[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2436-H2442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main topic of this 
evening's discussion, that being immigration and immigration reform 
issues, I am compelled to respond to some of the comments made by our 
colleagues on the other side with regard to the budget dilemma that we 
all face here this evening. It is the dilemma faced every year, I 
suppose, and has for many many decades; and that is that we will always 
be spending more money in this body than we take in, or at least that 
was the case for all of the time, for the at least 40 years prior to 
the time that the Republicans took control of this body.
  The Democrats, of course, ran an imbalanced budget for many, many, 
many years. And I am in complete sympathy with those Members of the 
Democratic Party who say that that is an improper way to run 
government; that, in fact,

[[Page H2437]]

we should be looking more to how businesses and industries run their 
business and States run theirs by having balanced budgets every single 
year. And I certainly completely and wholeheartedly agree. But I must 
say that as I listen to, on one hand, what I believe is an articulate 
plea for a balanced budget and, on the other hand, an articulate excuse 
for a vote for the farm bill which we just passed, it is hard to 
reconcile those two concepts.
  This farm bill being, of course, one of the, percentage-wise, the 
greatest increase in any domestic policy program in, I think, history. 
I am not sure, but certainly in a long, long time. Widely criticized 
for being what it is, an incredible pork-laden boondoggle, and then to 
say in the next breath we have to do something about government 
spending, we have to control government spending.
  And, if I may be so bold, I had to ask a staff person, because I am 
not really familiar with all of the variations of shades of different 
colors, and I asked one of the staff here a few minutes ago, What is 
the palest blue there is? And the young lady told me it was cornflower. 
Cornflower is the name of the color. Cornflower blue.
  So I would suggest that the Blue Dog Democrats think about changing 
their names to the Cornflower Blue Democrats because they are not 
really Blue Dog Democrats. They are not really stuck to this issue of 
balanced budgets. What they are saying, I think, is that, and there are 
exceptions to this rule, that we are going to establish today, and, 
yes, I will yield to the gentleman who I assume is coming up to ask for 
that particular motion.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humor in which the 
gentleman is approaching the cornflower blue. But let me point out that 
the farm bill, the $73.5 billion, the gentleman, I believe I am 
correct, voted for that budget that provided the $73.5 billion that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and I, the speaker tonight, and 
others then proceeded to mark-up the bill. It was not called those 
critical comments when it passed as a budget, but it is only after we 
have put together the policy in which the criticism comes.
  I would appreciate the gentleman acknowledging that as I was talking 
about balancing the budget, that I included farm spending in any 
reductions in spending that must accompany any kind of a new budget. 
That is what we are saying, and I do not think that is inconsistent at 
all.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
observations, it is, of course, true that I have voted for a budget 
resolution that I wish we could hold to and this is a way in which we 
can all, I think, contribute to that possibility; and that is a vote 
against any appropriations bill that does not conform to that budget 
resolution. Any budget, any appropriations bill that puts us outside of 
that scope which I intend, that is the way in which I intend to vote 
and have in the past voted.

