Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from New York and his committee for their efforts on the fence bill.

As stated previously, I agree that the fence is not the total solution. In fact, I would like to see more than 700 miles of fence along our southern border, but 700 miles of fence is a start. I would also like to see a firm no-amnesty policy ever for those illegally in the country. That is not part of this bill. But this bill is a substantial and correct step in the right direction.

The invasion into this country is from south of the border primarily. That is why we need the fence along the southern border first, and we will study the situation along the northern border.

Cost: $7 billion is a small fraction of the cost that illegal immigration imposes upon the taxpayers of the United States and the taxpayers of the various States of this country. It costs in excess of $70 billion per year.

Let's take this very firm, very positive step and I urge everyone to support the King legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to restate some of the comments that we heard earlier today from the new Prime Minister of Iraq and make some of the points he said about how Iraq of today is different than what the Iraq of a few years ago was.

He said, ``We have gone from a small one-party state ruled by a dictator and a small elite to a multi-party system where politics is the domain of every citizen and parties compete at all levels. What used to be a state-controlled media is now completely free and uncensored; something Iraq had never witnessed since its establishment as a modern state, and something which remains alien to most of the region. What used to be a command economy in Iraq we are rapidly transforming into a free market economy. In the past 3 years, our gross domestic product per capita has more than doubled, and it is expected that our economy will continue to grow.''

He went on to say, ``While small sections of central Iraq are unstable, large sections have remained peaceful but ignored for far too long. They were the most deprived areas of Iraq under the previous regime and have been the most valiant in Iraq's struggle for freedom. We need to make an example out of these stable areas as models for the rest of the country.

``Reconstruction projects in these areas will tackle unemployment, which will weaken the terrorists. They will become prototypes for other, more volatile regions to aspire to. Undoubtedly, reconstruction in these areas will fuel economic growth and show what a prosperous, stable, democratic, and federal Iraq would look like.''

Today, Saddam Hussein is in prison awaiting the end of his trial. Zarqawi, the leader of the al Qaeda in Iraq, was eliminated by United States troops. Iraqi security forces now number over 265,000 and are participating in more than 90 percent of all security operations in the country. Iraqi citizens are coming forth with tips about insurgents and terrorist activities. More than 70 percent of Iraqi citizens voted in a series of free and fair elections. Those figures are some that those of us in this country could be envious of.

The progress in Iraq has not been without cost. This past week, a citizen of the Fifth District of Virginia from Greene County, a little community of Ruckersville, was killed by an IED. He was Corporal Adam Fargo. He went to William Monroe High School. He volunteered for service in the United States Army. He, like so many of us who have volunteered on behalf of our country, has made the positive statistics and the statements and the changes in Iraq possible. But it is not just for the country of Iraq, it is for the United States of America.

We have indeed been fortunate in this country. Over the last 200 some odd years since our Nation was founded, rarely have there been attacks upon our homeland. Most of the fighting in World War II was abroad. All of the fighting in World War I was abroad. In Korea, the fighting was abroad. In Vietnam, the fighting was in Asia. And now, when we are in the Middle East, back in the Gulf War of 1990, 1991, the fighting was there. We liberated Kuwait. And now today, following September 11 when we were hit on our own soil, in Afghanistan men and women in our Armed Forces are standing up for America, and some have given their lives, have given their all for our Nation.

Our Nation is a beacon on a hill. It is the land of the free and the home of the brave because of those persons like Adam Fargo who have stood by our country and made those of us who are in the United States of America far safer and given us the ability to enjoy democracy and the greatest freedom in the world.

We need to thank all of our troops, and particularly those for whom we can never express enough gratitude for they have given their lives so that all of us may be free and that our democracy can be a shining light for the rest of the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5061, the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act. I want to thank the Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, for introducing this legislation, which grants the title to these two hatcheries to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since 1983, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has successfully operated these two hatcheries on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thanks to the hard work and substantial investment by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the 13 full-time employees working at the fish hatcheries, these hatcheries consistently produce large stocks of brook, brown and rainbow trout for recreational fishing every year. In fact, the Paint Bank and Wytheville Hatcheries can produce up to 861,632 trout each year, which accounts for over 40 percent of the trout stocked for public fishing in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth has also pledged to invest an additional $4.5 million to continue renovation of these hatcheries in an effort to further enhance the hatcheries capabilities and efficiency.

