[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7895-H7900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I have on many occasions risen on this 
floor to address the body with regard to the issue of immigration and 
immigration reform, and tonight is no exception to that rule. I do this 
often because I believe it is a significant problem, perhaps the most 
significant problem we face in this country from a domestic policy 
standpoint.
  We argue on the floor of the House day in and day out and night in 
and night out about a variety of issues. All of them, of course, have 
major consequences.
  We have spent a long time debating the issue of airline security, for 
instance. It was mentioned again just in the course of the previous 
speaker's comments. It is undeniably an extremely important issue, the 
issue of airline security. It is for those of us, especially, who fly 
as often as those of us in the House do.
  I, for one, am on an airplane twice a week, and my family are off and 
on airplanes. I assure the Members that I have just as much concern 
about airline security as the next person, and perhaps more so, from a 
very personal standpoint. Therefore, the decisions we make in this 
House with regard to the particular kind of security that is put in 
place are certainly important. I do not mean for a moment to suggest 
that they are not relevant to our debates here.
  But I do mean to suggest that they are not as important, Mr. Speaker, 
as one other issue. That issue is the defense of our borders.
  As I have said on more than one occasion, the defense of this Nation 
begins with the defense of our borders. The extent to which we devote 
time and energy and resources protecting the flying public, to the 
extent to which we do that, of course, it is commendable and it is 
important; and it is absolutely the right thing to do.
  But it is amazing to me how much time and energy we spend in that. We 
passed something called a stimulus package. It is really a security 
package. It is designed to make sure that the American economy remains 
strong and that people remain employed, and we do this as we watch an 
economy that is deteriorating. We all know that.
  We are taking the right steps, I believe, in the measures that have 
been passed by this House to address this economic downturn. But they 
will, of course, take time.
  All of these issues deal with, in a way, some directly, some 
indirectly, national security. But in every single instance, we also 
have the issue of immigration and immigration reform working its way 
into those discussions. I will try to deal with both of them tonight.
  The issue of airline security. Let me talk about that on a broader 
scale. It is, of course, important to make sure that we are safe when 
we get on an airplane. Is it not also important, is it not even of 
paramount importance, to try and do something about the millions of 
people who come across our borders, either by land or by air or by sea, 
every single year? And they, for the most part, come here not to 
necessarily do us harm, but for their own purposes, almost always 
economic in nature.
  It is understandable. No one is suggesting that it is not the desire 
of every human being on the planet to better themselves and to provide 
more for themselves and for their families.
  But they do come across our borders, Mr. Speaker; and they do so 
sometimes, some of these people come across our borders with evil 
intent, as we learned all too savagely on September 11.
  Now, there is an undeniable problem. It is one of those huge 
problems; and in a way it is like the typical story of the 500-pound 
gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge, but everybody 
knows it is there. In this case, ``it'' is a completely broken, 
completely incompetent INS, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  I want to focus the first part of my remarks this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, on this incompetence and on the desperate need we have for 
national security purposes to not only make sure that the flying public 
is safe, but to make sure that we are safe every day on the streets of 
the United States from people who come across our border, from illegal 
aliens or from immigrants who are here even legally, but have the 
desire to do us ill.
  We have a responsibility to point this out, and I try my best to do 
so. I have, every single time I come to this floor, people who write 
us, who call us, who take advantage of e-mail, which is right now 
probably the best way to contact us.
  I have people who do that by the thousands, contact our office to 
tell me

[[Page H7896]]

of stories that I have put in the category of almost too incredible to 
be true, but they are true. Many, many of them are documented.
  Many, many of the stories come from people who work for the INS, 
people who are trying their best to do a good job in light of a 
bureaucracy that has absolutely no interest in having them do a good 
job, especially if that job is in internal security within the 
boundaries of this United States.
  I am going to start this evening's discussion with a story about a 
gentleman by the name of Walter Cadman. Mr. Cadman is an employee of 
the INS, a very high-ranking employee. I will tell the Members what 
that specific position is in just a moment. But let me give a little 
bit of background, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Cadman's climb through the bureaucracy of the INS began when he 
joined the service in 1976; and after working as an investigator and a 
regional director, he took over a job in Florida, the Florida 
operations, in 1992.
  Three years later, a seven-member congressional fact-finding team 
visited Krome, and that is a facility, a detention facility for 
detainees, alien detainees. They visited the Miami International 
Airport also.
  Mr. Cadman was among several high-ranking INS officials who attempted 
to deceive these Members of Congress into believing that Miami 
immigration operations were well managed. Mr. Cadman and others 
abruptly released 58 inmates from the critically overcrowded Krome 
detention center 2 days before the task force's visit, according to an 
exhaustive Federal investigation.
  All of this, by the way, everything I am telling with regard to this 
case is documentable. Again, if anybody wants more details, this is the 
way, Mr. Speaker, that one would obtain those, by contacting our 
office.
  Let me go on. More than 100 other aliens were hidden in the facility 
to dupe the House delegation, Members from the House of 
Representatives, to give the illusion that the inspection process at 
the Miami airport was well managed.

