years later. And it's time we say no.

And I'm so proud, I am so proud to be an American, knowing that the American people called those Senators, e-mailed them, faxed them and wrote them to where the Senate, rather than trying to cram this through this week, were forced to back off and give some time. And now this next week the American people will have more time to read the fine print, read about things like in-State tuition and loans to illegal aliens, and read about what is really in this bill and how bad it really is.

And I'd like to yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Not even mentioned.

Congressman, you hit on the real point. In a Republic where the governed get to choose the government, trust is an essential component. And there isn't any trust in the American people when it comes to the Federal Government enforcing our immigration laws. There isn't any credibility in the Federal Government when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.

The American people believe, and rightfully so, that special interests manipulate the Federal Government to stop illegal immigration from being controlled in the past, and that unless they really scream loud and start holding elected officials accountable at the polling box, that they are going to continue to have that type of corruption delivered to them when it comes to the immigration issue.

I want to just say clearly, a lot of people say why am I feeling so strong on this concept of amnesty? Why can't we just do it one more time? Let me tell you something. I have talked to people south of the border and in Third World countries all over the world. And if people would take the time to listen.

To give an example, a congressman in Zacatecas, Mexico, a Mexican congressman, says to me, Look, Brian, you know you have got to educate these people because we all down here know you are going to give amnesty again. They are all going to be U.S. citizens. Why do you think they are coming up illegally? They know you are going to reward them.

You go down to places like Central America. They say, Look, we are told come on up now. America is going to give us amnesty. We are going to become citizens. The way to America is come illegal. That message is being heard around the world. We need to send a clear and defined message that says no more amnesty, no more rewards for illegal behavior. You want to be an American? You follow the law and play by the rules. If you are not willing to do it, we will never give amnesty again. And, believe me, if we send that clear message, if we stop this amnesty, people around world will finally understand, no, it is no longer the option to come here illegally. You have got to play by the rules.

And then and only then will we see the ability to control not just our border; but our neighborhoods, our jobs, our parks, our hospitals, our schools, are finally going to be ours, and those that we choose to be our neighbors, not somebody who snuck in and stole away in the middle of the night.

I am so honored to stand here today with you, sir. I appreciate the hard work that you have given the people of Texas and your district, and I look forward to working with you to make sure that we present a workable, enforceable immigration policy that will stop illegal immigration and not allow this proposal in the Senate to move in and allow another illegal immigration wave being caused by another ill- fated amnesty scheme. Thank you very much.

I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, by announcing that the American people have really spoken this week, stopped the Senate from forcing something through the Senate. And not only that, they have sent the message to their Members of the House of Representatives. And I would like to announce today that this week, because of all the reaction and the backlash against the Senate amnesty scheme, five new Members have joined the Immigration Reform Caucus in the House of Representatives. And I am very happy to welcome new Members in that are committed and working hard to be able to finally do the right thing on illegal immigration and start enforcing our laws the way the American people want to do; securing our borders and securing our neighborhoods and securing our future for our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a life of accomplishment of astronaut Walter ``Wally'' Schirra and express the condolences of a grateful Nation to his entire family.

Wally passed away last Thursday at the age of 84, leaving behind a wife, Josephine, and daughter, Suzanne, and Walter Schirra III.

In a world where we place a premium on innovation and discovery, Wally was a pioneer in both.

Mr. Speaker, the history of man is measured on a timeline of exploration, and for Walter Schirra, it was his life. Pushing the limits of discovery, determined to work harder and go farther than anyone before him, Wally had the distinction of being the fifth American in space and the third American in orbit on an adventure that includes six circlings of the globe that lasted more than 9 hours.

He led a lifetime built on breaking barriers, laying the groundwork for future lunar landings. On December 15, 1965, he piloted the Gemini 6 in what was to be the first attempted rendezvous by two-manned spacecraft in space. Three years later, in October of 1968, he concluded his third and final mission when he was launched as commander of Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission. This flight made Commander Schirra the only Mercury astronaut to fly aboard Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts.

His lifetime of achievement also included a decorated record of service in the United States military. In Korea, he flew 90 combat missions and was credited with downing at least one MIG fighter. His courage and valor was eventually recognized with three distinguished flying crosses, two air medals and two NASA Distinguished Service Medals and induction into the National Aviation Hall of Fame.