  I mean, we have to be, as I say, consistent with this because it is 
difficult for people who listen to this debate to understand that on 
the one hand we call for fiscal constraint, which I appreciate the 
gentleman has in the past and certainly even today has been a strong 
supporter of that issue, but we cannot accept that mantle of a fiscal 
conservative while at the same time doing things that bust the budget. 
But because of our issues, our individual concerns, the gentleman was 
very articulate in explaining the problems of the farm community in 
America, and no doubt his observations are accurate. But do you not 
see, every single person who is connected to any one of the various 13 
appropriations bills we have here can come up, and do regularly, talk 
about the particular issue. It is the problem with education in America 
that we must, in fact, involve the Federal Government to the extent now 
that was never conceived of in the past.
  We should both, I think, use the Constitution as a measure to help us 
determine what is an appropriate role for the Federal Government. And 
the gentleman, I must ask and I will yield for his response, what is 
the constitutional role of the Federal Government? Where in the 
Constitution does it set out a purpose for us to be the primary support 
for the farm, for the agricultural community? As I would say the same 
thing, by the way, in the area of education and Health and Human 
Services, I believe it is not there. I look at the Constitution. I do 
not find it. I find only a relatively narrow role for us, especially in 
the area of defense. Other than that, we could use that. That is the 
way we could defend our vote against these pork-laden, constituent-
driven pieces of legislation that put us every single year in the 
position of saying, My stuff is okay. My stuff is appropriate. 
Everybody else's is out of the question and is a budget-busting bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me say, in the Constitution there is a little part of it that 
says ``promote the general welfare.'' And I appreciate the gentleman's 
pointing out that it is difficult to find supporting our farmers in the 
Constitution.
  I do not stand on the floor and say that we are special or we are 
different than anyone else. Well, I guess I do. That was not a correct 
statement. I do believe that American agriculture and producers have 
done a pretty good job of feeding America and a good part of the rest 
of the world and do believe as we argued strenuously for the amount of 
money that was passed. So I guess, yes, I do, I do believe that.
  But I also believe very strongly that anyone else that has an opinion 
should have the opportunity to stand and make the same arguments. If I 
can get 217 of my colleagues to agree with me, it passes, and that is 
our system. If I might just continue. I want to get back, I agree with 
the gentleman, on the 13 appropriations bills, and that is why if the 
gentleman heard what we were talking about a moment ago, we think we 
ought to put a meaningful, reasonable cap on discretionary spending as 
part of the budget process. I think the gentleman and I will find, 
maybe not an agreement on the amount, but at least that we would find 
an agreement on the policy and procedure that we should follow to have 
a little bit of restraint.
  I appreciate the gentleman's generosity. I appreciate the gentleman 
admitting that he voted for the budget that provided for the $73.5 
billion. So I take a little bit of offense when the gentleman stands on 
the floor as he did starting tonight by decrying this $73.5 billion 
when he was the one joining, not with me because I did not support this 
budget, but he said $73.5 billion was not an obscene amount of money 
for the budget we operate under.
  Now times have changed; and, therefore, we are saying now let us take 
another look at the budget. If we need to trim, let us trim; but let us 
trim across the board.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
observations. Of course, times have changed and exactly that. First of 
all, we are talking about a $73 billion maybe $140 billion farm bill. 
There is a big difference there. It could go to $140 billion. That was 
not in the budget resolution. And so to say that I have voted for the 
latter as opposed to the former is inaccurate, and I would also suggest 
that the gentleman is absolutely correct. If one can get the required 
number of votes in the House, one can pass anything. And I guarantee 
you, we have done it year after year, time after time. And it is the 
way, I understand entirely, it is the way the process is run. But I 
suggest that it should be perhaps incumbent upon all of us as we 
approach all of these bills coming up, the supplemental, I do not know, 
I think this week sometime, and a variety of other spending bills, I 
will watch for the Democrat and the Cornflower Blue Democrats to see 
how they vote because I will be voting ``no'' on all of them because I 
believe we should stick inside the budget. I thank the gentleman for 
his cordial relationship and his willingness to discuss this issue with 
me tonight.

  I also remember thinking while I was listening to the discussion 
earlier here there was a comedian during the 70's and 80's. And his tag 
line was, ``The devil made me do it. The devil made me do it.'' And he 
used to end his little skit with that all of the time. And of course, 
what he was saying was I did not want to do all of these bad things, 
but the devil made me do it, so it is okay.
  I listen to all of this discussion about how bad it is to have these 
horrendous

[[Page H2438]]

expenditures and budget-busting bills all over the place for which my 
colleagues on the other side voted for most of the time as far as I can 
remember. And then to say, The devil made me do it. I do not know how 
we got here but this is bad, and somebody has got to impose some fiscal 
discipline on me. Somebody has got to make me behave. Somebody has got 
to make me say, you know what, I do not think we should vote for all 
this stuff. If everybody imposes a balanced budget amendment, then I 
will be able to take my medicine.
  I am all for a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I 
will vote for it anytime, anyplace, anywhere. It is okay with me. But I 
think it is just the funniest thing in a way to listen to people who, 
as I say, from the other side of the aisle especially, and talk about 
budget constraint and fiscal responsibility, the devil must have been 
making him do it here for 40 years before we ever came in control in 
this body and now they want to seek forgiveness. Well, the Lord says 
that that is possible. So who am I to suggest that they are not truly 
repentant?
  On to another issue, the issue of immigration and, specifically, 
immigration reform. In the past several weeks we have passed 
legislation in this body, and, as a matter of fact, yesterday the 
President signed a piece of legislation into law that will have the 
effect of tightening down on what heretofore can be described only as 
the most liberal immigration policy in the world of any country in the 
world. It is almost a misnomer to indicate there is an immigration 
policy in the United States because that implies, of course, that we 
have control over the process; that we establish how many people are 
going to come into the country every year like every other nation in 
the world does. We control it. We know who is coming in. We know how 
many. We know what they will be doing here. We know when they leave. I 
say that is the implication of saying you have an immigration policy.
  The reality, of course, is we do not. We have not. And even the 
passage of this recent legislation euphemistically called the Border 
Security Act, we will not have accomplished the goal of border 
security.
  A couple of weeks ago the House passed a bill by an overwhelming 
margin that was designed and is often referred to as the abolishment of 
the INS and the creation of a new body. Well, of course, it really was 
not all of that. As is often the case here, we have a tendency to name 
things, I guess, a little euphemistically and to create these illusions 
about what we do here.
  Now, the reality is we passed a very tepid bill designed to reform 
the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

