Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting discussion of the issues of the day for the last hour or so by the opposing party, and certainly I am sure that to a large extent the remarks are heartfelt and are as a result of a distinct difference in opinion as to exactly where this country should be and how the leadership should actually be constructed.

It is intriguing to me in a way as I sat and listened to the discussion about when the Members of the other side talk about the need for admissions of wrongdoing or failure. It would be so much more, I think, credible for them to approach this issue by first saying that we on the left have to admit certain things that we now know to be inaccurate.

Let us start with the fact that the entire world has disavowed our economic theories of greater government control of the economy, of cooperation with foreign governments, especially those governments that were totalitarian in nature and Communist by design, but all of these things have failed and we know it and the whole world recognizes it. The fall of the Communist empire, as a result of the variety of strategies employed by the United States and by others, including the Pope, as a matter of fact, we now see that it was a house of cards that had no real basis in reality; that could not sustain itself; that socialism was not ever, ever able to deliver its promise of a better life for the people under its control; that greater government control of the economy, that larger government enterprises, that opposition to Communism, that all of these things were failures. It would be so much more credible for our friends on the other side of the aisle to approach this discussion of the need for willingness to admit failure had they started with that.

Had they started with saying, you know what, we have tried, we for 40 years, we had control of this body, Presidency, it was a Democratic- controlled Congress, certainly for the majority of the 40 years prior to 1994, and we pushed the idea of greater Federal involvement in the lives of Americans. We did so because we believed it was right. We did so because we believed the theories that were supposed to be there to substantiate the claim that greater control of our lives by the government, even control of the means of production by the government, the things we call socialism today, those claims have now been proven to be false.

It would be so refreshing to have them stand in front of the House, Mr. Speaker, and say we were wrong and we are willing to admit it; we are willing to admit that people do better throughout the world, as a matter of fact, not just in the United States. But throughout the world, it is the governments under which they live that are governments that espouse a free enterprise, a democratic kind of government that allows for individual liberty and individual enterprise. We were wrong to suggest that we should not confront Communism as forcefully as possible and that we should not, in fact, increase all of our Defense appropriations so as to essentially force the Communist empire to collapse under its own weight which is, of course, what we did, what Ronald Reagan proposed and it worked.

Most of the leaders of the Free World, and even some leaders of what was in the past a totalitarian country, came to the United States for the purposes of paying homage to Ronald Reagan and admitted that his strategy and his ability to see what was good for America and what was good for the world was, in fact, the right way to go.

Yet, never did I hear in the discussion here for the preceding hour that our friends were willing to concede the point that they were wrong and that the whole world knows it, and that people, every time they have had the opportunity, they voted to cast off totalitarian dictatorships and socialist enterprises.

So, as I say, it would have been better, it would have been certainly more convincing had they come here first with an apology for all of the things that they have been espousing for the last half a century and now they know to be incorrect and failures of policies, but they did not do that. They just suggested that what we are doing today is wrong. Well, what makes us think then that what their view is of today is any better, any more correct, any more insightful, any more intuitive than what their view of what was yesterday and the world in which we lived up till today? Why should we trust them with guiding this Nation's future?

I did not hear them disavow the principles upon which their party and upon which, in fact, the left has been relying for years and today only, only exists and are espoused in institutions of higher education primarily in this country but perhaps even around the world; but everywhere where the rubber hits the road, everywhere where people have to actually go out and make a living for themselves and their families, everywhere where people are struggling to overcome the kinds of government tyranny under which they may live, everywhere where that exists, people yearn for something quite different than what the left offers them.

So that realization, that empirical evidence that we have to say that all of those ideas were wrong, that evidence has not yet manifested itself, and that realization of the error of their ways, it has not manifested itself in any of the rhetoric I heard tonight while I was waiting to deliver my remarks on, I should say, a totally different subject.

Nonetheless, I thought I should comment on what is apparent to me to be at least a discrepancy in the testimony that was provided here by our friends on the other side of the aisle for the last hour.

Immigration Reform

Mr. Speaker, let me go on to the discussion of an issue that I have many times in the past tried to bring forward on this floor and an issue that I believe to be of enormous importance to the country and certainly an issue that I believe needs the attention and debate of my friends and colleagues in the Congress of the United States and certainly a reflection of the debate that goes on throughout the country every single day around water coolers in offices and on work sites throughout America and around dinner tables throughout America. That debate and that discussion revolves around the issue of immigration and immigration reform, and it has many, many implications for who we are as a Nation, where we go from here, and how successful we may be in trying to achieve whatever goals we establish for ourselves.

It is connected to an even more significant challenge to the United States, and that is the reestablishment of the idea of exactly who we are, of what we are, what principles we espouse as a Nation, of what principles we can adhere to as a people.

This part of the debate is an extremely important one, hard to bring up, hard to articulate. Certainly it is

impossible to do so in a bumper-sticker fashion. It does require some degree of analysis that goes beyond the 30-second or 60-second sound bite, but I believe it to be a very important debate and discussion to undertake.

If we are to believe the polls that have been taken for the last decade or more on the issue of immigration, Americans generally believe that, number one, we should, in fact, enforce the law against people coming here illegally. That means enforcing our borders, making sure to the extent possible that people do not come into this country without our permission, people do not come here that we do not know about, and that we make people come into this country through a normalized and legal process.

The United States of America is unique in many ways. One way is that we accept more people into this country every single year legally, through a legal process of immigration and also temporary visitor status, than any country in the world. We are and have been always a beacon of light to the world, a beacon to which many people are attracted.

It is peculiar, to say the least, that even with this policy, this very liberal policy of immigration and legal access into our country through temporary worker status, we still have and allow for millions of people to enter this country illegally. We do not know who they are. We do not know why they are coming. We do not know how long they are staying, and we do not know where they are once they are here.

Now, most Americans will say this is a bad policy to pursue, that it is not good for America, it is not good for our future, and that we should establish the concept of the nation-state and defend that concept with essentially defending our borders.

Beyond that many people suggest, a majority of Americans even suggest we need to reduce legal immigration until such time we can get this problem under control. Every poll says that is what America wants. Now, a dilemma is then created by the fact that this is the will of the people, and it has been for a long, long time. It is not new; it did not just happen after President Reagan said he wanted a guest worker/ amnesty program and that created quite a furor. It has been the case for years that that is what the American people want. They want borders enforced, they want controls on immigration, and yet this body and more peculiarly, even cities and States throughout the Nation, which one would think would be more reflective of local citizen input than even the Congress of the United States, which we know has always been historically way behind the curve in terms of popular sentiment, but one would think that we would see reflected in city councils and State legislatures, one would think we would see far more of a reflection of the position that I have just described that is held by a majority of people in the country.

