Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret and heartfelt admiration that I rise today to honor a fallen Marine from my district, Lance Corporal Gregory Paul Rund of Littleton. Sadly, Lance Corporal Rund was killed in the line of duty during combat operations on December 11 in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq.

Lance Corporal Rund was with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division based in Camp Pendleton, California.

He was just 21 years old.

Greg was a 2002 graduate of Columbine High School in Jefferson County, where he played football and later made the decision to serve his country by joining the Marines. Greg was serving his second tour of duty in Iraq when he was killed. He made an indelible impression on all who knew him, and will be remembered as a dedicated, energetic and warm person who had a great sense of humor.

Mr. Speaker, my deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences go out to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Rund. He served his country honorably and with distinction, making the ultimate sacrifice fighting for freedom and democracy in defense of a grateful nation. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him.

Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude. His dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is opposed to the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great amount of admiration for the people who have worked as hard as they have worked on this bill, for the chairman, for the leadership in the House, that has, I know, spent many, many hours in discussions with the other body.

I wish that I could stand on this floor tonight and support this bill. I remember during an earlier debate on H.R. 10, the House version of the response to the 9/11 Commission report, I was proud as I have ever been to be a Member of this body and to see the members of my party, especially the Speaker of the House, the whip and the majority leader, come to the floor and speak articulately and very, very forcefully in support of certain provisions of the bill that the other side of the aisle were trying to take out. These provisions dealt specifically with trying to increase our border security.

It is intriguing in a way, it is ironic in a way, one thing: We established a 9/11 Commission, it did its work, it talked to us about what we needed to do.

We all recognize what happened on that day, on 9/11 2001. When people came into this country from other countries, many of them did so fraudulently, by providing false documentation, by inaccurately filling out their visas, or by coming into the country and after they were here overstaying those visas. They were in violation of our immigration laws. They were able to take advantage of their position because we did not do much, and we still do very little in terms of enforcing those laws.

They were also able to take advantage of another thing in this system. They were able to take advantage of the fact that we were handing out driver's licenses to people like prizes in a Cracker Jack box. The 19 hijackers had accumulated a total of 63 driver's licenses, many from Virginia. They used them with great ability to, of course, get onto planes, to make life easy for them while they were here.

This is one thing we know that happened that helped create the problem, helped create the event of 9/11. We know that. So we create a bill in response to the 9/11 catastrophe, and it is almost inconceivable that any bill could then come to this floor without a reference to, without an ability, without any desire to actually do something about the actual problem that created 9/11. But that is the case today.

To quote the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who also recognized the flaw, the fatal flaw of this bill, and that is the only way I can really describe it, it is a fatal flaw, this is the quote from Chairman Sensenbrenner: ``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can prevent another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration reform are vital components of our national security efforts, so why are they not included in this legislation? The time to address these issues is now, not next month, not next year. Hollow promises of future considerations are just that, hollow promises. Terrorists have exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum system and in the issuance of driver's licenses.

``This bill fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill because my Senate colleagues,'' and I am quoting him here, ``found them to be too controversial. That is unfortunate, because their refusal to consider these security provisions on their merits will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk.''

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with his observations, and I would ask my colleagues to look carefully at what they are doing here.

The fact is that this bill has such a gaping loophole and it has such a huge, huge flaw that it is better not to pass this bill at all than to pass it and create the illusion of security. I do not doubt, as I have said, that there are many good parts of the bill. That is not

the issue. But there is something so vital, something so intrinsic to our national security, the issuance of driver's licenses and trying to maintain some degree of control over that process, because we know that a driver's license in this country is, of course, as close to a national I.D. card as we have.

But when we refuse to address this because of our concern about the politics, because it is too controversial to talk about, how can we come to this floor, how can anybody come to this floor or in fact stand in front of any television or any constituency and say, we are doing everything possible to defend the people of this country. How can we say this when we know that that is absolutely untrue; when the one thing we should be doing in this bill, we are not.

So because it does not have that provision, I certainly would request that my colleagues turn this bill down and ask that it come back in a different form, in a more complete form.

Sensenbrenner Statement on 9/11 Bill

Washington, DC.--House Judiciary Committee Chairman F.

James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) issued the following

statement regarding legislation responding to the 9/11

Commission recommendations:

``I am pleased that the chain-of-command issues Chairman

Duncan Hunter has raised have been resolved so that our war-

fighters will not be put at risk. Unfortunately, even with

these improvements, the current bill is woefully incomplete

and one I cannot support.

``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can prevent

another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration

reform are vital components of our homeland security efforts,

so why are they not included in this legislation? The time to

address these issues is now, not next month, not next year.

Hollow promises of future consideration are just that--hollow

promises.

``Terrorists have exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum

system and in the issuance of drivers' licenses. This bill

fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill

because my Senate colleagues found them `too controversial.'

That's unfortunate, because their refusal to consider these

security provisions on their merits will keep Americans

unnecessarily at risk.

