Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the ninetieth anniversary of Borgert Products, Inc., in Saint Joseph, Minnesota. Borgert Product's main mission is to produce premium interlocking concrete pavements and related products, and to provide better service and choices for their customers.

This family owned and operated company was established in 1923 by Lawrence Borgert in East Saint Cloud, Minnesota. In 1953 Kenneth J. Borgert took over the business and moved the operation to its current location in Saint Joseph, Minnesota. After Kenneth retired in 1989, three of his children--Susan, Kevin, and Nadine--acquired the company. In 1999, the Borgert siblings expanded the operation by adding a second state-of-the-art plant. In 2006 Susan became the sole owner. She considers the employees of Borgert Products as her `work family', attesting to the value she places on each one of the staff.

Borgert Products proudly produces superior concrete paving products that exceed industry standards. Part of their success is due to classes they offer with hands-on lessons for the installation of their interlocking concrete pavers and permeable interlocking concrete pavers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Body congratulate and recognize Susan Borgert and the entire Borgert Products, Inc. family for their long standing dedication to quality products, to customer satisfaction, to the environment, and to their community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important issue that isn't one that is just typical for my district or any other Member's district. This is a very unique time in American history because next week, every American in the United States will be subject to the new requirements, the new mandates, of ObamaCare. This is a time that is very important, and we need to focus on what's about to happen next week.

We have an opportunity in the next few days to keep misery and suffering from millions of Americans. The Republicans have been ridiculed by the Democrats, saying that we want to somehow shut down government. We don't.

It is curious to note that since the 1970s the Federal Government has been

shut down--it has been shut down 17 times--and numerous times because the Democratic Party sought to shut it down. If you go back to the 1970s, the Democrats repeatedly tried to shut down the government over the issue of abortion.

What we are talking about is the issue of preventing suffering and misery for Americans. Surely that's worth a conversation.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

You are talking about an extremely important subject because the Muslim Brotherhood has been on the rise across the world, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Speaker, as we know, is a terrorist organization.

So a terrorist organization has tried to manufacture a false front or a false facade for itself. They called themselves CAIR, or the Council on Arab Islamic Relations. They set up shop here in America. They wanted to be the voice for the Muslim community in the United States, even though they are the voice for the violent Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group, which, by the way, was outlawed in Egypt for about 30 years under former President Mubarak.

And then the Muslim Brotherhood came in. They became the party of record in Egypt. The former President of the Muslim Brotherhood became the President of Egypt, until the people of Egypt decided to go into the streets, in the largest human demonstration in history, to take their country back because they didn't want the cruelties of this organization.

It's bizarre to think that this organization, CAIR, was having any relationship of any kind with the United States Government, with the Obama administration, and with the FBI.

When you think about our chief law enforcement organization, which we all have great respect for, it's incomprehensible that the FBI would be reaching out in a so-called engagement strategy and bring in this Muslim Brotherhood front group to advise the FBI on how to deal with Muslims.

So here you have a terrorist organization that tries to put a new face on themselves, call themselves CAIR, a terrorist organization, come into the United States, and our FBI is working with them and asking CAIR to advise them on how to reach out and deal with the Muslim community? No wonder the FBI Director Mueller said, We're not going to have this anymore, and decided we wouldn't have that engagement. And it's disturbing to hear that there was continual engagement going on with this organization.

One thing that I've noticed with a lot of these organizations that have sometimes nefarious purposes--certainly CAIR would be one of those groups--what is very interesting is that a lot of times these groups do change their name. They change it to protect the guilty because people are on to them, and that's exactly what's happened with CAIR. People figured out who they are, just like you said, Representative Gohmert, Mr. Speaker, that the CAIR organization was found to be part of this terrorist coalition and involved in terrorist financing in the Holy Land Foundation case.

So, now that this word is getting out to the American people in a mainstream way, now they change their name to WTF. Well, it's kind of self-explanatory. WTF, that will be the new acronym. But the American people are smart. It's just the same group. They changed their name to protect the guilty terrorist organization they were before, a front group they were today. It doesn't matter what their name is. WTF may be a very good name for this organization, may be a very good name, but it doesn't change and alter who they are underneath.

I'm glad that you brought that up.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think one thing that absolutely shocked me was in the month of June, when an individual who was the chief deputy of the spiritual advisor of the Muslim Brotherhood--Qaradawi is the spiritual advisor for the Muslim Brotherhood. His deputy, whose name is bin Bayyah, was granted a visa by the

United States State Department to come into the United States.

Now, that's pretty unusual. You have a terrorist organization that was outlawed in Egypt formerly, and the United States Government is issuing a visa to the chief deputy of the spiritual advisor of the Muslim Brotherhood. That, in itself, should kind of raise concern. Not only was he granted a visa, he came into the United States this June. He had a meeting in the White House.

How do we know that?

Bin Bayyah put a photo up on his Web site and bragged about this meeting that he had, and he said it was in the White House, in the Executive Office Building. He named the people. There were people, obviously, in the photo. And he said, during the course of that meeting, he came in and requested that the White House give arms and training and weapons to terrorists that would be fighting in Syria. That was what the request was that he made. That's in his words. That's not my words. That was in bin Bayyah's words on his Web site.

Well, just this last Monday, not the Monday of this week but the Monday before, on the same day as the tragic shooting of 13 people at the Navy Yard here in Washington, D.C., just 2 miles from where Representative Gohmert and I are standing today, Mr. Speaker, on that same day, President Obama signed a waiver to the Arms Export Control Act. Nobody heard about it because it was a big news day. Thirteen Americans were gunned down that day by an individual.

But this is very big news because President Obama, when he signed this waiver of section 40 and section 40(a) of the Arms Export Control Act, what he did is waived the prohibition against the United States arming terrorists, including al Qaeda, in Syria. And this isn't Michele Bachmann saying this. This isn't Representative Louie Gohmert saying this. This is the White House saying this and also major news reports coming out that the President signed this waiver.

Now, I want to just repeat it, because this was hard for me to understand when I heard this, that our President of the United States, Barack Obama--this is not meant to insult him in any way, it's just meant to inform the American people--he signed a waiver from the prohibition.

It would make sense that we would prohibit spending U.S. tax money to arm terrorists. That would make sense that we wouldn't want to do something like that. No arming of terrorists, especially al Qaeda. We've only been trying to fight them and defeat them for 12 years, minimum, more than that.

But a week ago Monday, President Obama chose to waive that prohibition; and, as myself and Representative Gohmert are standing on the floor today in this greatest of all deliberative bodies in the world, it is a fact, today, in the United States, that our President has intentionally chosen to arm terrorists, including al Qaeda.

Now, I think it's important that the American people know that, that our President signed that piece of legislation--or not legislation, waiver, because if that was legislation that came on this floor, I don't think you would find Democrat Members of Congress who would be willing to vote for that measure. I don't believe they would, because one thing I know about this Congress, we're pretty bipartisan when it comes to national security. I don't care what your political background is, you want this country safe; and I'm very, very proud of what I've seen coming from Democrats and Republicans working together, because we want national security.

But this is a big issue, and that's why I think it's very important that Representative Gohmert is bringing up this issue, Mr. Speaker, about the level of influence of the violent terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, what their presence is in the United States, and, most particular, what their influence is on our United States Government.

Mr. Speaker, during roll No. 445, on the passage of H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, I was called away from the floor for official business and was unable to vote on the final passage. I intended to vote ''aye.''

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I feel very strongly about this issue, Madam Chair. I believe without a shadow of a doubt this is one of the most insane policies that borders on madness. For the United States to give funding, training, and arms most likely to al Qaeda in Syria doesn't make any sense.

Can we realize what it is we're talking about right now? This is Islamic jihad, which has declared war on the United States and declared war on our ally Israel. And we're now in a position when we're authorizing arming, training, and funding for allies of al Qaeda, and al Qaeda themselves, in Syria? This is absolute madness.

You see, Madam Chair, the decision to arm the Syrian rebels by the Obama administration just this week will likely have catastrophic consequences for our United States national security and the national security of our ally Israel. The Syrian rebels that the President wants to arm consist mostly of al Qaeda members that we've spent the last decade fighting a war against. Have we forgotten the thousands of Americans that were killed on September 11 in the horrific Twin Towers attack and here in this city at the Pentagon? We lost over 3,000 Americans that day. Are we forgetting who we fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan? It's my opinion, Madam Chair, that this is insanity to aid those who've taken the lives of Americans with impunity and continue to do so.

Just take note that the leader of al Qaeda is an individual named Zawahiri. Zawahiri called on Muslims from around the world to make their way to Syria and support the rebels and, in fact, become the rebels who are seeking to overthrow Assad.

We don't have a great track record, Madam Chair, of putting arms into the hands of terrorists. Take a look at the Fast and Furious program in Mexico and the terrorists who received arms from the United States. Take a look at Benghazi and the tens of thousands of weapons, MANPADS, that went into the hands of al Qaeda after Benghazi. And now we're intentionally going to make a decision to send money, training, and arms to al Qaeda?

How about a referendum with the American people? I think this would be more than a 90 percent issue. Don't do it. That's why we're standing here today. Don't do it.

The top spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood is a man named Qaradawi. He has been outlawed from the United States because he's a terrorist. Also, he was outlawed from Egypt because he's a terrorist. He has called for jihad in Syria, and he has said:

Every Muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that

must make himself available.

So you have the head of al Qaeda and the head of the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood both calling on Islamic jihadists to go to Syria to fight and be the rebels. And we're going to arm them, and we're going to train them, and we're going to provide materiel support to them? Not my vote.