The most difficult question we have to answer, why is that the case? Why do our elected officials seem to be paying little attention to what most Americans feel? There are a number of answers to that question. They are not necessarily pleasant to discuss, but they are true. That is for the most part we see legislatures and the Congress of the United States and even city councils that are very responsive to pressure and pressure groups and less responsive to the general will of the people if it is not reflected through these pressure group-type of organizations.

For the most part, politicians in the United States have concluded that they can address this issue by essentially finessing it, by agreeing theoretically with people when they are in an atmosphere, an arena in which doing so would be to their political advantage. They can agree there is a problem with immigration and that we should do something about it and we should stop illegal immigration. Everybody will mouth the platitudes connected to that concept.

But they believe also that they can finesse this issue by essentially using the rhetoric to mollify a certain part of their constituency while simultaneously doing things to attract another group; and these are very powerful groups in many ways, certainly very vocal groups which press for open borders, for relaxation of law enforcement, and have a totally different opinion about how this country should actually develop.

For the most part, they are trying to serve two masters here. Most politicians are trying to serve two masters, and they have been successful in doing this in many ways because for the most part people in the United States when asked how do they feel about immigration come down on our side, but are not organized in political pressure groups designed to actually force politicians to acknowledging it. They are simply voters and citizens who go to work every single day and have other things on their minds.

It is also true that the parties themselves, the Democrats and the Republicans, are both inclined to do exactly what I say that individual politicians do, and that is pander on the one side to immigration, pro- immigration groups, and on the other side placate those people who are concerned about it, placate them through rhetoric, but not through action. They are trying to play this dicey game, and sometimes it works.

We have seen throughout the land the development of a very interesting phenomenon whereby foreign countries have used their consular offices in the United States to lobby States and city governments to get them to accept for purposes of identification something called the matricular consular ID card that is given to a person not by the United States of America but by a foreign government. And then that government comes to an American city, county, or State and says please accept the card we give out as proper identification.

Now of course Members have to understand that the only reason that the card is necessary is because we have millions and millions of people who are living here illegally. Those are the only folks to whom such a card would be important. If a person is here in this country legally, of course, they have a document which we have given them, a visa, a passport stamp, something that the United States of America has said this allows you to enter our country. Even if you are not here as a citizen, you are a legal alien resident. That is the term.

So the only people who need the matricular consular are illegally present in the United States, and everybody knows that. The governments that are pushing it, and the cities and States that are accepting these things know that they are only helpful to people who are here illegally, and they are only helpful if a city or State agrees to accept that card, thereby making it very difficult for people who actually enforce immigration law in this country. Making it very easy, on the other hand, to live here if you are here illegally. You will get all of the benefits of anyone who is here legally. You will be afforded a variety of privileges that have heretofore been allowed only to those people who were citizens of the United States or at least here with the permission of our government. That is happening throughout the country. We have seen it. We have seen cities capitulate. We have actually seen cities, it is bizarre as you can imagine, we have seen cities that actually allow people to vote if they are not legal residents of this country.

The Mayor of this city, Washington, D.C., the District, proposed this several months ago for D.C. He said that anybody who is here as a resident should be able to vote regardless of whether or not they are citizens. Again, if we put this up for a vote, a vote of the people, the specific issue to allow people who are here illegally to vote, how many places in America can you imagine that would pass? Maybe in D.C., that is true, but not too many other places in this country would say that is okay; but cities and States are doing it.

In the next few days we will be debating a number of appropriations bills, one which will fund the Department of Homeland Security, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. I will offer a series of amendments to that bill. I will tell Members right now those amendments will fail on the House floor. They have done so in the past. That certainly will not stop me from introducing them again.

But I suggest, every one of the amendments that I propose, if I proposed them to the American people in the form of some initiative process or

some way to let all America vote, I know and certainly all polls tell us they would pass. One, I will propose that no city that has established a sanctuary policy, that is a policy that allows people to come into that city who are here illegally and be protected from the Federal Government's attempts to actually enforce immigration law, where cities that will pass legislation, pass municipal ordinances saying if a person is here illegally, that will not effect the way people are treated by their own police department. In fact, if police pick someone up for violating a law, robbery, rape, murder or going through a red light, if they find that person is here illegally, they will not report that to the Department of Immigration Control and Enforcement.

Those laws are on the books in various cities throughout the country, and even States are undertaking similar types of proposals. Maine has recently declared itself, or is in the process of declaring itself, to be a sanctuary State.

I am going to suggest in the form of an amendment to an appropriations bill that no city or State that adopts these kinds of policies should be able to obtain any of the grants that are available through the bill through the Department of Homeland Security.

I have in fact done that in the past, and I think we got about 110 or 120 votes, I cannot remember now; and it will probably not be much more than that when I introduce that amendment again.

I have another amendment that says any city or State that gives illegal aliens driver's licenses will likewise be restricted from obtaining Federal funds under the act.

It is amazing to think about the fact that we have States that are willing to do this and in fact have done this, provide people who are here illegally with the form of identification as close to a national ID as we have that will allow people to have access to every aspect of American life as a regular citizen would have, and make it therefore much easier for someone to be in this country illegally. That goes for the person who is here, quote, to only do the job that no other American will do, as if there in fact was such a job, and it also goes for the person who is here to kill every single one of us and our children. They can use that passport into American society that we call a driver's license just as well as the person who is only here to do a job no one else will do; and yet these things are happening, and I will go ahead and suggest that, in fact, my amendments will fail.

I am going to do another amendment as soon as the bill for foreign appropriations comes to the floor, and that is just another way of saying foreign aid. When our foreign aid bill comes to the floor, I am going to introduce an amendment saying that the foreign aid to any country will be reduced by the amount of money that is flowing from this country, from the nationals of the foreign country who are working here, anybody who is working here and sending money back to the country of origin, and that is called remittances, that is how we refer to the dollars sent back from people working here for the most part illegally, and taking money out of our communities and not allowing that money to go to work to create jobs and improve the economy of the communities in which the folks here are living, most of them communities in desperate need of economic stimulus; but those dollars are flowing to people in countries outside of the United States.

We had a report not too long ago that that number, the number of dollars that flow just to Latin America, not to the rest of the world, just to Latin America is about $30 billion a year.

There are several countries in the world that have more than 10 percent of their gross domestic product made up from remittances from the United States of America.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if foreign aid is the simple transfer of wealth from one country, in this case America, to another country, that we can do it better through remittances than through writing a check to a corrupt government that will skim off almost all of the dollars before they ever get to anybody who actually may need them. So as a result, I think we should punish those countries for the economic policies they have adopted that have caused the populations in their country to despair and to be subjected to impoverishment. We should not reward the thugs that run these countries. We should stop giving them money and we should say, okay, we know you are getting billions of dollars a year from the United States going straight to people who are certainly in need in your country, so we will not be giving you that money in foreign aid anymore, we will just allow the flow of remittances to make up for that.