I said two weeks ago that the Senate was hell-bent on

ensuring that illegal aliens can receive drivers' licenses,

regardless of the security concerns. This Sept. 10th

mentality in a post-Sept. 11th world is unwise and among

those I intend to rectify next year.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the only turf that at least I am interested in protecting here is the turf of the United States of America and the people that live on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make two quick points.

One is, indeed, most of the people who were here, most of the hijackers were here illegally, not legally, because they fraudulently produced documents to get their visas. The visas were frauds to begin with, making them illegal aliens in this country.

Secondly, many of them had overstayed their visas or were doing something here that was not allowed under the visa, making them illegal aliens in this country. So, indeed, they were illegal.

Thirdly, there are far more members of 9/11 families who oppose this bill because the provisions we are talking about here are missing; those provisions to secure our borders are missing. Far more oppose this bill in its present form than support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the following is from the final report: ``Secure identification should begin in the United States. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' That is from the report. That is the thing we are ignoring completely in this bill designed to respond to the 9/11 Commission report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill so it can come back here in a form that could make us all proud, and so we would be able to go back to our constituents and say we have indeed done something to secure this country. This bill does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2781) to express the sense of Congress regarding the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, to provide assistance for the crisis in Darfur and for comprehensive peace in Sudan, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 2781, as amended, the Senate bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 2781, as amended, imposes some punitive measures listed in the Sudan Peace Act after a 30-day period. The bill also imposes an asset freeze on senior Sudanese officials and calls upon the President to impose a travel ban on senior Sudanese officials, including those responsible for planning and carrying out the genocide in Darfur.

To guarantee a wider international response to the genocide in Darfur, S. 2781, as amended, includes instructions for the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to urge the Security Council and member states to pursue accountability for those complicit in the genocide in Darfur and to impose targeted sanctions, including the freezing of assets on senior members of the Government of Sudan, and to cease importing Sudanese oil.

The bill also provides humanitarian assistance to Darfur and Eastern Chad, funding to support the African Union mission in Darfur, and assistance in preparing the population for peace. This will give material indication to the Sudanese civilians that they can find meaning and purpose in rebuilding their country after decades of war.

Mr. Speaker, we are beyond the point of threatening the Government of Sudan with punitive measures. Time and again certainly I have been on this floor and many other Members have been on this floor expressing our concern over the situation in Sudan and the intransigence of the Sudanese government to operate in good faith and to

bring an end to the human tragedy on a scale that is almost unimaginable and for which they are greatly responsible. Time and again our efforts have been rebuffed. Time and again we have been forced to go to the next step in order to get the Sudanese government to respond.

Genocide has been and is being committed, we know. We have said it. We now need to show that there are consequences for directing and/or participating in a campaign to destroy human life on such a massive scale. Every evening on the news, every day in the papers of this country we see the picture of this horrible, horrible situation in Sudan and the faces of the people who are suffering. How long can this go on? How long can this go on without this government paying even closer attention than it has? How long can this go on without the world paying closer attention than it has?

To the credit of this administration and to this government, we have done more than any other country to try and focus world attention on the problems in Sudan, but we need the world to cooperate. We need the United Nations, we need the Security Council to do far more than they have done. We need the European Union to do more. We have a moral responsibility to respond to genocide.

What we do at this juncture has implications for every conflict we will address in the future. Everyone is watching to see how we respond. Secretary Powell and the U.S. administration have taken a courageous stand, as I say, but this is just the beginning. If we fail to act forcefully now, it will be open season for genocide. If we make empty threats, it will have serious consequences for the future of international peace and security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who has been laboring in this vineyard longer than I, longer than most, and who adds an aspect of both compassion and articulation that is desperately needed on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, who has been enormously helpful in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Thomas.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing concerning S. 2781, the

Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over revenue matters, including any legislation

relating to imports. There are two provisions within the bill

that may relate to imports and thus fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Section

4(b)(8) expresses the Sense of Congress that ``the Government

of the United States should not normalize relations with

Sudan, including through the lifting of any sanctions, until

the Government of Sudan agrees to, and takes demonstrable

steps to implement, peace agreements for all areas of

Sudan.'' Section 6(a) requires the President to impose

certain sanctions outlined in the Sudan Peace Act (P.L. 107-

245), including the requirement to ``take all necessary and

appropriate steps, including through multilateral efforts, to

deny the Government of Sudan access to oil revenues,'' which

could be interpreted to direct the President to impose an

import ban on oil.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forego action on this bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to S. 2781, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

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

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

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

The gentleman from New Jersey referenced a trip that we took to the Sudan, he and I, now over 5 years ago, 5\1/2\ years ago. It was certainly as a result of that trip that I have committed as much of my time and energy to this issue, and it is a result of the gentleman from New Jersey's leadership in this area that I stay connected to it.