Madam Chair, former President Morsi, who was formerly the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed under Mubarak in Egypt, he supported the call from hardline Egyptian clerics who called for Egyptians to go fight jihad in Syria. So you see, there's a common thread here. All the wrong guys on the wrong team are all calling for jihadists to go to Syria and fight. It was reported that over 2,500 Egyptians have already gone to Syria to fight jihad.

Pakistan Taliban fighters have left Pakistan to join the fight in Syria, and they're working with al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria.

On Monday, al Qaeda's Iraq-affiliated attack on the Abu Ghraib prison helped 500 inmates escape, most of whom were part of senior positions in al Qaeda. These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with the rebels.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my friend.

These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with the rebels.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer in the United States, Martin Dempsey, has warned us that intervening in Syria could assist Islamist extremists, helping them gain access to chemical weapons and biological weapons and further erode United States military readiness already suffering from sharp defense budget cuts. He has said that using force is ``no less than an act of war,'' and stated that some of the military options for Syria may not be feasible without compromising U.S. security elsewhere.

He made reference to the chaos in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and Libya after Qadhafi. He warned of the unintended consequences if Assad fell without having a viable opposition. He said ``we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.''

This is a hub for jihadist activity. The American taxpayer has no obligation. In fact, I say this body must protect the American taxpayer from being involved in arming al Qaeda in Syria. We must defeat this effort, and that's why I'm in support of this today.

Again, we have the major general from the Israeli military intelligence, and he said that right before our eyes the center of global jihad is developing; let's not do it. I agree with him.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Madam Chair, this is a very important issue that we are taking up today because the number one duty of the Federal Government is the safety of the American people--of our constituents and of our own skins, the skins of each one of us in this Chamber today. As we know all too well, national security is a real and present danger, and it is something that we have to take quite seriously. We can't deal in false narratives.

A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking in the content of Americans' phone calls. It's not true. It's not happening.

A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking in the content of the American people's emails. It's not true. It's not happening.

We need to deal in facts. The facts are real, and the facts are these:

The only people who have benefited from the revelation of classified information by someone who worked for this government--who intentionally and without authorization declassified some of the most sensitive national security information that we have--are those who are engaged in Islamic jihad. They will have been benefited, and those whom we seek to protect will have not.

Consider this:

There is more information about each one of us contained in the phone book that sits at home on your kitchen counter than information that is in the National Security Database that we're talking about today. Your name, your address are in the phone book. Your name, your address are not in this National Security Database.

No other nation in the world has the advantage that the United States of America has on national security--no

other nation--and we by this amendment today would agree to handcuff ourselves and our allies by restricting ourselves? Let it not be. Let us not deal in false narratives. Let us deal in facts that will keep the American people safe.

When you look at an envelope, when a letter is put in the mail, is there a privacy right as to what has been written on that envelope? No, there isn't. There is a privacy right as to what is contained inside that envelope. That's a Fourth Amendment right.

Is there a Fourth Amendment right to the record that you called someone on a certain day? No, there isn't--that's a record--but there is a Fourth Amendment right to what's in that phone call. Let's deal in reality, not in false narratives.

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and thank you to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and to the rules of this body that allow for Members to come down to this well in the most important place where free speech is allowed, and I am extremely grateful for that opportunity to be here tonight.

One subject that I would like to focus on this evening is the issue that is being taken up here in Washington, D.C. It has gotten some attention in recent weeks--certainly with a bill that came through the United States Senate--and that was a bill that granted amnesty to illegal aliens. That bill passed through the United States Senate. Unfortunately, that bill does nothing about the main problem that we deal with in immigration, and that's border security.

Twenty-seven years ago, Ronald Reagan made a deal with the American people, Mr. Speaker. He said this, that we're going to have a onetime deal. We're going to deal with immigration right now.

It kind of sounds like very familiar rhetoric that we're getting today--we're going to deal with this issue once and for all. We're going to take this issue off the table. Then President Reagan said, We're going to secure the borders. We're going to make that happen, but we're also going to grant amnesty to the illegal aliens who are here in the United States. He estimated about 1 million illegal aliens would be here in the United States.

Once the bill was passed, the American people found out it wasn't 1 million illegal aliens. It was 3.6 million illegal aliens who were granted amnesty status. Once that amnesty status was granted, the United States had a policy of dealing with chain migration, and pretty soon that turned into 15 million foreigners or illegal aliens who were allowed to come into the United States as immigrants.

Now, we're all immigrants. I'm an immigrant. Mr. Speaker, I imagine you're an immigrant. All of us are descended from immigrants. This is a good thing. We're not here bashing immigrants. If we didn't have immigrants, we wouldn't have a country. We love immigrants. What we love also is the rule of law. We believe in the rule of law.

That's what this Chamber is. In fact, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is surrounded. There are medallions above every door in this Chamber, and those medallions have the faces of lawmakers over the time of recorded human history. Each one of these is a silhouette, and they contributed to the rule of law by adding to the certainty for mankind--for good rules and a good society that we can live under. In this Chamber, many of the American people may not know that our motto, ``In God We Trust,'' is written above the stand, Mr. Speaker, where you're standing today just above the American flag. Just opposite from ``In God We Trust'' is a lawmaker unique among all of the lawmakers in this Chamber. That lawmaker is Moses. Moses faces the Speaker, and you'll note, Mr. Speaker, that Moses is the only lawmaker who has a full face.

Why would that be? Why would Moses be given a status different than all of the other lawmakers in this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, I believe it's for this reason. I believe it is because of the great English jurist Blackstone, who is the mentor to the Founders of this Nation. Blackstone wrote that English common law and all of law in England is based upon the foundation bedrock of the Ten Commandments as given through Moses, and Moses is the full face--the most important lawgiver--because all of the law you see, all of the subsequent lawmakers down throughout the recorded annals of human history rest on the foundation of law and the rule of law as given by Moses and as given by God--according to the holy Torah and to the Bible--to Moses, and all of law descends from there.

Why that history lesson? Why that lesson on talking about law and a lawgiver while we're in the middle of talking about immigration?

It's because, right now, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill and also the proposed House bill, the so-called DREAM Act, are premised upon the condition that people who came into the United States by breaking the law would receive an unparalleled benefit, much more so than the benefit of those who come into America legally. How many people come into America legally every year? It's shocking. People think we're not allowing people in. A million people a year, Mr. Speaker, are allowed into the United States legally. They go through the process, and they become American citizens, and we applaud. I have been to naturalization ceremonies, proudly welcoming individuals in.

Today I was in a cab just before I came over here. A man from Pakistan was thrilled to be an American citizen. I shook his hand. I said, I'm so grateful that you're here, and I'm grateful that you came into our Nation legally. I'm grateful. Welcome. We're happy you're here.

I married a family of immigrants. My in-laws came here through the legal process. Why is this important? It's important because we as a Nation of laws must observe those laws. Now we're looking at changing that status by rewarding people who broke laws and putting them at the head of the line in front of people who stood by the law and did everything they could to follow the law to become legal citizens.

If you look at every nation in the world and their immigration policy, and if you look at the numbers of people of every single nation of the world--remember, Mr. Speaker, the United States is not the most populated country--there are more people in China than there are in the United States, and yet the United States is such a generous group of people, we allow more legal immigration in one year than the rest of the world. Every country of the world combined, we allow more legal immigrants, a million people a year.

Yet we still have 4 million people on a waiting list doing everything right, trying to come into the country legally. So why, I ask, Mr. Speaker, would we put to the front of the line lawbreakers, people who decided we're not going to pay attention to the law to the lawgivers of history, to Moses who gave the original Ten Commandments? We're going to break this law in this body where law is made; we're going to break this law. And for some reason this body would choose to benefit those who broke our laws? I say no, because the real problem with immigration, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to keep it legal and make it legal. That's why our very first consideration and only consideration should be complete border security first.

Border security for America first. Why? Because amnesty for illegal aliens is incredibly expensive. The estimate, Mr. Speaker, is $6 trillion of additional debt for our children, $6 trillion in redistribution of wealth with amnesty for illegal aliens. Nearly half of that number, Mr. Speaker, shockingly would be for retirement benefits for illegal aliens. So while you and I and millions of Americans have been working and paying in over the decades to Social Security and to Medicare, while we've been paying in and while people who are baby boomers like myself are just about at that time to draw down on our Social Security and our Medicare benefits, now we

would open the door wide, we would benefit and grant citizenship, a legal protected status, and immediate access to Social Security and Medicare, ObamaCare, Medicaid, 80 different means-tested welfare programs. Why would we do this? Is it because we have an abundance of money that's overflowing from our Treasury and we have absolute no idea what to do with it? I don't think so. Just in my brief time in Congress, we have doubled the national debt. That's one bill, essentially full-on amnesty, perpetual amnesty, with no means of deportation ever, with no border security ever. That's the fake bill that is coming out of the Senate.

What is the House of Representatives looking to take up? It is a different bill. It's called the DREAMers bill, and we're all told that what we need to do is get behind this effort to reward instant legalization status to children of illegal aliens. I want to put this on the floor for the American people. The children of illegal aliens very well may make up the largest subset of illegal aliens in the United States, but we need to recognize this is fake, back-door amnesty.

This isn't feeling sorry for kids or trying to deal with people through no fault of their own who are here in the United States illegally. This is what we're talking about. We're talking about millions of individuals who would be given instantaneous legal status. But it isn't just the children, Mr. Speaker. Because they would be given amnesty, they would immediately have the right to apply, and it would be granted, for their parents to have legal permanent status.