                              {time}  2045

  Much more needs to be done to actually reform that organization, much 
more than what we did in our bill in the House. In fact, what has to 
happen is that we must take from every agency presently charged with 
responsibility for border control, that being the Customs under the 
Treasury, Agriculture, a variety, DEA, all kinds of agencies have 
border control responsibilities, of course Border Control under the 
INS. The Forest Service has some responsibilities in areas. We have 
national forests that adjoin international boundaries, and what we have 
to do, Mr. Speaker, is to consolidate all of those agencies, all of 
these parts of agencies into one agency, with a clear mandate, with a 
very clear line of authority, so that everyone who works for that 
agency knows exactly what they are supposed to be doing and know that 
they have the full support of this Nation in that endeavor. That agency 
should be put into the Homeland Defense Agency, should be run out of 
Tom Ridge's shop or whoever is the subsequent head of that 
organization.
  That is what we should do. That is what everyone who studies this 
area understands needs to be done. Now, we did not do that. We did not 
do that in the bill we passed in this House. We split the agency into 
two, which is good. We said they are going to have an enforcement 
responsibility and they are going to have what I call the immigration 
social worker side of things, the welcome wagon. Those will be the two 
separate responsibilities. They will be reporting to two different 
chiefs who in turn will be reporting to a single individual in the 
Department of Justice.
  That really is not a lot different than what we already have. It 
really is not because among other things almost all of the people who 
will be running those two separate organizations within Justice are the 
people who are presently running the single organization we call the 
INS. Names will be the same but titles will be different, and we assume 
that by changing someone's title we will change their attitude or 
improve their competencies, but my colleagues and I know, Mr. Speaker, 
and I think the American public understand fully well that just 
changing titles will not change the way it is run.
  Unfortunately, today within the INS we have people who are not, 
number one, competent to do the job and it starts from the top. The 
gentleman, very nice gentleman, Mr. Ziglar, whom I have nothing against 
personally, seems like a very pleasant individual. Unfortunately the 
water is so far above his head in trying to operate this agency that it 
is almost pathetic.
  Mr. Ziglar was appointed several months ago because he had been the 
doorkeeper of the Senate. That was his job before he became the head of 
an agency with 30,000 people and an $8 billion budget. He should not be 
there. He is not able to run the agency. He is not able to run it 
because the force of his personality cannot control it, and secondly, 
he is not able to run it because of course it is an enormous 
bureaucratic organization, moribund, plagued with inertia and internal 
incompetence and protected by Civil Service.
  So even if we had some of the finest people, even if we had someone 
with enormous capabilities as head of the organization, their ability 
to actually change the course of this big ship, they could be turning 
the wheel as hard as they can and they will notice that the bow hardly 
ever moves because all of the people are turning the wheel as fast as 
they can, they realize there is nothing connecting the wheel to the 
rudder. It is going its own way, and that is a problem, and it will not 
be solved by the bill we passed in the House.
  Here is the rub with that particular bill. It is going to the other 
body and it will not be improved. It will not be made better. We will 
see a conference report on this. It will pass and it will be something 
far short of what we passed in the House, and then we will all walk 
away from here and tell our constituents not to worry, we voted to 
abolish the INS and we are going to construct a really great agency to 
handle this problem.
  Okay. That is the problem. That is a big problem, and I ask my 
colleagues to just think about that for a minute over here, that the 
INS today, regardless of what we pretended to do in the House, 
abolishing the INS, that was the way it was presented to us, regardless 
of that, regardless of the words we used, the reality is we added a 
lifeboat to the Titanic. I voted for it. It is a pretty good idea. I 
think it is a good idea. In fact, who would say we should not have 
added lifeboats to the Titanic? That would be good. I voted to do it. 
It is not going to stop the ship from sinking.
  Yesterday in the Rose Garden the President signed a bill that, as I 
mentioned earlier, called Enhanced Border Security, and it is adding a 
couple of more lifeboats to the Titanic. It is good. Glad we are doing 
it. It will give us the ability to track people eventually. 2004, 2005, 
it will give us the ability supposedly, and we have done this before 
actually. We have actually mandated this before, and nobody ever 
carried it out, so we will see. If agencies carry out the law, it will 
give us the ability to track people who come into the United States. 
People who request a visa will actually have to have some sort of 
identifier, a biometric identifier, which is a term for fingerprint 
probably. Eventually other maybe more sophisticated approaches but 
initially fingerprints. So we will know if, in fact, the person asking 
for this visa is, in fact, who they say they are. That is good. Good 
idea.

