[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 96 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4200-H4207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Bachmann) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that we have 
in this body to be able to come before the American people and talk 
about issues of the day that impact all of us. We're talking about one 
today, and that's really dealing more than anything with the economy 
and the problems that we're having with job creation. What we want to 
do in this economy is make sure that everyone who's in the middle class 
has a chance and an opportunity for a job, and for work and for 
employment.
  It was really troubling because there was a story that came out 
recently that said that over half of all of the adults in the United 
States--over half--don't have a full-time job. That's what people need. 
We all know that people want to be self-supporting, they want to be 
able to support their families, but right now we have a real problem 
because too many adults don't even have a full-time job.
  For a lot of Americans who are watching tonight, a full-time job 
isn't

[[Page H4201]]

even enough to be able to begin to pay for the bills, let alone put 
aside some money and save some money to pay for important things, like 
maybe college for your children, maybe just even to be able to save up 
and buy a car, or pay off a few bills.
  People have lowered their expectations, Mr. Speaker, to a point that 
we haven't seen for a long, long time because people have just, 
frankly, gotten discouraged. They're discouraged now, and they don't 
know where the economy is going to lead.
  In the midst of all of that, we're talking about new impediments that 
are coming to job creation, one of those being ObamaCare, the fact that 
the President's health care law is coming into effect. The law says 
very clearly that the law is to come into effect and that the 
provisions of the law are to be followed by this upcoming next year, in 
2014.
  Well, we saw that the President of the United States--unilaterally--
effectively waved a magic wand. And as he has been wont to do lately, 
he is making laws and decrees, really by a press conference or by a 
press release or just by going to a microphone. And so no longer do the 
American people even know what the law is or what the law says. Because 
we presume when a law is passed that we're supposed to follow it--at 
least that's what the IRS tells us. If a law is passed, they tell us 
that they're supposed to enforce it. So that's the expectation that 
people have, that they're supposed to follow the law.
  Yet the President of the United States said that he's going to put 
some of these provisions away so that people won't have to follow them. 
Well, I think our recommendation would be to the President: let's not 
follow any of ObamaCare; let's put it all in abeyance. Because, as we 
know, one of the bill's chief authors, Senator Baucus, has said the 
bill is, in effect, a ``train wreck.'' And that's what's coming down 
the pike.
  So we know, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that ObamaCare 
is the number one reason, Mr. Speaker, why employers aren't creating 
jobs, another reason why the middle class is suffering.
  So in the middle of all that, now we're hearing another layer of 
burden heaped on the middle class, and it's this: now we hear from not 
only the President, but also from the Senate and some of our colleagues 
in the Senate on the Republican side, that what we need to do next is 
offer amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. And it isn't just a few 
million, Mr. Speaker. At minimum, we're looking at 11 million illegal 
aliens. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are estimates that we will be 
allowing into this country, conservatively speaking, 33 million new 
illegal aliens into the United States in the next 10 years. That's more 
illegal aliens than we've allowed into the United States in the last 40 
years.
  If we allow in 33 million new illegal aliens, Mr. Speaker, when we 
already have 24 million Americans who are without a job--we have 24 
million Americans that are unemployed right now in this country, and 
we're looking, through amnesty for illegal aliens, at allowing in 
another 33 million. Where are those 24 million Americans supposed to 
go, Mr. Speaker, when they have to compete not only with the current 
population but an additional 33 million?
  Well, if there's anything that we know, it is this: it is that 
amnesty costs a fortune. Conservatively speaking, we're looking at $6 
trillion in costs. And of that $6 trillion, nearly half of that amount 
is to go to pay out retirement benefits for illegal aliens--at the 
worst possible time, Mr. Speaker.
  When all of the baby boomers are looking at having to draw down what 
they've spent their life paying into Social Security, when millions of 
baby boomers are looking at drawing down what they've paid in to 
Medicare, now we're looking at potentially 33 million more illegal 
aliens coming into the United States also competing for those benefits. 
But the difference is, Mr. Speaker, they haven't paid in to get those 
benefits out.
  We have a lot to talk about tonight. Joining me tonight are some 
other very concerned colleagues who are also concerned about this issue 
of illegal aliens coming in to the United States.
  We have with us tonight the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. 
Yoho), and at this time I'd like to yield to the gentleman. And we have 
other Members who would like to be heard on this issue this evening.
  Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank the gentlelady from Minnesota, my 
home State, for allowing me to speak tonight on this very important 
topic.
  This is a perfect example where Congress has failed to lead on 
immigration for the last 30 years, and it's unacceptable. It's not just 
an economic issue; it's also a national security issue when we have 
open borders like this. Somebody said, well, you just want to exclude 
everybody. No, I don't.
  You know, if we look at our own homes, we lock the doors at night for 
a reason. The job of a mayor is to keep a city safe. The job of a 
Governor is to keep her State safe. The job of us in Congress is to 
legislate to keep our country safe.