We aren't just talking about millions of kids, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about all their parents, too. So take all of the kids, and then double the number for their biological parents. Then, if there is a waiting period--let's say 5 years until they get their full legal status--then the parents can apply for legal status for their parents. And it goes from there. Very likely what we will see is a family reunification, chain migration, and rather than tens of millions of illegal aliens, some have estimated as much as over 100 million additional illegal aliens would be given amnesty in addition to the generosity of every year.

Why is this important? Again, because we hate immigrants? Absolutely, 1,000 percent no. That's not true. Number one, the rule of law. We need to observe the law. Number two, dealing with our debt and with the cost. It costs a fortune to have illegal immigration. Here's the third reason: it's because we will never solve this problem. You see, all we will have done, Mr. Speaker, is made sure that we will increase this problem, and we will have it with us forever because we will have ongoing perpetual amnesty.

I would like to ask to join me right now, my fellow colleague, Representative Steve King from Iowa, who has been essentially the leading voice on this issue in Congress, talking about making sure that we, the American people, recognize what we're going into.

You see, we had the ObamaCare bill. The former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said we had to read the bill to know what was in it. It's a travesty. It's bankrupting America. Also, with the so-called DREAM Act, which, let's face it, it is three-quarters of the cost of the terrible fake border security bill in the Senate. So you've got this terrible full-on amnesty bill in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the DREAMers bill takes you three-quarters of the way to the full-on amnesty bill. So when you take these two bills and you put them in conference committee, you can have either 100 percent amnesty or you can have 75 percent amnesty. When you split the difference on that, where are you? You've got amnesty. That's the problem, Mr. Speaker. It's a fake, no-border security, but it's a total authentic, nearly 100 percent amnesty bill.

I'd like to ask Representative Steve King to speak to that now as I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, Representative King had stated that in the committee they were told that young people could not form intent. And my question would be, under the proposed DREAM Act that we have looked at so far,

we're looking at that from age zero to 35. These people would be given automatic amnesty from being an illegal alien. Then, of course, we know their parents would immediately be able to come in as legal permanent residents, as well. So my question would be: Do we consider that you are not legally capable of forming an intent when you're age 35?

I yield back to the gentleman.

Thank you so much. One thing that I wanted to mention as well, in speaking with one of the experts, Mr. Speaker, Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation, we asked him: What is the average age of the average illegal immigrant into the United States? He said it is age 34. Isn't it a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation being proposed is to grant amnesty to anyone 35 or below. And again, they would instantaneously be able to apply for legal permanent residence for their parents, and it would be granted automatically.

So we are talking not about a tiny subset. We're talking about a tremendously huge subset. But here's the other identifying feature that Mr. Rector had said: the average age being about 34, the average education level being something less than 10th grade. Now, that's not to make fun of anyone that they don't have the education level, but I'm talking about the impact now not on the illegal immigrant, I'm talking about the impact on the American people, on American citizens who are senior citizens, American citizens who are in the working age population, and also the young people who will shoulder the burden for all of the debt that is being handed to them right now.

I'm thinking also, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that when an individual comes into this country and they have less than a 10th grade education, the statistics bear it out, Mr. Speaker, according to Heritage Foundation, that those individuals over the course of their lifetime are revenue consumers. In other words, they take more out of the United States Treasury than they pay in.

And so if we allow the DREAM Act, which is three-fourths of the way amnesty, which is backdoor amnesty, for all practical purposes full-on amnesty, if we allow that, we are bringing into this country legally tens of millions of individuals who would be taking out of the Treasury at the worst possible time--when we have pensions to pay, when we have health care to pay, when we have education to pay for, police, fire protection. And the estimate is that we're looking at over $30,000 a year in annual subsidy, direct payout for the average illegal alien that's coming into the United States.

Now, they do pay taxes. They might pay about $10,000 in taxes, but they are a net minus. They are a cost to the Treasury of about $10,000. Why is this important? Because we are talking about people. Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about American people, American senior citizens who worked their whole life for their Social Security and their Medicare and who are nervous about the fact that we are going into bankruptcy.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people all right. We're talking about the American worker, 22 million of whom can't find full- time employment. And now we have James Hoffa from the Teamsters Union who wrote a letter this last week, and he said, Mr. President, what's wrong with you? Mr. Speaker, he said we worked hard for a 40-hour workweek, and now the new norm is 30 hours a week or less, and no benefits package. So where's the jobs? Where's the wages? Where's the benefits packages? Are the jobs all fleeing to illegal aliens that we're making legal? Or are we going to think about our senior citizens who are Americans who fought and bled and died for this country, for the workers of this country, and for the people that we are about to hand the baton to, the next generation, who are going to take over this country?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

That's true.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that we can underscore enough the fact that when we are looking at the DREAM Act, people think we are talking about a very small group of people. This is a large group of people, and we're talking about amnesty, three-quarters of the way of amnesty. So the Senate bill is 100 percent amnesty for all illegal aliens in the United States. The DREAM Act is three-fourths of the way toward full amnesty. It isn't just children. We're talking about 35-year-olds, with the average age being 34 of an illegal alien, and we're talking about them having an immediate ability to make their parents legal.

So the $6 trillion cost is pretty darn close with the DREAM Act as well. Again, just realize politically what happens here. We're looking at 100 percent amnesty in conference committee with three-quarters of the way amnesty in conference committee. Does anybody think we're going to have anything less than full-on 100 percent amnesty and no border security.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I am grateful that he is putting into the Record the pillars of American exceptionalism. That is our Nation. Again, what we are concerned about is America first; the American people first; American jobs first; American wages first; American benefits first. And unfortunately, a study came out in April from Harvard that said illegal aliens have contributed to a loss of income of $1,300 a year. Let's not drive that number any further. So I am very grateful to have had this opportunity to discuss this with the American people this evening.

I yield back the balance of my time.

What Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Will Cost America

(By Jim DeMint and Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation)

The economist Milton Friedman warned that the United States

cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state. He

was right, and his reasoning extends to amnesty for the more

than 11 million unlawful immigrants in this country. In

addition to being unfair to those who follow the law and

encouraging more unlawful immigration in the future, amnesty

has a substantial price tag.

An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found

that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive

$9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay

more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That

leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3

trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by

increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S.

citizens.

For centuries immigration has been vital to our nation's

health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet

immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not

impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers.

An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy

and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.

A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the

potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation.

But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to

capture those benefits.

We estimate that when those who broke our laws to come here

start having access to the same benefits as citizens do--as

is called for by the Senate ``Gang of Eight'' immigration

bill--the average unlawful immigrant household will receive

nearly $3 in benefits for every dollar in taxes paid. The net

annual cost is $28,000 per unlawful immigrant household.

Given the U.S. debt of $17 trillion, the fiscal effects

detailed in our study should be at the forefront of

legislators' minds as they consider immigration reform.

Already, illegal immigrants impose costs on police,

hospitals, schools and other services. Putting them on a path

to citizenship means that within a few years, they will

qualify for the full panoply of government programs: more

than 80 means-tested welfare programs, as well as Social

Security, Medicare and Obamacare. The lifetime fiscal cost

(benefits received minus taxes paid) for the average unlawful

immigrant after amnesty would be around $590,000. Who is

going to pay that tab?

Our government is now in the business of redistribution. As

Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist at the American Enterprise

Institute, has pointed out, federal transfer payments, or

taking from one American to give to another, grew from 3

percent of spending in 1935 to about two-thirds of all

spending in 2010. Adding millions of unlawful immigrants to

U.S. programs will have a massive negative fiscal effect.

Our findings are based on empirical research and reflect

common sense. Unlawful immigrants have relatively low earning

potential because, on average, they have 10th-grade

educations and low skills. Heads of households like that,

whether from the Midwest or Central America, will receive, on

average, about four times as much in government services and

benefits as they pay in taxes. Adding millions more to

bloated welfare and overburdened entitlement programs would

deepen the fiscal hole our country is in.

In addition to costing taxpayers, amnesty is unfair to

those who came to this country lawfully. More than 4 million

people are waiting to come to the United States lawfully, but

our dysfunctional bureaucracy makes it easier to break the

law than to follow it.

Our cost estimates are in some ways very conservative: The

$6.3 trillion figure does not factor in the waves of unlawful

immigrants who could pour into this country hoping for

another future amnesty. As scholars at the Heritage

Foundation and elsewhere have explained, the comprehensive

immigration bill being considered in the Senate differs

little from previous empty promises to secure our borders and

enforce immigration laws on the books. When amnesty was

granted under a similar plan in 1986, there were about 3

million unlawful immigrants; now we have more than 11

million.

Instead of forcing through a complicated, lengthy bill,

Congress ought to advance piece-by-piece immigration

solutions that enjoy broad support and build trust with the

American people. We should move to streamline our legal

immigration system, encourage patriotic assimilation to unite

new immigrants with America's vibrant civil society, fulfill

promises to secure our borders and strengthen workplace

enforcement.

We are proudly a nation of immigrants. People the world

over are attracted to the United States because we are a

nation of laws. Granting amnesty to those who broke the law

and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair,

would encourage more bad behavior and would impose

significant costs on American families.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 25, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition, and I want to thank the Founders and the American people for the privilege of being able to serve in the United States Congress and also for the form of government that they gave to us.

We've just heard a wonderful speech given on why it matters, why it's so important that we stand up for this concept that was given to all of us by our Founders, because this Nation is different from all other nations for a reason and that's why we're so proud of it. And we need to say that once in a while, why it does matter.