                              {time}  1845

  Staff was bulked up and noncriminal detainees were allowed to wait in 
an unsecured lobby rather than in a less hospitable holding cell. 
Inspectors were also ordered to remove their gun holsters and handcuffs 
to portray a much kinder, gentler INS that focused on customer service.
  This phrase, ``customer service,'' I heard many times from many INS 
officials and many people who have come to our office as whistleblowers 
to talk to us about the incredible pressure under which they have been 
placed by INS management. They are told the same thing, that they are 
to treat anyone coming, trying to get into this country, and even those 
who have come here illegally, as customers; and the customer is always 
right. In this case, the customer chose evidently not to stay in the 
cell.
  After more than 45 employees, many of them union members, blew the 
whistle on their bosses, Kromegate broke. The office of the Inspector 
General for the Justice Department investigated the matter and in June 
1996 released its 197-page report. In this report, Inspector General 
Michael Bromwich not only detailed the conspiracy behind the INS sham 
but also explained how Mr. Cadman and other officials tried to cover up 
the wrongdoing.
  Initially, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General told a 
member of the delegation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), 
who was at the time I believe even the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, told him that it would be done, that this report would be 
done within a few months, that the facts were clear, and if they could 
get simply the response that they required from the INS in terms of 
access to documents, the report would be done in just a few months. It 
actually took over a year because, of course, to no one's real 
surprise, the INS was not forthcoming with the documents that were 
required to conduct the investigation.
  Mr. Bromwich wrote in the report: ``Moreover and perhaps more 
troubling, Mr. Cadman was a willing participant in efforts to mislead 
INS headquarters and then to mislead and delay the investigation of 
this matter.'' That is a very damning statement. We have heard 
statements to that effect in other cases, people trying to mislead 
investigators, people trying to delay the investigation. We remember 
that all too clearly, I think, from past administrations.
  Anyway, Justice officials found that Cadman had presided over 
meetings in which the conspiracy was planned. On the day of the visit, 
Mr. Cadman, reportedly red-faced with anger, threatened to arrest two 
INS inspectors who tried to alert representatives about the whitewash. 
Mr. Cadman even called airport police.
  Again, this story gets better when I tell my colleagues where this 
gentleman now resides within the INS. So just hang with me here a 
minute. Again, put it in the category, unbelievable but true, and of 
course, with regard to the INS, the folder gets bigger and bigger and 
bigger every day.
  Mr. Cadman's cover-up efforts began after the Office of the Inspector 
General started its investigation. Mr. Cadman, ``did not deny that 
large numbers of aliens had been transferred and released from Krome,'' 
Mr. Bromwich wrote in his report. ``However, Mr. Cadman essentially 
represented that all alien movements were normal in light of the 
overcrowded condition there.''
  That explanation, investigators determined, was not true. Rather than 
cooperate with investigators, Mr. Cadman forced the Justice Department 
to obtain subpoenas to access his computer files. As I say, the 
Inspector General expected that there would be some degree of 
cooperation. I do not know why they thought so, but they did. It was 
not forthcoming, however.
  When the Office of the Inspector General finally gained access to Mr. 
Cadman's computer, all his e-mails relating to the delegation's visit 
had been deleted. According to the report, ``In his interview, Mr. 
Cadman stated that as matter of consistent practice, he 
contemporaneously deleted his electronic mail messages shortly after 
responding to them. In searching his e-mail, however, we,'' the OIG, 
``did find some of Mr. Cadman's messages from June 1995 which was 
inconsistent with Cadman's representation to us.''
  In an extensive and time-consuming process, investigators were 
eventually able to locate 61 messages that had been sent or received by 
Mr. Cadman regarding the congressional visit, many of which helped OIG, 
Office of Inspector General, prove that the officials had purposely 
deceived the Congress of the United States.
  ``On the basis of the evidence gathered in this investigation, we 
believe the appropriate punishment for Miami District Director Walter 
Cadman falls within a range from a 30-day suspension to termination of 
employment.'' This was the OIG's, the Office of Inspector General's, 
conclusion.
  They went on to say that, ``Should he not be terminated, we urge his 
reassignment to a position where he would not have significant 
managerial responsibilities.'' I want my colleagues to listen to that 
carefully, Mr. Speaker. The OIG said should this man not get fired, 
which is as we all know almost impossible in the Federal bureaucracy, 
contrary to the protestations of those who want to federalize the 
airline security service, but it says, ``Should he not be terminated, 
we urge his reassignment to a position where he would not have 
significant managerial responsibilities.''
  After Mr. Cadman's removal from Miami, he virtually disappeared in 
the INS bureaucracy. Then, on March 4, 1997, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) held hearings on Kromegate, trying to find out 
how Cadman and his cohorts were punished.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked then-Attorney General 
Janet Reno the following question:
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers): I need to know what 
happened to the people. Let us get to the bottom line here. What 
happened to the people that misled the Congress? Name the names. Where 
are they now?
  Janet Reno's response: Dan Cadman elected a voluntary demotion to a 
GS-15.
  By the way, a GS-15, that is, if not the highest, it is close to the 
highest category of GS, of government service, that one can get. It is 
at least $100,000 a year.