Let me just tell you one thing that happened on that trip that I remember to this day and will remember it for the rest of my life. We were in a little town called Yai. As we walked through the town, a group of children surrounded us so that it was almost impossible to move. They kept yelling something. They were pointing up. They kept saying something, and of course I could not understand. We were trying to move by. I asked somebody, what are they saying?

And the interpreter said they are fearful of bombs because, of course, the town had been bombed just prior to our getting there. The Antanov bombers had come by, and they were saying that they thought that because we were from the United States, because we were Congressmen, that they would not be hit by these bombs if they stayed close to us. And, of course, I could not promise that that could not happen. But I still remember their eyes, the eyes of these children looking up to us, looking for safety around us. And I will never forget that as long as I live. I will take that picture to my grave. And I committed myself at that time to do everything I could possibly do as a Member of Congress and as a human being, as a person with a soul, to do everything I could possibly do to provide them the shelter that they were looking for, them and all of the other children in Sudan and all of the other people that have suffered so mightily in this war-torn, ravaged country.

There are places all over the world I know that have experienced horrible events, and it happens daily. We come here ourselves and we say what can we do individually. We have to carve out something that we are going to focus on and spend time and energy on until it is accomplished or we are taken away, one way or the other, from this place.

So as I say, it has been certainly a pleasure to work with as many wonderful people as we have over the time. Father Dan, my colleague remembers, that we met there, who I always refer to as the individual in Sudan that anybody would go to if they want to know what was really happening, and he himself has saved thousands of people, thousands. We went to a church the last day we were there. Thousands of people came, and they had themselves experienced the most horrible things.

Almost 7,000 died on the way to this refugee camp that Father Dan had set up for them. And yet they came singing the praises of Jesus Christ and their thankfulness to be saved. I mean, it was the most incredible experience in my life, really. It was amazing. So I must say that the gentleman's kind words to me are certainly appreciated, but they are undeserved especially in terms of what he has done and others, my colleagues here.

We are pulled to this not for any political reason whatsoever. There are no votes. I mean, it is one of the few kinds of things we do on this floor that has absolutely no political advantage to anybody. We are pulled to this because we are human beings with souls and our souls are what tell us we must do, what we are doing here today.

So I thank the gentleman. I want to thank Molly Miller on my staff, who has spent so many countless hours and sleepless nights both probably in the office and also in her home worrying and thinking about this and trying to help us get to the floor tonight. Molly has been wonderful.

I just wish that this were the end of it. I wish that once we pass this, we could all walk away and think it is done, we have accomplished it, there is peace in Sudan. It is not the case. We know that is not the case. But it is what we are required to do today. And if there is more required to do tomorrow, I commit myself and I know my colleagues to the same. I commit myself to that task for as long as it takes.

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

Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine recently sent me an essay that his granddaughter drafted for her college English composition course on the issue of illegal immigration. I was thoroughly impressed upon reading the article, written by a Ms. Karen Berg--so much so that I have decided to insert it into the Congressional Record so that other members might be able to review it. I would encourage them all to do so, Mr. Speaker, as it appears to me that this 19-year-old woman has a better grasp of this issue than many people--including opinion leaders on the subject--that I have met.

Illegal Immigration--Friend or Foe?

America, since its inception, has been viewed as a land of

opportunity for those driven to find freedom from tyrannical

rule, as well as those seeking to expand their wealth and

influence. Today, little has changed with these motivations

but much has changed in regard to the population,

infrastructure, and perception regarding the management of

U.S. borders. This is a new era, where immigration control

needs to be orchestrated more effectively than at any other

time in America's history due to diminishing resources,

threats of terrorism, and the socio-economic imbalance that

can result from unregulated influx. In regard to the later,

it is believed that the immense and continuing immigration

from Mexico is the single most immediate and most serious

challenge to America's national identity. Therefore, the

question arises; what are the true economic, social, and

resultant political impacts of immigration, and in particular

the unique issues and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic

immigration.

When Vicente Fox was elected Mexican President, he ended

the Institutional Revolutionary Party's, or PRI's, seventy-

one year monopoly on executive power, thereby elevating hope

for economic development (Wall 3). Fox promised Mexicans an

employment boost, as well as the eventual opening of the

U.S.-Mexican border. However, if employment opportunities

increased, then the need for migration would decrease (Wall

3). In 1994, the United States, Canada, and Mexico

implemented NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA promised hundreds of thousands of new high-wage jobs,

an increase in living standards, improved environmental

conditions in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and

transformation of Mexico from a poor developing country

into a booming new market for U.S. exports (The Mexican

Economy, Agriculture and Environment 1). Mexicans were

promised that NAFTA would increase trade and investment

inflows which would in return create better jobs, raise

wages, and lift millions out of poverty (The Mexican

Economy, Agriculture and Environment 2). Although NAFTA

did stimulate trade, economic growth did not materialize.