There are issues before us now that our Nation is looking at, and it seems like life goes on and we aren't shocked. Yet here in Washington, D.C., we end up being shocked over and over again because most of us come here very normal people, a part of different various levels of the fabric of society. We bring our cumulated experiences here and we deliberate, trying to make the best decisions that we possibly can.

Why? So that our country can be better than it was before. Because the one thing that we know looking forward, we want to make sure what we have now is enhanced not just for ourselves, but for the next generation. There's a reason why we've put so much time into our children, into our nephews and nieces, into our grandchildren--because we know that they're going to carry the baton. We get our moment in the sun for a certain period of our life and then we hand the baton on to the next generation. That's also a part of why it matters.

Today, I was in the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Speaker. When I was in the Financial Services Committee, we were honored. We had before our committee the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ben Bernanke. He has served faithfully for nearly 10 years. And under his leadership at the Federal Reserve, we've seen extraordinary changes in our financial system. Never before had we seen something quite like the Federal Reserve opening the Fed's discount window to private investment banks. We saw the Federal Reserve giving subsidized access to companies that we had never seen before. We've seen what the results of that have been within our economy.

Many people call this a jobless recovery. Well, a jobless recovery is no recovery at all; because if you don't have a job, if you don't have a good-paying job, if you don't have increased benefits, you've got trouble. You've got trouble because I believe it's all about Americans first, about American wages first, about American jobs first, and about North America benefits first.

I made a note, Mr. Speaker, when I was in committee today. I noted that the debt clock was running. It was on a TV in the Financial Services room. The number 17 was up there, and 17 is $17 trillion, which is a lot of money. When I came into Congress, Mr. Speaker, we were $8.67 trillion in debt, and we were all looking around wondering how in the world will we ever pay back $8.67 trillion in debt. That was January of 2007.

We're now in 2013. So something over 6 years later, we have nearly doubled the national debt. That's the baton that we're handing to the next generation. It isn't a lightweight titanium baton. This is a baton that's made out of one of the heaviest substances on Earth.

What does that mean? That means if you're a runner in a marathon or a runner in a race, you'd much prefer to have a lightweight titanium baton that you're carrying as opposed to a very heavy, weighted-down burden that you're trying to run with. Well, that would be a pleasure compared to what we're handing off to the next generation in terms of debt burden.

This is what I found today, Mr. Speaker, during the Financial Services Committee hearing. We went for approximately 3 hours during the hearing, and I noted that the debt clock was at $17 trillion, so many billion. But it was at about $195 million. I watched that debt clock throughout the time that Mr. Bernanke sat at the desk. After about 3 hours, we had accumulated, in this country, an additional $400 million in debt.

I waited patiently because I had a question that I wanted to ask Chairman Bernanke. And I watched the numbers go up, and I watched the numbers go up, and I turned to one of my colleagues on my left, Mr. McHenry, who serves very honorably from the State of North Carolina. And I said, Take a look, Mr. McHenry. The debt has increased over $50 million just since we got started.

He said, Are you kidding?

I said, No, it really has. Take a look at the clock.

And I looked, pretty soon it was $75 million. Then it was over $100 million. And it grew and it grew until in 3 hours time, we added $400 million to the national debt.

Well, this is the question, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to ask the Federal Reserve chairman. The number at the top that I've written down is $16,699,421,095,673.60. What is this? It's the debt limit. Now, why do I put this number up, $16 trillion. I put that up because something very weird happened in the United States Government.

On July 12 on the Treasury Department's daily debt sheet, they put this up on the Internet, on that daily debt sheet they recorded $16,699,396,000,000.00, exactly to the penny. That number stayed the same for 56 days straight. Now this is kind of odd because if in 3 hours time you can accumulate $400 million in additional debt because Washington, D.C., and this Congress and this President just can't seem to figure out how to stop spending more money than they take in, if we accumulate that much in 3 hours, how could it possibly be--and I asked the Federal Reserve chair this question today in Financial Services-- how can it possibly be that for 56 days the spending seemingly stood still, and not one additional penny was added to the national debt? How could that possibly be? How could it possibly be that magically by some freak coincidence the national debt stayed at the same exact dollar amount, oh, just $25 billion or so below the national debt limit. How could that be?

Well, even though he's been the Federal Reserve chair for 10 years, he had no idea how that could happen. In fact, he didn't even know that it had happened. He didn't know for 56 days in a row there wasn't one single change in the debt limit even though in a 3-hour period of time we add over $400 million in new debt. How could that be?

Well, part of the reason that he speculated is perhaps the Treasury used what they call their extraordinary means to be able to deal with the debt ceiling. You see, Mr. Speaker, what happened is we shattered a ceiling all right. We shattered a glass ceiling. We broke through our debt limit, and we broke through last May 17. But you see, this government wanted to wink and they wanted to nod, and they wanted to play games with the American people. And so for 56 days, they acted like we weren't spending more money than what we took in.

I know if my children did that to me, that would be called a lie in our house. That is not acceptable to my husband and I. You don't lie to us. One thing that the Federal Government should never do to the people who pay the bills in this country is lie to them. And it seems to me that that's what this number is. For 56 days, they're pretending that we aren't adding any debt when of course we added debt because on today's debt clock, we're over $17 trillion.

Why does this matter? Why is this so important? Because this body is about to engage a policy that will structurally change this country forever. And, Mr. Speaker, it's dealing with the issue of granting perpetual amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. Why does this matter? It matters on so many different levels because, as I've shown in this chart, we're broke. We're broke because this is top number, the debt limit, this means that we owe this money. We don't have it sitting in a vault somewhere. As a matter of fact, if you go to the U.S. Treasury and you open it up, you don't open it up and find stacks of $100 bills. Moths and feathers fly out. There's nothing in there if you go to the vault. There's nothing in there; that's the problem. And we're making the problem worse and worse and worse.

And at the worst possible time, Mr. Speaker, now the United States Congress is considering adding trillions of dollars more. And the current estimate by the Heritage Foundation is that we would be adding $6 trillion more because you see, Mr. Speaker, amnesty is terribly expensive. It costs a fortune because the estimate is that the average illegal alien that comes into the United States is approximately 34 years of age. They come in with less than a 10th-grade education. And by the time they are 34 years of age, they usually aren't going back to school to get a high school diploma, much less a college degree. And so what we have found statistically is that the average illegal alien who comes in does pay taxes. They pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 a year in taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, various user fees they'll pay. But the other estimate is they pull out of the U.S. Treasury over $30,000 a year in public subsidies and benefits. This is extremely expensive.

That means for each person who comes in, we're looking on average at a cost of over $20,000 per person per year. So rather than adding to our society in the form of adding to our Treasury, we're drawing down from the Treasury. We're going backwards faster than even this debt clock is showing us.

Well, what's the answer? I'll tell you what I'm hearing from home, Mr. Speaker. People are saying, Michele, can you tell me why in the world we are not actually securing our border?

I say, You know, you're asking a very good question. Ronald Reagan promised us back in the mid-1980s when he said I have a one time deal for you: We will give amnesty to 1 million people that are in this country.

Sounds like a lot of people, 1 million people. That 1 million people turned into 3.6 million people. Why? Because when people heard that there was going to be a great gift that was going to be given, more people wanted in on that gift. And so more people came across the border, and 3.6 million people were granted amnesty.

And we were told the border would be secured. And 27 years later, we're still waiting to have that border secured. A promise was given, but a promise wasn't kept.

And, Mr. Speaker, we went even further than that. In this very Chamber in the House of Representatives, we passed another bill dealing with border security because people said, What's going on? It isn't 1 million people now in this country that are illegal, now it could be 5 million, it could be 10 million. So back in 2006, this body decided in its wisdom it would pass a bill to actually secure the border to the point where we would even build a fence. So this body passed a bill. It was passed in the Senate. It went to President Bush's desk. It was signed into law, and this body agreed, we will build a fence on our southern border. And what's more than that, something that Congress doesn't often do, it paid for the fence. It actually appropriated the money. We actually gave the money to build the fence, the design, the whole works. We were going to get her done.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, 27 years after the promise made by Ronald Reagan, no fence. Seven years after the bill passed the House of Representatives and was paid for, no fence.

My question, Mr. Speaker, where's the fence? If we don't have a fence 7 years after we passed a law, where's the money? I think the American people have the right to ask, Give me my fence or give me my money back. What's going on? We need to get some answers. You see, that's why when we

have this phony bill that came out of the United States Senate that said legalization first for illegal aliens, border security probably never, the American people looked at that bill and they said, Are you kidding me?

You see, Mr. Speaker, the American people are pretty smart. They're not going to be taken for a ride a third time. It's the old saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The American people are saying no dice; we're not going to have anything to do with this this time because the times have changed. You see, the economy has soured since 1987. The economy has soured since 2006. We have massive unemployment like we have not seen for decades. And in the midst of this unemployment, Mr. Speaker, we have 22 million Americans today that are looking for a full-time job, 22 million Americans. And we're going to legalize by granting amnesty to tens of millions of new illegal aliens who would come into this country and compete for jobs that 22 million Americans citizens would love to have? This doesn't make any sense.

You see, the United States Chamber of Commerce came out with a brand new survey. They went to the number one job creators of this country, who are small businesses. And small businesses said, three out of four of them, as a matter of fact, said that ObamaCare is causing them to fire their full-time workers. ObamaCare is causing them to reduce the number of hours that their full-time workers have, and they're actually looking also at only hiring part-time workers.