While he was remembered most for his contributions in the United States space program, Wally also made tremendous strides in advancing the efforts of the Reuben H. Fleet Aerospace Museum in San Diego.

While he was no longer to venture out into outer space, Wally took off on his 35-foot sailboat. I guess he figured if the skies were no longer available to him, he would instead canvass the oceans.

Astronaut ``Wally'' Schirra will always have a place in our Nation's history, an inspiring figure of humble beginnings with daring dreams, a pioneer of our space program who helped the United States win the race against the Soviet Union in the space race.

While we mourn the loss of this remarkable man, we should celebrate his great life of achievements. We can rest assured that his legacy will be long felt by many generations yet to come.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the fourth year of the conflict in Iraq, we have before us today a supplemental appropriations bill that should serve one purpose and one purpose only--to provide funding for the safety, security and well-being of our troops. Time and time again, both Democrats and Republicans have pledged to provide our brave Armed Forces with the resources they need to do the job they have been sent to do. Today represents a moment in time when that rhetoric can be supported with bold and definitive action.

That is why it is all the more disappointing that at a time when we should be voting on legislation to provide the necessary supplies, armor, and technology needed to be successful, the Democrats have decided to politicize

this process. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the majority party has taken this opportunity to add non-military provisions such as $74 million for peanut storage costs, $5 million for tropical fish and billions of dollars worth of special-interest pork projects. I have to ask, why would this extraneous non-emergency material be included in a war spending bill when it has nothing to do with war spending?

At what point are we going to stop playing politics with the safety and well being of our troops? I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who doesn't believe we need to do all we can to support our brave men and women in uniform. However, I find it sad that the bill before us today is being used to satisfy the whims of lawmakers with an appetite for special interest pork projects. Such an effort amounts to nothing more than institutionalizing bribery.

In addition to the more than $21 billion in pork spending, H.R. 1591 plays politics in a completely different way by setting a timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq.

I believe that the President made a good decision by appointing General Petraeus to command all U.S. Forces in Iraq. The fact that every Democrat in the United States Senate voted to confirm the general reinforces the belief that his new plan and vision for the war on terror is the right one. Implementing a ``slow-bleed'' strategy will deny the general the opportunity to implement his plan and change the tide in Iraq.

Overseeing the greatest military on Earth while trying to initiate great tactical change is a monumental task, but I feel we owe it to General Petraeus to give him the necessary tools to defeat the terrorists and bring our troops home. In no way can General Petraeus, or any of our military leaders for that matter, be successful in Iraq if a timeline for redeployment becomes law.

The same restrictions should not be placed on our President. My colleagues and I were elected under Article I of the United States Constitution, an article that does not give us the authority to be Commander in Chief. Article II clearly cedes that authority to the President of the United States, whoever he or she is, and from whatever party he or she belongs to. Now, it's no secret that almost every member of the Senate harbors ambitions to one day be President, but until now, I didn't realize that everyone in the House felt the same way. This ``slow-bleed'' scheme represents an unconstitutional infringement upon the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.

The point is that politicians in Washington should stop trying to micromanage this war and allow the President and his generals to have the troops, equipment, and supplies to complete the goals that have been set. Our troops are not a bargaining chip to be used by congressional Democrats to leverage more excessive and unnecessary pork spending.

Rather than support a bill that provides $25 million for spinach replenishment, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1591, so that we can get back to work and pass a clean bill free of any extraneous spending and disastrous military timelines.

If the gentleman would yield on that, I think the American people don't realize that we take more legal immigration than all the world combined. We are taking now more than we ever have.

But first, I want to stop a second and thank the gentleman from Georgia for hosting.

I would thank the gentleman from Georgia for hosting our report on immigration to the American people tonight from the Congressional Caucus.

People have to understand how really, really we have bent over backwards to accommodate people to immigrate to this country. We have about 800,000 people become citizens. We have a million that are allowed to be permanent resident aliens every year, and then we have another million-plus that are allowed to come here to work in the United States. That is almost 3 million people a year that we are accommodating from overseas in one way or the other. And when people say we are a Nation of immigrants, we are a Nation of legal immigrants; but there is a reasonable level of immigration. When the American people realize that we just absolutely have our doors open, there is no excuse for illegal immigration, and we have to make sure that our legal immigration policies are reasonable.