  What we have right now is a situation that the American people are 
fed up with. They're fed up with the fact that Congress is not leading 
on this. This is a moment in time where we do need to lead and set some 
policies out front that are not Democratic policies, they're not 
Republican policies; these policies need to be what's best for America. 
If our policies are best for America, everybody wins. If we cater to a 
certain group or this group or this industry or that industry, what we 
miss is the mark. And again, that mark is to protect what is sacred 
about America, and that is the opportunity that people flock to this 
country for. That opportunity, if we put the work behind it, we all 
know that becomes the American Dream. And that really is what's under 
attack here. So us, as legislators, we need to come out with a policy 
that's best for America.
  I think if our Founding Fathers looked at where we are today, I think 
they would be outraged. Because, again, we have failed to act for the 
last 30 years. We have, you know, the estimate is--pick your number, 
11, 12, 20, 30 million people here illegally. It's weakening our 
economy. It's also diluting that opportunity.
  I think all of us here are in agreement that if we don't protect that 
opportunity, there will not be a place that is that beacon on top of 
the hill that other people aspire to come to. So I'm happy to be here 
as part of this discussion.
  I think the worst thing that we can do is to pass a bill and that 
bill not be well thought out or not read. It would be like some of the 
bills in the past where I feel there was legislative malpractice when 
they passed bills and they said, we have to pass it to see what's in 
it, we have to pass it to see how it's going to work. We don't want to 
go there again. We want a bill that, when we pass it, our children and 
the children of the future can say, You know what? They did a great 
job. I'm glad they stood up and took their time to make a bill that was 
good for America and that protected that opportunity that we hold so 
dearly.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Florida. We will continue 
to have this discussion back and forth as we yield to one another.
  I think you've raised an excellent point, and that's really going 
back to 1986, when President Reagan told the country that we would have 
a one-time deal--one time only; this would never be extended again. 
Only one time will we ever have amnesty. And he assured the country 
that there would only be amnesty given to about 1 million illegal 
aliens. It ended up being 3.6 million illegal aliens. Why? Because all 
of a sudden people realized the door is open, we can go in, and they 
all flooded across the border. And rather than 1 million people being 
given amnesty, it was 3.6 million. Then of course this chain migration 
that expanded beyond that, that goes again to the issue of dealing with 
the rule of law.
  What we were told in '86 is that we would once and for all secure 
that border. Let's see, 1986, 1996, 2006. Where are we now? Oh, yeah, 
2013. Over 25 years later, that promise of a secure border is 
unfulfilled.
  So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what in the world are we doing talking 
about amnesty again when we haven't seen the fulfillment of the promise 
by President Reagan from 1986?
  Well, people were so angry and belligerent about that, actually, in 
2006, that

[[Page H4202]]

this Congress passed a bill that authorized building a fence across all 
700 miles on the southern border. And they paid for it. They completely 
funded it. That's something when you get Congress to pay for something, 
but they did. Well, that was '06. What is it again, 2013? Seven years 
later this very body passed a bill to build a fence. Where's the fence? 
There used to be a commercial on TV that was ``Where's the Beef?'' 
We're saying: Where's the fence?
  So what we're saying is: No bill. None. No bill. The middle class has 
had it up to here. They're fed up. They're saying, I don't want my 
government to lie to me anymore. I want my government to do what I sent 
them to do, and that is secure the border.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank my friends tonight that we're all 
sharing this hour with, and Mrs. Bachmann in particular for leading us.
  You know, Milton Friedman, the famous economist, said that you can 
have open borders if you don't have a welfare state. But if you have a 
welfare state, you're going to have to close your borders, and you're 
going to have to seal them. You see, we didn't have a problem with 
illegal immigration until we developed a robust welfare system in this 
country.
  Now, make no mistake about it, people who come here legally and 
illegally come here for opportunity. I get that. Our forefathers came 
here for opportunity. The problem is that so many of them who come here 
illegally come so ill-prepared for success. They come with lack of 
education; they come with lack of skill; they come with lack of ability 
or unwillingness to assimilate into the culture. So what happens is 
they can't find success. So instead of returning back home where maybe 
they can work within their culture, they settle for our welfare state, 
and as such it has grown quite a bit.
  So what does that mean when it comes to the amnesty that we're 
talking about tonight that's contained within the Senate bill? Well, 
the problem with that--and Heritage Foundation has done a great study 
on this. Robert Rector, as we know, is the guru, is the master when it 
comes to understanding the whole issue of our welfare state and the 
reform thereof and the need for that reform. What he tells us is, that 
as soon as we grant amnesty to folks, there will be chain migration. 
There will be votes for more and more entitlement programs and more and 
more safety net programs.