In fact, this isn't just big business or just small business. A letter came out from three unions that was sent to Speaker Pelosi, and also Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate, and it said this. It was from James Hoffa, who signed one of the letters from the Teamsters union.

He said, Hey, Mr. President--and I'm paraphrasing--we were with you. As a matter of fact, we put boots on the ground for you, Mr. President. We got you reelected in this last election, Mr. President. We went out and said your bill was a good bill, Mr. President. You told us that if we liked our health care, we could keep it, Mr. President. And they're saying that's not what's happening. Because we fought for the backbone of the middle class, which is a 40-hour work week. And now--I paraphrase in this letter--Mr. Hoffa said that now we are looking at a new normal. And the new normal for the American workforce is a 30-hour work week. Thirty hours.

So now you have the American people who would have to support their families, pay their mortgage, buy their groceries, pay for their car, on a 30-hour work week.

And guess what, Mr. Speaker? That would be without health care. And so there's steam coming out of the ears of these unions. They're so angry because they're saying all that the unions fought for, to have a decent wage and to have decent benefit packages for the American people, they're seeing it go out the window. And at the same time, they're being expected to fall in line with the President's agenda and go along with amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens who are going to be fighting for those 30 hour a week jobs? Are we out of our mind?

I go back to the beginning of what I started saying, Mr. Speaker, and it's this: we are looking at handing the baton to the next generation. And what is it we're leaving them? What is it that we're giving them? Are we giving them more jobs? It doesn't look like it. Job rates are falling. Labor participation rates are falling.

Are we giving them higher wages? I don't think so because when President Obama took office in 2008, the average household income was $55,000 a year. And then a story came out this last year that the average household income has dropped from $55,000 to $50,000 a year. A study came out this April, a Harvard study. It said that a loss in the average household income can be attributed to illegal aliens in the United States in the amount of $1,300 a year. Now that might not seem like a lot of money to the big elites in this country who think it would be great to have amnesty for illegal aliens, but it sure as heck means a lot, $1,300 a year, to someone who's making it on $50,000 a year for their annual household income. I'm here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of people who would love to make $50,000 a year for their annual household income, and they can't get anywhere near that.

And so why in the world, I ask you, would we want to disadvantage a woman who is a Hispanic who works in this country. Maybe she is doing her best working as a waitress, maybe she's working in an office, maybe she's working cleaning hotel rooms to try and help her family out.

Why in the world would we disadvantage her by bringing in more people to compete for her job and to compete for her benefit package?

Why in the world would we disadvantage African American youth in the inner city who have an unbelievable unemployment rate, who, in the last few summers, they've gone as high as 46 percent unemployment. My heart breaks for African American kids in inner cities who haven't been able to get jobs.

And we're thinking that we need to trip over ourselves and help President Obama achieve his number one political goal in his second term?

We're barely 6 months into President Obama's second term, and, why, I can't begin to understand, are we tripping over ourselves to make sure that we have even more competition for the low-skilled workers who are having trouble even finding jobs and even finding wage and benefit packages.

We can do so much better than that, Mr. Speaker. I know we can. That's why we've got to focus on border security, because border security is what the American people are asking of us because it's America first, American jobs first, American wages first, and American benefits first. Benefits are expensive, and we need them.

I also would like to talk for just a moment about other people in this economy that are looking to us for a little help and a little relief right now, and that's senior citizens, because senior citizens tend to live on a fixed income, and they're nervous. They're nervous that their money isn't going to be worth what it was; and they should be, because, you see, when, as I said, this is the fiction that we were all told, that at $16 trillion, which is our debt, and of course it isn't. It's well over $17 trillion now.

When the Federal Government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, and so it quite literally just makes it up, let's face it. The Federal Reserve chair, Ben Bernanke, was asked in committee today, in Financial Services, Mr. Bernanke, does the Federal Reserve, when it borrows money, does it print money? Is that what it's doing?

And his answer was, well, not literally. But the point being, yes, they make it up. They make it up in the form of a computer with digits in it. And so somebody, every morning, gets out the magic fairy fingers and writes on the magic fairy keys, and the Treasury Department puts a request to the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department says to the Federal Reserve, in essence, say, Federal Reserve, we're about, oh, maybe $4 billion short today. Do you think you could loan us some money?

And the Federal Reserve says, sure, we'll be happy to. So they type on their keys. Here's $4 billion. And in exchange, the Treasury Department sends over an email that says IOU $4 billion. Everybody's happy. So one hand reaches into this pocket and hands money to this pocket.

The only problem is, Mr. Speaker, there's no money that ever gets exchanged. It's just a conversation, a made-up conversation.

How does that impact a senior citizen, Mr. Speaker, who's at home listening right now, who has, let's say, $30,000 sitting in a bank? And they're hoping that that $30,000 can still buy them a year from now $30,000 worth of goods.

Well, when you keep talking to each other, the Federal Reserve to the Treasury, and you're just making up money, all that does is lower the value of what a senior citizen has in the bank. So rather than $30,000 in the bank, at the end of the year, maybe that's worth $29,500. Maybe that's worth $29,000, because the value of that money keeps getting diluted and diluted and diluted because the Federal Government, in essence, is stealing the

value of what these senior citizens put in the bank. It is a form of legalized theft.

Now, what morality is it that allows a government to steal from senior citizens, steal future opportunities from the next generation?

I call that immorality. Theft is immorality. You don't steal from your grandparents. You don't steal from your parents. You certainly don't steal from your children. But yet that's what we're doing.

And then when we add in this consequential issue that will structurally change America forever, and we're telling ourselves that we have an obligation to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens?

Let's talk for a second about that bill in the Senate. The bill that the Senate passed is perpetual amnesty. It would never again allow for the Federal Government to meaningfully be able to deport any illegal alien ever again.

It almost works like magic. An illegal alien gets into the United States, all they have to do is say the magic words to the ICE agents who may pick them up, and they say, I want to apply for political asylum. Once they say that--this may shock some of the people who are watching tonight--once an illegal alien says to an ICE agent, I want to apply for political asylum, they would be granted, at taxpayer expense, a lawyer, and that lawyer would help them to gain their U.S. citizenship. What a deal.

So you come into the United States, you eventually are on your ``path to citizenship,'' at taxpayer expense. And what form of benefits would be available to you?

Well, under the Senate bill, you can immediately get a Social Security card, and you can immediately get access to a driver's license.

If you have a Social Security card, Mr. Speaker, and if you have access to a driver's license, there's an awful lot of advantages that you could have very quick. You can apply for a lot of public subsidized benefits that can be yours, and you've got an identity, and you're on your way.

What I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, is that in this country we're generous. We're extremely generous. Every year we allow 1 million people who are not American citizens, who are foreigners, we welcome with open arms 1 million people a year as new U.S. citizens into this country. That's amazing.

We've got something over 300 million people, and we say come in, a million every year.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at all the countries in the world, there's over, what, 120 countries, more than that in the world. If you add up every country in the world, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of countries have a lot more population than we have, if you add up all those countries combined, they don't allow as many new immigrants into their countries, in all the countries of the world, as the United States of America does in 1 year.

We are amazing in our generosity. Plus there are 4 million people on a waiting list every year waiting to get into the United States. We have a system of immigration. We have a system that's worked for years.

The problem is, we have a lot of people that don't want to wait for that system to work. Four million people are waiting, are on the waiting list now. One million people got in this year, legally.

Why is it, again, that we are tripping over ourselves to help the people who have broken our laws, who are in this country?

Why is it that we aren't saying to those people, we have a waiting list; you need to go and apply and get on the waiting list and wait your turn, and then you can come into the country too.

Why are we trying to figure out a way to fast-track the illegal people?

Shouldn't we be apologizing to the people then, the 4 million people who are on that waiting list?

I also wonder--people ask me, Mr. Speaker--I also wonder why that's our top priority. Why wouldn't our top priority, Mr. Speaker, be the 22 million people who are American citizens who are looking for full-time employment right now?

Shouldn't that be our top priority, trying to figure out how we can find them a job?

You know, it's really interesting to me, in the survey that came out today from the Chamber of Commerce, they found that of all the small businesses in America, only 17 percent, fewer than one out of five small businesses hired anybody in the last 2 years.

I'm going to say that again. The Chamber of Commerce found in a survey that of all the small businesses in America, less than 17 percent, less than one out of five small businesses, and they're the engine of this economy, hired anybody on a full-time basis in the last 2 years.

That's a very sad commentary. There's not a lot of hiring. That's why I say America first, jobs first, wages for Americans first, benefits for Americans first. That's how sad this ``jobless recovery'' has been, which is no recovery at all.

Here's what's even worse. Less than 20 percent of small businesses say that in the next 2 years do they have any plans at all to hire.

If we know that only 17 percent of small businesses have hired in the last 2 years, and less than 20 percent will hire in the next 2 years, I don't think that we should be giving amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens.

Let's focus, Mr. Speaker, on America first. Let's focus on finding jobs for those 22 million who are looking for full-time jobs. Let's focus on increasing the wages for American workers first, and let's focus on increasing the benefit packages for Americans first. That's what we need to do, Mr. Speaker.

And I thank the American people for this opportunity to be a Representative and stand in the greatest well that there is in the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a mother of five biological children and of 23 wonderful foster children. My heart is broken, as my colleague's heart is broken, over any teenager whose life is taken away from them.

But I believe without a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't matter the color of a person's skin in the United States when it comes to justice. Lady Justice has a blindfold over her eyes because justice is colorblind. Justice shouldn't look at the color of our skin or our ethnicity or our financial background.

