[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11893-H11901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4437, BORDER PROTECTION, 
       ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 621 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 621

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of 
     the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for 
     other purposes. No further general debate shall be in order, 
     and remaining proceedings under House Resolution 610 shall be 
     considered as subsumed by this resolution. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIll, no further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 621 is a structured rule providing for 
further consideration of the bill. It provides that no further general 
debate is in order, and the remaining proceedings under House 
Resolution 610 shall be considered as subsumed by this resolution. It 
makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee 
report accompanying this resolution.
  This resolution provides that the amendments printed in the report 
accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  It waives all points of orders against the amendments printed in the 
report and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

[[Page H11894]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 621 and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and 
Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
  Yesterday, this House began consideration of the underlying bill and 
a portion of the amendments offered that were made in order. Following 
yesterday's debate, the Rules Committee completed its consideration of 
over 130 amendments, and today, upon passage of this rule, we will be 
able to complete consideration of the bill and the amendments that were 
made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I again would like to commend Chairmen Sensenbrenner and 
King for working together to give this House an opportunity to debate 
the issue of border security and to pass meaningful legislation to 
secure our borders.
  As I emphasized yesterday, this debate is, at its core, an issue of 
protecting the homeland. While the economic and the social impact of 
illegal immigration cannot be denied, the integrity of our borders is 
fundamentally a matter of national security.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have the luxury to turn a blind eye to our 
borders and simply do nothing, and this problem cannot be talked away. 
I believe that today's bill, though not perfect, puts many good ideas 
into action. Border security did not become a problem overnight and, 
Mr. Speaker, it simply cannot be solved in 1 day.
  Now, I understand that some of my colleagues may have legitimate 
disagreements with certain aspects of the bill. In fact, I do not agree 
with every aspect of this bill and would even like to see some 
additions. However, I remain confident, I remain confident that the 
underlying legislation will prove essential in beginning to turn the 
tide on illegal immigration.
  H.R. 4437 is a commonsense bill that makes the employment 
verification system mandatory rather than the existing voluntary 
program. It also increases penalties for illegally crossing our border 
and for businesses that knowingly hire these illegal immigrants. We 
must mandate detention for all aliens apprehended at the border, 
especially the so-called OTM, ``other than Mexican,'' category, and 
deport them back into their country of origin.
  Mr. Speaker, if we pass H.R. 4437, we will have stronger borders and 
we will save and protect lives. And, Mr. Speaker, not just the lives of 
our own legal inhabitants, but also the lives and the safety of so many 
of the unsuspecting immigrants left stranded on our side of the border.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues for their support of the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at several points during my remarks I am going to refer 
to Ellis Island, and I am going to begin today by citing Emma Lazarus, 
who wrote the poem ``The New Colossus'' in 1883. Twenty years later, it 
was engraved on a bronze statue in New York in the harbor.
  What Miss Lazarus said at the beginning of her poem is, ``Not like 
the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land 
to land; here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand a mighty 
woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her 
name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand glows worldwide welcome.''
  She goes on to say, ``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' With 
silent lips she cried. ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled 
masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming 
shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp 
beside the golden door.''
  Emma Lazarus understood the dynamics of America, as did those who 
went through Ellis Island and those of us that visit there to draw our 
strength in the diversity of this Nation.
  Today, we come to put a cover over that torch and a blindfold on that 
lady and toss all of those magnificent notions of diversity and this 
great golden door right out into the Hudson. Or maybe it is the Potomac 
River that we do so today.
  I rise to express my strong opposition to this restrictive rule, the 
second in as many days, for a xenophobic bill masked in catchy phrases, 
such as ``border control'' and ``homeland security.''
  This restrictive rule blocks all but a select few from offering 
amendments to the underlying legislation. The chairman of the Rules 
Committee was in here a minute ago and said that they have made more 
Democratic measures, speaking of the entirety of the session, in order 
than Republican measures. Well, that does not hold for this particular 
party in part B, a very confusing process, I might add, which even the 
majority leader recognized.
  Republicans are again allowing important and critical debates to 
happen behind the closed doors of the Republican Conference rather than 
on the House floor in the eye of the public.
  What did you all talk about yesterday for all them hours that you 
could not bring this mess out here to the floor?
  Under this rule, 18 of the 115 possible amendments, that would now 
make 33 of 130, could be considered or actually made in order. Two of 
those will be offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
author of the underlying legislation. As if that is not offensive 
enough, only four of the 18 amendments permitted in order in the rule 
will be offered by Democratic Members.
  Then again, Democrats should not be surprised that our amendments 
have again been blocked from consideration. After all, President Bush, 
a Republican, could not even get his legislation proposal through the 
House Rules Committee.
  President Bush, one day in July of 2001, in remarks at Ellis Island, 
in part said the following: ``The Founders themselves decided that when 
they declared independence and wrote our Constitution. You see, 
citizenship is not limited by birth or background.''
  We have an amendment dealing with that here today. ``America at its 
best is a welcoming society. We welcome not only immigrants themselves, 
but the many gifts they bring and the values they live by. Hundreds of 
thousands of immigrants take the oath of citizenship every year.''
  And I have had, me, I have had the pleasure of seeing them in tears, 
with their hands raised, on numerous occasions when I served in the 
Federal judiciary. And my colleagues in the Federal judiciary will tell 
you there is no greater feeling, except perhaps when we, in other roles 
as judges, are helping people to adopt a child, than to see a person 
adopt this country as their own.
  ``Each has come not only,'' President Bush says, ``to take, but to 
give. They come asking for a chance to work hard, support their 
families, and to rise in the world. And together they make our Nation 
more, not less, American. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it 
is a sign of a confident and successful nation. And people who seek to 
make America their home should be met in that spirit by representatives 
of our government. New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion 
and resentment but with openness and courtesy.''
  I hope throughout the debate people hearken to the great commander in 
chief of this country.
  At 6 a.m. this morning, 6 a.m., Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Rules 
Committee with our colleagues in the majority voted along party lines 
against the President and rejected an amendment that would have made 
the Kolbe-Berman-Gutierrez-Flake guest worker visa amendment in order.
  Less than 24 hours ago, the chairman of the Rules Committee, my good 
friend from California, stood on this very floor noting that the 
Republican leadership was committed to debating the President's 
proposal during consideration of the underlying legislation.