Most of the countries in the Western hemisphere that have been lobbying so hard to get the United States to maintain an open door policy toward immigration, in fact, the elimination of borders, it is interesting, many people have asked me why it is in fact that Mexico and Guatemala and El Salvador and a number of these countries have been so adamant about getting us to open our borders to their nationals. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just simply because they want to see the people in their country prosper. It is because they want to see the people in their country become the source of revenue for the folks in their own country. They recognize that they can maintain their power more easily if the masses are being provided the sustenance they need through the remittances that are coming from the United States, then they can rely on the foreign aid that we send them to go into their pockets and to prop up their regime. I think we should reduce that. I think we should stop that. I will propose an amendment to the foreign ops bill to do exactly that.

If we put that amendment to the country, Mr. Speaker, is there anyone in this room, is there anyone on either side of the aisle that really and truly believes that would fail in the eyes of the American people? No, of course not. We all know it would pass overwhelmingly if the American people were allowed to vote on it individually. It will fail here in this body. But I will continue to do that. I will continue to offer amendments of this nature. I will continue to talk about the need to do something about immigration and immigration control because I believe it is perhaps the most important domestic policy issue we face as a nation.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration and that sort of thing does not just revolve around the issue of jobs although it is enormously important to America. It is a fact that we are importing massive numbers of low-skilled, low-wage people who in fact hold down the wage rates of low-skilled, low-wage American workers, making it even more difficult for them to ever work their way out of the cycle of poverty. It is absolutely true that that occurs. No one suggests that massive importation of cheap labor has helped the low-income wage earner in America. Nobody suggests that. Even the most devoted pro-immigration lobby never suggests that it helps the poor in America. It increases the number of the poor. In fact, when we do our surveys every year about people living in poverty, it is amazing, but a huge percentage, somewhere near 90 percent of those people whom we now identify as in poverty in the United States are people who are in fact noncitizens of the United States. It is also true that those people who have dropped out of the job market, who have had a harder and harder time to actually get a better job and crawl their way up out of their particular situation have been negatively affected and that job is made much more difficult by the massive number of people who are here illegally or by immigrants here legally or not. So it is an important issue.

The fact that we export all of our high tech jobs to India and other places while simultaneously importing very high tech, very capable people to take the place of American workers because they will work for less and that in turn holds down the wage rates of middle-income workers in this country, all of those things are true.

We will certainly see and do see as we look around the country the economic effects of open borders. It does benefit multinational corporations, that is true. It does not benefit the people who in fact work for them or the nations in which those multinational corporations exist or call home. Few corporations today can even be thought of as

being American corporations. In fact, I think it was Ralph Nader sent a request to all of the huge corporations in America asking them to begin their board meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. Few even responded but those that did were irate that he would suggest such a thing, suggesting that there is no allegiance to a nation state, that their allegiance is to a corporate bottom line. And if that bottom line can be enhanced by ignoring the needs of the country in which they are housed, that is okay, they are going to do it because that is exactly what they are constructed for.

So it is true that this issue is a jobs issue. It is certainly true that this issue is a national security issue. As I said, there are people who are coming into this country hidden among those who are coming here for relatively benign purposes but there are people coming in to do us great, great harm, undeniably true. We have found some here already. We have arrested them. Some of them we have been able to actually take out of circulation not necessarily because we can immediately bring them to trial on the basis of espionage or some sort of allegation that deals directly with their support of terrorism but because they have violated immigration laws. That is the first thing we go to. They are here illegally. It is nice we have something to use and it is nice that we would actually use it, but the fact is that even these things are not as important in totality as the issue I discussed earlier, and that is the very difficult problem we are going through in America with identifying who we are.

There is a great book that has just come out. It is in fact called ``Who Are We?'' It is by Samuel Huntington. I consider him to be an enormously talented observer of the American political and social scene. He has written other books, one called ``The Clash of Civilizations'' that I have read several times over. I am about halfway through ``Who Are We?'' I find it to be a fascinating read. I believe that that is the ultimate question with which we are dealing, who are we? Where are we going? What is it we are going to try and accomplish as Americans? What does it mean to be an American?

Our students in our classrooms throughout the country are being fed a steady diet of anti-Americanism, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt. This diet includes a revision of history that creates a picture I think totally and completely incorrect and certainly skewed that would show American history and Western civilization itself as being inherently evil, something out of which nothing good could come. A textbook I remember picking up in a junior high I was in in my district, this was a couple of years ago now, started out, the chapter on American history, as Columbus came here and destroyed paradise.

That was not in italics. It was not just a quote they were going to then analyze. That was the way the textbook portrayed Columbus's trip and his landing here on our shores, on the shores of North America. That kind of thing where we have made it very confusing for Americans to even understand or identify who, in fact, or what we are, combined with massive immigration where that same message is given to people who are not necessarily coming here, by the way, to become Americans but to simply achieve a greater economic level of existence and prosperity, which certainly is an admirable and laudable and understandable goal. But it behooves us, I think, to change the way in which we teach our children, the way in which we discuss this issue of multiculturalism, which has gotten to the point where it becomes almost a cult and that anything that is said to suggest that American culture, that American history, and that Western Civilization is, in fact, worthy of analysis, worthy of allegiance, anything that suggests that is determined to be sort of against the grain; and it is certainly not going to be accepted by academia as a legitimate subject matter.

I recently had the opportunity of going to a high school in my district where 250 students were asked to assemble. And we talked for a while, and one of them asked me a question. They sent these questions up. And it was written out, and it said what do I think is the most serious problem facing America today? And I said, Before I answer that question, let me ask you something: How many in this room, 250, approximately, students, how many in this auditorium would agree with the statement that you live in the greatest country in the world? And about maybe two dozen raised their hands, and they did so sheepishly, the ones that did. It was none of that immediately hands go up, sure, of course, naturally, we live in the greatest country in the world. That did not happen.

And they looked along the walls where their teachers were lined up in this auditorium, and I could see in their faces that they were concerned. I am not saying that the ones that did not answer were suggesting that they did not like America, hated America. I am just saying that they did not have the slightest idea, they had absolutely no intellectual ammunition to defend themselves if they were to postulate that, in fact, America is the greatest country in the world. They were not taught anything that would lead them to that. In fact, they were taught things that would make them feel very sheepish and sensitive about making that kind of statement.

That is what I consider to be the real issue with which we are involved and which we should be debating: changing the way in which we look at ourselves, changing the way in which we teach our children about who we are, and certainly changing the way in which we try to bring immigrants into American mainstream, which today does not exist. Today we tell them they should stay separate, keep a separate language, even keep political affiliations with countries other than the United States. This is all done to our great and long-lasting disadvantage. It is a very serious issue, one that, as I say, requires more time and attention and analysis than can be given during a 30-second or even 1- minute ad during a political campaign. But it is the reason why I do come to the floor as often as I do to try to raise the issue.