Facts have to be recognized as facts. Law has to be recognized as law. No matter if we are White or Black or Hispanic or Asian, whatever our background, justice must be served. That's why we need to stand up and stand up for justice in this country, not have justice that is separate for Blacks or separate for Hispanics or separate for Whites. We all need to be one under our law.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, Representative Louis Gohmert, and I also thank my colleagues who preceded me and all the marvelous comments they have given: Mr. Brooks from Alabama and the statistics that he has just given and all the other stories.

I look at the context of this issue, Mr. Speaker, and the issue of dealing with the whole strata of illegal immigration. What are we talking about? There are so many aspects. One of those aspects, of course, is the issue of why in the world isn't America's border secure today? This is something that is incomprehensible to the American people because there is something that the American people should demand and that they have a right to expect, and it is that their country has a secure border at every level. Not only just at the point of entry, but for people who come into the United States on a lawful, legal visa. The American people have a right to expect that those people also will stay for the time that we have granted those people and that they will not overstay.

The one thing that we've learned, Mr. Speaker, is that 40 percent of the problem of illegal immigration, 40 percent--4 out of 10--people are overstaying their visas. That included some of the terrorists that were involved in the 9/11 bombing. That's why this is so important.

We aren't talking just about an academic exercise, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a national security issue. We're also talking about an economic security issue. Because for those of us who are here on the floor this evening having this conversation, we were elected by the American people. We were elected by American citizens who have the privilege to vote in this country. We are elected by Americans, and we are here representing the interests of American citizens. And it is American citizens, Mr. Speaker, who have the obligation to pay for all of the programs that we fund here in this Chamber because our Constitution provides that all of the spending begins right here in the House of Representatives.

Spending is something we're pretty good at. We spend a lot in this House. As a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago I was sworn in. I took the oath of office right here in this Chamber, and America was $8.67 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, on that January in 2007 when I took my oath of office.

We were horrified. How were we ever going to pay off $8.67 trillion in debt? 2007. Today that number has been running, and officially, according to our Treasury Department, it is something under $17 trillion. But that's kind of unusual because that number has actually stayed exactly the same, according our Treasury Department, for about 56 days running.

Of course we know that isn't true. We overspend by billions of dollars every day. The number is actually something pretty close to $17 trillion. So let's think about that: $8.67 trillion and, today, $17 trillion in debt. Why do I bring that up? Who cares about these numbers? They're so big, we can't even comprehend them. Well, I care. I'm a mother. I have five great children and 23 foster children, and parents across America are scared to death about the kind of America their children will inherit, because any fair-minded person realizes you can't spend more money than you take in, otherwise you go to the poor house and you declare bankruptcy. And we don't want our children in that position where they declare bankruptcy.

Maybe that explains part of the reason why we have 22 million people in this country today who are looking for full-time work, and they can't find it. Twenty-two million people looking for full-time work, and what are we doing here in Congress? The Senate can't wait to give amnesty to illegal aliens, so we'll have a minimum of 11 million immediately who'd have legalization status in this country; and we would have, as Mr. Brooks said, up to 44 million people before long in this country.

So now what are those 22 million Americans supposed to do? Mr. Speaker, I say it is America first, and the interests of the American people first. The American people need jobs. They deserve jobs. It's Americans first that we need to think about. So we have unemployed. We have a terrible debt that's growing, and we have less than anemic economic growth.

One thing Mr. Brooks mentioned, when President Obama took office in 2008, the average household income was somewhere around $55,000 a year. It was shocking to learn after 4 years in office, the average household is now looking at something like $50,000 a year. That's a tremendous loss in income for the average American. As Mr. Brooks told us earlier, Mr. Speaker, about $1,300 a year is attributable in lost income strictly because wages are depressed because illegal aliens are working for less than the American people.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it's the American people first. It is American wages first. It is American benefit packages first. What in the world are we doing, Mr. Speaker, if we aren't thinking about how we can create more jobs for the American people first. And higher wages for the American people first. And more benefits for the American people first.

Why did the President 2 weeks ago have to unilaterally have a press conference, or release a press statement--that's apparently the way he governs these days--and say that his employer mandate for big businesses will have to be delayed a year? Why did he have to do that? Because he knows it simply doesn't work.

And yet if we have legalization for illegal aliens in the United States, we will see that very quickly we will have literally tens of millions of new people who'll have access to all of these benefits because it's not cheap, you see. Amnesty costs a fortune, you see. Because this year alone, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at $54 billion a year. Do illegal aliens pay taxes? Yes, they do. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, various forms of taxes. But when you take what illegal aliens are paying into the U.S. Treasury versus the benefits that they take out, that means that American citizens have to cough up an extra $56 billion a year. It is a net drawdown on the U.S. Treasury. You see, it has consequences, Mr. Speaker, not only for the Treasury but for the American people, for my children, for Representative Gohmert's children, and I dare say for your children as well, Mr. Speaker.

This is something we have to realize, that by year 13 of the bill that's already being considered in the United States Senate, it won't be $56 billion a year that illegal aliens are costing the U.S. Treasury. It will be over $100 billion a year. And when those illegal aliens come into retirement age, because you see the average age of an illegal alien is 34 years of age with less than a 10th grade education, by the time those illegal aliens come into their retirement years, it's not $56 billion a year that it will cost the taxpayers. It is adjusted for inflation, $150 billion a year because we're talking very expensive retirement packages.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, at the worst possible time when baby boomers like myself are getting to the point of drawing down the Social Security benefits that we earned and the Medicare benefits that we earned and accessing whether it's ObamaCare or the 80-other means- tested welfare programs, at the worst possible time, Mr. Speaker, this Chamber is looking at adding over 40 million new illegal aliens into the system to redistribute wealth from American citizens who worked hard and earned that money, to redistribute it to illegal aliens that we have given legalization status so that they can have Social Security and Medicare and ObamaCare and 80 different means-tested welfare programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you this: When we go from $8.6 trillion in debt to nearly $17 trillion in debt, we've doubled it in about 6, 7 years' time, and then you add in 40-some million new illegal aliens, you up the benefit package from ObamaCare, all while we're seeing increased levels of unemployment, we're seeing lower rates of increases in GDP, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how compassionate is that to American children that are born in this country? How compassionate is it when their wages have gone, the average household, has gone from $55,000 down to $50,000? How compassionate will it be, Mr. Speaker, when our children can't even afford to have a savings account anymore because they're scraping by and their wages are lowered and their benefits are lowered and the jobs are fewer and inflation is going sky high? How is that compassionate?

Because, you see, I remember, Mr. Speaker, that my parents left me a country that was better than the one that they inherited from their parents. And my grandparents, Mr. Speaker, inherited a better country than my great grandparents left for them, and so on and so forth going back in time.

You see, I can't fathom, Mr. Speaker, nor can I fathom that Mr. Gohmert also would do anything that would leave less than a better country for the next generation because, you see, that's what this is about. We were sent here by the American people to be about America first and, Mr. Speaker, about our children first, and whether this America that they inherit will be a better America.

And that's why this discussion that Mr. Gohmert brought to the country tonight is so vitally important, and we can't stand by and watch our country change forever and watch our children shortchanged. And so I'm going to yield back to the gentleman from Texas because he has profoundly put in front of the American people the issue that will structurally change our country forever. You see, Mr. Speaker, there's no going back once we go down this road. And I know I've heard the gentleman from Texas speak on this many times so eloquently. I thank the gentleman for all he has done.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I wanted to add on to the child care tax credits that you were speaking of.

There's also another redistribution of wealth item in the Tax Code. It's called the earned income tax credit. It's one of the largest redistribution of wealth programs that we have in the United States. We give away to people who are virtually paying no taxes under the Income Tax Code, income taxes, $70 billion a year. So people who aren't paying into the system now for income tax, they're receiving $70 billion a year. The estimate is that, after amnesty, once we grant amnesty to illegal aliens, we'll raise that to $80 billion a year. So we're going to increase the cost.

So what we're seeing happening, by granting amnesty to illegal aliens, we're importing a group of individuals who are tax consumers, revenue consumers out of the Treasury. And one thing that we need in this country are more people who are paying into the system, not people who are taking out of the system.

But bottom line, we need to have a country where America comes first, where the American people know that our borders are secured, that our laws will be upheld, and that the American people will come first.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that we have in this body to be able to come before the American people and talk about issues of the day that impact all of us. We're talking about one today, and that's really dealing more than anything with the economy and the problems that we're having with job creation. What we want to do in this economy is make sure that everyone who's in the middle class has a chance and an opportunity for a job, and for work and for employment.

It was really troubling because there was a story that came out recently that said that over half of all of the adults in the United States--over half--don't have a full-time job. That's what people need. We all know that people want to be self-supporting, they want to be able to support their families, but right now we have a real problem because too many adults don't even have a full-time job.

For a lot of Americans who are watching tonight, a full-time job isn't

even enough to be able to begin to pay for the bills, let alone put aside some money and save some money to pay for important things, like maybe college for your children, maybe just even to be able to save up and buy a car, or pay off a few bills.

People have lowered their expectations, Mr. Speaker, to a point that we haven't seen for a long, long time because people have just, frankly, gotten discouraged. They're discouraged now, and they don't know where the economy is going to lead.

In the midst of all of that, we're talking about new impediments that are coming to job creation, one of those being ObamaCare, the fact that the President's health care law is coming into effect. The law says very clearly that the law is to come into effect and that the provisions of the law are to be followed by this upcoming next year, in 2014.