There are over 2,300 miles of trout streams in Virginia and the Paint Bank and Wytheville Fish Hatcheries are vital to ensuring that these streams are well stocked with large and healthy fish populations. For this reason, I am glad to support H.R. 5061, which will allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to continue to maintain the trout population for recreational fishing for people who live in and visit Virginia. I appreciate the work of Mr. Boucher in crafting this legislation and I urge its passage today.

Thank you, Mr. King. I want to thank you for having this hour to address this most important topic. I also want to thank Congressman Tancredo for his tireless efforts over about an 8-year period.

I was thinking the other day when the Immigration Reform Caucus first started that there was a handful of Members, and I believe it was around 1998 or 1999 when it first began. And now I think there are over 100 Members in that caucus. Well over a third of the House is in the Immigration Reform Caucus. And the issue received very little attention prior to September 11. After that the issue received greater attention.

I will have to say that I remember the days in the late 1990s when Mr. Tancredo would come over here, and others who would talk on this issue, and it was almost as if he had leprosy. They did not want to talk about the issue. But the issue is probably the burning issue in the country today. If not, it is certainly in the top three.

And I want to thank Mr. King, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Miller, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Wilson, and a number of other persons that are here tonight focusing on this issue which is so crucial to the future of the United States of America.

If the massive invasion is not stopped, we are going to be flooded to the extent that we will drift into third world status. For our children and for our grandchildren, we cannot fail on this issue.

You mentioned magnets, and that is the reason so many come.

Let us talk for a minute about amnesty. In my district there are some persons, I am pretty sure, here illegally, in the United States, and it is common sense, street talk about why they come. They say if we can get across the border, swim the Rio Grande, or walk across the mountains, avoid the dangers and the pitfalls of the gyrating temperatures, if we can get to this country and we just stay here a few years, history tells us we will get an amnesty and we will be okay. We can avoid the checks that all the others go through. We can avoid the background checks. We can avoid the health checks. We can avoid the security reviews that going through a regular visa process or becoming an H-1B or an H-2B or an H-2A worker involves.

Amnesty is the magnet. Other magnets that you mentioned are anchor babies who get benefits in this country and employer deductions for employees, even if they are here illegally, which Mr. King is addressing. There are a number of other magnets, but probably the biggest magnet is the notion, if I can get there just for a little while and stay a couple of years, I will be safe; I will never have to go back.

There will be some in that body across the hall or in the executive branch down at Pennsylvania Avenue saying there is nothing we can do; they are here now, we cannot be firm. But I would submit to you, as some of you on this issue have stated in the past, if we were to draw a line in the sand and say the Senate bill that includes amnesty would never become law, we will never have it in this country, we are putting a line in the sand tonight in saying no amnesty under any conditions, those that marched in by the tens of thousands would likely march out by the tens of thousands because they would know then that their hope for an amnesty like that which occurred in 1986 and like that which occurred under President Clinton would not happen again.

Failure to address this issue with firmness and forcefulness is creating a dangerous situation in this country. We have all talked about how those who would do us harm can infiltrate and become part of the flood that rolls into America day after day, hour after hour, and week after week. We must secure our borders.

We only have to look at the prison population in the United States. I serve on the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee of Appropriations. The head of the Department of the Federal Bureau of Prisons testified before our subcommittee just a couple of months ago, there are 189,000 persons incarcerated in the Federal penal system. Of that 189,000, 50,000 of them, according to him, are illegal aliens. Think how much we could reduce the Federal prison costs if we had no illegal aliens in this country. Think how much you could reduce local jail costs and State prison costs. That percentage of incarcerated illegal aliens far exceeds the percentage of illegal aliens in our current population.

I would like to close by mentioning deficit reduction. I hear many persons across the 5th District of Virginia, around the Commonwealth and in other parts of our country say, we need to get the deficit under control, we need to be in a position in this country of not having a deficit. When you add up the impact of illegal immigration on our local governments, our State governments and our own Federal Government, you are talking around $70 billion per year, and that is probably a low estimate.