                              {time}  1045

  Yet on two separate occasions when presented with opportunity to 
fulfill their empty promises, my friends in the majority balked. I 
guess old habits are hard to break.
  We can only hope that encouraging the spread of democracy into the 
House of Representatives will be the Republican New Year's resolution 
for 2006. Later we are going to vote on spreading democracy in Iraq. I 
hope all of that works, but I sure would like to see more of it come to 
the House of Representatives.

[[Page H11895]]

  Mr. Speaker, this morning south Florida newspapers include a story 
about 20 Haitians being found last night in a boat just north of the 
district in West Palm Beach that I am privileged to serve. Upon 
boarding the boat, which had left Port-au-Prince roughly 10 days ago in 
search of safety from political turmoil, customs officials noticed that 
they had no food or water, and that the day before many of them had 
fallen dreadfully ill, including the children.
  While the 20 hopeful immigrants were all taken into custody and will 
eventually be deported back to Haiti, I tell this story because it 
happens too often in the district that I am privileged to serve and in 
south Florida generally.
  In the Southwest of our great country, they come on foot. In Florida, 
they come by boat. People go to extreme lengths and take enormous risks 
just to get here. Once before in Boynton when a group of Haitians had 
washed up on shore, I stepped over the body of a naked pregnant Haitian 
woman and I thought to myself, my God, what kind of courage does it 
take to try to get away from despotism, to try to get away from 
political turmoil, to get on a boat and come here the way that she and 
others that died in that event had done?
  In no way do I or any Member of this body, that is Republican or 
Democrat, condone illegal immigration, but if Congress is going to have 
this debate, we ought to consider why people are willing to risk their 
lives to come to the United States. It is not always to bilk our social 
programs or to steal an American job, it is for all of the things that 
Emma Lazarus, and President Bush described her emblem being at the 
Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and President Bush speaking there, 
as I quoted earlier. It is for safety and for security and for a better 
life.
  Building a fence around the country, which some have advocated, is 
not going to deter people from coming here illegally, but reforming a 
system which requires literally years to process work visa applications 
will. Authorizing more border security personnel also will not deter 
people from coming here illegally, but ending double-standard 
immigration policies will.
  Yesterday I talked about how much hypocrisy exists inside our 
immigration measures. We have wet foot, dry foot, up foot, down foot, 
all kinds of policies that seem to come at the whim of whomever the 
director is at any given time, be they Democrat or Republican.
  The system is broken. Nevertheless, the policy solutions in the 
underlying legislation will never end these failures because they do 
not even address them, not to mention the fact that they are not going 
to see the light of day. They are Black Flag dead in the United States 
Senate. Instead, they are extreme ideas aimed more at catering to the 
lowest common denominator of the majority's political base than 
providing practical, commonsense solutions to a real issue in America.
  `` `Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she with silent 
lips. `Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, 
the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden 
door.' ''
  What she knows as she puts the new colossus before us is that this 
Nation's strength comes through that golden door, and many of the 
persons that we will talk about today as if they are objects have made 
more than valuable contributions.
  Many of our ancestors who were brought here, others who were forced 
to come here, others who came of their own volition have gone on to 
make this Nation the great Nation that it is. I beg my colleagues to 
reject this restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has a great heart, and he 
indeed is my friend, and he knows that. He in his remarks indeed tugs 
at our heartstrings as he so eloquently quotes poetry and talks about 
the inscription on Lady Liberty and the men and women over the history 
of our country who have come to our shores seeking new opportunities.
  It compels me to think about and to speak about my own heritage, my 
maternal grandparents, my grandfather an immigrant, an Ellis Island 
immigrant, in the early part of the 20th century from County Roscommon 
in the country of Ireland; my grandmother, Ellen Heron from Scotland. 
These two young people met in New York City and married and started a 
family of five children, including one of whom is my precious mother, 
88 years old today.
  I never knew my grandfather because he died at 25 years of age, 
literally working himself to death, possibly on buildings like the Twin 
Towers that were attacked so viciously 4 years ago where over 3,000 
people were killed, and not just United States citizens. There were 
many foreign nationals among those 3,100.
  So I certainly share the compassion and the intense feeling that my 
good friend from Florida has with regard to our love in this country of 
immigrants, and we do welcome them.
  I am sure if my grandparents were living today, they would want to 
thank God that they had this opportunity to come into our great country 
to produce a better life for them and their children. In those days, of 
course, they had to be physically healthy and mentally healthy.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the times unfortunately have 
changed drastically, and what we are trying to do with regard to border 
security is not just to protect our own citizens, but protect every 
person who comes to this country legally seeking a better opportunity, 
the land of free, that they are safe to go to work, to go to school and 
raise their children.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this legislation is all about. I want to 
make sure that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and 
privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis) that doubtless has significant wisdom with regard to the matter 
we are debating.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member from 
Florida, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the floor on this 
very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The 
Sensenbrenner bill is an unacceptable, inefficient and punitive 
proposal to reform our immigration system. Rather than focusing our 
resources on apprehending terrorists, fraudulent document manufacturers 
and other serious criminals, this proposal hurts hard-working families 
who want nothing more than to contribute to the economy and to achieve 
the American dream. These workers help to make our economy the 
strongest in the world.
  Criminalizing and deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants 
already in the United States is unrealistic and would be very costly to 
the American Treasury, as much as $230 billion. This legislation places 
unfunded mandates on our local governments and especially on our first 
responders who already face serious budget deficits.
  While I agree that we must secure our borders, enforcement-only 
legislation is the wrong approach. Our immigration system is broken and 
severely outdated and should be comprehensively reformed. That is why I 
am disappointed that this rule does not allow for amendments which 
would provide real, effective reform, including a path to legal 
permanency for the undocumented that are already here, a reduction in 
the immigration backlog so that thousands of separated families can be 
reunited, and new channels for future workers to enter safely and 
legally.
  This border security PLUS approach is a comprehensive solution to a 
complex problem. For generations, immigrant families have journeyed to 
the United States in search of the American dream. Like the immigrants 
of the past, today's immigrants contribute significantly to our country 
and yearn for that American dream.
  As a daughter of proud immigrants, I value America's history of 
treasuring the contributions that immigrants have made to this country. 
My parents came from abroad. My father came from Mexico and came here 
to this