Well, we saw that the President of the United States--unilaterally-- effectively waved a magic wand. And as he has been wont to do lately, he is making laws and decrees, really by a press conference or by a press release or just by going to a microphone. And so no longer do the American people even know what the law is or what the law says. Because we presume when a law is passed that we're supposed to follow it--at least that's what the IRS tells us. If a law is passed, they tell us that they're supposed to enforce it. So that's the expectation that people have, that they're supposed to follow the law.

Yet the President of the United States said that he's going to put some of these provisions away so that people won't have to follow them. Well, I think our recommendation would be to the President: let's not follow any of ObamaCare; let's put it all in abeyance. Because, as we know, one of the bill's chief authors, Senator Baucus, has said the bill is, in effect, a ``train wreck.'' And that's what's coming down the pike.

So we know, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that ObamaCare is the number one reason, Mr. Speaker, why employers aren't creating jobs, another reason why the middle class is suffering.

So in the middle of all that, now we're hearing another layer of burden heaped on the middle class, and it's this: now we hear from not only the President, but also from the Senate and some of our colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side, that what we need to do next is offer amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. And it isn't just a few million, Mr. Speaker. At minimum, we're looking at 11 million illegal aliens. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are estimates that we will be allowing into this country, conservatively speaking, 33 million new illegal aliens into the United States in the next 10 years. That's more illegal aliens than we've allowed into the United States in the last 40 years.

If we allow in 33 million new illegal aliens, Mr. Speaker, when we already have 24 million Americans who are without a job--we have 24 million Americans that are unemployed right now in this country, and we're looking, through amnesty for illegal aliens, at allowing in another 33 million. Where are those 24 million Americans supposed to go, Mr. Speaker, when they have to compete not only with the current population but an additional 33 million?

Well, if there's anything that we know, it is this: it is that amnesty costs a fortune. Conservatively speaking, we're looking at $6 trillion in costs. And of that $6 trillion, nearly half of that amount is to go to pay out retirement benefits for illegal aliens--at the worst possible time, Mr. Speaker.

When all of the baby boomers are looking at having to draw down what they've spent their life paying into Social Security, when millions of baby boomers are looking at drawing down what they've paid in to Medicare, now we're looking at potentially 33 million more illegal aliens coming into the United States also competing for those benefits. But the difference is, Mr. Speaker, they haven't paid in to get those benefits out.

We have a lot to talk about tonight. Joining me tonight are some other very concerned colleagues who are also concerned about this issue of illegal aliens coming in to the United States.

We have with us tonight the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Yoho), and at this time I'd like to yield to the gentleman. And we have other Members who would like to be heard on this issue this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Florida. We will continue to have this discussion back and forth as we yield to one another.

I think you've raised an excellent point, and that's really going back to 1986, when President Reagan told the country that we would have a one-time deal--one time only; this would never be extended again. Only one time will we ever have amnesty. And he assured the country that there would only be amnesty given to about 1 million illegal aliens. It ended up being 3.6 million illegal aliens. Why? Because all of a sudden people realized the door is open, we can go in, and they all flooded across the border. And rather than 1 million people being given amnesty, it was 3.6 million. Then of course this chain migration that expanded beyond that, that goes again to the issue of dealing with the rule of law.

What we were told in '86 is that we would once and for all secure that border. Let's see, 1986, 1996, 2006. Where are we now? Oh, yeah, 2013. Over 25 years later, that promise of a secure border is unfulfilled.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what in the world are we doing talking about amnesty again when we haven't seen the fulfillment of the promise by President Reagan from 1986?

Well, people were so angry and belligerent about that, actually, in 2006, that

this Congress passed a bill that authorized building a fence across all 700 miles on the southern border. And they paid for it. They completely funded it. That's something when you get Congress to pay for something, but they did. Well, that was '06. What is it again, 2013? Seven years later this very body passed a bill to build a fence. Where's the fence? There used to be a commercial on TV that was ``Where's the Beef?'' We're saying: Where's the fence?

So what we're saying is: No bill. None. No bill. The middle class has had it up to here. They're fed up. They're saying, I don't want my government to lie to me anymore. I want my government to do what I sent them to do, and that is secure the border.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I want to thank Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, because you hit on a great point. That's why we have such a credibility problem right now as the United States Congress, because we say we are going to do something and we don't.

I think the only way the American people are going to believe us on this border security is if we in the House declare that if we pass a border security bill, it is only going straight to the Senate and that's it. We are not going to send any bill to a conference committee where we know it's going to get ripped up and turned to something that doesn't even resemble border security. There will be full-blown amnesty buried somewhere in that bill. We know it.

How do we know that? Because Senator Schumer on the Senate side said that that's their deal breaker. And that's what President Obama said, that's a deal breaker. I think it's time that this body says that amnesty is our deal breaker--we are not doing amnesty, no way, no how, not until you secure the border. We are a one-track mind. We are going to listen to what we are hearing the people say.

I would like to have my colleagues weigh in on that too about what you've been hearing at home. What I've been hearing people say to me is, Michele, we don't get why in the world you don't just secure the border. What are you talking about amnesty for? Just secure the border. That's what I'm hearing. I would just like to ask very quickly--I know we've been joined by Mr. Gohmert and we also have Mr. Brooks here as well--I would like to ask Mr. Fleming, is that what you've been hearing at home?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Is that what you are hearing as well from your constituents?

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for saying that because I think what I fear is that if we combine these issues in so-called comprehensive reform, what's going to happen is you're going to have selective enforcement, and you're going to pick and choose. Because, again, we saw the President of the United States this week twice say that he is not going to enforce certain parts of ObamaCare. Hey, fine with me, don't enforce any of it, as far as I'm concerned. But do it through the rule of law. Do it through this body.

I ran for office, and it was tough to do, and I got here. But my voice counts, just like your voice counts, just like your voice counts, just like your voice counts, just like the Senate's voice counts. Because we are a constitutional Republic. We are not a dictatorial State. We don't have a king; we shouldn't have a tyrant. And yet we are seeing that the President decides, well, I'm going to support something today and maybe I won't.

I guess that should give us a clue, shouldn't it, that maybe if we get so-called comprehensive reform that the President may say, well, I'm not going to secure the border because I don't have the political will to secure the border, but I am going to go ahead and maybe speed up amnesty for illegal aliens. So maybe I'll just give them voting rights today because I want to, and I'm just going to go ahead and give them access to ObamaCare today because I want to, and I'm going to give them access to the 80 different means-tested welfare programs because I want to, and plus it will help me in that 2014 election. These are the kinds of things that we need to think about.

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas. I would like you to weigh in also. What are you hearing from people back home about amnesty versus border security? Did they want it in the same bill? They don't want it in the same bill? What are you hearing? And this is Louie Gohmert from Texas.

The Secretary of Homeland Security also testified before Congress when she was asked about whether or not the border was secure, she had testified that they didn't even have a metric to know if the border was secure. So what are we doing here? What are we doing here if the Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't even have any possible way to even measure whether the fence is secure?

And that's absolutely true, because ``comprehensive'' is code language for this is really, really bad what's in this bill. Take a look at comprehensive sex education. That's all you need to know. This is really really bad, and it's not going to help anyone.

I know we have the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who would also like to weigh in. He has been a marvelous voice also on this issue and has been very thoughtful and has a tremendous amount of background on this issue and has participated in a tele-townhall with numerous individuals and has a great deal of information. So I would yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

I thank the gentleman from Alabama. That was a tour de force. I thank you for that. I think the context you gave was wonderful, the fact that we have been extremely generous because one of the numbers you mentioned, that I had heard as well, that the United States of America allows in more foreigners into the United States than all of the countries of the world combined. We are so extremely generous. This year alone I believe the figure was a million people that we allow into the United States legally.

For citizenship.

It's a remarkable number, and when you consider the bill that came from the Senate would double the figure for legal immigration.

We're having a hard time assimilating the number of people that we have when we have 24 million Americans who are unemployed right now, we're still allowing a million people in legally, let alone all the other numbers of people who found legal venues to be able to get in, but another number that you mentioned--you talked about the study that came out earlier from Harvard. And in that study which I read at your recommendation, what we are looking at is the average household is looking at a reduction in income and wages of $1,300 a year. That's an enormous amount of money for the average American household because just consider when Barack Obama became President of the United States, the average income per household in the United States was about $55,000 a year. That number has dropped while he's been President. It didn't go up, it has gone down. It has gone from about $55,000 a year down to close to $50,000. And now we know that about $1,300 a year has come in because of the amount of penetration of illegal aliens that are in the United States and how that's bringing down wages.

I would add to your comments as well, Mr. Brooks, that as a Member of Congress, I can't vote for anything that's going to take away jobs from legal American citizens. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about amnesty. We're talking about taking away jobs from legal American citizens. From the middle class. Why in the world would we do that?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and I believe the next population most hurt is actually the legal Hispanic population in the United States.

It's their wages that are suppressed. So if you're thinking of a Hispanic mother who's working as a hotel maid, if we have legalization, she could be competing with seven other people who are vying for her job as well. That's what we're looking at right now.

And I thank you for bringing that research to our attention. It's very important because, again, what we're looking at is hurting the job prospects of those who are the most vulnerable. And that's one thing that we've seen from the President's policies. He is hurting the people who are on the very economic edge.

I'll yield quickly to you.

That is the point.

And with that, I'll yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I thank Mr. King.

And we do have a little bit more time. I'm thankful to talk about this topic because this isn't just a 1-hour topic.

