[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2059-H2064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
                          JOBS AND IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address the 
House this evening for the purpose of continuing the discussion that 
has been ongoing here about jobs; about what it is in this economy, in 
this new world economy, this new world order that is creating the 
dilemma for many people and creating concern on the part of many folks 
out there, creating fear about their own jobs, if they still have them, 
and certainly encouraging the depression of those folks who have lost 
their jobs and have not been able to find others.
  This is a perplexing and challenging issue. Undeniably so. And the 
tendency, the desire, I think, for a lot of people is to immediately, 
especially in our position, any elected position in America, when we 
recognize there is this kind of a problem and that people are hurting, 
the natural response is to say, what can I do about this? How can I 
change the situation? What can the government do to create a better 
situation for those folks who are hurting? And this is enormously 
perplexing when we are talking about this brave new world of a global 
economy that we do not entirely understand.
  For well over 100 years, we thought we really had this thing pegged. 
We thought we knew what it took to create a prosperous society and a 
vibrant economy, and it boiled down to two words: Free trade. And we 
listened to and read the works of economists that all adhered to an 
economist in the 18th century by the name of David Ricardo. He coined 
the phrase ``comparative advantage.'' He said, look, when two countries 
are competing to produce a particular product, one may have an 
advantage over the other and we should concentrate on producing 
whatever it is in that country that they have the advantage to produce 
because of their climate, the geography, and the natural resources in 
that country.
  He used two examples: He said, let us look at Portugal and England. 
Portugal could produce wine and textiles, but in fact would have to put 
a lot more effort into producing textiles. England could produce 
textiles and wine, but would have to put a lot more effort into 
producing wine. So, therefore, Portugal should produce wine, England 
should produce textiles, and, therefore, the comparative advantage 
would accrue to each one of those countries. Each one of them would be 
doing what they do best and, therefore, each one of them would prosper 
and they would not be wasting their resources doing things they cannot 
do very well.
  That is the theory we have been operating under for now well over 100 
years. And I believe that it had great merit and that it can work well. 
But we have added a new dimension to this whole discussion, and it is 
the dimension of labor. That was not an issue in Ricardo's day. Labor 
was not all that mobile. You could not move work to worker anywhere in 
the world. So labor was a constant in Ricardo's day and, therefore, you 
just dealt with what natural resources and the climate and the 
geography dealt you.
  Today, of course, we know that because of technology we are no longer 
able to rely on just what nature has given us in terms of resources. We 
also have to deal with the fact that labor is another one of those 
commodities that can be traded and for which there is a competitive 
advantage for some countries. But today that advantage will

[[Page H2060]]