Fox had promised a 7 percent per year economic growth, but

two and a half years after his inauguration, growth

averaged less than 1 percent (Faux 2). From there, NAFTA

concentrated economic growth along Mexico's northern

border by opening factories called maquiladoras, which

processed and assembled goods for the booming U.S.

consumer market, thereby doubling Mexican employment (Faux

3). But after the U.S. economy slowed down in 2000,

employment in maquiladoras decreased (Faux 3). Since then,

hope that NAFTA would enable Mexican prosperity had

vanished. Therefore, Mexican workers who could not support

themselves in Mexico turned to the United States for

greater opportunities. Currently, Fox is trying to

convince U.S. President, George W. Bush, to ``liberalize

migration, create guest-worker programs, and provide

migrants with civil rights and social benefits'' in order

to encourage Mexican immigration to the U.S. (Faux 4).

Debate over Mexican illegal immigration to the United

States consists of two opposing sides. Supporters of illegal

immigration believe it is not fair to prohibit immigrants

from entering the United States, since the U.S. was founded

by immigrants. Second, illegal immigrants take the low-paying

jobs other Americans are not willing to take. They help the

American economy because the amount of skilled and unskilled

workers created by high levels of immigration contributes to

the nation's prosperity (Masci 1). Alan Greenspan,

Federal Reserve Chairman, states, ``As we are creating an

ever more complex, sophisticated, accelerating economy,

the necessity to have the ability to bring in . . . people

from abroad to keep it functioning in the most effective

manner increasingly strikes me as [sound] policy'' (Masci

1). Greenspan reasons that immigrant's work ethic and

motivation make them the cornerstones of America's

economic prosperity. Finally, illegal immigrants provide

cheap labor to employers, thereby lowering the cost of

goods and services.

Opponents of Mexican illegal immigration believe that even

though the United States was founded by immigrants,

immigration of the past is not the same as it is today.

First, Mexican immigrants are not here legally. Second, most

Mexicans do not take the dangerous journey across the border

to become American citizens, but rather to help provide for

their families in Mexico. Also unlike former immigrants,

Mexican illegal immigrants are able to remain in contact with

their home localities because of the close proximity of the

two countries (Huntington 2). Opponents of illegal

immigration also believe the United States doesn't need a

million illegal immigrants each year to ensure a strong

economy. The majority of illegal immigrants are not well

educated entrepreneurs, but rather, ``poorly educated people

who take low-skilled jobs for little money,'' says Dan Stein,

executive director for the Federation for American Immigrant

Reform (Masci 1). Illegal immigration opponents also reject

the argument that illegal immigrants are willing to do the

jobs that most Americans wouldn't do. In parts of the country

where there are small amounts of immigrants, low wage jobs

are filled by native born residents (Masci 1).

After analyzing the history, causes, and contrasting sides

of illegal immigration, one might wonder if Mexican illegal

immigration hurts the United States. The conclusion made,

from extensive research in specific areas, is Mexican illegal

immigration is a detriment to the United States. But, the

reasons why illegal immigration hurts the United States

still need to be addressed.

First, many discussions of immigration fails to take into

account the attitude towards immigration in the sending

countries. For example, the Mexican media and political elite

portray the United States negatively, and therefore

dissention between the two countries in regards to

immigration is amplified. Second, manipulation of American

politics might occur through Mexican immigrants that become

influential in American government. Third, if the United

States continues to allow illegal immigrants to take

advantage of government provided benefits in states like

California, there is a possibility the entire country will

have similar economic misfortunes in the future. Finally,

since Mexican illegal immigrants have monopolized specific

areas of employment, Americans have difficulty pursuing and

acquiring those jobs--especially with the prospect of guest-

worker programs which would intensify their monopoly.

In Mexico, the media and political elite pay close

attention to illegal immigration to the United States, and

have created a one-sided, unfavorable portrayal of the United

States. The United States' attempts to control their borders

are presented as ``racist, xenophobic, and anti Mexican''

(Wall 1). Mexican citizens even blame the U.S. for the deaths

of illegal aliens who die crossing the border, and Mexican

politicians have called the U.S. border a ``slaughterhouse,

or modern Nazi zone'' (Wall 1). In Mexico, all political

parties support immigration to the United States, amnesty,

and government benefits for Mexicans in the United States,

regardless of migratory status (Wall 2). Common slogans

Mexicans use to justify illegal immigration are: ``Mexican

illegal aliens are not criminals, they only do the work the

gringos won't do,'' and ``they are obliged to cross the

border'' (Wall 2). Because the Mexican media and political

elite portray illegal immigration to the United States in

this manner, dissension between the two countries is

amplified.

Throughout history, Mexican-Americans had always been

viewed as an embarrassment. They were a sign of Mexico's

economic failure, or ``exiles who had thrown in the towel''

(Castaneda 2). The last president of the PRI, Ernesto

Zedillo, declared that, ``we will not tolerate foreign forces

dictating laws to Mexicans,'' referring to Mexican immigrants

in the United States (Wall 3). However, towards the end of

the PRI's reign, Mexican-Americans became a sign of

opportunity--an opportunity for the Mexican government to

gain influence in the United States over migration policy,

and therefore keep the gates open for continued immigration

(Wall 3).