                              {time}  2045

  And so you will have millions of people who will be putting something 
into the system that are taking much more out, especially after the 10-
year budget window, which is why it looks so good when it is actually 
put on paper. But we all know that what will happen is that this 
Nation, even though we are already $17 trillion in debt, will be much 
more in debt as a result of those people then getting onto Social 
Security and Medicare and all these other programs.
  So what does that mean? We do have a problem. It all began with our 
inability to patrol our borders; and yet you have a giant Senate bill 
which is to immigration what ObamaCare is to health care--a giant, 
unwieldy, complicated bill that law, if it's ever passed into law, will 
be unenforceable.
  So I've heard so many times--I've been here almost 5 years, my good 
friend from Minnesota--and do you know what, I've heard so many times 
that we've got to do something, we've got a problem so we've got to do 
something. So what do we do? We slam through a terrible bill, we get a 
terrible law, and we are worse off than we ever were.
  So I say tonight, and I join with my friends to say, no, if we're 
going to pass something, let's pass something good. And what is that 
going to be? It's going to be border security, both external and 
internal border security. It begins there. We do nothing else until we 
have complete border security.
  It is already in law, as the gentlelady has already expressed. We 
just simply ask the President to enforce the laws we already have. If 
we are not a Nation of laws, then we are a Nation of chaos and 
lawbreakers.
  With that, I would just say in summation that we need to join 
together in this body and let's stop this terrible Senate amnesty bill. 
I don't know, it's about 1,200 pages, I believe. It is for immigration 
what ObamaCare is for health care. Let's stop these crazy, giant bills 
that nobody reads until they are passed. Let's begin to do it right. 
Let's start right now doing it right by fixing immigration by making 
our borders secure once again.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, because 
you hit on a great point. That's why we have such a credibility problem 
right now as the United States Congress, because we say we are going to 
do something and we don't.
  I think the only way the American people are going to believe us on 
this border security is if we in the House declare that if we pass a 
border security bill, it is only going straight to the Senate and 
that's it. We are not going to send any bill to a conference committee 
where we know it's going to get ripped up and turned to something that 
doesn't even resemble border security. There will be full-blown amnesty 
buried somewhere in that bill. We know it.
  How do we know that? Because Senator Schumer on the Senate side said 
that that's their deal breaker. And that's what President Obama said, 
that's a deal breaker. I think it's time that this body says that 
amnesty is our deal breaker--we are not doing amnesty, no way, no how, 
not until you secure the border. We are a one-track mind. We are going 
to listen to what we are hearing the people say.
  I would like to have my colleagues weigh in on that too about what 
you've been hearing at home. What I've been hearing people say to me 
is, Michele, we don't get why in the world you don't just secure the 
border. What are you talking about amnesty for? Just secure the border. 
That's what I'm hearing. I would just like to ask very quickly--I know 
we've been joined by Mr. Gohmert and we also have Mr. Brooks here as 
well--I would like to ask Mr. Fleming, is that what you've been hearing 
at home?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, my good friend from Minnesota.
  That's precisely what I'm hearing in Louisiana, north Louisiana. 
Again, they go, why is it so complicated, fix the border, secure the 
border.
  It's not just about the external border. Remember, 40 percent of 
those here illegally are because of their visa overstays. So we've also 
got to have internal security too.
  This doesn't count all the other issues: the crime, the criminal 
elements, the terrorists and others that come across the border.
  Yes, my constituents are 100 percent behind us on that.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Is that what you are hearing as well from your constituents?
  Mr. YOHO. Yes, ma'am. I'm hearing the same thing: close the border, 
secure the border. Somebody said, well, what percent would you want it 
secured: 70, 80, 90 percent? I said, well, if you were in an airplane 
and they only had 90 percent of the fuel to get from point A to point 
B, would you get on the plane? We want 100 percent security. I mean, 
secure is secure.
  You brought up the rule of law. I think this is really what we need 
to talk about because we are a country of laws and we are supposed to 
follow those laws. But when you think back what happened prior to the 
election with President Obama--as you said, he waived his pen--now, 
think about that. That's one man in a country of 330 million of us that 
chose to change our immigration laws and how we implement them and how 
we enforce them. One man in a country of 330 million without a debate, 
without a discussion, and without a vote. That's not acceptable.
  The American people are telling us that. In my district they say 
secure the borders, no amnesty, absolutely not. And it goes back up. 
What are we doing? Are we trying to protect a certain group or a 
certain business or are we trying to protect America? Again, our job is 
to protect this country. It's a national security issue.
  When I hear--like you brought up, Dr. Fleming--
``comprehensive,'' when we hear that word ``comprehensive,'' I

[[Page H4203]]

think we all kind of run and hide because it reminds us of 
comprehensive health care reform, comprehensive financial reform. I 
think when I talk to the people in our district, and you guys will 
probably mimic this, I don't have anybody against immigration; they 
want it done properly.