  Also, schools will be required to participate in this and tell us 
whether people who are here on student visas are still in school. We 
have done this before. Everybody complained. We pulled back because the 
schools said, please, we do not want all that paperwork and what if it 
discourages all our foreign students from coming here. We make a

[[Page H2439]]

lot of money, and we said, okay, well, never mind, we are going to try 
again. Try again when students were not coming to class, when they were 
not educated anymore in the course work. That will be good. I am all 
for it. Another lifeboat.
  It will create a database that will allow various agencies of the 
Federal Government, the FBI and the INS and everybody, to identify 
potential terrorists or people who pop up on a terrorist list. We will 
be able to go and this name will come up, and it will say, oh, that guy 
came into the United States, or lady as the case may be, on such and 
such a date and he is here or he has gone, and that is good. I am glad.
  We will still have, by the way, Mr. Speaker, we will still have the 
visa application that anyone can go to the Web site for the State 
Department and look this up. I love it. This is great. I always think 
it is a metaphor for the entire INS debate. It is called the temporary 
visitor visa, and it says about the third or fourth question, I am 
paraphrasing only slightly. It says are you a terrorist; are you 
planning to come into the United States and blow things up and commit 
acts of terrorism; have you committed acts of terrorism in other 
countries; are you a member of the Nazi Party. It is all one series of 
questions, and then the person checks over one box, yes or no.
  So this potential terrorist says, yeah, I am, I am terrorist, I am a 
member of al Qaeda and I am coming in to blow up a building or 
distribute some sort of biological warfare agent, and at the bottom of 
this visa, because of the efforts of a Member of the other body from 
Massachusetts, very big Member of the body, there is an additional 
little asterisk and it says, after you answer yes or no to this 
question, are you a terrorist, if my colleagues go to the bottom and it 
says answering yes does not mean that you will be denied access to the 
United States.
  So we still have that, but now that is okay because we will know if 
the terrorists come in, they will sign up. Naturally, they will say of 
course I am coming in, I am a terrorist, here I am and here is my 
terrorist credentials, and I am coming in to do a lot of damage.
  Now, for those folks who admit to being terrorists this is a good 
idea that we have them register. I am all for it, but supposing, just 
supposing, I mean, I know this is a great hypothetical, but just 
supposing a potential terrorist decides to come into the United States 
and not sign up as a terrorist, not actually apply for a visa, now my 
colleagues say that cannot be because of course everybody coming into 
the United States applies for a visa, comes here as a visitor, a guest 
of the United States, tells us who they are, where they are going to be 
and for how long.
  I say these things, of course, with tongue in cheek because everybody 
knows that our borders are porous and that only our most honest people 
in the world for the most part say they are coming in, especially to 
apply through the regular process, but of course millions and millions 
of others come in a different way. They do not wait, they do not waste 
time filling out visas, requests for application to the United States. 
They come across the border.

  These are two pictures of the border along the Arizona-Mexican border 
near Nogales, Arizona. We took them a couple of weeks ago when we were 
down there on a fact finding trip. This barbed wire fence, if it can be 
distinguished on the television, I am not sure, here, that is 
separating Mexico on the other side of this fence from the United 
States. Down here, same thing, barbed wire fence, but there is only a 
cattle guard separating Mexico from the United States.
  This part of our border is actually more demarcated, more defined 
than many parts of the border that have absolutely no distinguishment, 
here and on the Canadian border. We have 1,900 miles in Mexico of the 
border and 4,000 miles on the northern border.
  I guess I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, when I hear people on the 
other side, people on our side, people in the administration, people 
talking about the fact that we should not try to connect immigration to 
terrorism, because most people come into the United States and they are 
completely and entirely looking, they are mostly looking for a good 
job, a way to send some money home, and they are not looking to do us 
damage, and this is absolutely true. Undeniably true, but of course, 
there are people who come into the United States for other reasons, and 
when they come into the United States for other reasons, may I ask my 
colleagues if they think it is logical for us to assume that they are 
all going to come via a visa process, especially when we start to 
tighten it up.
  The 19 hijackers who committed the atrocities here in the United 
States in September were all here on visas. Some of them of course 
overstayed their visas. Some were here fraudulently, but they were all 
on visas. If we make it tougher for those people, Mr. Speaker, which I 
am all for, I am all for asking if you are a terrorist, please, let us 
know on this document, sign up right here, tell us you are a terrorist, 
and we can keep track of you. I am all for doing that.