After Vicente Fox was elected, he stressed a greater

importance associated with Mexican immigration to the United

States. His intentions are not only to govern Mexicans

resident in the United States, but also American citizens of

Mexican ancestry (Wall 3). In essence, Fox intends to

manipulate American politics through Mexican immigrants that

become influential in the American government. Thereby,

naturalized American

citizens' political power could possibly be diluted,

resulting in more favorable immigration and trade regulations

for Mexico.

The state of California is already on its way to

bankruptcy, and the inability to control illegal immigration

is doing more than ``some damage'' to the state's weakening

budget (Coleman 1). More than half of the Mexican

undocumented workers do not have taxes withheld from their

wages, and are able to take advantage of expensive taxpayer-

supported government benefits (Izumi 1). The result of this

has escalated economic troubles in California creating a

``welfare and healthcare state'' benefiting non-Californians

(Coleman 1). According to the Auditor General, Mexican

illegal immigration costs California taxpayers $3 billion

annually (Izumi 2). This cost estimate includes benefits like

education, health-care, social services, and criminal

justice.

If the United States allows this situation to propagate to

other states, the entire country will likely have similar

economic misfortunes as California. Evidence of this is

already beginning to show. Harvard Professor George Borjas

claims illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $133

billion annually just in wage depression and job loss

(Wooldridge 1).

Mexican illegal immigrants have monopolized jobs that don't

require skilled labor--through acceptance of low wages and

ethnic camaraderie--preventing unemployed Americans from

pursuing and acquiring those jobs. Even though U.S. employers

hire illegal immigrants for reduced wages, the average

American wage still exceeds the average Mexican wage by a

factor of ten--thereby creating an incentive for Mexicans to

find jobs in the U.S. (``Wages and Poverty'' 1). Also,

communities of legal immigrants create immigration networks

for illegal immigrants so they can conveniently enter the

United States, and find jobs and housing easily (``Illegal

Immigration'' 1). These combined factors result in a

situation where job competition prevents Americans from

obtaining jobs that don't require skilled labor.

However, this monopoly could be intensified if the Bush

administration follows through with the implementation of

guest-worker programs. Under these programs, illegal

immigrants would be granted a three-year renewable permit

allowing them legal rights to work in the United States

(Eccleston 2). Guest-worker programs were proposed in

response to Vicente Fox's request for legalizing Mexican

immigrants in the United States, and the assumed shortage of

unskilled workers--especially in agriculture (Briggs 2).

However, Mark Krikorian of The Washington Post, believes

guest-worker programs cause severe social and economic

problems for the U.S., as well as pose a threat to America's

agricultural competitiveness. ``By artificially inflating the

supply of labor, the government's interference in the

labor market keeps wages low, resulting in slowed

mechanization, and stagnating productivity in fruit and

vegetable production'' (1). Two reasons why guest-worker

programs intensify the monopoly illegal immigrants have on

low paying-employment opportunities are: they increase the

amount of illegal immigrants to the United States because

many of the participants elect to stay in the U.S., and

more illegal immigrants are encouraged to come in the hope

that amnesty programs will be enacted again in the future

(Briggs 2).

Throughout time, legal and illegal immigrants have crossed

America's border in search of opportunity. Recently, however,

Mexican illegal immigrants are migrating to the United States

in increasingly larger numbers in order to take advantage of

the opportunities America has to offer. The economic, social,

and political results of illegal immigration--in particular,

the unique issues and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic

immigration--are detrimental to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret and heartfelt admiration that I rise

today honor a fallen Marine from my district, Staff Sergeant Theodore ``Sam'' Holder II of Littleton. Sadly, Staff Sergeant Holder was killed in the line of duty during combat operations on Veterans Day in the AI Anbar Province of Iraq.

Staff Sergeant Holder was an Infantry Unit Leader with Company A, 1st Light Armored Recon, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, California.

His unit was fighting terrorists in Fallujah. He was just 27 years old.

``Sam'' was a graduate of Green Mountain High School in Lakewood, and served his country for 8 years with distinction including tours protecting American diplomats and interests abroad at our Embassies. He also guarded Secretary of State Colin Powell at one time, and met both President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His friends described him as ``a special person,'' and ``the ultimate Marine.''

He was an accomplished soldier whose awards include the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon, the Marine Security Guard Ribbon and the National Service Defense Medal.

Mr. Speaker, my deepest sympathies go out to the family of Staff Sergeant Holder. He served his country honorably and with distinction in the War on Terror, making the ultimate sacrifice fighting for freedom and democracy in defense of a grateful Nation. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him.

Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude. His dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.

Mr. Chairman, the Menendez amendment claims to be comprehensive in its approach toward border security. Let me read directly from the commission report:

``It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. Government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security is still not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe that it must be made one.''