As a matter of fact, there's a colleague that we were with earlier today who said that we need to talk about this for a full day because, just from a process point of view, for people who are tuning in tonight on C-SPAN, Mr. Speaker, we think it's very important that we don't just go through this topic glibly, because we know this bill wasn't read in the Senate.

We were betrayed by our colleagues in the Senate on this bill. This border security isn't border security. It's a fake border security bill that came through.

We're not interested in that. The American people aren't interested in that, and we need to have a real debate.

We don't want to see, here in the House of Representatives, that the People's Representatives are beguiled or have a boondoggle put in front of them or have a Trojan horse given to us, because one thing that could happen is we could have a great-sounding bill that we're given, and then we're supposed to vote for it.

We could pass that bill. We could talk about it for maybe 10 minutes on the floor. Actually, it would be a little bit longer, not much, but talk about that bill here on the floor, pass this Trojan horse, sounds like a really good bill, pass it.

And then it could go to a conference committee, where a Senate bill goes into a conference committee, and then that bill, all of a sudden, gets a legalization thrown into it. It can come

back to this Chamber, and then that's what we're all told that we have to vote for.

And my guess is a lot of conservatives on this side would say, I'm not going to vote for this bill. It has an amnesty in it. And so then what we could see happen is that all of the liberals in this Chamber could vote for that bill because it has amnesty, and just enough Republicans could vote for that bill that it would pass, and it would go to the President's desk.

And guess what?

It would be Republicans who would be responsible for helping the President pass his number one political agenda action item early in his second term before he's even been sworn in for how long?

And it's Republicans that would help pass the amnesty bill?

May it never be.

I think that the American people right now are just wringing their hands saying, who's going to listen to me?

And I think one thing, Mr. Speaker, that at least we've been able to demonstrate is that we have Mr. King from Iowa, we have Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, we have the judge over there, Louie Gohmert, from Texas, we have Mr. Brooks from Alabama, we have Mr. Yoho from Florida.

We've got six people here in this Chamber who are going to say, no amnesty no how. What we're going to do is demand border security.

We're going to demand that this government finally live up to the promise that it's made to the American people, because we've got to get back to what Representative King talked about, and what each of these Members has talked about, the rule of law, because we think it means something. In fact, we think it's everything. We think, without the rule of law, you have nothing.

And that's why I'm so grateful, Mr. Speaker, that we've had this time tonight to be able to be together and talk about this topic.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Oh, we do have a couple of minutes.

Well, then we're going to go full tilt.

Let me yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). He has something on his mind, I can just tell.

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

I will just be brief.

It seems like you have the power brokers in this country act like this is such a difficult issue to solve, that this is some big, perplexing issue with immigration.

The fact is immigration policy worked beautifully for hundreds of years in this country. And as recently as 1950, when my in-laws immigrated to the United States from Switzerland, it was pretty simple. You had to show that you were physically fit when you came into the country; you didn't have a transmittable disease that other people in America could pick up. That's pretty self-explanatory. You had a little bit of money in your pocket. You didn't have to be wealthy, but you had to show that you had a little bit of money on you. You also had to have a sponsor. You had to have someone here in the United States who would vouch and say if anything happens to that person, I'm the one who will be responsible, I'm the one who will answer. And the person coming in had to verify that they would not become a burden on the taxpayers of America. Because they knew when they came in, they had to come in as a net plus for the country. They couldn't take more out than what they were bringing in. That was the agreement.

The other part of the agreement is, whoever came into the country had to swear under oath they would learn to speak the English language--as Mr. Yoho indicated--and they would learn the Constitution of the United States and a little bit of the American history. They had to know that.

My in-laws took that very seriously. They were farmers in Wisconsin. They've been net plus to this country, proud Americans. They've fed thousands of people with the work that they've done in Wisconsin. But they kept their end of the bargain. America kept its end of the bargain to my in-laws, but they kept their end of the bargain also.

Again, I think Dr. Fleming hit it earlier when he quoted Dr. Milton Friedman, You can't have an open border in a welfare state. Because, you see, in 1950 there was no modern welfare state. That is our problem.

We have to deal with our current reality, don't we? Our current reality is we have a gigantic welfare state. Knowing that, we cannot bring people into this country who will not add to the economy. Why would we import into the country people who are going to consume more revenue than what they bring in when they are $17 trillion in debt?

This adds up. That's why this is not very difficult to figure out. It is actually fairly simple. All we have to do is abide by the policies that we embraced in 1950, and you've got a solution; you've got a solution to the problem.

What I would say is this: Who is benefiting? The studies all confirm that it is the illegal immigrant who is the recipient of that money. It isn't going to the taxpayers.

What we do know from a tax point of view is that illegal immigrants on average pay somewhere about $10,000 in taxes, but they receive over $30,000 in taxpayer-subsidized revenue benefits; therefore, they are a net negative to the American Treasury of $20,000 a year.

Now, why in any universe would you import people into the United States that cost us on average, not just $20,000 one time, $20,000 every year? As a matter of fact, Robert Rector has said in his work that the average illegal immigrant cost the United States Treasury over the course of their lifetime about $1 million. Why would we do that? Why would we do that? Because we are robbing from our children. That's why it doesn't make sense. We are hurting the American middle class who are here legally.

Mr. Speaker, I was watching in my office what the gentleman from Texas was saying, and I

was moved so profoundly because this week changed history. It changed history with the definition of America and the United States, but it also changed our constitutional Republic.

When the Supreme Court of the United States denied equal protection rights to every American by taking away our ability to elect our representatives, have them give voice to what our opinion is, and then the Supreme Court decides to substitute their morality for that of the people's duly elected people, as they did also in California, now we're looking at a supreme betrayal. Not only did the Supreme Court betray us on the issue of marriage, we've been betrayed by the Senate and also by Republicans in the Senate. We have a fake border security bill that is about to give amnesty to millions and millions of illegal immigrants, and we are about to see that bill now come to the House of Representatives.

People are very worried about what they've seen happen this week. One woman was crying to me this morning, saying that, Michelle, our country is falling down around our eyes. So what I told her what we need to do is we need to pray, we need to pray, we need to confess our sins as a Nation, and we need to pray and ask God for his holy intervention and for his forgiveness.

We are not over as a Nation, there is a future, there is a hope. But we need to recognize that this week was historic and, Mr. Speaker, the words of Mr. Gohmert were exactly right. This is a very, very important decision. It went at kicking out the fundamental building block of this Nation, which is the family. The hub of the family is the marriage between a mom and a dad. That was hurt this week by the Supreme Court. Now we are looking at violating the fundamental rule of law by legalizing millions of illegal immigrants with this fake border security bill that will never ever come into place.

The gentleman has said it well, he said it very well. I want to come up and thank him and congratulate him for his remarks. But to let the American people know there is a future, there is a hope, and we're going to continue to fight here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, Lysa, her children, and thousands of admirers gathered at St. Paul Cathedral in St. Paul, Minnesota, to bury the legendary author Vince Flynn.

Vince Flynn was known and beloved as a Minnesotan and a great American. He lost his battle with cancer just this last week. He left behind a wonderful family, a beautiful family. He left behind a literary body of work. And, most importantly, he left behind his

deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ. In his hand he held the rosary and also his beloved cell phone.

Vince educated America on the threat of Islamic jihad. We will forever remember his strength, courage, and his faith. He had a life well-lived. We will never forget the contributions to America by the wonderful and legendary Vince Flynn.

Madam Speaker, it's a privilege to be able to stand here today and to speak on behalf of the unborn. I have a picture that was taken just yesterday. All of us as parents love to take pictures of our babies. This is a picture that was taken of an unborn baby yesterday. This is the age of the baby--the youngest age, at 20 weeks, that this bill is referencing. And this is a picture of the mom. We're here because we care about women. We're here because we care about the unborn. That's why I support this wonderful bill that's before our body today.

You see, we had a very recent, disturbing account of a late-term abortionist. His name was Kermit Gosnell. His actions have made debates like this more important than ever before because, under the guise of being a medical professional, you see, Dr. Gosnell violently ended the life of viable, unborn babies. And, in turn, he seriously hurt or even killed some of the women whom he claimed were his patients.

A few days ago, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, referred to late- term abortions as sacred ground when voicing opposition to this bill. I found that to be a stunning statement. What could possibly be sacred about late-term abortion? What could possibly be sacred about dismembering this 6-month-old little baby with a pair of scissors as Kermit Gosnell did? What could possibly be sacred about listening to the whimpers and cries of a baby? Because, you see, we know that babies at this age feel pain when scissors are put into their body as it comes to an early end.

You see, we are the people who make the laws in our society, and therefore, we have the duty to protect the inalienable right to life of every individual, both the mom and the unborn baby. At 8 weeks from conception, an unborn child's heart begins to beat. By 20 weeks, he or she is capable of sensing pain. And babies as young as 21 weeks have survived premature birth.

Madam Speaker, as a woman and as a mom of five natural-born children and 23 foster children, I am appalled by the savage practice of late- term abortion.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child, and that's why this legislation is so important. It not only protects the unborn, it protects the mom against the lethal practices of abortionists like Gosnell. And women deserve better than abortion. Unborn children deserve their inalienable right to life. Pregnancy is wonderful. It can be difficult too. That's why we need to show patience and compassion toward every woman as they carry a human life.

We are, indeed, treading upon sacred ground. But it's because we're dealing with the sanctity of every human life. And out of respect for this mom and out of respect for this unborn child, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense piece of legislation. I thank Mrs. Blackburn, and I thank Representative Trent Franks of Arizona.