I could be, of course, 180 percent off course here. I could be totally wrong. But I believe with all my heart that at least this deserves the debate, that this body should afford it, and that this arena would be the perfect place for that to occur.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 2, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on rollcall votes 213, 214, and 215. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 213, ``aye'' on rollcall 214, and ``aye'' on rollcall 215.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the importance of our community parks, and their caretakers. Often parks and cityscapes go overlooked during our busy days. However, keeping open spaces green, clean and well-kept is not an easy task. For this reason, I rise to pay tribute to David Lorenz for being awarded the 2003 Manager of the Year Award by the Special District Association of Colorado.

Mr. Lorenz has been the executive director of the South Suburban Park and Recreation District for the last 17 years. His accomplishments include overseeing the Goodson Recreation Center and the Sheridan Recreation Center. He has worked to preserve 3,000 acres of land for parks and open space, as well as a comprehensive 120 mile trail system used by walkers, joggers, and bicyclists.

David Lorenz has shown devotion to the community by maintaining and designing a variety of outdoor activities for the residents of South Suburban. He also received Honorable Mention in the Special Projects category for the ``Living Well'' initiative which helps to fight obesity in children and adults.

Mr. Lorenz' dedication, and the dedication of other caretakers, to the provision of recreation activities and the upkeep of our parks serve as a great benefit to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to an individual who has worked tirelessly to bring awareness of our U.S. Constitution to both school children and adults alike, Andy McKean. Mr. McKean was awarded the 2004 Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor for his efforts to educate children about our common heritage and founding documents.

Mr. McKean established a large summertime ``Earning by Learning'' program in Denver-area libraries to encourage young children to read more often. While visiting one of those libraries, Mr. McKean was shocked to learn that none of the children knew the true meaning of the Fourth of July.

Mr. McKean decided that the children of America ought to learn about the founding of our nation and system of government before the fifth grade, when most kids are first taught a course in American history. Mr. McKean became president and eloquent spokesman for Liberty Day, the nationwide educational organization.

Mr. Speaker, Andy McKean is a person who possesses dedication, commitment, and passion for his life long pursuit of educating young people and contributing to the betterment of America's youth. It is my distinct pleasure to honor Andy here today, and wish his all the best in him future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to highlight the accomplishments of a special group of students from Hinkley High School in Aurora, Colorado.

After learning about the devastating effects of land mines from African History teacher Chris Sundberg, students in the International Baccalaureate program worked to raise $6,000 for Colorado Adopt-A- Minefield. The Adopt-A-Minefield program is part of the United Nations Association. It works to save lives by raising funds for mine clearance and survivor assistance, and to raise awareness about the landmine problems. This donation was the single largest donation ever received by the Colorado branch of the organization. The money will be used to help clear landmines from a field in Mozambique.

Minefields are often left abandoned or improperly cleared after a regional conflict. These land mines devastate thousands of lives every year by leaving civilians, particularly children, maimed for life. The students of Hinkley High School decided to reach out across the divide of culture and distance to children from another continent and help make our world a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, these students worked tirelessly to both raise money for landmine removal efforts and to increase awareness of the devastating effects of abandoned landmines. Their commitment to helping others in this way should serve as an example to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to relate an incident that I think is very helpful in understanding this situation and also the effectiveness of an amendment of this nature. A little over a year and a half ago, I had the opportunity to observe an exercise on the northern border, our northern border with Canada. It was in a place about 10 miles north of a place called Bonner's Ferry, Idaho.

This exercise was 2 weeks in duration, and it was trying to determine to what extent we could use the military, in this case 100 Marines, for the purpose of trying to defend about 100 miles of border. They were not just 100 Marines. There were three UAVs, three unmanned aerial vehicles they used, and also two radar stations.

While I was there, I observed the UAVs picking up four people coming across on all-terrain vehicles carrying 400 pounds of drugs. A little bit later they caught a plane trying to come in under the radar; but it could not, and we interdicted it.

Let me explain what this meant. The Marines themselves did no interdictions. They had nothing to do with stopping the actual people who were coming across. But they were working in concert with the Forest Service and the Border Patrol. So when they identified the problem, they simply radioed for help from the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol got in a helicopter, came down where they were supposed to, and interdicted the people. That is the way it worked.

At the end of the 2 weeks, I have the distinct feeling, and I guess you have to believe what I observed there, that nothing came across that 100 miles of border without us knowing about it.

At the end of the 2 weeks, as we were leaving, the commandant of that Marine detachment of 100 Marines said to me, this is the best exercise we have ever, ever had. This is the best training we have ever done, because, he said, number one, it is real-time; number two, we are trying to stop real bad guys from coming into our country; and, he said, number three, it is in the most difficult terrain in the world.

If you have been close to Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, it is beautiful; but it is absolutely the most difficult terrain you can imagine. No roads.

So we can do it. The question is whether or not we have the will to do it. That is what a vote on this amendment will establish.

Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy undertaking to answer the call to public service and run for local City Councils. Often the job of City Councilmember is thankless; it is with the highest regard for the services our elected officials do for our communities that I wish to pay tribute to the newly elected Castle Rock, Colorado City Council.

In April, returning Councilmembers Ray Waterman and Jay Richards and new City Councilmembers Ed Rusch (District 4) and Randy Reed (District 2) were sworn in by Judge Louis Gresh. The new council's first order of business was the unanimous election of City Councilmember Ray Waterman as Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, the newly elected council should be dedicated to improving their community. It is not only their devotion, but also their passion for contributing to the betterment of the Colorado community that I wish to recognize before this body. It is my distinct pleasure to honor the new and returning councilmembers here today, and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to applaud the accomplishments of a group of Aurora, Colorado students. The National Science Bowl team from Smoky Hill High School--Nathan Artz, Chris Krueger, Anthony Eskridge, Andrew Scacco, Jessa Forthofer and their coach, Mary Bartholomew--won their regional tournament, and will be here in Washington, DC to compete in the U.S. Department of Energy National Science Bowl Competition.

The National Science Bowl is a 4-day event, in which students attend science seminars and workshops and participate in the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Model Car Challenge. The last two days of the event, teams from across the nation are pitted against each other in a verbal competition covering every branch of science and mathematics from algebra to zoology.

The Smoky Hill team has worked diligently throughout the year to prepare for this competition and have demonstrated their academic domination in their regional successes. It is my pleasure to honor their commitment to scholastic excellence, and to wish them all the best at the competition and in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to add my support to this endeavor and this resolution. Certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the author of the resolution, and the committee itself and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) have been extremely articulate in laying out the points that we should pursue and in encouraging us to bring this resolution and have stated, again articulately, why we should support it. I want to add to those issues that we have laid out some other things that are not specifically identified in the resolution, but I think are important for us to consider.