accrue to one country over another. It is not a win-win situation any 
more. It is not that one country can produce X, the other Y. Each of 
them will do that. Today, the economy is such that if you can provide 
cheaper labor, you win. The country that cannot deal with that loses. 
It is not a win-win game. That is the situation we face.
  American labor has become ever more productive, ever more efficient, 
and has been able to stay relatively competitive with the rest of the 
world, enough so that we have been able to maintain the standard of 
living that is far above the rest of the world for quite some time. How 
long this will be, we do not know. The answer to the question is that 
we do not know exactly what we can do to make sure that American jobs 
and American workers are saved.
  We can erect barriers, that is true. A law can be passed tomorrow in 
this body and passed in the other body, signed by the President, that 
will erect trade barriers. Will that protect American jobs? Well, it 
really cannot do that any more because there is no way to actually 
control the flow. Technology allows us to export work to worker 
anywhere in the world, and there are really very few ways that you can 
actually, in fact we may not have any way in which we can actually stop 
that phenomenon. I am certainly willing to look at any proposal that is 
designed to slow that down, that is designed to protect American 
workers and American jobs. I would like to do it.
  There is this, as I say, natural desire on the part of most of us 
here to get up and say, here is what we have to do and it will solve 
all of our problems. I believe the last speaker said we should stop 
trying to bust the unions. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that 
will not solve all of our problems.
  If in fact we are also talking about the creation of some sort of 
tariff to stop the exportation of certain commodities or to in fact 
increase the cost of certain commodities being brought into the United 
States, I do not think that will solve the problem.
  We are at a comparative disadvantage because our workers make more 
money than workers in most other countries of the world. And I am 
willing to admit that this is a dilemma for which I do not have a 
solution, but I am also willing to state that there is something we can 
do that neither my friends on the other side of the aisle or even my 
friends and colleagues on my side of the aisle are very willing to deal 
with, and yet it seems to me to be the most logical way of addressing 
this situation of the exportation of American jobs and stagnant wages 
that result from the fact that we can no longer compete in that 
particular environment.
  What I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that we begin to enforce the law, the 
law that actually determines how many people can come into this 
country. And that if someone comes into this country without our 
permission, they are eligible for deportation. And if someone hires 
someone who has come into this country illegally, they in turn can in 
fact be fined. And if they do it often enough, they can go to jail.
  There are estimates that range from between 9 million and 18 million 
people in this country who are here illegally. Most of them appear to 
be working, and we are told they are working in jobs no American will 
take. Well, I would like to test that theory, that they are coming to 
take jobs that no American will take. And here is one way we can test 
that theory, Mr. Speaker. We can look at what is happening on the 
border today.
  Now, we all know that the job increases in this most recent recovery 
have been minimal. Some people refer to it as a jobless recovery. 
Whatever, the number of jobs we have created in the United States in 
the last couple of years is relatively low, relatively few. And we have 
an unemployment rate now of about 5.6 percent. We have a chronic 
unemployment that may go even higher. That is to say, that includes 
people who have long since ceased looking for jobs. So there are, 
again, estimates ranging from 8 million to 18 million people in this 
country unemployed.
  We know, right now, that there are not many jobs available out there. 
I mean that is pretty much a given. Well, let me tell you what happened 
on our borders since October 1 of last year in only one sector, the 
Tucson sector. According to Rob Daniels, the border patrol public 
information officer of the Tucson sector of the border patrol, there 
have been more than 200,000 illegal aliens apprehended in that sector 
alone this year. This is an increase of almost 50 percent since last 
year, and much of it as a result of the fact the President made a 
speech in which he put out the hope of an amnesty. Although he would 
not call it that, of course that is exactly what it is, and most of the 
world saw it for what it is, including the people that are coming 
across the border illegally.
  More than 60,000 people have been detained this month alone in the 
Tucson sector, representing a stunning increase of over 85 percent over 
March of 2003. Those numbers are expected to rise, as April and May are 
typically the peak months for intending border crossers seeking to make 
the trip through the desert before forbidding summer conditions set in.
  Now, I present these figures because I think they are important for 
us to understand if we really and truly are talking about trying to do 
something important for the American worker. In the last 6 months, 
200,000 people in one sector were detained. And let me say this, Mr. 
Speaker. Everyone who is involved with this issue will tell you that 
for every single person we detain, at least three get through. That is 
a very conservative figure.
  So in the Tucson sector, if you use that figure of three coming 
through for every one we are able to catch, 600,000 people made it into 
the country from one sector in 6 months. Now, think about what this 
means for the entire border, both north and south, and our ports of 
entry, both land, sea and air, and it certainly could be as many as a 
million people came across our borders without our permission in the 
last 6 months.

                              {time}  2130

  But let us say for a moment that those are just simply exaggerated 
figures, somehow, some way, we have been able to actually stop more 
people from coming into the country than is the general rule and that 
maybe only one or two get by for every one that gets interdicted. That 
still means about 500,000 people came across the border illegally along 
with about another 500,000 who came into this country legally from our 
very liberal immigration policy. So in the last 6 months, the most 
conservative estimate possible for the number of people who came into 
this country both legally and illegally has got to approach a million 
people.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if a million people came in here in 6 months, 
what are they doing here? What jobs are they doing? Are they taking 
only those jobs that Americans will not take? Do you mean to tell me 
that in the last 6 months we have created a million jobs that have gone 
begging? And that employers are out there saying, oh, my goodness, I 
have all of these jobs and I just can't get an American citizen to take 
them, so I'm going to employ the million people both legal and illegal 
aliens who have come across the border in the last 6 months? No, Mr. 
Speaker. No, they are not taking jobs that are simply out there that 
American citizens will not take, they are taking jobs somebody else has 
and they are taking them because they will work for less. It is a 
simple proposition. These numbers are incredible. Most people cannot 
believe it when I tell them that these are the numbers that are 
actually provided by the border patrol themselves. This is not my wild 
guesstimation of how many people are coming into this country 
illegally. So if, in fact, there are already these folks in this body 
that are so intent on doing something to increase the number of jobs 
available to Americans, I suggest that they look carefully at 
immigration. This is something that, of course, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle will never, ever, ever bring up. In one hour of all 
of the problems that were identified by my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle here, you never once heard anybody talk about the fact, in 
particular talk about the fact that immigration may be one of the 
problems we face when trying to create jobs for Americans. Never said 
it. Why? Because, of course, the issue is incredibly political. My 
friends on that side of the aisle know that massive immigration into 
this country both legal and illegal accrues