                              {time}  2100

  But just supposing, I mean wildest stretch of your imagination, 
supposing they choose not to tell you that they are a terrorist and not 
to sign up that way on the visa. Why, may I ask, is it so hard to 
understand that there is a connection? Why is it so hard to understand 
that they would in fact come in a very easy portal, that they would 
walk across the border?
  Here, this one on the bottom, the cattle guard, at least that 
protects us from illegal cattle coming into the United States. This one 
does not even protect us from that because there is no cattle guard. It 
is just a big deeply rutted road. And by the way, this road is not on 
any Forest Service map. It does not exist on any map you have ever seen 
because, of course, it is just illegals coming into the United States.
  And this is the greatest thing of all, Mr. Speaker. You know, you can 
go to our Web site, it is www.House.Gov/Tancredo, then you go to the 
immigration part of it and you will see all this stuff in greater 
detail, and I encourage you to do it because it is hard to see this. 
But here is a sign that is facing our side of the border, and it says 
here: ``All persons and vehicles must enter the United States at a 
designated port of entry only. This is not,'' underlined this is not, 
``a designated port of entry. Any person or vehicle entering at this 
point is in violation of the U.S.,'' certain codes and blah, blah, 
blah, blah, and a $5,000 fine or penalty.
  This is on our side. This is facing the United States. Then it is 
printed down here in Spanish. I am glad they are letting people know. I 
know a lot of illegal aliens coming into the United States finally get 
on our side, turn around and look at the sign and say, ``Oh, wait a 
minute, I guess I better go back. It says here this is not a designated 
point of entry.'' So certainly they are going to turn around and go 
back and find wherever that point of entry may be. Probably it is in 
Nogales. Yes, that is right, it actually is; and they will go on down 
the road certainly and they will enter the country legally. I am sure 
that happens a thousand times a day, would you not agree, Mr. Speaker?
  Here they are not even able to see a sign such as this. They are not 
able to say, ``Well, gee, after I cross this cattle guard, I see now 
that I am in the United States illegally. I best turn around and go 
back.'' And one reason why there is no sign here, Mr. Speaker, as they 
were often placed there, folks from the other side of the border, 
primarily Mexican police, come across and tear them down every night.
  We actually got to the point, the Forest Service people, because this 
is right on the Coronado Forest, a national forest, where the 
trafficking in illegal aliens and drugs is so great it is destroying 
the national forest. The degradation of that national forest is a 
national disaster. But not one single environmentalist has spoken out 
against it, interestingly. Not one.
  The tracks, as I show you here, go on up into the forest. They have 
worn footpaths through the forest that now make it look like cobwebs 
all over the forest. There is trash. It looks more similar to a 
national dump than a national forest. And they set fires, campfires; 
and then they walk away from them. And of course especially at this 
time of the year, and this year the drought being what it is, the day 
we were there and just as we were leaving a fire started, again by 
someone coming across illegally. They believe it is

[[Page H2440]]

UDAs, that is the way it is referred to, undocumented aliens, because 
it is in the very remote areas; and it had consumed 35,000 acres in 
less than a day.
  I do not know where it is now. I do not know if it is contained. I do 
not know. We cannot even go in and use the most up-to-date methods of 
fire suppressants. We cannot drop slurry because there is so many 
illegals going through the forest that it actually may harm them. They 
may get some stuff on them so they do not drop it. And they only fight 
the fire during the daytime, because in the nighttime they have had 
fire crews up there and the crews have confronted armed men, people 
carrying M-16s, because they are the people protecting the people 
carrying drugs; and they are coming in huge bands 20, 30, 40, 100. The 
forest is being destroyed.
  Here, people who are hiking, picnicking, whatever, around the 
national forest, could mistakenly enter into Mexico, you see, because 
there are no signs telling you, like this one, be careful, you are 
leaving the United States, you are going into Mexico. And they do. They 
go into Mexico. And the reason why is, and I started mentioning this 
earlier when I spoke of them tearing down the signs time after time, we 
have actually put up over here, just a little farther inside here, two 
metal posts, two big metal posts with a metal sign. That had been cut 
out. The Mexicans came across that night with a torch and cut the sign 
down, because they want people to wander over, then nab them and throw 
them into the local hoosegow and then extort money from them. It is a 
way of making a few bucks down there. They want people to wander in so 
that they can then say you are here in Mexico illegally and we are 
going to make you pay the price.