We must recognize that much of what we know today about Iran and certainly what we know about its nuclear production capabilities, and not just capabilities, but what they have already done, comes to us not as a result of information identified by the international inspection regime. It comes to us as a result of the fact that Iranian dissidents have, at great risk, made this information available to the West.

On more than one occasion, these Iranian dissidents have provided us

with information that we now know to be accurate. It has become invaluable in many ways, and they should be credited for what they have done. It is also important to note that many of these people who have taken refuge in Iraq are under the control and the protection right now of American forces over there. It is also I think important to understand that Iran, the mullahs in Iran are today demanding that these people be returned, forcibly returned to Iran to face certain death. It is inconceivable I think that we would agree to such a situation, especially in light of the information that they have provided and the valuable asset that they in fact are in that part of the world.

We also recognize that much of the difficulty we now face in Iraq is a result of Iran's interference, sending people across that border, inflaming the passions that we now witness in the form of acts of violence against Americans and American troops over there.

So all of these things, as I say, I am glad they have been said, but I just did not want to let this resolution go by without a reference to the people who have worked so hard to bring the information forward and who have struggled for a long time for a free Iran. They are dedicated to that proposition. They are dedicated to a free secular country, a democratic country over there, and I think it would be certainly heartless, it would be a tragedy if we were to abandon them, if we were to actually allow them to be returned to, as I say, certain death in that country.

So I just wanted to add that dimension to this debate. Again, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the committee for bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the news media is quick to provide gratuitous coverage of anti-war protests in Europe and elsewhere. They are quick to provide a forum for critics of U.S. policy in Iraq and even quicker to highlight the problems, misfortunes, and missteps of our coalition forces in Iraq. What they rarely do, however, is to highlight the contributions and valor of our coalition soldiers.

Take, for example, the case of Salvadoran Corporal Samuel Toloza. According to a recent Associated Press story, ``One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and the four soldiers still left standing were surrounded and out of ammunition. So Toloza said a prayer, whipped out his . . . knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen.''

The story goes on, ``In one of the only known instances of hand-to- hand combat in the Iraq conflict, Toloza stabbed several attackers who were swarming around a comrade. The stunned assailants backed away momentarily, just as a relief column came to their rescue.''

According to the reports, Toloza and 16 other members were trapped by members of Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi militia. They initially did not fire their weapons for several hours, for fear of inflicting civilian casualties, despite the fact that insurgents were peppering the group with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Finally, after fighting back, the group, comprised of Salvadoran and American soldiers, ran out of ammunition. Faced with mounting casualties, they placed wounded soldiers on transports and tried to make their way back to the base. Unfortunately, they ran into a contingent of about 10 insurgents on the way. That is when Toloza, out of ammunition, rushed the insurgents with nothing but his knife, buying enough time for reinforcements to arrive.

``We never considered surrender,'' Toloza reportedly said, ``I was trained to fight until the end.''

Phil Kosnett, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority in Najaf, also has nothing but praise for the nearly 400 Salvadoran troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with American troops in Iraq. In fact, he is so impressed with their valor and dedication to duty, he has nominated six of them for the Bronze Star, and for good reason. The AP story goes on to explain that Kosnett himself believes he owes his life to them. Salvadoran troops, the story continues, ``repelled a well- executed insurgent attack on Kosnett's three-car convoy in March.''

Mr. Speaker, let us pay tribute to the sacrifices and heroism of our soldiers, as well as those of our allies, like Corporal Toloza, for their efforts and contributions to protecting freedom and on their efforts in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure and privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Cynthia Mason-Corlett for being awarded the 2003 Milken National Education Award.

Ms. Corlett began her teaching career in 1988, teaching science and math to middle school students. Currently, she teaches eighth grade at Sierra Middle School in Parker, Colorado. She has excelled at energizing students by using hands-on teaching methods. Students investigate everything from air pressure to space travel, and share their knowledge by conducting science demonstrations for second graders from neighborhood elementary schools.

The Milken National Educator Award is today one of the largest teacher recognition programs in the United States; one hundred new educators from across the country will receive their awards for excellence in their profession. Ms. Corlett will join 72 previous winners from the state of Colorado to work on strengthening teacher quality, and serving as expert resources for policy makers.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Cynthia Mason-Corlett is a person who possesses dedication and commitment to her life long pursuit of educating young people. It is not only her devotion, but also her passion for contributing to the betterment of the Colorado community that I wish to recognize before this body. It is my distinct pleasure to honor Cynthia here today, and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of towns in Colorado that are approaching 500,000. I believe a town in my district, Aurora, Colorado, would be in that area somewhere. Just the last 6 months this Nation has added at least one more, Aurora, Colorado, and not by the fact that a group of American citizens or anybody presently living in the country had a number of children that all of a sudden would create a whole new city. We got this because we have porous borders and because, from October 1 last year to the end of March, approximately half a million people came through just one sector of our southern border, just one sector, the Tucson sector. We can be sure that it was at least that many because we know from experience, by how many we catch coming into this country, that there are at least two to three that get by us.

So from the first of October to the end of March to the first of April, about a quarter of a million people were interdicted in that southern border in one sector, just the Tucson sector.

This is astronomical. The numbers are unbelievable. They are up like 50 percent. For every single person that we stop at the border, remember, two or three get by us, get by the Border Patrol. So that is why we know that in that 6-month period of time, a half million people came into this country illegally; and they did so in just one sector. We are not talking about the entire border of the United States of America, north and south.

What does this mean? And, by the way, why do my colleagues think they are doing that, Mr. Speaker? Why, I wonder, are we having so many people right now coming into this country illegally? Every year we have literally hundreds of thousands of people who sneak into the country. We take in a million and a half people approximately every year legally. We are one of the most generous nations in the world.

It is certainly the most liberal policy when it comes to immigration. But beyond that, beyond the people that we bring into this country every year legally, another 1 million or so come in through the back door, another 1 million or so we do not know who they are, we do not know where they are, we do not know what they are doing here. We trust most of them are ``doing these jobs,'' I hear this constantly, ``that no one else wants.'' They are only coming to do jobs that no other American will do.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, with between 10 and 18 million Americans out of work today, I will bet you anything that there are millions of Americans who are willing to do the jobs, but they have been underbid, if you will, by people who have come here illegally. Their jobs have been taken by people who have said, I will do it for less.

Then the next wave of immigration comes, and they do the same thing. They take jobs from the people who just came in. So that over the last 10 years, our wage rates in this country have stayed flat; and wage rates, especially for low income people, have stayed very, very flat, because it is a depressing effect on wage rates when you have millions of people coming into the country illegally, especially people who are low-skilled and therefore low-wage people.