[[Page H2061]]

to their political benefit. It will mean voters for the Democratic 
Party. They know it. It is the historical truth. On my side of the 
aisle, you will not hear a discussion of this issue, either, because we 
look at it as being a source of cheap labor. So between the two of us 
here, between the two parties, it is very difficult to get an honest 
discussion of this issue and what it means for America. The President 
said in that speech that he gave a month and a half ago or two months 
ago, I want to match every willing worker with every willing employer. 
It is a high sounding goal. But let us think about what that really 
means, if it is true, if he really wants to do that. Every willing 
worker with every willing employer. Mr. Speaker, there are billions, 
with a B, there are billions of willing workers in the world anxious, 
desiring a job that pays them more than they are getting wherever they 
are but far less than is being paid to the person in this country who 
is doing that job. So do we really mean that we are willing to abandon 
the border? If so, let us say it if that is the truth of the matter. If 
in fact that is our purpose and our policy, to eliminate the whole 
complex process of immigration, erase the border and allow people to 
simply come here to take the jobs that some employer is willing to 
provide, and I assure you that every employer is looking for, and there 
is nothing wrong with it. This is not some nefarious purpose on the 
part of employers. They are looking for a way to cut their costs. That 
is a part of the process we call free enterprise capitalism and a 
process to which I adhere and a philosophy to which I adhere. So they 
are looking to cut their costs. Believe me when I tell you that if 
somebody presents themselves to you who has got all the skills 
necessary to do the job but they will do it for less than the person 
you have got working there, you are probably going to hire them. They 
may only be there for a short time, until the next person comes in the 
door and said, you know what, I'll do it for even less. This is 
something that has happened, of course. We know this has happened in 
our manufacturing economy. This is one of the things that has really 
and truly been problematic in the United States. It has happened to our 
low-skill, low-wage jobs. There is so much competition for those jobs, 
so many people seeking them, that it has had the effect of depressing 
the wage rates for all the folks who are making very little money. They 
have not seen an increase in their salary because there are so many 
people here who are willing to take those jobs, those low-skill, low-
wage jobs. Something new is happening, a new dimension here, because 
now we are figuring out a way to export or import, either way, export 
the jobs to a place that will have workers who will do the job, will 
work for less or import the worker to come here and do the job for 
less. We are doing it for high tech industries. H1B is the visa 
category for people who have special skills and who come to the United 
States with a higher degree than the person who is coming here to do 
menial labor. These are mostly people in the high tech industry and 
they are skilled and they are capable and they will work for less. So 
we hire them or we outsource the jobs that are here. Employers have 
manipulated the visa category to bring these folks in even though they 
do not fit the requirements of H1B or even L1 visas. They are bringing 
them in by the hundreds of thousands. We now have probably 2 million 
people in this country with those two visa categories, H1B and L1, high 
tech workers who have displaced American workers. Why? Because, of 
course, we have succumbed to the siren song of cheap labor and we have 
agreed to essentially abandon our borders.