  But there is no connection, Mr. Speaker, no connection whatever; and 
how can we even talk about things like immigration reform and terrorist 
activities? How could we suggest that there is anything related here, 
just because you can waltz across this border with great impunity? And 
believe me, hundreds of thousands of people a year come through right 
here, millions of people across the border, both north and south. By 
the way, this is not unique in any way, shape, or form to Mexico. Of 
course the greatest numbers coming through are Mexican nationals. But 
nonetheless, we have the problem on both our borders and in our ports 
of entry on both coasts.
  Recently, 25 suspected Middle Eastern terrorists evidently came in on 
cargo ships. They are here someplace. We do not know where. I do not 
know exactly how we found out about it, but I am glad we at least know 
they are here. Makes me feel a lot better. And hopefully they will be 
caught. I know we are judiciously looking at everyone in the United 
States who is not here legally and returning them to their country of 
origin, so certainly in a short time we will have them.
  We have a huge problem, Mr. Speaker. It is a national security issue. 
To suggest anything else is to be naive to the ultimate. And to suggest 
that we cannot clamp down on this kind of situation, we cannot in fact 
protect our own borders, even if it means putting troops on the border, 
because it will be insulting to Canada and Mexico, to suggest that 
trying to enforce our own borders and protect the lives and property of 
the people in this Nation is an act that would turn certain 
constituencies in America against us defies the imagination. It defies 
anyone's ability to actually and appropriately characterize such a 
position.
  There are people in the United States of America, regardless of their 
ethnic background, who are opposed to their own government trying to 
protect them and their property? I want to hear that. Because most of 
the people, Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you, by magnitudes that are 
actually astounding to me, numbers that are incredible, tell me that 
they are asking more from their government in terms of protecting them, 
and they are asking us to do something to cut down on illegal 
immigrants.
  And, Mr. Speaker, this is not just something that white WASPish 
Americans are asking for. This is something all Americans are asking 
for. Everybody. Because everybody here who has come here legally, who 
believes in the sovereignty of this Nation is saying to us, What are 
you guys doing up there? And I mean we are talking Asian Americans and 
we are talking Hispanic Americans. I do not care what the ethnic 
background. By and large these people support our efforts to try and 
actually do something about border security and to reduce even the 
amount of immigration.
  A vast majority of the people in this country recognize that is 
necessary. It is not ethically driven. This is not racially motivated. 
This is a matter that strikes at the heart of everything we should be 
doing here in this Congress. We should be looking, first and foremost, 
at the security of the Nation. And you cannot go in front of your 
constituents, I do not care who you are or where you are from, Brooklyn 
or Timbuktu, no, strike that, Brooklyn or Ray, Colorado, you cannot go 
in front of your constituents and say that we have in fact done 
anything to significantly increase the protection of our borders and, 
therefore, your safety. Because we have not.
  I repeat: the tepid bill we passed here on INS reform will be 
destroyed, I predict. And by the time we see it in a conference, it 
will be something totally different and much less dramatic than it was 
even leaving here, and that was not much.