[[Page H7897]]

  He elected to take this demotion to GS-15, criminal investigator in 
headquarters operations. Okay. That was the demotion.
  Congressman Rogers: Well, where is he now?
  Attorney General Reno: I cannot tell you precisely.
  Congressman Rogers: Is he still working?
  Attorney General Reno: He accepted a voluntary demotion, sir, so I 
would assume he is still working.
  Congressman Rogers: He is a Justice Department official; correct?
  Janet Reno: So far as I know, sir.
  Rogers: He misled the Congress and he still works for the Justice 
Department?
  Correct.
  Now here is the punch line, Mr. Speaker, and listen carefully to 
this. Roughly a year later in 1998 the INS promoted Mr. Cadman to head 
the newly formed National Security Unit.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) represents this whole 
thing as a case where truth is stranger than fiction.
  Five years after Mr. Cadman left south Florida in disgrace, only to 
take a job as a very high-paid INS administrator and as a, quote, 
``demotion,'' he was appointed, if we can believe it, to head up the 
newly formed National Security Unit. Chalk that up, Mr. Speaker, to 
another incredible but true series of events of which we have become 
aware in the last several months as we discuss the issue of immigration 
reform in this country.
  We wonder then how is it that so many breaches of security could have 
happened over the years? And more recently, how is it that even Mohamed 
Atta, a name all too familiar to every one of us now since September 
11, how is it that Mr. Atta could have been readmitted to the country 
in January even though he had left the country? He was here on a 
particular kind of visa. He left and he was supposed to apply for what 
is called an I-512 form, or authorization to leave the country and 
return. By law he was supposed to put that in writing, the reason he 
was leaving and for how long and how long he would be gone. Now, he 
never did that.
  So, therefore, of course, after he left to go to Spain, which he did 
in January and then returned to the United States coming through Miami, 
should never been allowed to reenter the country. But, of course, the 
INS did not catch it and essentially did not care. That is the truth of 
the matter. They do not care.
  There is a lot more attention being paid to it now, that is true, 
since September 11. But prior to that time, let me just give some 
examples once again of the unbelievable but true incidents or 
situations that we have become aware of while we have been doing this 
analysis of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the United 
States.
  Approximately 35 million people come into the United States every 
year on visas. Now, Mr. Speaker, not everyone visiting the United 
States needs a visa. People come from certain countries where we have 
agreements where visas are not necessary. So we have far more people 
coming to the United States each year. In fact, we have about 500 
million visitors a year. But about 35 to 40 million come as a result of 
the visa process.
  Now, that process is one where people go to the consulate in their 
home country. They fill out some forms; and it is the responsibility of 
that consulate official to determine whether the person making the 
application is indeed who they say they are, number one, and, number 
two, whether or not they have any sort of background that would prevent 
them from being able to come into the United States. So about 40 
million come.
  Very little attention is paid, and was up until September 11, very 
little attention is paid to anybody's background. They could not care 
less, frankly. Again, they have been told that all of these people must 
be treated as customers. Again, if a customer wants to come to the 
United States, the customer is always right. So a visa is almost 
automatically granted.
  Once they get here, there are certain conditions that they must 
follow. If they are here on a student visa, they are supposed to be 
students. If they are here on a work visa, they are supposed to work. 
There is an H1B. This is a category of visa of a person, usually a 
white collar worker, usually in very high-tech industries, computer 
programmers. That is what they are supposed to do while they are here.
  It is estimated somewhere near 40 percent of all visas are violated 
every year, 12 million, in other words. Twelve million people either 
stay here even after their visa says they should go home or in some 
other way violate the visa, as many of the 19 hijackers of September 11 
did.
  The process is one where if someone violates their visa or if someone 
commits a crime while they are in the United States as a visa holder, 
they are taken to court. But they are not taken, Mr. Speaker, to a 
regular court, the kind of court that we would be taken to if we 
violate the law. Not a district court, not a county court. They are 
taken to an immigration court. And believe me, there is a significant 
difference.
  What happens at that point in time is fascinating. And I will tell 
another anecdote, another story in a moment, another incredible but 
true story.
  They can go to the immigration court, charged with a crime. It could 
be as insignificant as overstaying a visa. It could be as significant 
as murder. Crime brings them there. They get arrested and end up in 
front of a judge, and the judge listens to the case, and he either 
gives bail or he throws the case out of court or he orders the person 
deported. Then they are essentially turned over to the INS; and that is 
where the problem begins, as we can imagine, turned over to the INS for 
their handling of the case, for their enforcement essentially.