Stop illegal immigration by saying ``no'' to amnesty ever, and by adopting a number of the measures that the fighters for border security support, and we will go a long way towards ending the deficit in this country.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to tell the House and the United States that leading edge research into the development of alternative fuels is happening as we speak in the Fifth District of Virginia at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Virginia. The institute is a mission of Virginia's land grant institution, Virginia Tech. The institute anchors the technology economy of southside Virginia, and one of its research initiatives focus on sustainable and renewable resources.

In particular, the scientists working in this field are directing their efforts toward generating alternative energy from renewable resources such as switchgrass and hybrid poplars. The scientists believe that these renewable resources can be used in biofuels, biodiesels and bioenergy. The research being conducted at the institute is not just laboratory work, it is applied research. In that light, the institute has formed a partnership with Wendy Acres Nursery in Gretna, Virginia, also in the Fifth District. At Wendy Acres, they are growing species of switchgrass and hybrid poplar which have a low ash content when processed. This characteristic makes these plants better suited for bioenergy and biofuels. These species are being bred and investigated for use in short-rotation woody plant species and herbaceous perennials as feedstocks by the Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources to determine the most efficient production of bioenergy and biofuels.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a container of wood chips. I also have a container of switchgrass. What the scientists have come up with is this biofuel. This is just steps away from being able to be utilized in vehicles all across this Nation. I look forward to the day when we have no dependence on Venezuela and Mr. Chavez for our oil needs. I look forward to the day when we have no dependence on the Middle East and sheiks there for our oil needs. I look forward to the day when we are free of foreign fossil fuel. And I hope all across America we can do as they are doing in Danville and other places, making our own fuel and giving us energy independence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a brief colloquy with the chairman regarding funding for several recreation areas at two Virginia lakes managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I commend the chairman and his staff for their hard work on this bill. Considering the budget constraints, they have crafted excellent legislation.

In response to what the Corps of Engineers has identified as low funding for Operations and Maintenance, the corps has announced plans to evaluate seven recreation sites for possible closure in 2007 at John H. Kerr Lake and Philpott Lake in Virginia. These recreation sites are of great importance to citizens in these areas, and their closure would net only a savings of $97,000. There must be other ways for the corps to reform its procedures in order to reduce spending while keeping these recreation sites open to the public as camp grounds and picnic areas.

I hope that we can continue to work together to identify ways in which funding can be provided for these recreation areas either through additional funds that may become available in conference or through more appropriate reforms by the Corps of Engineers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

This is an amendment that we have addressed in the past. This amendment would authorize but not mandate the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Secretary of the Department of Defense, to utilize troops, if necessary, to protect our borders in peace time in a nonemergency situation.

The gentleman from Texas, who had a long and distinguished career with the Border Patrol, indicates that we don't need troops on the border now. I would certainly say that the massive invasion from Mexico into this country on a daily basis that reaches thousands upon thousands in numbers day after day and month after month and year after year, we need something. And just having this authority, in my opinion, would enhance our border security so that it could be utilized in peace time in a nonemergency situation to supplement the Border Patrol and other efforts to secure our borders.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In response to what the gentleman from Texas was saying, we are talking about the authorization for troops to be on the border in nonemergency situations. If you allow troops on the border in nonemergency situations, you will see lawsuits, litigations and potential for liability for anything that happens along the border involving those troops.

We need to secure America and authorize troops in peace time in nonemergency situations along the border.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.

There can be no question that in this country, at this time, we have a huge problem along the southern border. As the Congressman from Arizona indicated, we are being massively invaded every day by hundreds and thousands of persons. Drug smugglers are among this number. Persons from terrorist countries are among this number. We need to use every tool we possibly can to address this situation. We need to authorize troops on the border in peace time, and we need some rough and tough people down there to get this situation straight because it is certainly not straight today.

Stand up for preserving the integrity of the United States of America and vote ``yes'' for troops on the border.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robert G. Canar has distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious achievements in public service to this Nation by serving the United States Army for over 42 years. Mr. Canar began his public service career in the U.S. Army as an air defense artillery officer and as a military intelligence officer. During his 22 years on active duty, he served in various assignments in Vietnam, Korea, Europe and in the United States.