[[Page H11896]]

country under the Bracero program to work to make this country great. 
He busted his back working on the railroads; helping to pick fruit and 
vegetables in Texas, in Colorado, in Montana; and eventually met his 
wife, my mother, from Central America who had to leave poverty in 
Central America to find a better life. She and my father raised seven 
children, and I am proud to be a U.S. citizen born here.
  Some of the amendments that you are going to hear about would try to 
deny a mother who gave birth to a child here that citizenship because 
she does not have her documents.
  How dare the Republican Party begin to try to take apart our very 
Constitution? How dare the Republicans attempt to try to take away the 
lifeblood of our country, the contributions that immigrants have made 
and will continue to make?
  Give me your tired, your poor. Give me those huddled masses that are 
yearning to breathe free. We did it a century ago when Italians, 
Germans and Europeans came to this country. But now when this economy 
is going down the tubes, we quickly want to point fingers at what I 
think is a community that has worked very hard, and that is the 
Hispanic community. I am a very proud to be a part of that community.
  I know the residents and constituents that I represent toil every 
single day paying taxes, making those beds in those hotels, providing 
service, janitorial services, and many of them caring for our elderly 
and our children. What are we going to say to them for harboring the 
undocumented, that they are also criminals? I think not. This rule and 
the underlying piece of legislation should be voted down.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  I want to remind the gentlewoman we are not criminalizing 11 million 
illegal immigrants in this country. Indeed, 60 percent are already 
criminalized from the standpoint from entering this country illegally, 
and 40 percent are just because they have overstayed their visas, and 
we are equalizing that in this bill.
  The other thing that is important for the gentlewoman to know, given 
the history of her ancestors, that addressing this issue first and 
foremost, border security, is protecting, indeed protecting those 11 
million, most of whom are working and supporting their families and are 
law-abiding except for the fact that they came in illegally. We want to 
protect them as well.

                              {time}  1100

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague on the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
  My good friend from Florida closed his opening statement with the 
inscription at the base of Lady Liberty, and that new colossus that was 
so new and shiny at that time has grown into the great colossus.
  That shining city upon a hill that Winthrop commented on and that 
Reagan resurrected in his soaring rhetoric is still a shining city upon 
a hill that all of us like to speak of and remark upon on a number of 
occasions on this floor.
  Who was that city shining to? Who was it beckoning? Who was it 
welcoming but immigrants? We are still that great city shining upon a 
hill. We are a nation of immigrants, and they are our strength, and 
they are our diversity, and they are our source of innovation, and they 
are what prevent us from being stagnant in the old ways of the old 
world.
  But a key change has occurred since the wave came over from Ireland 
and Poland and the European nations, and then subsequently from the 
Latin American nations and the Asian nations, and that is the rise of 
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
  And so that immigration policy cannot be unfettered. We have to put 
in place common-sense, meaningful reforms so that we address it in 
three parts. We do not disagree about that. There is not an ounce of 
disagreement between our parties about strengthening our borders.
  We all agree that we cannot continue to have a policy that allows 
hundreds of thousands of people to come across our borders, many of 
whom are seeking a better life, but a goodly number of whom are not. 
They are part of MS-13 gangs, they are part of human exploitation or 
sexual traffickers or even terrorists trying to bring in bombs or other 
equipment to do our society fundamental harm. So we have to be very 
careful in moving forward with this legislation and craft a balanced 
approach.
  I commend the authors on their enforcement provisions at the border. 
That is phase one, to address our border security, to make sure that we 
have boots on the border, equipment, sensors, all of the technology 
that our innovation can provide to make sure that we are welcoming 
those immigrants who are coming here to build a better life for 
themselves and their family, and stopping those who are not.
  The bill is incomplete in that it does not deal in a comprehensive 
way with the other two pieces of immigration policy, which are very 
sticky, difficult issues, that of what to do with those 11 million 
people who are already here and that of how we address the temporary 
worker program. It is incomplete in that sense. But this is an 
important step.
  I would only characterize it as a baby step. But it is an important 
step forward to moving what I believe will become comprehensive 
immigration reform that deals with these three key components of this 
hugely important policy in a post-9/11 world.
  I firmly believe that we are a stronger nation because of the 
diversity that our immigrants have brought us. I feel blessed to live 
in a nation that women seek to be here so badly that they are willing 
to put their babies on inner tubes to float across the Florida Straits 
to be here or to risk everything to come across a wall or a fence or a 
river to be a part of the freedoms and liberties that we take for 
granted every day.
  I fundamentally feel blessed to live in a nation that everyone else 
strives so hard to join. And we have to have an immigration policy that 
meets the needs of our economy and welcomes those people who want to 
bring positive, meaningful developments to our Nation and help them 
find a better life for themselves and their families; and this bill 
puts us on the path toward doing that.
  But it is important that we recognize what is not in the bill, and 
before it becomes law what must, what must become part of it, which is 
a comprehensive assessment of a temporary worker program and a way to 
deal with the enforcement of the 11 million people who are here.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentlemen 
from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth.
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding, and I 
thank my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for literally a 
last-second update as I step into the well.
  But despite these courtesies, I rise in opposition to the rule. And 
let me detail the reasons why. There are obviously, to put it mildly, 
strong differences of opinion on this question. Indeed, I heard my 
other colleague from Florida just say the key was comprehensive reform, 
which translates into a guest worker program, which many advocate, 
though I do not.
  The distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker 
of the House, was quoted in a publication this morning, saying this: 
``First of all, we have to convince the American people that we can 
secure the borders. And then we also have to be able to convince the 
American people that we can sustain the laws. We also need to look at 
this guest worker issue so we can fulfill the need for jobs, but I do 
not think that is something we should do right away.''
  Point well taken, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. It leads to the 
following questions. How long then do we wait? Will we wait for the 
catch-and-release policy to go into effect late in 2006? Will we wait 
until we have operational control of the borders? The Secretary of 
Homeland Security says that could take 5 more years.
  Will we wait for the worker verification program to be fully 
implemented? That will not come, in this legislation, until the year 
2011. Will we