  So I think what we need to talk about is responsible immigration 
reform, but that can't happen until we secure the borders and enforce 
the rules on the law.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for saying 
that because I think what I fear is that if we combine these issues in 
so-called comprehensive reform, what's going to happen is you're going 
to have selective enforcement, and you're going to pick and choose. 
Because, again, we saw the President of the United States this week 
twice say that he is not going to enforce certain parts of ObamaCare. 
Hey, fine with me, don't enforce any of it, as far as I'm concerned. 
But do it through the rule of law. Do it through this body.
  I ran for office, and it was tough to do, and I got here. But my 
voice counts, just like your voice counts, just like your voice counts, 
just like your voice counts, just like the Senate's voice counts. 
Because we are a constitutional Republic. We are not a dictatorial 
State. We don't have a king; we shouldn't have a tyrant. And yet we are 
seeing that the President decides, well, I'm going to support something 
today and maybe I won't.
  I guess that should give us a clue, shouldn't it, that maybe if we 
get so-called comprehensive reform that the President may say, well, 
I'm not going to secure the border because I don't have the political 
will to secure the border, but I am going to go ahead and maybe speed 
up amnesty for illegal aliens. So maybe I'll just give them voting 
rights today because I want to, and I'm just going to go ahead and give 
them access to ObamaCare today because I want to, and I'm going to give 
them access to the 80 different means-tested welfare programs because I 
want to, and plus it will help me in that 2014 election. These are the 
kinds of things that we need to think about.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Texas. I would like you to weigh in 
also. What are you hearing from people back home about amnesty versus 
border security? Did they want it in the same bill? They don't want it 
in the same bill? What are you hearing? And this is Louie Gohmert from 
Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Minnesota yielding.
  It is pretty overwhelming. It's not just Texas. There's a 2010 
Rasmussen poll that says 68 percent of likely voters think that 
securing the border is more important than granting amnesty to 
illegals. So this is nothing new.
  Yet the President himself has promised that he would secure the U.S. 
border with Mexico. But then again, he also made a speech in May of 
this year in Mexico condemning the sale of guns in the U.S. that have 
gone to Mexico. And of course we know his administration required that 
to be done.
  So you can't just go by what's being said. The President promised to 
secure the border. It hasn't. The American people are sick of promises 
not being kept, and they want the border secure. I know that none of us 
want the border closed. We appreciate immigration as wonderful fresh 
water coming into this great lake, but it's going to sink the boat if 
it comes too fast. Anyway, I'm mixing my metaphors.
  But the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act promised it would 
secure the border. Not only that, it said that ``it would prevent and 
deter the illegal entry of aliens in the United States and the 
violation of the terms of their entry.'' That has not happened. In 27 
years that has not happened. The American people are not stupid. 
Lincoln pointed out ``you can fool some of the people some of the 
time'' or ``some of the people all of the time.'' But regardless, here 
it's like this administration thinks they're going to fool enough of 
the people enough of the time to continue to pass things that hurt 
America.
  It is interesting, though, the immigration bill that was passed 
previously and then in 2006, we had another bill that was supposed to 
actually get enforcement done, and it didn't happen. I'm not sure if my 
friend from Louisiana was here at the time, but we were told there 
would be a fence, virtual fence, walls where needed, all this would be 
taken care of, and this was under the Bush administration, and there 
were billions of dollars appropriated for that.
  And if my friends will recall, it wasn't all that long ago, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security just out of the blue announced, I've 
decided not to do the virtual fence. So we're just going to blow that 
off. The money had been appropriated. It's in the law. Here's what you 
do. And this administration just decided, we don't care it's in the 
law; we don't care there's money there to do it. We're not going to do 
it.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. The Secretary of Homeland Security also testified 
before Congress when she was asked about whether or not the border was 
secure, she had testified that they didn't even have a metric to know 
if the border was secure. So what are we doing here? What are we doing 
here if the Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't even have any 
possible way to even measure whether the fence is secure?
  Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentlelady will yield, we do have one metric from 
the Government Accountability Office. They have certified or indicated 
in their recent report that of the approximate 2,000-mile border 
between the U.S. and Mexico that 129 miles are under full control, to 
use their words; 129 miles out of 2,000 are under full control, and 
this administration is saying, Let's just go ahead and provide amnesty 
to everybody that's here and then we'll eventually secure the border.
  We are going to have to keep doing this kind of amnesty bill every 
couple of years--or maybe we wait 10 years and do it in lumps every 10 
years--unless we do what the law already requires: secure the border.
  I would like to see us adopt a resolution that just says basically 
until the United States' southern border is secured as confirmed, not 
by Janet Napolitano because we know we can't trust that, but as 
confirmed by the Governors and the legislatures in the four southern 
border States, the House of Representatives shall not bring any 
legislation, including any conference report, regarding immigration 
before the House for a vote. I think that's what we ought to do.

  We've got Americans upset and concerned about the IRS, upset and 
concerned about Benghazi, upset about this administration snooping. Of 
course, we have to say, though, as Matt Salmon said, the people finally 
have a President who will listen to them, or at least his 
administration listening to these things.
  But anyway, there are all these other issues that need to be taken 
up, and I think our position ought to be very clear to the White House: 
you do your job and then we'll get an immigration bill.
  And one other thing on the comprehensive, since the gentlelady 
mentioned that, since I got elected in November of 2004, it's my 
experience that when somebody in either the House or the Senate down 
here says we want a comprehensive bill on anything, that is code 
meaning--you break down the code--we've got a lot of really bad stuff 
that we want to get passed and nobody will ever vote for it if it 
stands up and people see what it is. So we need such a massive bill 
that we can hide the bad stuff in there we want passed so people won't 
see it until long after the bill has been passed. That's what 
``comprehensive'' has come to mean.