  It is amazing to me to see what I see and hear what I hear and read 
what I read about what goes on every day on our borders, to read 
statistics like those I just gave you, with over a quarter of a million 
people having been interdicted at the border in one single sector, the 
Tucson sector, in 6 months and far more than that having made it past 
our border patrol and are here in the country illegally. We have, I 
believe it is approaching 20 million people here illegally. They are 
all working or at least most of them are in jobs, of course, that 
Americans will not take.
  I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how it is in your district, but I will 
tell you how it is in mine. I have people who are unemployed, high tech 
workers who are driving cabs at night. I have people who will take jobs 
of any kind in order to keep a roof over their heads and who are right 
now unable to find those jobs. Or if they find a job, it is, of course, 
working for much less money than the job they had. So their standard of 
living is decreased. That is, of course, what we face. That is, 
perhaps, an inevitability. Maybe there is absolutely nothing we can do 
about it because of this new world economy. How harsh that sounds. But 
it may be the case that we cannot stop it, we cannot stop the 
exportation of jobs. But should we not attempt to control our own 
borders? Because we only have two choices: Either we do that or we 
eliminate the border, we can erase the border, pretend they do not 
exist, allow people to come in and however they get here, they are now 
residents of the nation. That is an option. It is one I think that many 
people in their heart of hearts around here accept and in fact desire. 
There are folks in this body who believe that borders are simply 
anachronisms, they really should not be there, they do not matter 
anymore, they are not important and they only serve to obstruct the 
flow of goods and services and people. And that really the whole idea 
of the nation state, some concept of sovereignty, is all offered up on 
the altar of free trade.
  I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell you that I have a magic 
bullet here, but I can tell you that there is no way I am going to 
accept this situation without railing against it and without suggesting 
something that we can do, and that something is to actually control our 
own borders. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating. The Wall Street Journal 
used to write an editorial every Fourth of July that said that borders 
were no longer meaningful and that we should erase them. They stopped 
writing that editorial after 9/11 but it is not because they have 
changed their mind, it is just because they are afraid to say such a 
thing subsequent to such a national tragedy perpetrated by people, of 
course, all of whom were here as aliens and most of whom, by the way, 
in some way or another had violated our laws and could have and should 
have been deported. So they do not talk about it anymore but they still 
believe it and so do Members of our own body, believe that that is in 
fact the way of the world, that national boundaries will not matter, 
that pretty soon the United States, Mexico and Canada will all together 
join in some sort of grand alliance similar to the EU, kind of hold 
hands and sing ``Cumbayah'' and that the only thing that will matter at 
that time, the only thing that will determine how profitable it is to 
live where you live and how good a job you may have, the only thing 
that will determine that are markets.
  Let me suggest that there is another reason why we should try to 
control the border even if you do not believe that we should get 
involved with trying to protect the American jobs that are sacrificed 
to open borders, even if for some reason that just goes against your 
grain and that you are willing to allow American jobs to be sacrificed 
to those people who are willing to come and do them for less. And, 
remember, I say that there are billions willing to do that. There is no 
job here that we can create that someone out there cannot compete for. 
If we import the labor on one hand to do the jobs that are necessary 
here from the service economy, those kinds of jobs that only can be 
done here, a waiter or a waitress, building homes, whatever, if those 
jobs we bring in people who will work for less and the other jobs that 
do not require you to be physically here in the United States to do, we 
export, then of course there has to be some sort of ramification to 
that. There is something that is going to happen to the United States 
of America as a result of this phenomenon. I suggest that at the 
minimum it will be stagnant wage rates but almost assuredly it will be 
declining wage rates. Or maybe we can live with that. Maybe it is going 
to have to happen. No one wants to get up in front of their 
constituents and say, get ready, your wage rates are going to go down, 
your standard of living is going to be reduced because we are committed 
to the concept of free trade and that includes the free trade of labor.

[[Page H2062]]