[[Page H11897]]

wait until the fence is completed on our southern border?
  Fair questions to ask, fair questions to be debated.
  I heard from my friend from Florida that he favors comprehensive 
reform. I would invite the leadership of this House to come to this 
floor and affirm that they would not support a conference report that 
includes a guest worker plan.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question if the gentleman 
is opposed to the basic principles of this bill, the preponderance of 
provisions that are included in this base bill, or does he have other 
concerns that he might want to express?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, where do I begin?
  Acknowledging that one of the central tenets and challenges of the 
legislative process is incremental reform, we can all understand that. 
But also understanding that in terms of truth in labeling, are we in 
fact engaged in enforcement first or are we engaged in enforcement 
maybe part of the way, awaiting bureaucratic implementation.
  Now, if I can return to my point and to the reason why I must, in 
reluctance, oppose this rule, I do appreciate the courtesy of my 
friends, with whom I agree on many issues, but with whom I disagree 
this morning.
  I proposed the following amendment that has been disallowed. It is 
the sense of Congress that a new temporary visa program or amnesty 
program shall not be enacted until each of the enforcement provisions 
in this act have been fully implemented and a measurable enforcement of 
United States borders and the interior of the United States has been 
demonstrated.
  This is not included. We do not have any way to measure the progress. 
Regrettably, I oppose the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the rule and I am opposed to 
this legislation. I do not think any of the Members here disagree that 
strong and safe borders are vital and important to the security of our 
country.
  Throughout my career, I have consistently supported strengthening our 
borders. And while the Sensenbrenner bill does address part of our 
problems, it is not the comprehensive solution we must have. It does 
not solve or even acknowledge the problems of illegal immigrants. 
Therefore, this bill is half a loaf at best.
  We can secure our borders and keep out illegal immigrants, and we 
should. But what about the 11 million-plus people here illegally who 
are, by and large, law-abiding members of our community? What about the 
11 million-plus people who keep the hotels, restaurants, and 
construction sites and farms running in every State of this Union?
  This bill is no solution for them and it is no solution for our 
country. Denial is more than a river in Egypt, it is alive and well 
here in the House of Representatives in the form of H.R. 4437.
  If we continue to delay facing the reality of this challenge, the 
reality of the importance of immigrants who are not here legally to our 
economy, then I urge those of you who decide to vote for this measure 
to be prepared to face the wrath of business people in your towns and 
cities throughout this country.
  They will want to know why you voted to place the financial liability 
of document verification on them. They will want to know why you have 
made them a de facto agent of the Federal Government. They will want to 
know why you voted to require them to follow a system that makes them 
liable for thousands of dollars of fines when they are simply trying to 
run their businesses.
  They will want to know why you voted to cripple tourism industries, 
home construction and farms, by refusing to confront the undeniable 
evidence that 11 million immigrants here illegally are making a 
difference.
  My colleagues, we all acknowledge that the status quo of illegal 
immigration is unacceptable. Therefore, I implore you to act on a 
comprehensive solution, not the politics of division. This should not 
be a wedge issue. After all, lest we forget, we are a nation of 
immigrants.
  I am the grandson of immigrants. Our failure to act now is not 
responsible. Therefore, I must oppose this measure.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlemen 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support 
the rule, and I am going to support this bill. But there are a lot of 
things that are not included in this bill that I believe we, as Members 
of Congress of the United States of America, should include in this 
bill, representing the citizens of the United States of America.
  There has been a lot of talk about unfunded mandates in this bill. 
Let us talk about the unfunded mandates in the States of our country 
that are educating illegals, that are providing health care, the 
judicial system incarcerating them, how much is that costing the 
economy?
  I have been in the construction industry for over 35 years, and I 
remember in the 1970s through the late 1980s, a man could go out, a 
woman could go out in the construction industry and make a good living, 
could buy a house, raise a family.
  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially during the recessions 
in the 1990s, that changed. You had labor coming into this country that 
some say are just going to work on farms until they get a call from 
their cousin who works on a construction site, or it might be a 
drilling company or a manufacturing plant, and says, You can make more 
money over here than you can over there.
  And I have watched the jobs in our construction industry be lost to 
American citizens because wages were cut so much that they had to do 
something else. Now you tell the guys who used to be able to work in 
this country, who do not want to go to work with a tie and a suit on, 
that their job went to someone else who is willing to undercut their 
labor costs, and they are not paid what they should be, why that has 
happened to them, why they can no longer afford to own a home, why they 
can no longer afford to have a family and send them to college.