Yet the Menendez amendment is eerily silent on this issue. How can we possibly suggest that there is any way that we can think of their amendment as comprehensive in terms of border security and security of this Nation when it does not address this fundamental idea that was placed in the 9/11 Commission report?

The only way you can think about this is that it is pandering for votes in light of the fact that we should actually be thinking about national security, not thinking about votes.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my views on the legislation before us today.

This legislation includes a requirement for Echostar, better known as Dish Network, to eliminate the solution it developed to serve more Americans with local service than any other satellite TV company. The legislation would eliminate its ``two dish'' solution within 12 months. This requirement will cause consumer inconvenience and hamper the rollout of local programming. The ``two dish'' remedy maximizes the number of television markets that can receive local channels by utilizing the scarce spectrum available.

I believe a better route to dealing with the lack of spectrum, which I know is a priority for you, is for this legislation to include a provision similar to that of the Senate Commerce Committee. That committee voted to allow satellite TV providers to offer High Definition TV service to markets where a local broadcaster is not even offering a digital signal. As noted in the Digital Transition Coalition letter which I will also enter into the Record, the freed-up spectrum could be redeployed to our Nation's first responders, auctioned to wireless companies eager to offer new advanced services, and raise funds that could be returned to the taxpayer or put to paying off the debt.

I look forward to our continuing work on this legislation.

Digital Transition Coalition,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2004.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Hastert: The Digital Transition Coalition is

writing to express its concern regarding the House

reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act

(SHVIA). While the legislation adopts rate increase

adjustments for content owners and allows satellite companies

to provide ``distant network signals'' to subscribers who

cannot receive ``over-the-air'' broadcast signals, it fails

to include the ``digital white area'' provision adopted by

the Senate Commerce Committee which would accelerate the

digital television transition. Without this provision,

millions of Americans, especially consumers in rural areas,

will have to wait even longer for digital and High-Definition

television and be denied the world of innovation derived from

freed-up spectrum.

H.R. 4501, approved by the Committee on Energy & Commerce,

did not include an important provision to speed up the return

of tens of billions of dollars of analog spectrum currently

held by broadcasters. Despite the fact that Congress years

ago set a 2006 deadline for broadcasters to return the analog

spectrum (in exchange for tens of billions of dollars of free

digital spectrum), it is clear that deadline will not be met.

As a result, consumers in more than 39 million U.S.

households (about 36 percent nationwide) will continue to be

deprived of receiving all their network signals in digital.

As taxpayer groups, consumer advocates and technology

leaders, our coalition has

strongly supported proposals to allow direct broadcast

satellite providers to offer a distant digital network signal

into local television markets where broadcasters are not

transmitting a full-power digital signal. We believe such a

measure is essential to provide market-based pressure on

local broadcasters to complete the digital transition and

return the public's valuable analog spectrum for other uses.

The satellite home viewer reauthorization legislation is

the vehicle to address this issue. The Senate Commerce

Committee, in its version of the satellite legislation,

adopted a ``digital white area'' provision that will help

provide the necessary impetus to speed up the digital

transition and serve the needs of millions of television

viewers who are disadvantaged by the current situation. In

contrast, the House Commerce Committee bill requests a

perfunctory report on the matter without any immediate

remedy.

As such an important issue for consumers and the economy,

we strongly urge that a digital white area provision be added

to the House legislation. We appreciate your consideration of

our request, and we look forward to continuing to work with

the Congressional leadership, the committee chairmen and

ranking members to further improve this legislation.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; The Honorable

Andrea Seastrand, The California Space Authority; Tom Schatz,

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Charles Ergen,

EchoStar Communications Corporation; George Landrith,

Frontiers of Freedom; Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Media Access

Project; Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge; Richard DalBello,

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association; Karen

Kerrigan, Small Business Survival Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5061) to provide assistance for the current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and to facilitate a comprehensive peace in Sudan, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to react to what is happening in the country of Sudan and specifically in the area we know as Darfur; and what is happening there is genocide. This House has spoken on that. This Congress has spoken on that. We have called it what it is. It is genocide. Now we must take action as a result of the fact that this is happening, and we cannot ignore it.

This is the first time that we have ever declared genocide while it is happening. We have always in the past responded to it, but unfortunately, in just responding to its existence, little, if anything, was done to stop it from happening or going on.

Everyone is watching to see how we will respond. Secretary Powell and the United States administration have taken a courageous stand, but it is just the beginning. If we fail to act forcefully now, it will be open season for genocide. If we make empty threats, it will have serious consequences for the future of international peace and security.

Time and time again we have come to this floor both on Special Orders and during debate on resolutions and bills to urge our Members in the Congress of the United States to act forcefully with regard to Sudan in order to stem the horrible events that have been occurring there over the past, really, 25 or more years.