                              {time}  2100

  Mrs. BACHMANN. And that's absolutely true, because ``comprehensive'' 
is code language for this is really, really bad what's in this bill. 
Take a look at comprehensive sex education. That's all you need to 
know. This is really really bad, and it's not going to help anyone.
  I know we have the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), who would 
also like to weigh in. He has been a marvelous voice also on this issue 
and has been very thoughtful and has a tremendous amount of background 
on this issue and has participated in a tele-townhall with numerous 
individuals and has a great deal of information. So I would yield to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

[[Page H4204]]

  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Thank you. I very much appreciate this 
opportunity and the work that you put forth in getting us together this 
evening.
  I want to emphasize a few points about America's immigration 
situation. The first point of emphasis is this: America is now and has 
been far and away the most generous Nation in world history when it 
comes to allowing foreigners to come on to our soil, when it comes to 
allowing foreigners to receive our most cherished right, that of 
citizenship.
  In that vein, I would like to share with each of you some information 
from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration 
Statistics. This covers data from 2011 and going backwards.
  First, with respect to legal status, the numbers of people that we as 
a country allow to have permanent legal status in the United States of 
America, in 2011, it was 1,062,000 foreigners in that 1 year that were 
given legal status who previously had not had previous legal permanent 
resident status. To put that into perspective, let's go back 50 years 
to 1963. It was 306,260 that were given legal permanent resident 
status; i.e., today, we're even more generous than we were half a 
century ago. Today we're giving three times as many legal permanent 
resident status than we did a half century ago.
  Forty years ago in 1973, 398,000 foreigners were given legal 
permanent resident status. That's still twice today, what we're giving, 
than we gave 40 years ago. In 1983, it was up to 550,000, meaning that 
today roughly twice, again, what we are giving than we did as recently 
as 30 years ago. Then in 1993, it was 903,000. In 2003, it was 703,000. 
Again, today it's more generous than any time in American history. 
That's with respect to legal status of permanent residency for 
foreigners.
  A bigger issue is how many petitions for naturalization were filed by 
foreigners and how many foreigners did Americans give naturalization 
to, i.e., our most cherished right in the United States of America.
  Over the last few years, in 2011, 694,000 foreigners were naturalized 
in the United States of America; in 2010, 620,000 foreigners were 
naturalized; in 2009, 744,000 foreigners were naturalized; in 2008, a 
little over a million were naturalized; and in 2007, 660,000 were 
naturalized. Those are huge numbers. Probably more so than any nation 
on Earth. Not probably, but definitely more so than any nation on Earth 
and probably more so than all the rest of the world put together. 
That's how generous America has been with respect to foreigners.
  If you put that into perspective, a decade ago, 462,000, meaning 
we're roughly giving 50 percent more now than we did just a decade ago 
naturalization. In 1993, 20 years ago, it was 313,000, meaning today 
we're giving twice as much naturalization as we gave 20 years ago. 
Thirty years ago in 1983, it was 178,000, meaning today there are four 
times more today than there were in 1983, just 30 years ago.
  But it goes further, and this is important.
  How many foreigners lawfully come into the United States of America? 
Bear in mind that we as a country have a total population of a little 
over 300 million people. But let's look at what's happened since 2003. 
The total of all admissions--again, this is according to the Department 
of Homeland Security--in 2003, 180 million foreigners came into the 
United States of America lawfully. They may be tourists coming and 
going, they may be students on student visas coming and going, they may 
have work permits or work visas, they may be part of trade delegations, 
but 180 million foreigners figured out how to do it the right way, the 
lawful way.
  In 2004, 180 million again. In 2005, another 175 million foreigners 
came into America the right way. In 2006, another 175 million 
foreigners came into America the right way. In 2007, 171 million 
foreigners came into America lawfully. In 2008, 175 million; in 2009, 
162 million; in 2010, 160 million; and in 2011, 159 million came into 
America lawfully.
  Now, why do I emphasize these numbers? It's because the number of 
people whose first act on American soil is to break our laws is 
minuscule compared to the big picture, compared to those who know how 
to come into America lawfully, compared to those that America welcomes 
into the United States lawfully.
  Those are numbers that I want to emphasize, and basically what that 
tells you is that there are hundreds of millions of foreigners around 
the world that want to come into our country and we generously and 
compassionately allow them into the United States of America. What we 
are focusing on today are the lawbreakers. And we have people in this 
body, people in the United States Congress, people in the White House 
who want to give amnesty to lawbreakers.
  Let's bear in mind that there are reasons why we should not be doing 
that. First and foremost, we can have the choice of whomever we want 
out of these hundreds of millions that want to come to the United 
States of America and immigrate and become citizens of our great land. 
In that kind of perspective, what we need to be doing is choosing those 
who best fit America's needs. In that perspective, let's bear in mind 
our financial condition as a country.
  We have had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, the worst 
deficits in the history of our country. We are now about to rush 
through the $17 trillion mark in total debt. We are not a country 
that can afford to stay on this path. We are not a country that can 
afford to allow into our Nation immigrants who are going to be tax 
consumers rather than tax producers.