                              {time}  1115

  The wrath of the business people in this country was discussed. I am 
worried about the wrath of the citizens I represent who have lost their 
jobs.
  The number one issue I hear about in California every week is illegal 
immigration, why can you not do something about it? Eleven million 
people impacting our highways and freeways, congesting southern 
California roadways, is that acceptable to the guy sitting on the road 
spending 2 hours trying to get to work? No, it is not acceptable.
  There were some amendments that I offered that my good friend, the 
chairman, was unable to put in the bill, and I respect that. There are 
reasons for that. Congressman Deal had a great amendment that said, on 
``anchor babies,'' if they come here illegally and have a baby, that 
baby should not be a citizen of this country. I agree with that 100 
percent.
  There are countries who advertise to have people come here on 
vacation, and they provide a house, the medical, the care for their 
child, to have their baby here so they can become a citizen of this 
country; then they fly back to their country and the kid has dual 
citizenship. Is that right? No, it is not right. It is wrong.
  And the people coming from Mexico and other countries are good 
people. Do not get me wrong. They are here just to better their life. I 
am not arguing that a bit. That is not the issue here. The issue is 
what responsibility do we have to the people of the United States of 
America, what responsibility we have to the workers of the United 
States of America who have lost their jobs or, instead of being paid 
$22 an hour are now having to work for $11 an hour? Tell that to that 
carpenter.
  I go to job sites in this country, and the guys are pouring concrete, 
they are framing, and nobody on the job site, except the foreman, 
speaks English. Now, you tell that to the carpenter who lost his job or 
had his wage cut in half. You tell that to the electrician or the 
plumber or the framer or the roofer who have had their wages cut in 
half and lost many benefits because somebody is willing to come here to 
better

[[Page H11898]]