  I also predict that unless we do this, unless we actually reform the 
INS, actually create an agency that has the resources and the direction 
to protect our borders, and the commitment internally, the people 
working for it who know why they are there, who are on our side when it 
comes to whether or not we should be letting people in here illegally, 
and our side means saying no, unless we do that, we have not done 
anything to improve security.
  All of the other stuff we have done, including the bill the President 
signed yesterday, which I supported because it was that life boat, and 
I am all for adding another life boat to the Titanic, but it will not 
keep the boat from sinking. Signing a bill and calling it border 
security implies, I think, far too much. It is not security if we have 
an agency that is completely and totally incapable of actually 
providing that security.
  We must reform the INS first. And I mean real reform. Then all the 
other things we do, all of the other jobs we give it in terms of 
tracking, all of the other responsibilities we give it in terms of 
protecting the borders, expanding our observation and control of the 
border activity, all of those things will be easier to accomplish with 
an agency committed to that task. Because I know this, Mr. Speaker, and 
I will tell you, I have spent many hours with the folks who we give the 
responsibilities of being on the ground down at the borders, and they 
want to be supported by us. They want clear lines of authority. They 
want to be able to protect America. But they are working for an agency 
which is incapable of providing them with the leadership, direction, 
and resources to get the job done.
  They will tell you personally, time after time after time, of the 
horrendous frustration they feel in trying to deal with this issue and 
do their jobs, do their jobs for their own families and for America. 
They want to do their jobs, but they are prevented from doing so 
because the agency itself is so incredibly, incredibly incompetent.
  We will move just for the next few minutes to one final issue about 
which I am greatly concerned, and that is the issue of amnesty. We may 
talk about all that we have done in this body to protect the borders; 
but every single time we reconstitute, regenerate support for amnesty, 
every time that the administration pushes it, every time the other 
party brings it up, we are doing great damage to our ability to 
actually control the borders; and we are doing great damage to the 
moral character of the United States of America.
  Here is why I say that. We call ourselves a Nation of laws. We tell 
the world to emulate us. We tell every country how important it is to 
disavow the rule of man and to accept the rule of law as the philosophy 
of government that all people should abide by and hearken to. And yet 
we suggest that 11 million people who are here illegally, who broke our 
laws coming into this country should be forgiven for that and given 
citizenship, in fact, rewarded.

                              {time}  2115

  Put them in line for citizenship ahead of all those millions of 
people

[[Page H2441]]

around this world who are reading the words on the Statue of Liberty: 
``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free,'' and say how do I do that, I want to go there, I believe 
that the principles of the United States of America are the principles 
I want to live by; and I want to leave my country, I want to disavow 
any relationship, political relationship that I have with the country 
of my birth, and I want to start a new life in America, as perhaps your 
grandparents, I know my grandparents did.
  We are telling all of those people every time we give them amnesty, 
we are telling all of the people who are waiting that they are suckers, 
and that the better way to get into the United States is to sneak in, 
stay under the radar screen long enough, and we will give you amnesty. 
It is a slap in the face to the people who have done it the right way, 
filled out the paperwork and waited the appropriate length of time, 
learned the language, learned our history, things we actually require 
of people coming into the United States. They did it right, and we are 
telling them, you are suckers. You should sneak in.
  I know the allure is on our side. It is like the drug issue. We say 
there is the demand, there is always going to be the supply. There is 
the demand for cheap labor; and, therefore, they are going to come. I 
understand that part of the equation. I will be for any attempt on the 
part of the government, we have the laws, it is illegal to hire people 
who are not citizens of the United States or not here on the 
appropriate visa. It is illegal. Recently we finally started actually 
cracking down. I know Tysons Food and a couple of other big employers 
who acted covertly to bring workers into the United States for cheap 
labor are being fined. I would try to dry up the demand, but that does 
not excuse the supply. It does not excuse the fact that people come 
here illegally. We cannot reward them for that.
  I am concerned because Monday, yesterday, President Vicente Fox said 
in a speech in New York, it may have been just a couple of days ago, 
President Fox of Mexico said the number one litmus test of our 
relationship with Mexico will be our willingness in the United States 
to give amnesty to the people who are here illegally. The number one 
litmus test.
  One needs to ask himself, why would a President of one country demand 
from a President of another country the complete revulsion, if you 
will, of our own laws? Why would they demand that we ignore our own 
laws as a litmus test for their friendship, while at the same time, Mr. 
Speaker, at the same time they are asking for our friendship and 
declaring themselves to be the best friends of America on the 
continent?
  We find that in calendar year 2001, Mexican government border 
incursions. Here is the seal of the President of the United States. 
This is the slide that I was witness to, a slide presentation I was 
witness to when I went down to Douglas, Arizona. The briefing was 
presented by something called the HIDA, High Intensity Drug Area, and 
it is all of the agencies that get together and try to control the flow 
of drugs into the United States and the flow of illegals into the 
United States.
  In their presentation they showed me this slide, and it says 
``Calendar year 2001, Mexican Government Border Incursions.'' I said 
Mexican government border incursions, what are you talking about? There 
were nine from the Mexican military and 14 from the Mexican police for 
a total of 23 in 2001. When I had a little more discussion about this, 
it turns out this is not unique in the year 2001; we have had over 100 
such incursions over the last 7 or 8 years. The hundred have been 
documented. Many others go undocumented, we are told by the border 
police.
  Some of these incidents have resulted in shots being fired by the 
Mexican military. Some have resulted in confrontation when guns were 
drawn on both sides, and finally people backed off. You have to ask 
yourself, what were they here for? What were members of the Mexican 
military and Mexican federal police doing in the United States of 
America?
  I called the State Department, and they said they were probably lost. 
Probably lost? I do not suppose anyone wonders why we have 4,000 miles 
of border with Canada, much less defined, we have 1,900 miles with the 
border of Mexico, and we have at least 100 of these incursions by the 
Mexican military on the southern border, and I called the Canadian desk 
in the State Department and the Canadian Embassy and said, How many 
times have we had Canadian military wander into the United States 
getting lost because they could not find the line? They said never.
  I said, How many times has the Canadian Mounted Police come riding 
across the border chasing someone and we found them in Detroit because 
they just got too far? It is not happening.