  When you have the pick of hundreds of millions of people around the 
world, we should be smart and we should have a smart immigration policy 
that brings in people who are going to be tax producers, not tax 
consumers. That's going to help us with our deficit situation, help us 
with our accumulated debt, and hopefully reduce or minimize the risk of 
an American tragedy, that tragedy being a debilitating insolvency and 
bankruptcy of our great Nation. So, in that vein, our foreign policy, 
our immigration policy should focus on those who are going to come here 
and produce more revenue than they're going to consume.
  I'm for allowing immigration in the United States of America. It's a 
cherished privilege and it's a historical fact of our country. But 
smart immigration means that the people we allow into the United States 
of America need to bring wealth with them if that's going to help 
produce more in tax revenue than they're going to consume. We need to 
allow people into our country who are going to bring skill sets with 
them if it's going to empower them to produce more in tax revenue than 
they're going to consume. We need to allow them to bring in their 
intellectual capacity that's going to enable them to produce more 
revenue than they're going to consume.
  Yes, our immigration policy is broken in part because we have laws 
that need to be better. Yes, our immigration policy is broken in part 
because we have a President of the United States who refuses to enforce 
the laws that are on the books.
  Me, personally, I see no need whatsoever to engage in an immigration 
law debate until we have a White House that's going to enforce the laws 
that we already have on the books. In the absence of a White House, in 
the absence of a President that is going to enforce the laws on the 
books, then new immigration law is meaningless because it has no force 
and effect as long as we've got a President of the United States who, 
instead of being the chief law enforcement officer of this great land, 
instead of being the chief executive officer of the executive branch 
ends up being the person who is in charge of more lawlessness than 
anybody else in the United States of America because, so long as you 
encourage lawlessness by refusing to enforce the laws, you're giving a 
wink of the eye and a nod and a tacit admission that it's okay to break 
our laws. And as long as we have a President of the United States that 
refuses to enforce our laws, that refuses to come forth with a sound 
immigration policy that he will abide by, then it does no good for us 
to have this kind of immigration law debate.

                              {time}  2110

  But that having all been said, I want to emphasize a few other 
things. As pointed out earlier, the Senate Gang of Eight's amnesty and 
open borders bill legalizes or brings in 40 million foreigners over the 
next decade. You put

[[Page H4205]]

the two numbers together, 11 million who are unlawfully here, who have 
broken our laws, whose first step on American soil was to thumb their 
nose at our law enforcement and America's laws, and we have another 10 
million that this Senate Gang of Eight's amnesty and open borders bill 
is going to admittedly bring into the United States of America--think 
about the impact of that on our economy. Think about the impact of 40 
million job seekers on the wages of Americans who are struggling to 
survive.
  There's a study by George Borjas, a Harvard University professor, not 
exactly a conservative think tank, Harvard University, that indicates 
that this huge influx of illegal immigration is going to have a 
definite and adverse effect on the wages of Americans. For example, 
people who have only a high school degree, illegal immigration is 
already impacting them to the tune of a loss of $800 per year. Now to a 
lot of folks who are wealthy, $800 is not much. But to a lot of people 
who are struggling to make ends meet, $800 is a lot of money.
  With respect to the average American, not just the least among us, 
but the average American, the cost to the average American household is 
over $1,000 from these immigration policies that are in existence now 
from a White House who refuses to enforce our immigration laws and 
refuses to protect American workers from this huge supply of cheap 
foreign labor that is competing with struggling, hardworking American 
families.
  Minorities are also dramatically hurt. I would highly encourage 
everyone to look at the reports that have come out by the Black 
American Leadership Alliance.
  Finally, I want to focus on a passage from ``America the Beautiful.'' 
This really is about the rule of law. If we do not enforce our laws, we 
have no laws, we have anarchy, we have open borders. In that vein, many 
of you have heard the first stanza, but let me cover it in the second:

     O beautiful for spacious skies,
     For amber waves of grain,
     For purple mountain majesties
     Above the fruited plain!
     America! America!
     God shed His grace on thee,
     And crown thy good with brotherhood
     From sea to shining sea!
     O beautiful for pilgrim feet
     Whose stern, impassioned stress
     A thoroughfare of freedom beat
     Across the wilderness!
     America! America!
     God mend thine every flaw,
     Confirm thy soul and self control
     Thy liberty in law.