themselves, and, God bless them, I am not arguing that, but they took 
their job. Tell that to those people.
  And I am going to say once again not everybody wants to get up in the 
morning and put a suit and tie on to go to work. They want to get up 
and work with their hands. They are proud of what they did. They look 
at their work during the day, and when they go home, they can say, I 
accomplished something.
  We need to do more than we are doing here, but at least we are making 
a step in the right direction.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Might I just say that I have started this debate by suggesting that 
everyone who comes to this floor comes with good intentions and 
certainly comes charged with the responsibility of securing the 
borders. Again, there is no divide amongst Americans about the 
importance of securing the homeland. And, frankly, the eloquence of Mr. 
Hastings on reminding us of our original roots that the Statue of 
Liberty represents to this Nation, that we come from many walks of 
life. And some have, as we well know, come to this Nation in fishing 
boats or walked across various lands or may have flown here, and some 
of us came in slave boats. But we are all Americans now, and we should 
be united around the concept of security. But we should not be united 
around the concept of divisiveness.
  So when you poll Americans or ask constituents in the district, they 
again want comprehensive immigration reform because so many of them, 
short of our Native Americans, can track their history from places away 
from this soil.
  So I would ask my good friends why they would put a rule in that does 
not bring the diversity of this Congress, four Democratic amendments as 
opposed to a wide diversity of issues. Why, for example, do they insist 
on forcing local governments into utilizing hard-pressed resources for 
doing the Federal Government's work, immigration work? That is our work 
to do.
  Why do they insist on forcing law enforcement to take precious 
resources away from protecting children and going after bank robbers 
and making sure the crime statistics go down by arresting hotel maids 
in hotels?
  And it is important to recognize that they have amendments that would 
take away the very essence of the Constitution, which abides and 
believes in due process and the right to access the courts. We cannot 
dictate what the courts will say, but I think if you will ask any 
American, they would find it faulty that they do not allow people to 
petition to go into the courts.
  What about those babies who have come here at 6 months old, and you 
criminalize them when they are 17-year-old honor students and simply 
want to be part of the American Dream?
  So this legislation is missing because Americans understand the 
concept of earned access to legalization. Get the criminals out of 
here. We join you in that. Arrest the criminals. Arrest the drug 
dealers. Arrest the people that are not doing what they should do. But 
those who are working hard, paying taxes, should have an opportunity to 
be able to be part of this great American dream.
  And, Mr. Speaker, what about the soldiers on the battle line who are 
seeking citizenship, but have undocumented relatives, offering their 
lives for Americans and the undocumented relatives which they seek to 
bring into status, are now criminalized and arrested and incarcerated 
simply for their presence in the United States?
  So I hope, as we proceed, we will find ways to defeat these 
amendments. And I ask that we defeat the underlying bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Today is not a red letter day for this great and storied institution. 
Rather than doing what we know has to be done regarding immigration 
reform, we are simply punting the ball to the Senate, hoping that they 
will have the courage to act in ways that we cannot.
  Many of us here wanted an amendment that would be made in order that 
would allow for a temporary worker program to be established. That was 
not allowed. In doing so, in not allowing that, we are simply ensuring 
that we play a diminished role in the eventual bill that will pass this 
body.
  If the denial of this amendment was unfortunate, the removal of 
language in the manager's amendment that simply references the role 
that a temporary worker program would play in enhancing border security 
is simply baffling. Every member of the Republican leadership and 
virtually every Member of this institution has expressed the need to 
have a temporary worker program at some point in order to secure the 
border. Yet some said they would vote against the legislation if it was 
included here. Gratefully, the Senate will not need a ``sense of the 
Congress'' resolution to understand what they have to do, and that is 
to include a temporary worker program.
  The elephant in the middle of the room, of course, is the 11 million 
illegals who are here. Without a temporary worker program, we will 
continue to turn a blind eye to their existence, to pretend that they 
are not here. Nobody in this body, not one, is advocating that we round 
up and deport those who are here illegally now, but unless we have a 
program for them to go into, we simply will not enforce the law. And 
that is the dirty little secret here. We ought to at least be honest 
with our constituents in this regard.
  There are some who will vote against the rule and underlying 
legislation with the hope that we will later do something more 
comprehensive. Some will vote for the rule and underlying legislation 
with resignation that all we are capable of doing is to send this 
legislative vehicle, however flawed, to the Senate with the hope that 
they will act with the maturity that we lack.
  One would be justified in either approach.
  Mr. Speaker, today is not a red-letter day for this great and storied 
institution. Rather than do what we know must be done regarding 
immigration reform, we are punting the ball to the Senate--hoping that 
they will have the courage to act in ways that we cannot.
  Many of us in this body asked for an amendment made in order that 
would make this legislation comprehensive, in other words, an amendment 
that would provide for enhanced border security, increased interior 
enforcement, and would provide a legal framework for foreign workers to 
enter the country and then return home.
  It is unfortunate that this amendment was not made in order. In doing 
so we ensured that this body will play a diminished role, at best, 
moving ahead immigration reform.
  If the denial of this amendment was unfortunate, the removal of 
language in the manager's amendment that references the role that a 
temporary worker program will play in enhancing border security, is 
simply baffling. Every member of the Republican leadership has 
expressed support for a temporary worker program, as has an 
overwhelming majority of this body, yet the language was removed after 
threats from a few that the inclusion of any reference to a temporary 
worker program would guarantee their ``no'' vote against this 
legislation.
  Gratefully, the Senate doesn't need to see ``sense of the Congress'' 
language on a temporary worker plan from the House to add such a 
provision to their legislation. They know that such a plan is a 
necessary part of securing the border.
  The elephant in the middle of the room is the 11 million illegal 
aliens who have already entered the country. Without a temporary worker 
program we will continue to turn a blind eye to their existence. We'll 
pretend they aren't here.
  Nobody in this body is advocating that we round up and deport all of 
those who are here illegally. It's no wonder. It would be the 
equivalent to rounding up the entire population of the State of Ohio 
and sending them back to their home country. Yet that is what 
``enforcing the current law'' would require.
  We in this body know that, Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately we don't 
want to admit it to our constituents. George Washington once famously 
said ``If to please the people we do what we ourselves disprove, how 
will we then defend our work?'' That is the question for us today.
  There are some who will vote against this rule and underlying 
legislation in the hope that we will later do something more 
comprehensive. Some will vote for this rule and underlying legislation 
with resignation that all we are capable of is to send a legislative 
vehicle,

[[Page H11899]]

however flawed, to the Senate with the hope that they will act with the 
maturity we lack.
  One would be justified in either approach.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who has an 
extraordinary amount of experience in the area that we are debating.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
generous amount of time in the context of the deliberations on this 
bill.
  I would like to lay a little bit of a foundation for a question which 
I would like on my time to yield to either Mr. Dreier, because we have 
spoken privately about this issue for so long, or Mr. Putnam, who very 
specifically and straightforwardly addressed the issue on the floor.
  And that is, the background, I have said on a number of occasions in 
the Rules Committee and in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor 
yesterday that this bill is either an insult to our intelligence or a 
con on the American people. And I say that, and those are harsh 
comments, and I do not use that language a lot around here, because one 
of two things is going to happen: Either the leadership of this House 
and the Rules Committee is refusing to allow us to address a 
fundamental and essential question of whether or not to have a program 
for the adjustment of 11 million or more people now in this country 
where they would come out of the shadows, be identified, deport the 
criminal aliens and find a way to condition those who are working in 
this society into coming out and giving us their true identities; and 
dealing with future shortages and a temporary guest worker program, 
particularly for seasonal industries. The refusal to do that tells me 
that J.D. Hayworth is right.
  There is one of two agendas here. One agenda is the agenda that Mr. 
Putnam and that Mr. Flake hoped for, and that is we will pass a bill 
with a number of really some very silly and harsh provisions; the 
Senate will clean those up, turn it into a comprehensive approach; and 
the people here who have been screaming the word ``amnesty'' for any 
effort to solve this problem will now be forced to come back and cast a 
vote for it.
  I do not think that is what is going to happen. This bill will 
probably pass today, and we will never again in this Congress see the 
immigration issue. And guys will go back to their districts, and they 
will talk about how they tried to get tough on the border and they 
tried to do something.
  This is not a border enforcement bill. There is a case that we could 
try to do some things on the border to be more effective than we have 
been. When this bill tries to deal with employer verification in the 
context to our 11 million people in this country who are working 
without documents or without work status, we know it can never go into 
effect. We have to either deal with that and then do employer 
verification, which is the critical component of a comprehensive 
approach, or we are never going to pass this bill into law.
  So what I would like to do is have Mr. Dreier or Mr. Putnam, and I do 
not know how they want to do it, if they would be willing to, explain 
to me what the fairness is of not letting this body decide, and J.D. 
Hayworth has one view, Howard Berman has another view, but decide 
whether or not on a critically important issue that the President has 
spoken of the need for, others have denounced, why we cannot have a 
debate and a vote on that kind of a program.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank my chairman for allowing me to respond.
  The gentleman made the statement that this is not a border 
enforcement bill, and I would disagree and say that it is a border 
enforcement bill. It is not a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to clarify, there 
are provisions about border enforcement in this bill, but when you 
implement, as this bill pretends to do, a massive comprehensive 
verification system, that has nothing to do with border protection. 
That is about ensuring that no one gets hired who is here without 
status. We cannot do that with 11 million people in this country, many 
of whom are working now.
  I am sorry for cutting the gentleman short.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from California did not ask me to respond, but he 
suggested the bill is one of two things, but I suggest to him that, 
rather, it is a third thing.
  This bill, indeed, is a response to the American people who are 
demanding we secure our borders first.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pretending that we are dealing 
with the problem is not dealing with the problem. This bill is going 
nowhere fast, end of story.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to stay out of 
this debate, but the tone of the debate has made me angry. It never 
ceases to amaze me how many men will seize any opportunity to kick 
people when they are down.
  Illegal immigrants have no legal rights in this country.