But half a million through just one sector over the last 6 months. And why? I will tell you why, because the President of the United States made a speech, and in this speech he said that he wants a program of amnesty. And there is no other way to put it.

He connected it with his plan for a guest worker program; but, in fact, because he allows people to stay in this country even if they are here illegally, it is an amnesty plan.

Every time I go to the border, and I go down to the border quite often, Mr. Speaker, and up to our northern border, and every time I do I talk to someone who is Border Patrol, and they will say to you every single time, they will say, whatever you do, do not even use the word ``amnesty'' when you start talking up there in the Congress, because every time you do that, then the flood that I am trying to stop down here turns into a tidal wave.

That is exactly what happened. The numbers went up dramatically right after the President gave his speech, and they continue to go up. On the border, our Border Patrol people are even asking the people they interdict, why

are you coming? They will tell them, to get the amnesty they think they are going to get. So now literally millions of people have come into this country illegally already to obtain this goal of amnesty, which we should never give to anyone.

No one ever should get rewarded for breaking the law, and that is exactly what any amnesty plan is. And no one, no one as an employer, should be exempt from the law, simply because they hire a lot of people who are here illegally. In fact, they should be fined; they should face the full force of the law of the land here, because it is against the law, as you know, Mr. Speaker. It is against the law to hire people who are here illegally, although we do it. We do it quite consistently, and we do it by the millions, and we ignore it. It is because we have learned with immigration policy. We have learned that the law is like a Chinese menu in a Chinese restaurant. We will accept this, we will take that, we will not take this or will not take that. So we do not enforce the law against people who are hiring people who are here illegally, and we should.

There are consequences to massive immigration, consequences that nobody wants to talk about, I know. Many people are concerned about this discussion.

I am a Republican, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize that I many times rile my colleagues and even certainly the White House, because I do talk about this issue as often as I can. And I talk about it because I believe it is one of the most important public policy issues we can deal with here.

It is something to live in Washington, D.C., or in Chicago, or in Billings, Montana, or Omaha, Nebraska. You will see the effects of illegal immigration, certainly. But you do not see them like you see them on the border, where in your backyard every night people are coming across by the thousands, and it is happening on our southern border especially. There are consequences to that.

I want to read a letter I got from a constituent, not of mine, a lady that lives in Arizona. I will condense it. She says: ``This is my story.''

This puts a face on this issue of illegal immigration, because it is not just numbers. When I come here and talk about the fact that a quarter of a million people were interdicted in just one sector in 6 months' time coming in here, that is just a number to most of us. But to this lady and to the thousands of people who live on that border, it is far more than just numbers. It is a way of life that is being destroyed down there. And, believe me, what is happening on the border is going to be happening farther and farther north as time goes on.

She says, ``I live in a world,'' she called this ``My Story.'' She says, ``I live in a world where I do not count. I am not a minority. I am poor, I do not have coalitions rallying for what I feel is important. I do not have news reporters writing about poor me. But I have views, I vote, I pay taxes, and I know there are millions of people in America just like me.

``I live next to a shelter built by politicians who are afraid to have an opinion about closing the border. Daily, 1,500 illegal aliens visit that shelter. It was supposed to keep those poor people from urinating and defecating on the streets. It did not. Now, if I were to defecate on the streets,'' she said, ``I would be fined.

``My home and vehicles have been broken into 22 times in 5 years. I stopped calling the police each time they do now, because they do not come anyway. Instead, we bought a gun. We scared off the last illegal alien trying to steal our truck. He knew enough English to say `sorry' as we pointed the gun at him. Three months later, we still have a towel over the smashed driver's side window.

``Not too long ago a car ran into the rear end of my car. The policeman came and said I would have to wait while he called for a back-up. My baby was screaming. The police had no film in the camera. The backup policeman had no fingerprinting ink or film. The illegal alien who hit me had an ID, but the police said there was nothing that could be done. The illegal would just get another fake ID and would never show up for court. He did not have insurance.

``The illegal alien who hit me said `sorry,' as he walked away. He was free to go. I was free to pay the deductible on my car and the chiropractor bills for my children and myself. If I drove without insurance and hurt someone or their possessions, I would be forced to pay for the damages.

``My husband works 6 days a week as a framing contractor. He pays FICA, Social Security, State taxes, Federal taxes, general liability insurance, workman's comp insurance, and probably others I do not even know about. His workman's comp just skyrocketed from $5,000 to $28,000 a year. Now, I ask you, where am I going to come up with the extra $23,000? We had no claims. Should I take it from my food budget? My home insurance costs me $100 more annually because I live in a border State.'' She says, ``How long before Kansas becomes a border State?

``I have no medical insurance and have had no medical insurance for years. I cannot afford it. At 33, I got cancer. My doctor told me to go to the hospital, ACCHS. I do not remember how to spell the State's medical system, since they declined me anyway. My husband's company had no profits for 6 months due to theft. Without studying my receipts, I was declined. Interestingly, hundreds of illegal aliens standing in line were being given food stamps and medical care. They did not have Social Security numbers; they did not speak English.

``My son cries nightly because his arms and legs hurt. He has cried for almost 7 years. They do not know what is wrong with him.''

They do not have insurance, and therefore are hesitant to just take him to the doctor, because they cannot afford to pay. But she goes on to say that when she has gone eventually to the emergency room, they cannot even take them, because there are so many people there ahead of them who are here in this country illegally.

``Two years ago,'' she says, ``I announced to my family there would be no turkey for Thanksgiving. We would eat pasta and be thankful we are a family. My Catholic friend made arrangements for me to get a box of food from her church. I went reluctantly. I drove up in my broken old van. I saw a lot of new stickers on new Suburbans. My van was the worst vehicle there, and it hit me that I really was poor.

``I stood in line for 20 minutes, amazed by the number of illegal aliens who could not show an ID when they were asked. When it was my turn to show an ID, I was told to leave. There was not enough food for me to take a box. I looked around, there were boxes of food everywhere. For a minute, I forgot: I did not count.

``Our church, our pastor, reminds us to stay hopeful. I struggle to make sense out of a system that has taken from me and given to those who have more than I do. Who will be my voice? Where is my coalition? I thought it was the leaders of America. I was wrong. They have sold me out, and millions like me. What is worse, I do not know why.'' Rhonda Rose is her name.

We get literally hundreds in my office, hundreds of e-mails. When I come on the floor here, as I try to do often, to speak on this issue, we go back and the e-mails start. And I want to hear from these people, because, you know, they all tell stories like this, and they ask us to continue to work and try to do something about this illegal immigration problem. I feel like I am overwhelmed by their cries for help.