Mr. Canar joined the former Foreign Science and Technology Center in 1983 when he was assigned as a division chief supervising collection requirements, imagery, and electronics intelligence branches. Because of his demonstrated abilities, he has been given positions of greater responsibility as the director, information management, and later as the director, programs and resources, which led to major initiatives to renovate Foreign Science and Technology Center's facilities to accommodate growth of the workforce and to secure facilities to meet Sensitive Compartmented Information standards.

Mr. Canar served as the National Ground Intelligence Center's chief of staff from 1994 to 2003, and as the center's acting executive director from 2003 to 2004. In response to the Global War on Terrorism, the center underwent a massive growth with the influx of new responsibilities to support the soldier.

In 2004 Mr. Canar volunteered to serve for a year as the senior intelligence officer with the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, Baghdad, Iraq. In this capacity he supervised an International Police Liaison Officer Team and a Multi-National Command-Iraq military team which organized and trained the Iraq Ministry of Interior Criminal Intelligence Service Directorate.

He ended his civil service career as the special assistant to the commander, National Ground Intelligence Center responsible for the establishment of a Joint Use Intelligence Analysis Facility in Charlottesville, VA.

Throughout his service, Mr. Canar has provided outstanding leadership, sound advice and expert professional judgment on significant issues that affected the Army. His actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders as they considered the issues facing the Nation today. Mr. Canar's dedication to accomplishing the Army's missions has been extraordinary. He has been a truly outstanding public servant and will be missed by the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to share material prepared by former Ambassador William B. Jones to the nation of Haiti. He is currently the Johns Professor of Political Science at Hampden-Sydney College, which is located in the Fifth District of Virginia.

It is the opinion of Ambassador Jones and of myself that citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States should not be counted to determine congressional representation nor for the Electoral College.

The Framers of our Constitution would not have sanctioned illegality as a basis for determining congressional representation and certainly not in fixing the numbers of Presidential electors. The extensive debates on congressional representation were focused on slavery resulting in the three-fifths of a person rationale. It is ridiculous to assume that any of the Framers, given the tenor of their debate and their dedication to establishing a rule of law, would ever have considered allowing citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States to play a role in determining control in the Congress and the election of the President. To assume otherwise would construe the Constitution as protecting and sanctioning illegality.

It was not until the post-Civil War amendments that the issue of defining citizenship arose. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were drafted to redress the inequities of slavery. They were never intended to give blanket sanctions to illegality. ``Persons,'' as used in those amendments, clearly were intended to mean persons who were legally in the country.

It would be ridiculous to assume that the Framers of those amendments, which were intended to safeguard the rights of former slaves or who had been in the country since its founding, intended in any way, shape or form to sanction illegality. The purpose was to enshrine a legal concept of equality, not to twist that concept to sustain, support, sanction or condone illegality.

Once it is determined that the Constitution cannot be used to sanction, authorize, protect or promote illegality, the issue is, what is the remedy to correct the wrongs that have been done to our system of determining congressional representation in fixing the numbers of the Electoral College?

As every citizen has the right to fair and equitable representation and to know that his or her vote is of the same weight as that of any other citizen, then any citizen who has lost representation as a result of the counting of citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States for the purposes of congressional and electoral representation has standing and can bring action to redress the grievance.

Also, and perhaps most important, States that have lost congressional seats and have had their electoral vote reduced as a result of the counting of citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States may have standing to bring action to redress their grievance. It is quite possible that a fair evaluation of the results of counting citizens of foreign states illegally in the United States would actually show that in States that have had their congressional and electoral power increased, there may have actually been an outflow of U.S. citizens and the entire increase in their political power is due to the influx of citizens of foreign countries illegally in this country.

Therefore, a constitutional amendment may not be necessary to redress the inequalities caused by citizens of the United States by counting of citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States for purposes of apportioning congressional and electoral college members.

The Framers of our Constitution, in their great wisdom, enshrined the rule of law into our highest compact. To ignore the rule of law and to allow its subversion to shift and determine political power is totally contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and of the Framers of the Civil War amendments.

The practicality of determining accurate numbers for congressional and electoral representation is not a deterrent. Modern technology provides many ways of assessing numbers. In fact, almost on a daily basis the number of persons who are citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States is estimated. Demographics, residential patterns, linguistic realities make it relatively simple to accurately determine numbers and redress the inequities that have resulted in accepting and even supporting illegality.