                              {time}  2145

  In fact, we have asked the Congressional Research Service to actually 
try to identify to us those countries that are actually dealing with us 
on a free trade basis. That is to say that we will import the products 
that they produce and they will import the products that we produce 
without any trade restrictions.
  I have yet to find a country like that. We are the ultimate free 
traders in the world. That is for sure. We offer far more in terms of 
an allure to come here and bring their products than we are able to do 
and that any other country is willing to offer us.
  China is a great example. Since we opened trade with China, our 
balance of trade, or the imbalance of trade, I should say, has 
skyrocketed.
  The same thing happened with Mexico. Mr. Speaker, before NAFTA, North 
American Free Trade Agreement, we had an actual surplus, a trade 
surplus with Mexico, about $9 billion. Since NAFTA, we have gone to 
about $60 billion in the red, a trade deficit with Mexico. We have 
relatively few countries right now in the world with whom we have a 
positive trade balance, and most countries with which we trade do not 
trade on an even basis, on a level playing field. But we are committed 
to free trade, regardless of what it does to the American wage earner. 
And as I say, maybe, just maybe, we cannot do anything about that. But 
I think there is something. I would like to at least try because even 
if it is not something that the free trade adherence will go for, maybe 
if they are somehow concerned about the trade implications of actually 
controlling our own borders, think about the other implications. Think 
about the costs to American taxpayers of massive immigration, both 
legal and illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear all the time about the importation of cheap 
labor and how important it is, but I assure the Members that cheap 
labor is only cheap to the employer. It is not cheap to the citizen 
taxpayer who has to pay for the housing, the health care, the 
educational services, the incarceration rates. All of these things 
become very expensive to the taxpayers of the country, but they are 
passed on to them. They are not paid for by the corporation that brings 
them in or the business that hires that person; so what do they care, 
essentially?
  But this concept of cheap labor has all kinds of other implications. 
The concept of open borders, borders that really do not matter, borders 
through which half a million people, minimally half a million people, 
could come through without our permission in one sector, called the 
Tucson sector, in 6 months. That kind of a border provides us with all 
kinds of more severe problems, even more severe than the economic 
catastrophe that is inherent with this concept of open borders.
  As I say, it is a cost to the American taxpayer, but it is also 
something else, Mr. Speaker. And this gets a little more, I guess the 
word I am looking for is esoteric perhaps, but nonetheless I think it 
is a very important discussion we have to have because even if the 
Members disagree with everything I have said about the economy and the 
impact of cheap labor, the impact of open borders on the economy, even 
if they think it is just great to allow people to come into this 
country and undercut someone who is presently working here, underbid 
them for the job, even if they think that is okay, let me suggest to 
them that there are other problems that I would like them to deal with. 
And one of these things is the problem that I believe is enormously 
important for us to talk about, although uncomfortable, certainly, to 
discuss, and this is the problem with the effect of massive 
immigration, both legal and illegal, when it sort of meshes with what I 
call the cult of multiculturalism that permeates our society. Radical 
multiculturalism. Not just the philosophy or the attitude that we 
should appreciate our differences and the acknowledgment that those 
differences have made us richer in many ways as a Nation. That is not 
radical multiculturalism. Radical multiculturalism is the philosophy 
that says that in order to appreciate anybody else, one must degrade 
one's own culture and that one could never ever suggest that what we 
have here, that the product of western civilization we call the United 
States of America, is superior to anyplace else in the world because of 
course all cultures are relative to the multiculturalist radical. There 
is no difference. It is the ultimate ``I am okay, you're okay'' view of 
the world. And we have spent an enormous amount of time and money 
telling our children in our schools that this is the case, that they 
cannot be attached to anything that we had in our day, when I was in 
school, called the American experience because, of course, the 
multiculturalist radicals would say it is just a reflection of a 
society and a civilization that was nothing but greedy and degraded and 
corrupt, and that when Columbus came here to the New World, he began 
what was eventually to become the destruction of paradise.