It is a country wracked with pain. It has experienced more than 2 million dead in a period of a civil war that has lasted, as I say, a quarter of a century. Four million displaced. In Darfur now we are witnessing something again of enormous tragedy. The numbers are staggering. At least 50,000 dead again now in Darfur because of the genocide going on there conducted by the government against the people in that area, and 350,000 or more in camps who are close to perishing simply because of the terrible conditions in which they are forced to exist.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5061 includes instructions for the U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. to urge member-states to pursue accountability for those complicit in the genocide in Darfur. It imposes targeted sanctions, including the freezing of assets on senior members of the Government of Sudan. It encourages the Permanent Representative to urge member-states to cease importing Sudanese oil and to impose an arms embargo on the Government of Sudan, the Janjaweed, who are responsible right now for the genocide, and the PDF.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, let me say it is my pleasure to be here on the floor with my dear friend and colleague the gentleman from (Mr. Payne), who has been a leader on this issue for long before I even came to the Congress of the United States. Although he was laudatory in his comments about my efforts, his certainly precede mine and deserve all of our thanks. I certainly give it to him. He has been a wonderful, wonderful leader on this and a great man to work with.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 818) celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Falcon International Dam, recognizing the dam's importance as a source of water and power and as a symbol of friendship and cooperation between the United States and the United Mexican States, and urging Mexico to honor all of its obligations under the 1944 Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 818.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). It is fitting we should recognize the importance of the Falcon International Dam. For 50 years this dam has benefited people on both sides of our shared border with Mexico.

This resolution notes that Mexico under President Fox has made its water payments to the United States under its 1944 Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Water of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. I note the United States has never failed to make a water payment to Mexico, even in drought years, under the 1944 treaty. While we appreciate President Fox's efforts to meet these treaty obligations, Mexico still owes our States water from past years.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for working with our committee in preparing this resolution and urge my colleagues to join with me in support of it.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 821) condemning the abduction of Dylan Benwell from the United States and calling for his return.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 821.

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

Mr. Speaker, child abduction is a terrible problem. Any parent's worst nightmare is to have a child abducted. The initial panic and then the terrified waiting to find out whether your beloved offspring is alive or dead is dreadful. Our government must do everything necessary to protect all of our people, especially our Nation's children.

This resolution condemns one of the most trying types of abduction, the abduction of a child by his maternal grandparents, who spirited him out of the United States to Ireland. Dylan Benwell was abducted almost literally from the arms of his parents.

Both Ireland and the United States are parties to the Hague Convention which deals with child abduction. It is my hope and the hope of the chief sponsor of this resolution that the Hague Convention process works and works expeditiously so that Dylan can be returned as soon as possible to the arms of his parents here in the United States.

I hope all Members will join me in supporting H. Res. 821. We wish for a speedy return home for Dylan and for all children who have been similarly victimized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 768) calling on the United Nations Security Council to immediately consider and take appropriate action to respond to the growing threat that the ruling State Peace and Development Council in Burma poses to the Southeast Asia region and to the people of Burma.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today Burma is ruled by one of the world's most brutal military dictatorships. The State Peace and Development Council, the SPDC, rules through an insidious system of extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, conscription of child soldiers, and the use of modern day slavery. To date, approximately 2 million Burmese have been forcibly displaced because of the horrific policy of this regime.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the SPDC has arrested approximately 1,300 individuals for merely expressing critical opinions of the existing regime, including the leader of the National League For Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. My colleagues will also recall that her party, the National League for Democracy, continues to be rebuffed from claiming the right to govern, despite having won 392 of the 485 contested parliamentary seats in 1990.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 768 will put Congress on record that the United Nations Security Council must take immediate action with regard to the ruling regime in Burma. This regime poses a serious threat to the regional stability of Southeast Asia. They have allowed the continuous cross-border flow of illegal narcotics, trafficked persons, and the unchecked spread of HIV/AIDS.

In addition, the SPDC has attempted to acquire military hardware from the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and North Korea.

Finally, the repressive nature of the Burmese regime has led to the flight of over 200,000 refugees into Thailand and Bangladesh which, in turn, has led to severe problems in those nations.

It is time for the United Nations Security Council to take action to respond to the growing threat of Southeast Asia and the people of Burma. With the United Kingdom and the United States chairing the United Nations Security Council respectively in October and November, we should use this opportunity to press for action by the Security Council on Burma.

This resolution has strong bipartisan support, has 27 cosponsors, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Human Rights Caucus; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the Ranking Member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leadership for moving this legislation, which I introduced nearly one year ago. It stiffens the penalties for folks who willfully destroy our public lands, and standardizes them across most Federal lands. In addition, the bill includes provisions of H.R. 1038, which I also introduced, setting a tough, minimum fine of $500 for individuals who violate fire regulations on public lands when a complete ban on open fires is in place.

I want to recognize and thank Chairman Pombo, Chairmen McInnis and Walden, Chairman Radanovich, Chairman Goodlatte, and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their efforts over the last two fire seasons in finally getting this legislation to the floor. I'd also like to thank another colleague from Colorado, Mr. Udall, who was instrumental in helping to make passage of this legislation possible today.