The fact that those persons may pay some taxes is not relevant and nothing in the Constitution lists payment of taxes as a guarantor of the right to be counted for the purpose of fixing congressional and electoral representation.

The Constitution does insist that political power be equitably divided among the States and no State should have advantage based on illegality.

States have an obligation to protect and defend the rights of their citizens. Those states that have lost Congressional seats and Electoral College votes should bring appropriate legal action to ensure the equitable and constitutional distribution of political power. The United States Supreme Court should be ultimate determiner of the meaning and intent of the Constitution not the Census Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah Terry, who is the director of the Farmville Fifth District Office, has battled breast cancer for the last several years and has undergone numerous chemotherapy treatments.

She has served as Executive Director of the Farmville Area Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Longwood University Board of Visitors, and a leading promoter of outdoor activities such as hiking and cycling. She is a leading proponent of the Virginia Life Fund for the Uninsured, which has raised funds for catastrophic health care for those who cannot afford insurance.

Sarah's enthusiasm for life, her community and her fellow Americans is contagious; and she is a true inspiration for many. We are grateful for the contributions that she has made; and we look forward to her continued outstanding service to Farmville, Virginia, and America.

Madam Speaker, first I want to say it is a pleasure to be here with Reverend Don Davidson today. Reverend Davidson used to live in the Fifth District of Virginia, and I want to wish him the best in his new location in Alexandria.

Days before we observe Ronald Reagan's birthday, I think it important to share some of the achievements of Ronald Reagan's Oral History Project developed by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia.

This project began in August 2001. In 45 interviews, it has recorded volumes about President Reagan's political career. The purpose of the Oral History Project is to record recollections of persons apart from the pressures of incumbency.

A majority of the almost 3,000 pages of transcripts will be released later this month, and the Miller Center will hold a three-part forum to celebrate their release.

Nancy Reagan commented that the Miller Center has become a valuable part of our lives, as it works closely with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to create a definitive oral history of the Reagan presidency.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for introducing this amendment to this fine legislation. He recognizes that the failure to control and to prevent illegal immigration into the United States increases the likelihood that terrorists will succeed in launching a catastrophic or harmful attack on the United States.

His amendment is a message to the executive branch: Please enforce the laws that we have now to stop illegal immigration. They will listen to the gentleman from Texas with his stature and patriotism. It will be a fine message.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hunter, Chairman Dreier and all of the supporters of this amendment.

Will this wall, will this fence make America absolutely safe, absolutely secure, and will it stop every illegal alien? No, it will not, but it will make us more secure. It will make us safer, and it will surely cut down the horrific numbers that flood into this country.

Vote to help save America. Vote yes on Hunter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for their comments here tonight. I certainly learned a lot from both gentlemen and appreciated what they had to say, particularly on the immigration issue.

I want to talk a little bit before talking about illegal immigration about something that occurred just the other day in the Rayburn Building. We had a meeting of the Immigration Reform Caucus, and both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) are members of that and it is chaired by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who has done yeoman's work on behalf of that group.

We were anticipating hearing from someone from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Now, as you know, the Department of Homeland Security is the secretarial agency, and underneath that agency is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And they are charged with doing a number of different programs, one program of which is the FAST program. And that is involving temporary adjudicators that have been hired to make citizenship and permanent residency decisions. And I agree that the backlog is long and needs to be addressed. But I want to emphasize, I think it is better to take extra time, make sure the investigations are done, have law enforcement personnel there with the investigations to make sure no criminals or terrorists or others that would do us harm come through one of these programs.

Another program is the Focus program, and that involves segregating and reviewing hundreds of pending applications for immigration benefits where there are specific concerns about potential ties to terrorists or terrorist organizations. And this gets us to what occurred in the House office buildings just the other day.

I was coming to the Immigration Reform Caucus meeting anticipating hearing from a law enforcement officer at that meeting and voicing his opinions and letting us have the opportunity to ask questions about the agency and about how they handle these

programs where they make decisions on permanency, residency, citizenship, and granting decisions for these persons who want to come to the United States of America. The handlers of that person would not let us ask questions.