  This has been America's heritage for decades, for centuries. The rule 
of law is paramount.
  I can't speak for the rest of this House of Representatives, I can't 
speak for the United States Senate. I can't speak for the White House. 
But I can speak for one voice from the Alabama Fifth Congressional 
District, and that voice is this: I will never, never reward and ratify 
illegal conduct by supporting amnesty for people whose first step on 
American soil was to violate American law. We can do better than that. 
We should do better than that. And we must, must respect the rule of 
law or else we will descend into chaos and anarchy.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. That was a tour de 
force. I thank you for that. I think the context you gave was 
wonderful, the fact that we have been extremely generous because one of 
the numbers you mentioned, that I had heard as well, that the United 
States of America allows in more foreigners into the United States than 
all of the countries of the world combined. We are so extremely 
generous. This year alone I believe the figure was a million people 
that we allow into the United States legally.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. For citizenship.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. For citizenship.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. A remarkable number.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. It's a remarkable number, and when you consider the 
bill that came from the Senate would double the figure for legal 
immigration.
  We're having a hard time assimilating the number of people that we 
have when we have 24 million Americans who are unemployed right now, 
we're still allowing a million people in legally, let alone all the 
other numbers of people who found legal venues to be able to get in, 
but another number that you mentioned--you talked about the study that 
came out earlier from Harvard. And in that study which I read at your 
recommendation, what we are looking at is the average household is 
looking at a reduction in income and wages of $1,300 a year. That's an 
enormous amount of money for the average American household because 
just consider when Barack Obama became President of the United States, 
the average income per household in the United States was about $55,000 
a year. That number has dropped while he's been President. It didn't go 
up, it has gone down. It has gone from about $55,000 a year down to 
close to $50,000. And now we know that about $1,300 a year has come in 
because of the amount of penetration of illegal aliens that are in the 
United States and how that's bringing down wages.
  I would add to your comments as well, Mr. Brooks, that as a Member of 
Congress, I can't vote for anything that's going to take away jobs from 
legal American citizens. That's what we're talking about when we're 
talking about amnesty. We're talking about taking away jobs from legal 
American citizens. From the middle class. Why in the world would we do 
that?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Let me focus on a news release by the Black 
American Leadership Alliance, and I encourage all Americans to Google 
that phrase, Black American Leadership Alliance, and look at their 
news releases. They focus specifically on the impact of the Senate Gang 
of Eight amnesty and open borders bill on the Black community, and I'm 
going to quote. Everything I say is a quote, but I'm not going to read 
the whole new release:

       Given the fact that more than 13 percent of all Blacks are 
     unemployed, nearly double that of the national average, it is 
     our position that each Member of Congress must consider the 
     disastrous effect that Senate bill S. 744 would have on low-
     skill workers of all races, while paying particular attention 
     to the potential harm to African Americans. Credible research 
     indicates that Black workers will suffer the greatest harm if 
     this legislation were to be passed.
       Many studies have shown that Black Americans are 
     disproportionately harmed by mass immigration and amnesty. 
     Most policymakers who favor the legalization of nearly 11 
     million aliens fail to acknowledge that decades of high 
     immigration levels has caused unemployment to rise 
     significantly, most particularly among Black Americans. They 
     further fail to consider how current plans to add 33 million 
     more legal workers within 10 years will have an enormously 
     disastrous effect on our Nation's jobs outlook.
       The National Bureau of Economic Research recently issued a 
     report asserting that 40 percent of the decline in employment 
     rates for low-skilled Black men in recent decades was due to 
     immigration.

  Let me repeat that:

       The National Bureau of Economic Research recently issued a 
     report asserting that 40 percent of the decline in employment 
     rates for low-skilled Black men in recent decades was due to 
     immigration.
       Studies by Borjas and Katz, professors from Harvard 
     University, found that immigration reduced the earnings of 
     certain native born laborers by as much as 8 percent and 
     other demographic groups by 2 to 4 percent. According to 
     research conducted by University of California San Diego 
     economics Professor Gordon H. Hanson, immigration has 
     accounted for 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline 
     in Black employment rates, and current immigration proposals 
     are sure to substantially raise these numbers.
       Many Blacks compete with immigrants, particularly illegal 
     immigrants, for low-skilled jobs due to skill level and 
     geography, and there are simply not enough of these jobs to 
     go around. Consider the fact that nearly 51 percent of 
     African Americans do not have a higher education. In 2011, 
     24.6 percent of Blacks without a high school diploma were 
     unemployed. Even Blacks with a high school diploma were 
     unemployed at a rate of 15.5 percent that same year.
       We are firmly convinced that such an expansion of the labor 
     force during one of the most protracted periods of high 
     unemployment in decades will result in suppressed wages for 
     all Americans, but the effects on African Americans will be 
     the most devastating.

  This is the Black American Leadership Alliance. If you pull up the 
news release, you can see the Black leadership around the country that 
is saying no, that this is hurting Americans. And in particular, it is 
hurting us the most.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman, and I believe the next 
population most hurt is actually the legal Hispanic population in the 
United States.