                              {time}  1900

  Now, would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are, as we sit here 
tonight, at least 300,000 people wandering around in the United States 
of America completely free to do whatever they are doing and want to 
do, 300,000 people who have, in fact, been ordered deported, but the 
INS has not taken charge of it? They have simply let them walk. And 
they have done so because, I contend, Mr. Speaker, the INS does not 
care.
  We have documentation; and I will read from a letter I received, an 
e-mail message we got not too long ago, like we get so many times, as I 
say, hundreds sometimes in a day, and it has now accumulated into the 
thousands of letters about this issue, and e-mails about this issue, 
and one of them came from an INS agent. Again, I will read part of it 
later, but he essentially expresses the opinion that the INS does not 
care, does not want there to be any close scrutiny of these people. The 
whole idea of internal investigations, internal security and what 
happens when people come across the border illegally, or what happens 
if they overstay, do they go after them? The answer is absolutely not.
  There are literally millions of people here. I am using the figure of 
300,000, which I gave earlier, Mr. Speaker, which only refers to people 
who have actually been to a court and then ordered deported but have 
not gone anywhere. When we talk to the INS, they say I do not know 
where they are; I have not the slightest idea. This is a favorite 
response of the INS to almost every question; it is a shrug of the 
shoulders. I do not know. I do not know where they are, have not the 
slightest idea. After all, we can only look at so many people. How can 
we follow all these people? They give you a million excuses. But, of 
course, that is their job. Theirs to have internal security, but nobody 
cares much about it. So 300,000 people that have been ordered to be 
deported that the INS have done nothing about, did not take them to the 
border and deport them.
  One anecdote here to add to this list of incredible but true, 
unbelievable but true, however you want to put it. I will give an 
example of something that happened. Again, every day I am telling 
somebody about this and they will come to me and say, ah, that is 
nothing, listen to this. It is astounding now. Our files, if we stacked 
them up here, they would reach higher than the sign here.
  A magistrate, an INS magistrate told the story to a Member of 
Congress about a person that came before him as a criminal. He had been 
arrested. He was about, I think, 18 or 19 years old, if I remember 
correctly, but he had no identification on him. He had mugged

[[Page H7898]]