I hope that situation can be rectified and that the Immigration Reform Caucus and other members on different committees will have the opportunity to ask the questions that we want to ask, because, while illegal immigration is probably the number one problem facing the United States of America, we need to be sure that legal immigration is handled in the appropriate way and that programs like FAST and programs like Focus have the appropriate oversight and that the right questions are asked.

I would like to take a few minutes now to focus on the illegal immigration problem. I want to thank, again, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for being here tonight talking about this issue. They have been in the trenches for months and years, and this problem is not getting any better. It is only getting worse. But I am thankful because more Members of the House of Representatives are focusing on this problem. We have more Members than ever before introducing legislation addressing different aspects of the problem.

Today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) introduced legislation that does many things. It is backed by groups such as the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform; and having mentioned that group, I would also like to thank U.S. Border Control for their efforts in combating illegal immigration, Numbers USA for their efforts against illegal immigration. But our focus today was on a fence all along the southern border.

We have a fence now between California and Mexico south of the city of San Diego. That fence has provided a great barrier to drug smuggling, to terrorists coming into this country, and to stopping the illegal crossing.

We were able to see a picture of pre-fence days and then see a picture of post-fence days. The fence has improved the environment significantly in the San Diego area, and it has enhanced our border security.

What we need to do now is extend the fence from San Diego to Brownsville. There would be port of entries along the fence, but, by doing this, the security that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) talks about that we need in this country would be significantly enhanced.

There were a number of other aspects of this legislation. Currently, we have a policy by the Department of Homeland Security and its immigration services of basically one of catch-and-release. That means if you catch someone in this country illegally, because of a lack of facilities to house all of them is a factor, I also think it is a philosophical not wanting to carry out what I believe the law should be in this country, differences among some of us and some of those carrying out that law, of just letting the illegals go. If this legislation passes, those illegally in the country will be committing a violation of law, and they can be caught and detained, not caught and released.

Another aspect of this legislation focuses on the diversity visa program, and that program has been in effect since the mid-years of the Clinton administration, which pushed for it. We had hoped that this program would end within a few years. It has rocked on, and this would end under this bill.

We would also end the 245(i) practice. And now what does 245(i) mean? That means if you come into the country illegally and you get the right letter from an employer or you get the right letter from a relative, that means you can stay here by paying $1,000. We need to end that practice. 245(i) encourages persons to come across the border illegally. They say we will not have to go through the process. We will not have to be checked out. We will not have to have our background checked. We will not have to present our records and be analyzed before we get into the United States. We will just walk across the border.

Or if they are already here, say we will not have to go back. We will get a 245(i). We will just pay a little extra money, and we will move to the head of the line, and that is unfair. That is unfair to those that wait in line, and it is unfair to the millions of Americans that pay taxes.

Another aspect of this legislation, which is an attempt to compile many different items of legislation into a single bill, some of them are part of legislation that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has sponsored, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and I could list others, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), and I could go on and on. It captures and borrows from these bills, and I have to mention this because I want to salute the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

One of his measures says if you are an employer and you hire illegals, then you cannot deduct the cost and the taxes paid on those illegals from your Federal income tax return, and that is the way it should be. The legislation further emphasizes that there shall be no earned income tax credit for illegals. There will be no credit for Social Security for the time that you are illegally in this country.

Under the current situation, if there were to be an amnesty, and I vigorously oppose the amnesty because it only encourages more illegals to come across the border, if there is an amnesty, you will not be able to go back and recapture the time that you are in the country illegally.

It also focuses on the practice that some who come from across our southern border want to have children in this country. They want to create an American baby because, under our current law, anyone born in the United States of America is an automatic citizen, and that helps those illegally here stay in this country. Under our bill, coming across the border and having a baby of illegal aliens who did not go through the proper process will not grant that child automatic citizenship.

So this is indeed a comprehensive measure that will address illegal immigration, and it is my hope that we will be able to get legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives, hopefully before Christmas, if not, certainly by the first part of next year, so that we can take a stand and send to the American people the message that we are serious about stopping illegal immigration.

We do not want amnesty for illegals. We want to preserve and protect the United States of America. We want border security; and, as the Congressman from Arizona says, we want enforcement first.