I know that there are other colleagues who care about this issue, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see it translating in any sort of way into help for these people. We are fearful of doing anything that would actually secure those borders. We are fearful of doing anything that would actually enforce the law in this country.

Why are we fearful? What are we afraid of in this Congress? Why will we ignore the laws on the books? Why will we tell people like her that we will abandon them? Because, Mr. Speaker, as you and I both know, on that side of the aisle they will do nothing about immigration, legal or illegal. They want to encourage it, because they know it turns into votes for them. On our side of the aisle, we do nothing to stop it because we believe that it is cheap labor. And those two powerful interests have stopped us from doing anything significant about this issue.

It is the fear of the political ramification. What would happen? You

know, we have been on this floor for days talking about jobs, about how we cannot possibly go on outsourcing jobs, how many jobs Americans have lost in every industry and what each candidate for President is going to do about it, and candidates for the House of Representatives, what they are going to do.

We discuss how we are going to change this. Should we put on tariffs? Should we try somehow to be protectionist and stop allowing imports? Should we actually pass laws saying corporations cannot offshore, as if we could actually stop it, considering the Internet and the movement of jobs-to-jobs to workers all over the world in an instant?

But we say those things. We are thinking. We are pulling our hair out trying to think about how to create more jobs in this country, how to stop the offshoring of jobs, because we know it is going to be a political issue. But we cannot seem to come up with a real plan, because no one will want to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, where do you think those 500,000 people are today that came in in the last 6 months through the Tucson sector? Do you think they all just simply went on welfare? Many of them, of course, most of them, are working somewhere in this Nation. And where did they get this job? Was it a job no American wanted? Was it a job that happened to be posted in a newspaper, or was it a job that somebody else had that they have now displaced?

I am told every day that there are not enough jobs available for Americans who want to work, and we are trying to think of ways to create jobs. Yet, we refuse to secure the border; we refuse to do anything about the people who are already working here illegally.

We can create 10 million jobs tomorrow if we just enforce our own laws against illegal immigration. We would not have to do anything. We would not even have to get involved with the World Court because we introduced a concept, an idea, that could be seen as being protectionist.

This would only be enforcing the laws that America actually has on the books, and we will not do that. We do not have the political will.

How are we going to answer these people, or the hundreds of others that call our office, and, I know, other offices of other Members? Not too long, after the President's speech, we had almost 1,000 calls into our office in 2 days. I came on this floor and I talked to other people; and they told me the same thing, that there in fact had been hundreds of thousands of calls coming in to all the offices for all the Members.

So I know people did respond. And we know what that means, Mr. Speaker, because so many people called their Congressmen and Congresswomen in their districts: that plan that the President proposed is dead on arrival. It is not going to pass, my colleagues and I all know it. I am glad that it is not going to pass, and he is a President of my party, and I respect him and admire him and I will support him in many ways, but he is as wrong as he can be on this issue, Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker, and Mr. President, if you are listening.

I see a colleague of mine has joined me. I am going to make an assumption that he has joined me because he wants to join in this debate. I say that because I know him and I know his heart, and I know where he is on this issue.

We are now going to confuse a lot of people, because we are told often that we look very similar, and we are confused often as we go around the House here. I am sorry for him if that is the case, if he does look like me. He is much more handsome than I. But my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), has joined me; and I will be glad to yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the United States, now that is an interesting phrase; and it is an important one. Because it is important to understand that massive immigration into

the country, both legal and illegal, that phenomenon has, in fact, huge, huge implications for America, for who we are, where we are going, and what we are going to be. And this is an even more dangerous situation than what we were talking about earlier in terms of just the numbers and how they affect us.

Mr. Speaker, there is an assault. People ask me all the time, I am sure they ask the gentleman from Iowa also, they ask, why is this different now? Why are you arguing this issue? What makes immigration today different than when your grandparents, and it was my grandparents, by the way, who came? My folks did not come over on the Mayflower. I am a relatively new American. What is the difference? Why was it okay then and not okay now?

I said, well, there are two main reasons, as far as I am concerned, two things. First of all, it is a different country. We are a different country than the country to which my grandparents came in many ways. One, of course, is that when my grandparents came, and I will bet the gentleman from Iowa's too, there were either of two choices for them: they either worked or they starved. That was it. There was nothing else. There was no such thing as a welfare plan. And there was also no such thing as a radical multiculturalism that permeated our society.

Now, what do I mean by that? I am talking about a philosophy, an idea that has seeped into the absolute soul of our society, and it is what we teach our children in schools, that there is nothing of value in America.

Example: Los Angeles, I heard this on radio just the other day. A Los Angeles school, Roosevelt High School, where an eleventh grade teacher told a nationally syndicated radio program that she ``hates the textbooks she has been told to use and the state-mandated history curriculum'' because they ``ignore students of Mexican ancestry,'' because the students do not see themselves in the curriculum. The teacher has chosen to modify the curriculum by replacing it with activities like mural walks that are intended to open the eyes of the students to their indigenous culture.

Another person who actually created one of these murals was on the radio talking to the students; and he said to them, this is not your country. You should have absolutely no allegiance to this country. Your education has been a big lie, he told them, one big lie after another. And we know that this is one tiny example of something that happens in schools all over this Nation, where children are told that they, in fact, should not attach themselves to what we called the American dream when my grandparents came here; that they should stay separate; that they should keep their separate language and cultural and even political affiliation with the country from which they came. This is what we tell them today. That is why it is a different country. And it may be also that we have a different type of immigration policy.

I met recently with the bishop of Denver, Bishop Gomez; and he said something I will never forget. This was at a breakfast and we were discussing this issue, and he said to me, Congressman, I do not know why you are so worried about immigration from Mexico. And by the way, it is not just Mexico; he happened to be talking about Mexico. He said, I do not know why you are so worried about immigration from Mexico. He said, The Mexicans that are coming here do not want to be Americans. Those were his exact words.

I said, well, Bishop, to the extent that that is true, if what you said is true, then that is the problem. That is what I am worried about. It is not them coming here; it is them coming here not wanting to be Americans on one side and us on the other side telling them we do not want you to either, we want you to stay separate, Balkanized and divided. This is a serious problem for America. I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me give some more examples of exactly what the gentleman is saying here and the problems we face. A school district in New Mexico, the introduction of a textbook called ``500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures,'' and it was written, now listen to this, it states that it was written in response to the bicentennial celebration of the 1776 American Revolution and its lies. That is why this textbook was produced, because of the lies of the bicentennial. Its stated purpose is to celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders. The book describes defenders of the Alamo as slave owners, land speculators and Indian killers, Davy Crockett as a cannibal, and the 1847 war on Mexico is an unprovoked U.S. invasion.