an old lady, I think broken her arm or leg and had stolen her purse. 
Anyway, he had been arrested and taken to immigration court. The judge 
listens to the case and orders him deported. Actually gives him a 
choice: Do you want to go to jail, or do you want to get deported? 
Well, the kid I think probably made the right choice under that 
circumstance and said I would just as soon go back to Mexico, which is 
where he had come from.
  He told the judge and the arresting officers that he was an illegal 
alien; that he was here without permission. And he had no 
identification. He gave his name, or he gave a name to the police and 
to the judge. They actually, in this case, did take this particular 
person then, put him on a bus, and sent him to Mexico through San 
Diego, I believe. Shortly after this gentleman got into Mexico, he 
called his mother and said, okay, will you bring down my ID now. 
Because, of course, this gentleman was not an illegal alien. He was 
born in the United States, his parents were born in the United States, 
his grandparents were born in the United States. He was not here 
illegally.
  But he had learned, Mr. Speaker, he had learned that if you say you 
are an illegal alien, you will be taken to immigration court and you 
will not find yourself in a prison, or even in a jail waiting to go to 
prison. You will be sent on a trip, in this case down to Mexico. So he 
called his mom and said, would you bring down the ID; and his mom 
dutifully got in the car, drove down to Mexico, drove across the 
border, I guess it was 100-some miles from their home, handed him his 
ID and he then, of course, came right back across the border with her, 
showing his ID to the INS agent, the border guard, as if anybody paid 
attention even there, but showed his true ID and came into this country 
as a citizen.
  All records of the original offense, of course, were attached to that 
person that was deported to Mexico, not to the person that was coming 
back in. Two different people. This guy was an American citizen. But he 
knew how corrupt, how messed up the system is. He knew that it was 
better for him to pretend to be an illegal alien and take advantage of 
the laxity, the incompetence, whatever you want to call it, of the INS 
to get away with his crime. Amazing, but true.
  Here is another one. Would you not think, Mr. Speaker, that it would 
be only appropriate, certainly expected that a high-ranking official of 
the INS would understand the words ``legal'' and ``illegal'' and the 
definition of the word ``crime"? Would that be asking too much? Perhaps 
we need to give a test to every potential administrator at INS so they 
could actually define these words; because evidently, Mr. Speaker, some 
of them are having a very difficult time with the English language and 
with understanding the English language.

  Here is what I mean. Mr. Fred Alexander, the deputy district director 
for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Fairly high-ranking 
position, would you not say? A position where you would expect someone 
to be able to understand the English language? Well, I am now going to 
attribute what he is quoted as saying to language problems. I am not 
going to suggest that he is actually abetting criminal behavior, aiding 
and abetting or encouraging criminal behavior. That is too much to 
suggest. Because if you actually ended up maybe prosecuting this 
gentleman for aiding and abetting criminal behavior, he would be moved 
up to an even higher position within the INS, following INS protocol.
  Here is the comment by Mr. Fred Alexander: ``It is not a crime to be 
in the United States illegally.'' It is not a crime to be in the United 
States illegally. Is there something wrong here? Maybe it is just that 
he does not understand the English language; does not know what a crime 
is; does not know what the words illegal and legal mean, the difference 
between those two.
  He went on to say: ``It is only a violation of our civil law.'' Now, 
evidently a violation of a civil law is not a crime. If you are here 
illegally, it is not a crime. What kind of a statement is this? It is a 
reflection of what the INS thinks their job is. They believe themselves 
to be social workers. They believe that they were put here to encourage 
immigration into the United States, and it does not matter how anybody 
gets here.
  The INS, for the most part, I will contend, Mr. Speaker, would just 
as soon there be no borders whatsoever. The INS would then find 
themselves in a position of sending out agents to countries all over 
the world to explain why they should come to the United States, and 
that the fact is there would be no restrictions against them doing so 
and everything will be better off as a result of hundreds of millions 
of people crossing our borders.
  I believe that that is the motivating factor and the real basis, the 
ethos, of the INS, I do believe, after all the things we have come 
across here, after all the things that have been e-mailed or faxed to 
our office by thousands of people, some of them wanting to know what 
they could do about this horrendous problem; but many others are like 
the gentleman I am going to read or address here in a moment.
  We got this in our fax just a short time ago. I cannot reveal his 
name right now, except to say that he, according to his letter, works 
for the INS. And I will just read excerpts from his letter so as to 
avoid any indication of who he is for fear of whatever retribution 
might be in store for him.
  ``I wanted to write you and let you know that I, as well as my entire 
extended family and all my close coworkers and friends, appreciate your 
efforts to reform our immigration policies.'' That is the kind of thing 
they usually start out with. They are not alone, and believe me, I know 
it. We are inundated with not just faxes and e-mails but people coming 
to the office, INS agents, present and past INS agents, telling me 
essentially the same thing; thanking us for doing what we are doing 
here, trying to reform that system.
  I think my colleagues could understand those kinds of things 
happening, Mr. Speaker. We have all been confronted by a Federal 
employee in this agency or that who is disgruntled and wants to come 
and tell his or her story. We have to oftentimes look at it in light of 
what the circumstances are: Have they actually gotten into some sort of 
trouble, are they being fired or something other? But never, ever have 
I had so many people from the same agency coming to tell me of the 
problems that they face there.
  He says, ``I currently work for the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service and have for'' blank years. I am not going to say. He goes on 
to explain what his background has been. He served in a variety of 
different capacities in the INS and he was recently transferred. He 
said, ``Every honest border patrol agent will tell you that every 
illegal alien makes it through the border, it just takes some longer 
and more attempts than others to get across. In any event, make no 
mistake about it, every determined illegal alien, from the youngest of 
the young to the oldest of the old, and even disabled aliens can find a 
wheelchair, and make it to the interior of our cities. Once they are 
there, they live amongst us with very little fear of discovery and 
deportation.''
  An absolutely true statement. And even those outside INS know this is 
true. There is not a Member on this floor, and certainly probably most 
of the population of the country recognizes that once an illegal alien 
is here, the chances of their ever being returned to their country of 
origin are slim to none. It is because the ethos inside that Department 
says, come on, come on over.