If we do that and if we can get the other body and if we can get the executive branch down the road from the United States Capitol to come along and get on this train, America will be safer, will be more prosperous and will be more of a land of opportunity for the hard- working and tax-paying citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for their being here tonight and focusing on the need to reduce spending.

I have heard from a number of citizens as we are discussing our budgetary situation facing this Congress, this Nation, and our country. Many have said, please, the problem is not taxes too low; the problem is spending too high.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is vice chairman of the Republican Study Committee. The Chair is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). These gentlemen and others, the men and women that make up the RSC, were leaders in focusing on Operation Offset. Our Nation has faced expenditures this year that 6 months ago, 8 months ago were not expected. I believe that their focus on Operation Offset is a correct approach.

The first thing we need to do in looking at the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma and the other hurricanes that have hit the United States this year is do not spend unnecessarily in dealing with these tragedies.

After that, we need to focus on savings in any way we can to deal with those problems and to manage our fiscal affairs as best as possible.

One area that I think needs to be trimmed is foreign aid. Foreign aid for the last 3 fiscal years has hovered around $20 billion. In fiscal year 2005, it was between 19 and $20 billion. But that does not include the hundreds of millions that were in the supplementals that were passed in fiscal year 2005. We can look at across-the-board cuts in that area of appropriations and I think have very little negative impact on American citizens.

Another area that we need to focus on is stopping illegal immigration. This costs the United States taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Now, I have seen wide estimates on how much the cost is to the Federal Treasury each year because of illegal immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated $10 billion. The Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform estimates $45 billion. A few months ago, I heard Bill O'Reilly on Fox News state that the figure was $68 billion. There may be disagreement as to the exact figure, but there can be no disagreement that the cost is billions upon billions of dollars to the American taxpayer.

This Congress and the Republican conference have been very supportive of community health centers. They have gotten significant increases in their budgets each of the last several fiscal years. But they have a situation that confronts many other health care providers. When persons come in the door, they have to treat those persons. I believe that some of the governments of those countries south of us have steered their citizens to those entities and to our hospitals, and they know the ropes. Emergency care cannot be denied anyone, whether they are legally or illegally in the United States, particularly emergency room service. A person has to be served.

One way we can stop the influx of those who are not supposed to be in this country to our health centers, to our emergency rooms, to other health care providers is to stop them before they get here. I and others are working on legislation. Some would focus on a fence. I have a bill that would provide for a fence along the southern boundary. Other have suggested much tighter border enforcement, increased border patrol, while others say we need greater enforcement in the interior. We need to have the local sheriff and local chief of police, municipal officers, all have the authority to deal with this situation and have a partner with immigration services if they are detained or held at the local level, that they would be assured of cooperation and removal from the locality back to their home countries.

We also have an impact on social services, and that is billions of dollars. So one area where we could save a lot of money would be to simply enforce our laws against illegal immigration, stop it at the border and in the interior, remove those that are not here legally with a proper visa or proper green card or other proper work permit.

Another area of concern to me is the overuse of government credit cards.

Another member of the RSC has proposed the Government Credit Card Sunshine Act. Following Hurricane Katrina, we had to raise the limit on credit card maximums. Now, I understand the need for our FEMA officials to have the use of credit cards, but in the Federal Government I believe we have overused credit cards. I know in my office, I do not use credit cards. Our congressional office is certainly not like FEMA, it is not like law enforcement, and it is not like the DEA. I know you have to have them in some situations, but I support the Government Credit Card Sunshine Act, which would require the posting, except in classified situations and certain law enforcement situations, of expenditures by government credit cards within 15 business days after the expenditure goes through.

A check of some of the credit card abuses involve payment for Ozzie Osborne concert tickets, tattoos, gambling, cruises, exotic dance clubs, car payments, and the like. This is an example of waste in the Federal Government that needs to be stopped, and I think this act would go a long way to stop that.

This evening I have covered areas where we can focus on that will reduce the amount of Federal expenditures. But I want to close by emphasizing something that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) emphasized. We are focusing on the savings by curtailing the rate of growth. We are not even saying there shall be no growth. We are saying we just do not want the rate of growth to continue at such a rapid and accelerated pace. By curtailing the rate of growth, we can do a tremendous benefit for all of the taxpayers of the United States of America.