I don't think it is much to ask, those of us who are sworn to represent the people of the United States, to make sure that the American immigration policy is for America first and for the immigrant second. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility to make sure that our immigration policy serves the American people. Like every other policy that the Federal Government is initiating, the American people should come first before anyone else.

This issue of the cost of just the legal immigration, let me give you one cost that most people don't think about. The cost just in one State of giving birth to the children of illegal aliens in California is $400 million a year. That is $400 million just for giving free birth to the children of illegal aliens. In San Diego County, it is $22 million a year just for birthing babies of people that aren't supposed to be in the country.

You add that up, the impact on the taxpayers, there is no way in the world I can believe that any man or woman can stand up in this Chamber and say I am for a balanced budget, I am for fiscal responsibility, but I am for giving amnesty that has been estimated to be $50 billion if Mr. Kennedy and some people in the House get their way of rewarding people for being here illegally.

I think there is a basic issue that we ought to call down and say, since when does this country believe that those who follow the law should be punished and told to stay at home, but those who break the law get rewarded and get into this country?

And since when is it not the right thing to do to make sure that our immigration policy serves the people we are sworn to represent in this Chamber and in the Senate? It is a major issue that the American people need to be asking those that they have sent to Washington.

I, as the new chairman of the Immigration Caucus, look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans because I think in all fairness, immigration is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an American issue. And Americans across this country on both sides of the political divide believe it is time we address this issue reasonably and not make the terrible mistake we made in 1986 of rewarding people with amnesty and not doing something about enforcement.

I appreciate the chance to be able to address the issue. That chart scares me to death. And I just say this as a practicing Catholic with five children. Your numbers are a lot lower than for those of us that are in my Mass every day. I think we have to recognize this number as a huge threat of really overturning the entire concept we have of reasonable immigration levels, and those reasonable immigration levels are not only our right to set here in Washington, it is our responsibility to do that.

I yield back.

Actually, it was----

I just remember I was involved with running the County of San Diego in 1986, and I remember that before the bill was passed the number estimate was 300,000. It was after the bill was passed that they said, oh, it might be as high as 1 million, and then they kept continuing the deadline and increasing those who qualified to apply, and it ended up being 3 million. So I just think people have got to remember, when the bill was passed, what was being told was 300,000, and what ended up being the final number was 3 million.

Well, I would just like to congratulate you on explaining exactly what your legislation is focused on. You articulated the problem, the challenge, and it seems to me not only a very common- sense approach but a very, very compassionate approach to the issue.

I think any American that thinks about hundreds of people coming to this country because one person was allowed in sort of boggles your mind saying why has not anybody brought this up before.

I think that look at your diagram there, and the level of legal immigration you are proposing per person, based on family relations, is quite reasonable. I don't think any of us, especially those of us that are a family from immigrants, my mother came from Australia, could say that is an unreasonable and an unfair proposal and unrational proposal at this time.

I really want to compliment you at actually addressing this issue, because we are talking about a lot of other difference issues. But this is one that is sort of below the radar, people aren't talking about, and I am glad you are able to bring it up. I think that is why

our Wednesday evening reports to the American people on the status of immigration is so important. I want to thank you sincerely for bringing up this issue and for introducing this bill.

Let me say this as a Republican. I think the American people will be so pleased if the Democratic majority would bring a bill forward that addresses the major source of illegal immigration, and that is illegal employment. If the Democrats were brave enough to just come forward, not with an amnesty that rewards illegals for being here, not pandering to the illegals and the whole industry that has been built up around that, but went and actually did a project that addressed the real source of illegal immigration; and that is, have a simple employer verification system and a crackdown on the people that are profiteering from illegal immigration, and that's the employers. IF the Democratic Party did that, I think the American people would embrace that.

I think it's a real chance for them to show that they can get the job done and get this issue done that the Republicans didn't get done. You know, as an American, I think that is more important than Republicans having to take advantage of this issue. I just wouldn't be happy as an American to see the Democrats sit there and actually get the job done so I could join them, could vote with them at doing, actually getting the legislation through that the American people have been waiting for too long. I would sure love to be surprised, and I am sure the American people would love to see us working as Democrats and Republicans for America first, not our party first and our Nation second.