  He goes on to quote something, this gentleman who wrote me, goes on 
to quote something that his employer, one of his supervisors told him 
that puts in a nutshell everything I have said about the INS and the 
ethos there, the thinking. He said, ``I would also like to point out 
that probably close to half the illegal aliens in our country first 
entered under some sort of legal method and subsequently violated or 
overstayed their original status.''
  This is what I mentioned earlier: came here through a legal process, 
under a visa perhaps or some other process, but then just simply 
stayed. And there are literally millions. We are not sure how many. 
Figures range from 7 to 15 million. No one really knows, but we know it 
is in the millions, and I certainly believe it is in the double digits.
  ``Here in the interior,'' he said, ``there is almost zero enforcement 
operations which target these violators.'' Absolutely true. Documented 
time and

[[Page H7899]]

time again. ``Finally,'' he said, ``I would like to make you aware that 
I believe the INS is totally mismanaged.'' Again, a common theme. 
``After writing that, I feel it is a complete understatement,'' he 
said, ``but the English language probably doesn't have a word which 
would convey my sentiments without being vulgar.''
  When he was transferred to this particular district office, he said 
that his new supervisor said to him, and we have heard this phrase over 
and over again, Mr. Speaker, ``Now, listen, big cases, big headaches; 
little cases, little headaches; and no cases, no headaches.'' ``That in 
a nutshell,'' this individual writing me goes on to say, ``seems to be 
the INS management philosophy.''