Those of us privileged to represent western States here in the Congress know of the long running battle between Federal land agencies and private interests--mainly because the Federal Government is the landlord of so much of the land in the western part of the United States. Over the years, issues of contention have ranged from grazing rights, to forest management, and energy development. Today, the public lands debate is also characterized by access to public lands for different recreational activities--all of which have an enormous and positive economic impact on the communities that we represent.

In the last 20 years, Americans have found new ways to enjoy their public lands and waterways beyond just hiking, horseback riding, or powerboats. Today, mountain bikers, ATVs, SUVs, and snowmobilers also use our public lands. Many of these vehicles represent the only access to the great outdoors to a whole segment of our population--folks like senior citizens and the disabled--that might not otherwise be able to get out and visit beautiful places like the Pike National Forest in my district.

The economic impact for Colorado of these kinds of recreational activities contributes more than $200 million to our economy, creating more than 3,100 jobs. With those economic benefits however, have come conflicts and irresponsible people.

No one here will say that there haven't been problems with certain individuals and groups abusing, misusing and in some instances, destroying valuable property on our Federal lands. Because of the actions of these thoughtless people, future generations have been deprived of the opportunity to view and enjoy our public lands.

Recreation on our public lands and waterways will continue to grow-- and it should. This bill will help equip our land managers with the means to appropriately and evenhandedly enforce land use regulations against those few bad apples who spoil the whole bunch. The TRAIL Act accomplishes this by creating consistent fines and penalties among all of our land use agencies. In doing so, the bill also increases fines and penalties substantially for people who knowingly engage in inappropriate behavior.

The second section of the bill addresses the growing problem of human caused wildfires on our public lands. Over the last 10 years, human carelessness has been responsible for the ignition of just over one million wildfires on our public lands. By comparison, lightning has caused only about one-tenth that many fires over the same time period.

The current penalties for violating fire regulations vary from agency to agency. In a practical sense, however, the fines are generally assessed at a far lower level. In fact, under current law, fines--or ``collaterals'' as they are called, are set as low as $25--little more than the cost of a seatbelt ticket in most states. I believe, as I think most people do, that these weak penalties lack any real deterrent value for would-be violators. In fact, one district ranger in Colorado related a story to me about a would-be visitor to the Pike National Forest who called to inquire if he could pay the puny fine in advance.

In 2002, well after the imposition of the fire ban by both the Governor of Colorado and the Forest Supervisor--I was flying over Hayman Fire with the same district ranger. In addition to having a birds-eye view of the largest wildfire in State history, the two of us also had an excellent view of several campfires dotting the landscape outside its perimeter. He told me that even in the midst of a fire season like the one we had in Colorado--where some 800 human caused wildfires destroyed over a quarter of a million acres--that enforcing the ban was a continuing problem in large part because the fine is so small.

Enhancing the penalties for those who chose to disregard the directives of our land managers may be one way we can reduce both the number of human caused wildfires and the terrible destruction they leave in their wake by creating a deterrent. This bill would accomplish that by imposing a minimum fine of $500 for individuals who violate fire regulations during period when declared fire bans are in effect.

I hope the House will pass the bill, and ask for your support.

Mr. Speaker, I was out of town on official business, and missed rollcall vote Nos. 457, 458, 459, and 460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 457, ``no'' on rollcall 458, ``no'' on rollcall 459, and ``no'' on rollcall 460.

Mr. Speaker, I was out of town on official business yesterday, and missed Rollcall Vote numbers 457, 458, 459, and 460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 457, ``no'' on rollcall 458, ``no'' on rollcall 459, and ``no'' on rollcall 460.

Mr. Speaker, the 2004 Summer Olympic Games are returning to the birthplace, Athens, Greece. The Games are an opportunity for the world's athletes to showcase their talents, and have the possibility to earn the distinction of the World's best of their sport.

Matt Hemingway, a relative of Ernest Hemingway, has trained rigorously to earn a spot on the 2004 American Olympic team; to be classified as one of America's best high jumpers. Hemingway cleared 7 feet, 7.25 inches, winning the silver medal. The gold medal winner, Sweden's Stefan Holm, jumped 7-9.

At the 2004 Olympic trials, Matt placed second with a jump of 7-6.5, a foot more than his 6' 7" frame. In 2000, Hemingway reached his personal best height of 7-9.5, the best jump in the world that year; earning him the 2000 United States Indoor title.

Matt occupied a two year hiatus by acting as a whitewater river guide in Colorado. However, his passion for the sport and the thrill of competition called him back to competing. Matt now trains by playing basketball and running in the Colorado hills. Colorado's high altitude and temperate climate provides an excellent environment for Olympic caliber athletes to train and live.

Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the 2004 Olympic athletes are awe-inspiring. Matt and the other Olympians have made us all proud.