                              {time}  1130

  They have no economic power. They have no political leverage. But, if 
they did, this bill would not be on the floor today. Sure, we are a 
Nation of laws, but we are also a Nation of values and ideals, and it 
is those values and ideals that bond us together as a society and an 
economy.
  Every single one of us, and I can say that because there are no 
Native Americans in this body, every single one of us are the children 
of immigrants, and whether they were legal or illegal was largely due 
to the accident of their birth, what country they were born in, what 
visa and immigration quotas applied and, the economic status of the 
parents to whom they were born.
  There is no sector of this economy that works harder for less 
compensation than undocumented aliens. There is no single group of 
workers that believe more in the American ideal than the people that we 
want to isolate and disown and marginalize today. They are here because 
they were willing to risk everything to forge a better future for their 
children, and that is what makes America great, because they believe in 
the American ideal; they believe that if they work hard enough, even 
though they will not be paid as much compensation as many of the people 
working beside them, but if they work hard enough, their children will 
have a better future, and that is why they are here.
  I do not know any other sector of the American workforce that puts 
more money aside for the future of their children. That is what America 
is all about. It is not what this bill is about.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I see that my distinguished friend and your fellow 
colleague from Georgia could not resist, I see he joined us. Maybe I 
could talk some ``Savannah talk'' and ``Brunswick talk'' to get him to 
understand that people come through those areas, too, as I am sure he 
is mindful.
  Mr. Speaker, basically what we have here is enforcement, but none of 
the compassion that President Bush has been speaking about.
  Let me tell you what the President said. I quoted him on Ellis 
Island, and he was eloquent on Ellis Island in July of 2001. But August 
24, the same year, here is what the President said in part: ``And I 
remind people all across our country, family values do not stop at the 
Rio Bravo. There are people in Mexico who have got children who are 
worried about where they are going to get their next meal from, and 
they are going to come to the United States if they think they can make 
money here. That is a simple fact. And they are willing to walk across 
miles of desert to do work that some Americans won't do, and we have 
got to respect that, it seems like to me, and treat those people with 
respect.''
  We ought to treat ourselves with respect and have comprehensive 
immigration reform, and not some piecemeal bumper sticker stuff that is 
not going to do anything other than give people an opportunity to go 
home to

[[Page H11900]]