                              {time}  1915

  ``That same supervisor told me not to be too gung ho about doing my 
job because the United States is not ready for an efficient immigration 
service.'' The letter concludes that he would be happy to discuss this 
later with me, and that sort of thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that in a way sums up the attitude of the INS 
with regard to what their job really is. Big cases, big headaches. 
Little cases, little headaches. No cases, no headaches. And do not be 
too gung ho about doing your job because the United States is not ready 
for an efficient immigration service. Maybe this supervisor is right, 
and we are not ready for an efficient immigration service. I disagree.
  There was a time when I would stand on the floor of the House, as I 
do tonight, and ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to reform the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and there would be relatively 
little comment except from the general public. I would hear from folks 
all over America. When I get their e-mail address or any other way to 
contact them, we try to respond, and we have thousands and thousands 
who have contacted us in that way.
  I would be asking my colleagues time and time again for their help on 
this issue, and this gentleman's observations were accurate. Nobody 
really cared that we did not have an efficient immigration service. 
There were political problems with trying to make it efficient.
  One party, the Democratic Party, recognizes that there is a great 
deal of political support that they get from the immigrant communities; 
they want to encourage massive immigration for that purpose. The other 
party sees that there are both business interests and political 
problems that develop as a result of actually trying to do something 
about immigration reform.
  Many businesses are not happy about what I talk about here on the 
floor and, believe me, I hear from them. They suggest that it is my 
responsibility to make sure that they have a cheap work force. That is 
really what it boils down to.
  They seldom say it in just those terms. It starts out ``Mr. 
Congressman, I have to hire them to do the job.'' We explain that we 
would be willing to look at some sort of guest worker program, but 
people should come to the United States legally. I try to encourage 
them to think about that as the right way to do it. Maybe, yes, they 
will have to pay more money for the service. Employers do not like to 
hear that. I was an employer, and I recognize that an employer is 
always looking for the best help at the lowest wage.
  But the reality is that there are tremendous problems as a result of 
massive immigration to the United States, and especially massive 
illegal immigration to the United States. Because of the problems that 
I have identified with both political parties, for the longest time, we 
could not get anyone to pay attention. I would come to the floor and 
say, there are problems with standard quality-of-life issues with 
massive immigration, with the balkanization of the American culture and 
society; and there are national security problems with not being able 
to control our own border and not knowing who is coming across at any 
given time, not knowing what they are doing here, or if they have gone 
home when they are supposed to go home.
  I recognize that there are massive problems with actually trying to 
secure our borders. Let me suggest, although I certainly hope that we 
will use the military, either the Active Duty military or the National 
Guard, to secure our borders, along with using all kinds of technology 
that is available. We are not talking about having guards standing 
shoulder to shoulder across thousands of miles between Canada and the 
United States and Mexico and the United States, I am talking about 
patrolling, use of sensors and overflights, and there are a variety of 
ways.
  I am also talking about deploying massive numbers of people for 
internal security purposes. We started talking tonight about security 
issues. How much more relevant are the discussions with regard to the 
internal security of the United States than just the person who looks 
through that little machine and screens our bags? I want good ones, but 
I am trying to keep the bad guys from coming here in the first place.
  We cannot just stand at the border and say, you look like someone who 
wants a job; even though you are illegal, there is probably an eager 
employer willing to hire you and oftentimes, unfortunately, exploit 
you. We could do that and try our best to figure out which ones we want 
to let in illegally.
  The INS would be all for that, by the way. They would say, let us 
look for certain characteristics. Are they Arabs, let us keep them out. 
Even those, we have to be more specific. The reality is we cannot do 
that. If we are going to have secure borders, that means that we are 
going to stop all people from coming across the borders illegally.
  We have to stop it, Mr. Speaker. We have no alternative but to try 
and control our borders. It is a very difficult task. Everybody 
recognizes that. But I suggest that we have to rise to the occasion.
  There is hopefully legislation that will be making its way through 
the Congress. I understand that there will be some legislation coming 
up soon that will actually do something about the INS structure. I am 
not sure what it is right now. I think that the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary is developing it. I hope that it is 
comprehensive in nature. I hope that it actually abolishes the INS, or 
the part of the INS that is designed to deal with security and 
enforcement. I hope that it abolishes that responsibility that we give 
to Customs, to the Department of Agriculture, to the Coast Guard, and a 
variety of other agencies that are cobbled together in order to try and 
create some kind of border security.
  Right now there are so many agencies with such conflicting 
responsibilities and specific regulations as to what they can do, what 
they can look at and what the other people cannot, people will wait on 
the border to see which line is being monitored by which agencies. 
Certain agencies can look in the trunk and certain ones cannot. So if 
you are trying to smuggle drugs into the country, you will pick one 
line. If you are trying to smuggle people in, you will pick another. 
Put that in the category of idiotic but true.
  I hope that we abolish all of those agencies or those parts of it 
that are supposed to deal with border security, and I hope that we 
create a brand-new agency. Let us call it the United States Border 
Security Agency for our purposes together tonight, and all of their 
functions are to secure our borders and root out those people who have 
come here illegally and send them back. If they violated the law while 
here, they serve time for it.
  The reality is, the nature of this place and the business we do here 
and the pressures that are applied by special interest groups, 
especially by immigrant support groups, business interest groups and 
others, we will start out perhaps with a very good thought in mind, and 
by the time it works its way through the body, it will get diluted.
  People in this business hope that everybody out there simply forgets 
the connection between the terrorists and immigration and our lack of 
enforcement. The hope is that people will simply forget about it and we 
can get back to business as usual. Business as usual, meaning porous 
borders, meaning unconcerned about who is coming across and why. There 
are plenty of people who still want that. They desire that situation. 
Again, the political motivations are strong.
  I hope and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will never let this body 
forget

[[Page H7900]]

this, at least as long as I am here and I have breath. I will not let 
Members forget that 19 people came into the United States on September 
11, all of them immigrants, all of them here on some status, some of 
them with legal documents, some of them who were here illegally because 
they had overstayed; and some of them, six to be accurate, we do not 
have the slightest idea what status they had when they came here. The 
INS cannot tell us about six of the individuals, if they were here on 
visas, here on green cards; they have no idea.
  That tells us something, does it not, about exactly how those people 
did get here. I think they probably waltzed across the border without 
telling the INS and asking for a visa. I cannot even imagine such a 
thing, but they did. That is why when we talk about tightening visa 
requirements, I am all for it.
  But let us assume that we get concerned about handing out visas like 
candy, and we begin to apply more scrutiny and we actually have a law 
if it is signed into law, the Antiterrorist Act, which has something 
which we proposed, the Immigration Reform Caucus, which said that if 
you are a member of a terrorist organization, you cannot come into the 
United States. Put this into the unbelievable but true category, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Prior to the passage of that law, the antiterrorist law, a person 
could be a member of al-Qaeda, the organization that is devoted to our 
destruction, could be a member of that organization and that alone 
would not have been enough, would not have been sufficient to deny this 
person a visa.
  There was a law on the book that said the INS cannot deny a person a 
visa simply because they belong to a terrorist organization or an 
organization that is devoted to destroying the United States of 
America. We did repeal that. That is good.
  Now, if we find out that they are a member of al-Qaeda or an outfit 
that wants to destroy us, we can deny them a visa; and boy, do I feel 
better about that. The terrorist with his or her bomb in the bag 
waiting to come across, when they do not get the visa, do they go home 
and say, sorry, Mr. bin Laden, I cannot get my visa. You will have to 
get somebody else.
  Does anybody believe that is what is going to happen? Does anybody 
believe that they will not simply use the same path that everybody else 
uses to come into the United States illegally, that is, the millions 
and millions of people who cross our border illegally? No. They will 
waltz across our southern border or northern border, or find a way to 
fly in undetected because our borders are porous, and there is no real 
defense mechanism, while we are wrangling over having these people who 
look through the screening device, whether they should be paid by the 
Federal Government or somebody else, as to whether that matters, as to 
whether they are competent. Amazing.