I just tell you, I think that our grandchildren would be well served, because all of us, I know the three of us here, if it meant somebody on the Democratic side getting credit for it, then God bless them. What's important is that we leave an America for our grandchildren that is worth our grandchildren living in, and taking care of this problem is going to be part of the important part of doing that.

I think the key is the fact that every legitimate employer wants to have a simple system that lets them know who is qualified to work and who is not. The employer doesn't want to be the person having to make that determination.

We require every employer in this country now to get a Social Security number for their employee. All we are saying now, with the Silvestre Reyes-David Dreier bill, H.R. 98, is we will now give the employee a card to prove that it's their number, so that the employer, when they get this number, gets it from a card, doesn't just take somebody's word. It gives us, as legitimate citizens or legal residents, the ability to prove this really is our number, not 20 other people that are using that number somewhere else down the road.

This issue of upgrading the Social Security card seems so simple. We haven't done this since the 1930s, though every driver's license from every State has been upgraded since then. Now that we have done the real ID bill, where we are requiring finally that driver's licenses be upgraded, isn't it appropriate that the Federal Government do the same thing with our card, our Social Security, to upgrade it to be as tamper-resistant as the new driver's license would be?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hour. I hope the people in Colorado enjoyed prime time back there.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to present our report to the American people on the status of the immigration issue tonight, and it is an honor to be able to welcome you to the Speaker's chair.

As a new freshman, or as one of your first times up there, I want to congratulate you on your advent to service of the people of America as the acting Speaker tonight.

Mr. Speaker, actually tonight we are talking about an issue that a lot of Americans have asked for a long time to be addressed, and that is the many different ways that we are encouraging illegal immigration. But actually tonight, we are to be talking about one of the items that originally was not intended to be one of immigration, it was one to be basically addressing national security and neighborhood security.

For good reasons, Congress in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, have said that the movement of capital funds, of bank accounts, was a major issue in fighting things like drug trafficking, of terrorist activities and of other illegal activities to where the United States' Congress, with this support and the consent of the people of the United States, said that before somebody opens a bank account, before they start getting involved in business transactions with a lending institution, they need to show and prove who they are so we know who is moving this cash back and forth. The identification issue became critical to make sure that drug cartels and criminal elements and terrorist elements were not able to use our institutions of lending, of finance, as part of their terrorist and illegal activity.

Sadly what has happened, though, is we passed a law that said everyone must be identified. There are lending institutions that have found ways to get around the law and say that if somebody is able to get a phony ID from a phony government document, we will look the other way and use that to be able to open bank accounts.

A lot of this discussion is specifically about illegal immigrants being able to get these documents, because you have countries such as Mexico that are willing to give documents, ID documents to individuals without any proof of who they are. Thus, the document such as the consulate card from the Republic of Mexico isn't worth the paper it is written on.

What has happened is these institutions, these American institutions, are actually participating in business transactions that they know violates the spirit of the law and accepts phony identification as a way to be able to engage in business that otherwise would be illegal for legal resident aliens and U.S. citizens to engage in, because the rest of us are required to show viable identification.

At this time I have the privilege to recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee. At this time I would like to yield whatever time she may consume to Mrs. Blackburn.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady. Let me say at this time, it is my privilege to introduce the gentleman from Texas, who actually is a, in his previous life, was a judge who saw over 25,000 cases. So this is a man who knows a crime when he sees it. And at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from Texas pointed out a real issue here, and that is the special treatment being given to somebody who is being perceived to be legally in the country. If you are a resident, legal alien, if you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected by these institutions to show up with the proper documentation, viable ID to prove you are who you are. But under this misguided concept that if you are here illegally, we can't expect you to live up to the minimum standard that everyone legally is playing here, that we will accept this consular card, which, admittedly, is given without any documentation, without any verification, and could be used by drug cartels, could be used by terrorists, could be used by anyone as a way of hiding their identity. But because we perceive you may be illegally in the country, we will abandon all our standards that we apply to everyone else and allow you to have a special standard that does not hold you to the viable ID requirement.