say that we did something about immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we are doing: We are going to 
create fear and confusion in the realm. And it is not all about 11 
million illegal people, it is about a number of circumstances having to 
do with that knock on the door.
  Defeat this rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
coast of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I thank my friend from Florida for his kind words. He is 
right, I could not resist the open microphone opportunity, but also the 
subject matter. The subject matter is important.
  Is this rule perfect, and is this bill perfect? Certainly not. I 
remember and had the honor of serving when we did welfare reform. All 
kinds of emotions were flowing back and forth, and it took us a number 
of different attempts and pieces of legislation to get to where we as a 
Nation thought we needed to go on welfare reform. As a result, there 
were 14 million people on welfare. That number was reduced down to 4 
million people. Lots and lots of positive things happened with it, but 
we had to take that first step.
  This is now the first step, or second step, if you will. It is 
overdue, in my opinion and the opinion of most Members on a bipartisan 
basis. We should have done something about immigration reform a long 
time ago.
  Border security is integral to it. I do not live in a border State, 
where people pour over a river at night or walk across a desert, but I 
understand from our colleagues what a huge problem that is and how that 
is not just confined to immigrants from the country that is right next 
door to us, but other people who do not have anything to do with that 
country, who use it as a highway, a transit corridor, to come into 
America. So we need to do something about border security.
  But certainly I believe we need to do something about employer 
sanctions. We always blame illegal immigration on that 20-year-old 
migrant who is here trying to send money home for his family. We do not 
ever talk about our own employer, who has also broken the law by 
hiring. We need to have tools so that employers can check the 
backgrounds of people before they hire them and then have penalties if 
they do not. I feel strongly about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent an agricultural area. Certainly I see why we 
need to have a guest worker program. That is something I think we need 
to get to on a bipartisan basis, and we are going to have a great 
debate once we open that up.
  But I strongly support this rule, and I am going to support the bill 
just to get the steps going. I do not think there is any turning back 
now that we have done this first very significant piece of legislation. 
We are in the immigration debate, and we will be doing immigration 
reform, I think, for very many months to come, and there is plenty of 
room for bipartisan ideas.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
the purpose of closing.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side, and indeed from some 
Members on this side of the aisle, question what we are going to do 
with the 11 million or so illegals who are mostly working hard, 
supporting their families, law-abiding since they have been here.
  As a physician Member of this body, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make 
a medical analogy as to why we are approaching this in the manner that 
we are approaching it; that is, to secure, first and foremost, our 
borders.
  The medical analogy, indeed a surgical analogy, is this: The patient 
is our great country, the United States of America. The surgeon is this 
Congress. During the surgical procedure, it is discovered that massive 
hemorrhaging is occurring, massive hemorrhaging. The analogy is the 
500,000 illegal immigrants that continue to come through our porous 
borders every year.
  There is lots of blood in the field that the surgeon is concerned 
about. But does he or she spend their time, we, the Congress, trying to 
mop up the blood before we stop the bleeding? If we do that, I suggest 
to you, Mr. Speaker, that the patient dies.
  No. First and foremost you stop that hemorrhaging. And that is what 
we are doing in this bill. Then you deal with the blood that has been 
lost, that is in the suction bottle, if you will. And do we take that 
blood and pour it down the drain? No, Mr. Speaker, we do not, because 
that blood, and that is the 11 million people that are here working 
hard in this country, that has been the lifeblood of this patient, the 
United States of America, for a number of years.
  So what we do, Mr. Speaker, in many instances in a surgical 
situation, we put that blood back into the patient, because we know 
that it has served the patient well. Then we restore the patient to 
perfect health.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about. That is why we are 
addressing this issue in the timeline first and foremost, stop the 
hemorrhaging. If we do not, the patient dies.
  Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have a solemn responsibility to 
protect the integrity of our borders, and inaction would be a 
dereliction of duty. The American people look to us as the stewards of 
our Nation's security, and we must not let them down. I want to 
encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
this effort to make the most meaningful changes to our immigration 
enforcement in a decade. This legislation is long overdue. Illegal 
immigration is spinning out of control, and we must act now to enact a 
tough and unified policy to effectively curb the influx of illegal 
aliens entering our Nation.
  My district is in southern California. This region bears the brunt of 
our Nation's failed immigration policies. California has the highest 
number of illegal immigrants residing in its borders. In fact, nearly 
32 percent of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United 
States are in California. The tide of illegal immigration increases 
Californian's tax burden, while weakening its legal, education and 
welfare system.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bill because it lays a solid 
foundation to enhance our border security and enforce our current 
immigration laws. This is desperately needed. We must end policies that 
encourage illegal immigration.
  I am disappointed that some of the other creative solutions that 
Members offered to address our failed immigration policies are not 
included under this Rule. I firmly believe these are important ideas 
that should be considered by Congress as we work to enforce and bolster 
our Nation's immigration policies.
  For example, Representative Nathan Deal's amendment to deny 
citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants 
was not made in order. Providing automatic citizenship to the children 
of illegal aliens is an incentive for illegal immigration and we must 
close this loophole.
  Three amendments that I offered, but were not made in order under 
this Rule, would have discouraged illegal crossings by eliminating 
incentives and providing tough interior enforcement.
  Allowing all counties to be reimbursed for detaining and transferring 
illegal aliens: One amendment I submitted would allow all counties to 
be promptly reimbursed for the costs associated with assisting Federal 
immigration officials. Immigration affects all counties in the United 
States, not just those within 25 miles of the southern border. All 
counties absorb the costs of detaining, housing, and transporting 
illegal aliens.
  Prohibiting illegal aliens from obtaining mortgages: Another 
amendment I submitted would require lenders to verify that mortgage 
credit applicants are U.S. citizens or legally present in the U.S. 
Allowing individuals who are here illegally to participate in the 
homebuying process only incentivizes illegal immigration. White picket 
fences shouldn't go to those who break down our fences to get in.
  Outlawing birth tours: The last amendment I submitted would prohibit 
any alien from entering the United States with the intention of giving 
birth. It is truly disturbing that an entire industry has built up 
around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Each year, thousands 
of near-term pregnant women come to the United States from countries 
across the world for the sole purpose of giving birth so their newborns 
can become U.S. citizens. We cannot continue to allow illegal 
immigrants to make a mockery of our nation's hospitality and our laws.
  Conclusion: It is imperative that we close the loopholes that 
encourage citizens to infiltrate our porous borders. If the war on 
terrorism is to be ultimately successful, it is more important than 
ever that we take the necessary steps to tighten security at our 
borders and provide law enforcement agencies the tools they need to 
identify those individuals who enter or remain in the United States 
illegally.
  I am pleased this bill is before us today so we can begin to address 
those failed policies,

[[Page H11901]]

which we have ignored for too long. As we move forward, we must reject 
all proposals that contain any and all forms of amnesty. Rewarding 
lawbreakers will only weaken any proposal aimed at strengthening the 
system.
  There should be no new guestworker program until we better enforce 
current immigration laws. History has shown that enforcement provisions 
are ignored and underfunded while guestworker and amnesty provisions 
are always implemented. The American people need to see that the 
current laws against illegal immigration are being enforced before any 
guestworker program can be considered.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________