The chapter headings include Death to the Invader, U.S. Conquest and Betrayal, We are Now a U.S. Colony in Occupied America, and They Stole the Land. This is a textbook, mind you, that was introduced into classrooms in New Mexico.

This, by the way, this is a quote by a gentleman who is the president of La Raza. La Raza is probably one of the most significant of the Hispanic organizations and it means the people, La Raza. Many would suggest that the positions that they take are antithetical to true democratic principles and that they are part of the problem of dividing people up into these victimized groups. Here is what the president of La Raza said. By the way, this is traditionally supported mass immigration, but today sees a more pressing issue for Hispanics. This is his quote: ``I think the biggest problem we have is a culture clash, a clash between our values and the values in American society.'' That is what he told the Fort Worth Star.

This is a clash of values, he said, that they are not our values. Well, of course, I believe to a large extent they are common values. But if we do not teach children in our public school system to believe and understand who they are and what their heritage really is, the value of a Western Civilization that they can share, if we do not do that and we are not doing it, we are afraid of doing it, then how can we ever expect them to in fact support and defend that concept?

I went into a school in my district not too long ago, brand-new school, built in Douglas County, Colorado, which is one of the fastest growing and also one of the counties with the highest per capita income in the country. Needless to say, I do not live in that particular county, but it is a county of fairly wealthy people.

These kids were great kids and bright, and they had all the advantages of having a school in that area and all the accoutrements of a beautiful school. They came in and talked. We were in an auditorium. There were about 200 kids. They were good kids. I do not mean for a moment to suggest that they were not. But they got to the end, and one of them sent a note up to the thing and said, ``What do you think is the most significant problem facing the country?''

I said, ``Well, I am going to ask you a question and maybe it can help me make that decision.'' I said, ``How many people in this auditorium right now will agree with the following statement: You live and we live in the greatest country on earth?''

Two hundred people, 200 kids, brightest, best educated, healthiest, the product of Western civilization that has created that we have today, and maybe 2 dozen raised their hands out of 200.

I stood there in shock in a way. I have been a teacher. When I looked out at those kids, I saw on a lot of faces something I had seen it before, a lot of kids wanted to say yes to the issue. They did not hate America. They wanted to say yes. But I have seen that look where they said, if I put my hand up, he might actually call on me. So they did not.

They were afraid to put their hand up to say yes to that question because they were intellectually disarmed. They could not possibly have made the case. They were afraid if they said yes, yes, I believe I live in the best country in the world, what if I would have said, ``Okay. Prove it. Why?'' And that is what they were fearful of. Because they had not been taught why they should.

As a teacher, kids come into schools, some have an innate knowledge and love of music. Very few. Some have just an innate knowledge and love of great art or great literature. Very few. Our task as teachers is to teach them why they should appreciate it.

It is exactly the same thing with our society. They do not come in with an innate knowledge and appreciation of Western civilization. They need to be taught. If we do not do so, then it is to our peril.

The children around the room, I could tell, they even looked at the teachers who were standing along the aisles leading down to the stage, and there was some degree of hesitancy that made them very uncomfortable to be placed in this position of having to try to defend this concept.

I suggest that this is because we have become so captivated by the cult of multiculturalism that we are afraid to say the obvious, that we are in the greatest Nation, we do live in the greatest Nation of the world. If we do not tell our children that and if we tell immigrants that that is not the truth and they should never connect us to that kind of a country, will we have a country at all? What will it look like? I do not mean by color, I just mean by division. Is it Balkanized America or is it united America?

Mr. Speaker, we will be wrapping this up. I want to thank my colleague very much for joining me for this special order.

About 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago now, I introduced a resolution; and it is a very, very simple resolution. It is a Sense of Congress that all children graduating from any school in this country should be able to articulate an appreciation for Western civilization, and I was astounded by the reaction I got.

I mean, first of all, the NEA, the National Education Association, of course, they came unglued. How dare I suggest such a thing? How dare I?

We get e-mails from people who have seen it, and it is the same thing. In fact, an article that was in a newspaper, a Houston Chronicle article written by two individuals co-authored it, they were vilifying me and also an author by the name of Samuel Huntington for writing a book in which he brings this issue out.

They said, ``What is so good about assimilation any way?'' That was their way of addressing it. ``Why should we assimilate into your society?''

These are supposedly Americans. These are people writing in a newspaper that they were regular columnists and they were suggesting that there was some separation there between their America and mine.

Well, I suggest and I would really and truly like for people to go to the Web site. I always get a lot of calls when I do this, people asking how can we get more information about this. I tell them all the time, Mr. Speaker, they should go to the web site www.house.gov/Tancredo. On there you will see a page to go to called ``Our Heritage, Our Hope.''

There is a resolution that we have in front of this Congress. I have another resolution that we have given to State legislators; and I believe in Iowa, if I am not mistaken, we were able to get a State legislator there to introduce it into Iowa. Same exact resolution, that is all we are asking for, is to have children be able to articulate an appreciation for Western civilization.

That does not mean they should demean any other. It does not mean they cannot be critical of our own. It just means they have to have the ability to understand where we came from, who we are, and where we are going.

It does not matter if you come here from Azerbaijan or Albania. It does not matter. It does not matter because, once you get here, there has got to be a canon, a set of standards or ideas that we all will buy into no matter whether we came from and no matter all the other cultural distinctions we have; and we can all appreciate the fact that there are these differences, but something has to hold us together.

It is a set of ideas, because this Nation is the only nation on earth that

was actually started on ideas. It is the only thing. We have enormous pride in that, and we should be able to take pride in it. We should be able to take pride in the fact that there are these tenets of the Western civilization like the rule of law and the value of the individual and the freedom of religion. These things are Western. We should be proud of it, no matter where one comes from, because they are coming to take advantage of it and should be willing to say, look, even in my culture we did not have that, and that is why I am coming here. I want to be part of it.

We need to have things that hold us together. We have to stop doing things that keep tearing us apart and keep telling our own and we have to begin teaching it in schools and we have to tell immigrants that that is exactly what is expected of them.

We have to secure our borders. Because no State can call itself a State if it does not control its own borders. The kind of thing we hear all the time, I know my colleague hears it and I do, racist, racist, racist. That is the word they want to throw at you and other epithets. But, in fact, of course, this has nothing to do with race. Nothing. And a significant number of the e-mails and letters I get are from Hispanic Americans who say, ``Right on. You are absolutely right.''

I say, God bless those people and God bless them for being here and God bless them that they are Americans, Americans first, before anything else. Some of them in my State have been here for generations, far longer in the United States of America and in Colorado than me or my family; and they see exactly the problem that exists.

So it has got nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has nothing to do with country of origin. It has everything to do with this country and whether or not we will still be a country.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 2, 2004, at 9 a.m.