                              {time}  1930

  But that is what we wrangle over. And we do that to our peril.
  If we do not address this issue, Mr. Speaker, if we do not do 
everything in our power to stop people from coming into the United 
States illegally, to find those who are here illegally and deport them, 
if we do not do everything in our power to accomplish that goal, then 
if, God forbid, another event similar to the 11th were to occur and it 
turns out that it was perpetrated by somebody who is here either on 
falsified papers, snuck across the border, here even legally but 
eventually became illegal because they violated their visa status, any 
one of the wide variety of reasons that someone like that can get into 
the United States today and stay here, if that happens, Mr. Speaker, 
then we are not just being irresponsible in this body, we are actually 
culpable, because we have the opportunity to try and stop it.
  Can I guarantee that even if we implemented the most stringent border 
controls that we would never have an incident again like September 11? 
Of course not. Of course not. But I can tell you this, just because I 
cannot guarantee that we will never have such an incident does not mean 
that we should not do everything in our power to try to stop it.
  We have a great window of opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in this body 
because the American people are with us, those of us who want 
immigration reform. I hear from you. I guarantee you. They want to 
know, they write me, they call me, they e-mail me and say, what do I 
do, what can I do to help? There are plenty of things that we can 
suggest and we do. There are bills coming up that need to be passed. 
There is action that needs to be taken. Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, 
that this body needs to represent the common sense that is manifest 
time and time again in the information I receive, from, quote, your 
average Americans. God bless them for being there. God bless them for 
being willing to come forward and tell their story, sometimes to their 
own detriment, to the fear of losing their job.
  My immigration reform caucus, Mr. Speaker, will be holding a hearing, 
we believe next Thursday, at which we will have at least one individual 
that we have been able to obtain or we are working to obtain 
whistleblower status for if that is what is necessary to get him to be 
able to speak to us. He is an INS agent. He has been an INS agent for 
over 30 years. His stories about the troubled agency are again almost 
unbelievable but true. I hope that he will not be treated unjustly by 
being willing to come forward. I assure you that we will do everything 
we can to protect him from any retribution that might attempt to be 
wreaked upon him because of his willingness to come forward.
  There are hundreds out there, Mr. Speaker, hundreds that are willing 
to tell the story. They just need someone to hear it and then act upon 
it. I ask this body to heed their message. They know the threat to 
America. These are patriotic Americans who watched what happened on 
September 11 and shed the tears, the same tears, the kind of tears that 
you and I and everybody else shed. They work for the INS. They know the 
problems. They know and some of them tell me in very specific terms 
about what they believe happened and what they believe is wrong with 
the agency they work for that helped cause the horrible events of 
September 11.
  Please, Mr. Speaker, I urge you and everyone else, all my other 
colleagues, to move expeditiously to reform immigration, to abolish the 
INS, create a new, a better homeland defense organization, stop illegal 
immigration at the border by every method we have at our disposal, 
devote resources to identifying the people who are in the United States 
illegally, and yes, deporting them.
  Mr. Speaker, these may be harsh words; but these are harsh times in 
which we live. Who could have thought that we would be here talking 
about buildings collapsing as a result of terrorists turning planes 
into bombs? The days to be shy about immigration reform are over with. 
They were over with for me a long time ago. They should be over with 
for all of us. I am encouraged by the response we get from average 
Americans. Now all I need to get, Mr. Speaker, is the same response by 
my colleagues here.

                          ____________________