  I will tell Members why it is happening on the southern border. 
Unfortunately, a large part of the Mexican military and the Mexican 
police establishment are corrupt, and they are coming across the 
border. Ask any member of our service on the border, any member of the 
border patrol there on the spot, ask them why it is happening, and they 
will say they are coming across to protect large shipments of narcotics 
coming across the border. Sometimes they come across to create a 
diversion pulling our people away from where that shipment is coming 
through.
  Mr. Speaker, 90,000 pounds, and this is another slide. This is a 
gentleman coming through carrying several bags in these makeshift 
backpacks carrying drugs. This is Coronado National Monument, Arizona. 
This is May 7, 2001. Most come 20 or 30 or 40 protected by armed 
guards. In calendar year 2001, 11,300 seizures amounting to 2.476 
million pounds of marijuana; cocaine, 42,000. That is just in this 
particular area, and I am just talking about the Coronado National 
Forest area.
  Now, is this the act, I ask, of a friendly country? Why are we facing 
this is because President Fox, who I believe is a man who is trying to 
do a good job, I think he is an honest person; but, unfortunately, I do 
not believe he controls his own government. He certainly does not 
control some of the most important parts of it, including his own 
military. Corruption is so endemic, it is so bad that the President of 
that country cannot guarantee the actions of his own military and/or 
federal police. It is a sad commentary. I am sorry for him.
  If I could wave a magic wand, Mexico would be a place with enormous 
wealth and a driving middle class, with everybody having the same 
chance to achieve their dreams and goals. But there is nothing that I 
can do about that, there is nothing that this body or the President of 
the United States can do to change the situation in Mexico.
  The corruption is so endemic and it is connected to a government that 
still has connection to a socialist economic theory. The government 
still owns the oil company, for heaven's sake. While that is the case, 
while you have this combination of socialistic thought and socialistic 
economic thought and internal corruption, the economic prosperity of 
the nation will never, ever be achieved; and there is nothing we can do 
about it. No matter if we open the border tomorrow and walk away from 
every port of entry, which some would like us to do, even take away the 
barbed wire fence, for what little good it does, and walk away from the 
border. That is what some people want. Members know it is true. But it 
will not change the situation in Mexico. It will not be something that 
improves the lives of the people down there.
  I am concerned that the Mexican government is not doing what is 
necessary to help us control our own borders. I am concerned that they 
are not helping us as the President asked them to do so. The President 
said, If you are not with us, you are against us. Then why are they not 
patrolling their own borders to stop incursions? Frankly, people are 
coming in through Mexico, not just Mexicans looking for jobs, other 
nationalities, Middle Eastern. One hundred ten Iranians were captured 
on a guy's ranch in Texas all dressed in string ties, white shirts and 
black pants thinking they could blend in, I guess.
  This is a terrible problem connected to our own national security. It 
is also connected to the kind of country we will be, how many people 
will be here, the kind of environment we are going to leave for our 
children. Will it all be the environment that is today part of

[[Page H2442]]

that national forest which has been destroyed? Is that the kind of 
legacy that we want to leave? I think not.
  We have to reduce immigration into this country. We have to reduce 
legal immigration to a manageable number; 300,000 a year is plenty. We 
have to put the same amount of effort into the protection of our 
borders as we put into the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and 
around the world. We have to put the same degree of resources and the 
same degree of commitment into the defense of our own borders as we do 
to the prosecution of the war halfway around the world.
  That may mean, as a matter of fact, troops on our border and demands 
to our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to help us patrol it. It is 
incumbent upon us to do it, Mr. Speaker. It is our responsibility and 
no one else's. The States cannot do it. The Congress and the President 
must provide the leadership that the American people are demanding. We 
and the administration have to stop turning a deaf ear to the pleas of 
our countrymen to protect and defend our borders.

                          ____________________