I just think that Americans across this country keep saying, how far off course can we go in America? And sadly, this is an issue that the Federal Government has been allowing to happen, that the administration has looked the other way on, and I think it is something that this administration has to address, this Congress has to address. And the American people need to call their Members of Congress and say, where do you stand on this issue of viable identification for the opening of financial arrangements?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to be able to yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia, Virgil Goode.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia.

Just to let you know, a lot of people might say, Mr. Speaker, how many illegal alien babies can be born in America, can it be that big a deal? Well, let me just say to the gentleman of Virginia, in my State of California, the cost of just giving birth to the children of illegal aliens every year is $400 million. That is just for the birth. Then the parents who are illegally in this country qualify to get welfare payments in the name of their children because we give them automatic citizenship, even though technically the parents are not totally subject to the jurisdiction as required by the 14th amendment. You can't draft them, you can't try them for treason. But $400 million just for the birth. And in fact, just the cost of the welfare, Mr. Speaker, paying for the children of illegals have gotten so big that even a great moderate like Arnold Schwarzenegger, our terminator, or what we call ``governorator'' has recognized that he wants to be able to provide health care to these children, he wants to be able to take care of the costs, but even he is proposing that we now have to cut off welfare payment to the children of illegal aliens at 5 years, not because he wants to cut it off, but because even the wealthiest State in this Union, California, can no longer afford to pay the benefits to illegal aliens that have been going on for so long. It has gotten that far.

And I think anybody would recognize that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not exactly anti-immigrant. He is probably the flagship and the banner boy for the successful immigrant story. But even he has looked at the bottom line and said there is a place where you have got to be able to say enough is enough. How much are you going to take from the law- abiding citizens and the children of law-abiding citizens and shift it over and give it to people who have broken our laws? .

I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for bringing that up. And all I have to say is a lot of people may talk about this issue of banks looking the other way and accepting these consular cards, even they are not viable because their argument is, but we are making money. This is America. We are supposed to be making money. This is breaking that fine line between legal and illegal. Those who make money legally are totally separate from those

who are making it illegally. And the banks are saying we are getting away with it, so let us keep doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I think you would admit, this is right where the issue of racketeering brought the Federal government in to address people who were into bootlegging, though they were making big money, people that were into prostitution, people that were in drug dealing, people that were involved in the labor market below fair market value. We have laws against racketeering, and these major banks are involved in racketeering. They are profiteering from illegal activity because they are willfully and openly encouraging people that are in violation of the law, working and making money in violation of our laws, and then taking that money and profiteering by cutting a deal with the illegal alien that we will let you be in our institution if we get a wink and a nod and we are able to get our pound of flesh out of it. So I think it is something we need to address.

I appreciate the chance to be able to be here tonight with you. And Mr. Speaker, let me just say that American people may say they hear a lot about the problem of illegal immigration and what do we do about it, but not enough people talk about simple answers. And I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and everybody that wants to find a simple answer, it is not a Republican or Democrat problem, it is an American problem. And there were two great Americans, one was a Democrat, a former Border Patrol agent called Sylvester Reyes, another was the former chairman of Rules, now ranking member of Rules, a Republican from California named David Dreier, who sat down with the Border Patrol agents, the men and women that are tasked with taking care of the immigration issue. And they were asked, what is the one thing you would do if you had one law to take care of illegal immigration? And they didn't say be mean to anybody, all they said is give the American employer such a simple way as a tamper resistant Social Security card, one document, only one document to prove who is legal to work in the United States and who isn't. Make it so simple for an employer to know who is legal that there is no excuse for somebody to hire an illegal so the Border Patrol agents then can go in and really crack down on those who are hiring illegals. Because the employers who are knowingly hiring illegals cannot hide behind the guise of well, I am like the little guy who didn't understand, it will become so clear.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do us the privilege of looking at H.R. 98. Sylvester Reyes is a very respected member of the Democratic Party, David Dreier is a very respected member of the Republican Party. This bill has had the support from members of the Hispanic Caucus and members of immigration groups. This is where Democrats and Republicans can work together, and I think it is a place that America expects us to work together.

And I would ask anyone that is within the range of my voice, call their Member of Congress, call their Senator. Mr. Speaker, all they have to do is ask where the Member of Congress stands on H.R. 98, because this is where both Americans, Democrat and Republican, should be able to come together for the good of our future and for the future of our children and our grandchildren.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield back my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 10 a.m.