  This is what we tell children. This is in our textbooks, and this is 
what is rotting the core of American culture. And we are doing it to 
ourselves, and it is not the fact that immigrants are coming here and 
perpetrating it. They are simply coming into this new environment. This 
is dangerous, I think, to our society.
  When we tell our children there is nothing of value, there is nothing 
worth their sacrifice, there is no set of ideas or ideals around which 
we can all gather, that all cultures are the same, that all is 
relative, when we do that, we are at great risk.
  We have example after example. If the people go to our website, 
www.house.gov, that is g-o-v, /Tancredo, T-a-n-c-r-e-d-o, and go to a 
site that we call ``Our Heritage, Our Hope,'' or our immigration site, 
either one, they will get a great deal of information, Mr. Speaker. And 
I hope that everyone would do that because there are literally hundreds 
of examples of this cult of multiculturalism that I am talking about. 
Let me give the Members just a few.
  ``At Los Angeles Roosevelt High School, an 11th grade teacher told a 
nationally syndicated radio program that she `hates' the textbooks 
she's been told to use and the State-mandated history curriculum 
because they `ignore students of Mexican ancestry.' Because the 
students don't see themselves in the curriculum,' the teacher has 
chosen to `modify' the curriculum by replacing it with activities like 
`mural walks,' intended to `open the students' eyes,' '' she says, `` 
`to their `indigenous culture.' A friend the teacher invited to help 
with the `mural walk' went on to tell the students that `Your education 
has been one big lie after another.' '' And that essentially there is 
nothing they should as a student attach themselves to in terms of this 
American experience. It is white. It is Anglo-Saxon. It is not theirs 
and that they should never ever attach themselves to it.
  ``In the textbook called Across the Centuries that is used for 
seventh grade history, the book defines the word `jihad' as `to do 
one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil.' '' Because, of 
course, we would not want to say that another interpretation of 
``jihad'' is a holy war against Christendom because, oh, my heavens, 
what that sets up in the mind of the reader, even though that is 
exactly what the term implies: a holy war.
  We try to euphemise it. We try to change the definition so as not to 
possibly create the impression on the part of a student that someone 
might hold a view like the people who hold this view actually have, and 
that is this: that their purpose, their reason to be, is to exterminate 
us. That is the truth of the matter, that for millions and millions of 
Muslims around the world, their one purpose is to exterminate any 
semblance of western civilization. It is a threat to them.
  I had a book given to me not too long ago. It was an actual diary of 
an Imam who went on, I believe, to become a suicide bomber. In his 
diary he explains that is what all good faithful Muslims have to do, 
because, he said, We cannot live in the same world with the west. 
Western democracies have created a world in which people live the good 
life here on earth, and that is a world in which we cannot exist 
because in our world, the only thing to which we look forward is the 
afterlife. This is just a temporary status, and we are moving on to 
something greater, and if we allow western democracies, western 
civilization, to survive, it will essentially turn the heads of all of 
our people, turn their heads away from the

[[Page H2063]]

joys of the afterlife to the joys of this life. So, therefore, we have 
to set ourselves on a path of destroying western civilization.
  This is what they are committed to, many millions of Muslims are. 
Many millions of Muslims would not take up that particular sword, at 
least not physically. They may do so mentally. One wonders how many 
people of that faith, even though they would not themselves commit an 
act of violence, how many in their heart of hearts, when one of those 
acts of violence is committed, think it is okay, that it is good, they 
deserve it.
  Nonetheless, in our classrooms we refuse to even tell our students 
about this. We refuse to actually define the word ``jihad'' for its 
real meaning.
  ``In a Prentice Hall textbook used by students in Palm Beach County 
high schools titled `A World Conflict,' the first 5 pages of the World 
War II chapter cover such topics as women in the Armed Forces, racial 
segregation in the war, black Americans in the home front, Japanese 
Americans being interned, and women in the war effort.'' Although 
292,000 Americans died in that conflict, most white male soldiers are 
represented far less in photos and words than all others.
  ``A Washington State teacher substituted the word `Christmas' with 
the word `winter' in a carol to be sung at a school program so as not 
to appear to be favoring one faith over another.''

                              {time}  2200

  Let us see. Oh, a school in New Mexico, this is just fascinating, a 
school district in New Mexico introduced a textbook called ``500 years 
of Chicano History and Pictures,'' and this book states that it was 
written ``in response to the Bicentennial celebration of the 1776 
American Revolution and its lies.''
  It stated its purpose is to ``celebrate a resistance to being 
colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders.''
  The book describes defenders of the Alamo as ``slave owners, land 
speculators and Indian killers.''
  Davy Crockett, they said was a cannibal, and the 1847 ``War on 
Mexico'' was an invasion.
  The chapter headings include ``Death to the Invader,'' ``U.S. 
Conquest and Betrayal,'' ``We Are Now a U.S. Colony,'' ``Occupied 
America,'' and ``They Stole the Land.''
  Nicholas DeGenova, an assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia 
University, told students he wanted to see ``a million Mogadishus,'' 
which is a reference to an operation in Somalia in 1993 in which U.S. 
Army personnel were pinned down in a fierce firefight. Eighteen 
Americans were killed, 84 wounded.
  DeGenova added, ``The only true heroes are those who find ways to 
help defeat the U.S. military.''
  He is an assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University. 
Administrators at Columbia University have expressed regret, saying 
they were appalled by his statements, but took no action to dismiss 
DeGenova, who was still teaching.
  Royal Oak Intermediate School in Covina, California, students in Len 
Cesene's 7th grade history class, fasted last week to celebrate the 
Muslim holy month of Ramadan. His letter to parents explained that ``in 
an attempt to promote a greater understanding and empathy toward the 
Muslim religion and toward other cultures, I am encouraging students to 
participate in an extra credit assignment. Students may choose to fast 
for 1, 2 or 3 days. During those days, students may only drink water 
during daylight hours.''
  Imagine what would happen if he tried to suggest that students do 
something to adhere to Lent, let us say, a Christian religious holiday, 
not a holiday, but a time that Christians recognize for fasting. What 
if he tried to say that is what he wanted his children to do? What kind 
of an outcry would there be? Nobody said a word about the fact that he 
was trying to make the kids more sort of sensitive. That is okay.
  A Federal judge in Brooklyn interpreted a New York City policy on 
holiday displays in public schools allow for the display of the Jewish 
Menorah and the Muslim Crescent, but not the display of the Christian 
Nativity Scene. The judge based his decision on the notion that the 
Muslim Crescent and Jewish Menorah are secular symbols, while the 
questioned Nativity Scene is not.
  Really, we have just tons and tons of examples, and, again, I just 
suggest that perhaps the best thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to have 
folks go to the web site, House.Gov/Tancredo. Look at ``Our Heritage, 
Our Hope.'' We will have these for you.
  One more I do want to bring to your attention, because this one 
really was intriguing to me. Remember now, I bring this up, I am 
talking about this particular part of our culture, this multi-culturist 
phenomena, this multi-culturist cult that has control of a large part 
of our school system, certainly, and the textbook developers and the 
media and on and on and on.
  I bring this up in the context of a discussion of immigration, 
because I believe that these two issues are interwoven and you cannot 
really discuss one without the other, and as we increase the number of 
people here, both legally and illegally, and as we encourage those 
folks who come here to be anything but part of the American experience, 
whatever that may be anymore in anybody's mind, as we encourage them to 
stay separate, as we tell them they should not learn English, that we 
will teach them in their language in the public schools, that they 
should keep that language, that they should keep their culture, and 
they should even keep their political affiliations and connections to 
the country of origin, that this cult of multi-culturalism then is 
enhanced by this policy on the part of our government. And here is the 
kind of thing that does happen.
  In California, Victorville, California, there was a Roy Rogers-Dale 
Evans Museum on Highway 15 in the High Mojave desert. I saw this clip, 
somebody had put it on my desk and I was thinking, why is this 
significant? Why did somebody give me this clip from the Los Angeles 
Times about the fact that the Roy Rogers Museum had been moved from 
Victorville, California, to Branson, Missouri.
  It picked up and moved because of a transformation in the cultural 
nature of the region, as new immigrants who settled in California are 
not absorbing the cultural history of the region or the country.
  The guy who was writing a newspaper story about this went into a bar 
and met a lady by the name of Rosalina Sondoval-Marin. She was having a 
beer at the El Chubasco Bar on historic Route 66, and the newspaper 
reporter said, ``I am doing a story about the fact that the Roy Rogers 
and Dale Evans Museum is moving after having been here for, I don't 
know, decades and decades and decades. What do you think about that?''
  And Ms. Sondoval-Marin said, ``There is a revolution going on here, 
and it don't include no Roy Rogers or Bob Hope.''
  I thought that was a fascinating observation really, and an 
indication of in fact something that is going on here. It is a 
revolution. It is true. It is a cultural revolution, and we aid and 
abet those people who are desirous of separating themselves from the 
rest of American society, creating a balkanized America, by encouraging 
bilingual education in schools and encouraging the cult of multi-
culturalism that permeates our society. So it is that combination. It 
is the combination of massive immigration with this multi-culturalist 
cult that is the most dangerous thing we face.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, it 
has not got anything to do with country of origin. This is something 
that would happen to any country, no matter where it was on the globe, 
if it practiced this kind of divisive sort of philosophic approach 
toward immigration.
  I was recently in a school in my district, and it is a brand new 
school, it has only been there a short time, and it is in one of the 
wealthiest counties in the United States, by way, a county in which I 
do not live, I hasten to say, but it is part of my district. And a 
beautiful school, and very bright kids coming from parents that are 
well-to-do, who have given them all kinds of advantages, and they 
certainly have all the economic and educational advantages they could 
ask for.
  They came into an auditorium where I was to address them for a while, 
and we talked for, I don't know, half an hour, maybe an hour. And then 
they were sending up their questions. One of them sent a question up to 
me and it

[[Page H2064]]

said, ``What do you think is the most serious problem that we face as 
the Nation here?''
  I said, ``Well, I am going to ask you a question, and perhaps then I 
will be able to answer yours.'' I said, ``How many people in this 
room,'' by the way, there were about 200 kids, and I said, ``How many 
people in this auditorium right now will agree with the following 
statement: I live in the greatest country on the face of the Earth?''

  It was so interesting to see this. There was all kinds of shifting 
about and discomfort. You could see it. And finally maybe two dozen 
kids out of 200 raised their hand. Two dozen kids out of 200 said, yes, 
I think this is the best country on the face of the Earth.
  I hasten to add, I think there were many more in that room that 
wanted to say that. I do not mean to suggest that people, all of these 
kids, disliked or hated America. I will say that it is apparent to me 
as a teacher, I taught for many years, I have seen that look on faces 
before in my classroom when you ask a question and the kid has this 
sort of look like, well, if I put my hand up, he might call on me. I 
better not do it, because I am not sure I could defend the proposition.
  That is what was happening. Even though they may have felt that they 
were living in the best country in the world, they also knew they could 
not defend it if I asked them to, if I had challenged them. They were 
looking at the sides of the walls where their teachers were standing 
along the wall in this auditorium, and looking at them, and it was a 
very peculiar situation. It was uncomfortable for them.
  I do not know how uncomfortable it was for most of the teachers, and 
I did not even notice whether they raised their hands. I do not think 
any of them did. But maybe they did not think the question was 
addressed to them. I am not sure.
  But it was nonetheless fascinating to me. And what I believe has 
happened, and what I would love to test, I mean, I would love every 
Member, Mr. Speaker, next time they go and speak to a high school in 
their district, at the appropriate time, ask that question and see what 
happens. It is illuminating. It is illustrative. It is a fascinating 
thing to watch. Because what you see are people who are intellectually 
unarmed to defend the proposition that they live in the best country in 
the world, because they have been taught over and over and over again 
by all kinds of textbooks and all kinds of teachers that they cannot 
ever say a thing like that, because it would indicate some actual 
existence of, you know, good and evil; better and best; good and bad.
  We do not have that, and we cannot have it, and we cannot think of 
it. We cannot think of ourselves as being special, and no matter what 
other cultures might do and what they might think about the human 
condition, we cannot condemn them, we cannot say anything bad about 
them, for fear of offending the multi-culturist police that haunt our 
schools and our lives in many ways.
  I fear this is the most dangerous thing. The answer to the question 
those kids asked me then is this is what I believe is the most severe 
problem we face in America, this abandonment of the ideas and ideals of 
western civilization that actually came together to create this 
incredible country.
  There are things about which we can be so proud. There are things 
that are uniquely western and that we have every reason to be proud of. 
We are the instigator. We brought the concept of the rule of law to the 
world. Western civilization provided that. It was an outgrowth of the 
Greeks, the Romans and eventually through the English, the Magna Carta 
and our own Constitution.
  It is a wonderful, wonderful tour of history to see how that string 
is drawn through the pages of history and how we come to this position 
and how we were started as a Nation, unique among all nations of the 
Earth. We were started on the basis of ideas. Ideas. Not because a 
potentate, a king or anybody else drew some lines and called it a 
country. We started because of ideas, ideas of great value and ideas 
that we must transmit to our children and to immigrants coming to this 
country.

                              {time}  2215

  There must be something, some set of ideas around which we can all 
gather, something that means we are different and special and holds us 
together, because there is nothing really other than that. We are 
people from all kinds of different backgrounds and cultures and 
countries and histories and languages and all of that sort of thing.
  So the one thing that we should try to have to bring all of these 
disparate factions together is a set of ideas. And yes, they are ideas 
promulgated out of western civilization, and we should never, ever, 
ever be ashamed of it. We should extol those ideas to ourselves, to our 
children, and to immigrants, because it will determine the fate of the 
Nation.