[[Page H4206]]

                              {time}  2120

  It's their wages that are suppressed. So if you're thinking of a 
Hispanic mother who's working as a hotel maid, if we have legalization, 
she could be competing with seven other people who are vying for her 
job as well. That's what we're looking at right now.
  And I thank you for bringing that research to our attention. It's 
very important because, again, what we're looking at is hurting the job 
prospects of those who are the most vulnerable. And that's one thing 
that we've seen from the President's policies. He is hurting the people 
who are on the very economic edge.
  I'll yield quickly to you.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. The issue before us is, who are we, as 
Representatives and Senators, going to represent and vote for, American 
workers or foreigners? It's just that simple.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That is the point.
  And with that, I'll yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for pulling 
this together and for yielding.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to the presentation by the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), about the rule of law and the application of 
the rule of law. And he concluded that segment with ``thy liberty in 
law.''
  And I look around this Chamber and I see a doctor, a lawyer, a doctor 
of all species except homo sapiens in the animal kingdom, a tax lawyer, 
and a lawyer and a judge who wanted to legislate, left the bench and 
ran for Congress, and got it right, Mr. Gohmert.
  Now that might appear, Mr. Speaker, to the people that are watching 
in on C-SPAN that this is too hard for maybe some folks that don't fit 
those categories to understand. So I want to make the point that I 
stand here, I'm a ditch digger, and I understand this.
  It is not complicated. All you have to do is understand that this is 
a great country, and we have a role to play here, each one of us, and 
it is to defend, preserve, protect and, in the case of the modern 
world, refurbish the pillars of American exceptionalism.
  And an essential pillar of American exceptionalism is, as Mr. Brooks 
articulated so well, the rule of law. You are not going to have liberty 
without law, the application of the law.
  And as one of the members of the Judiciary Committee said to some 
people that wanted amnesty, as surely as you are crying out for the 
non-application of the law today, you'll be crying out for the full 
application of the law tomorrow in some other venue for some other 
reason.
  But some of these points that we need to think about, and I just want 
to list them, because I think I've got an opportunity to pick up at the 
bottom of this hour, maybe add another 30 minutes to our discussion 
here, but there seems to be a belief in the Senate, and some of the 
Republicans in the House, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a belief that 
if we do business with the President on immigration, we can write laws 
that he will enforce.
  I remember one of the self-appointed leaders of the secret Gang of 
Eight, now eight minus one, said to us, you know, if we determine that 
we are not going to legalize the people that are here illegally, then 
we will never get the borders secure.
  Oh, really?
  Well, that means then that they've got to be talking to the 
President, and the President is saying, I'm not going to enforce the 
law unless you legalize these people here. And that's got to be the 
calculus that's taking place, that he's not going to enforce the law 
unless we legalize the people that are here.
  So I look at this and I say, okay, the Gang of Eight's bill. I don't 
know what's all going to emerge here in the House. Nothing is a better 
answer.
  But over there on that side, it is perpetual and retroactive amnesty. 
Perpetual is this, it goes on forever. You could never enforce the rule 
of law again if you exempt people that came into the United States 
illegally or those that overstayed their visa.
  Here's the exception, and that is, if they committed a felony, if 
they committed three of the mysterious, the correct mysterious 
misdemeanors, that disqualifies them, then they apparently embarrass 
the administration enough that they would send them back to their home 
country.
  But other than that, other those exceptions, the felony three 
mysterious misdemeanors, everybody that came into America before 
December 31, 2011, gets to stay and they get legalized. Anybody that 
would come after that date, or admit that they came in after that date, 
they don't get legalized immediately, but what they do get is the 
implicit promise that they will be legalized eventually.
  And anybody that has been deported in the past for anything other 
than a felony or three mysterious misdemeanors, any of these people get 
an invitation in the bill that says reapply, come on back.
  So it's perpetual and retroactive amnesty. That's what this bill 
does, Mr. Speaker, and that's one of the things that's got to be 
blocked.
  Now, the belief that the President would give his word and keep it, 
it's appalling to me to think that anyone would simply accept that 
statement on its face. We know that the President took his oath of 
office, the Constitution itself, and it says to take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed.
  And what the President has done, instead, is executed the law when he 
didn't like it. I mean, death penalty to a law that he doesn't like, 
including immigration law.
  So we know here that our word is the only thing we have with each 
other. We give our word; we keep our word. It is the coin of the realm.
  And yet they're willing to stake the destiny of the realm of the 
United States of America on the anticipation that the President will 
give and keep his word and enforce immigration laws, when he's proven 
that he won't even keep his word on the law that bears his name, 
ObamaCare. He said, no, I'm going to change it. Even though the law 
specifically says it shall be implemented in the first month of 2014, 
now he wants to add a year to that.
  So I suggest, instead, what they're doing is they're betting the 
future of America on the President's word that he'll enforce laws that 
he may not like if we send them to his desk. He might sign them anyway, 
because he doesn't intend to enforce them.
  The coin of the realm is our word. And it says on our currency, ``In 
God We Trust.'' Are they ready to place on our currency, ``In Obama We 
Trust''? Because that's what's at stake here, Mr. Speaker.
  And there are a number of other topics that I would bring up. 
However, I notice that there is a focus here on bringing this thing 
around to a logical conclusion, and I believe I'll have another 
opportunity, so I would yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota.
  I thank all the people that came here to speak and, hopefully, we'll 
have another opportunity to take it up in a few minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. King.
  And we do have a little bit more time. I'm thankful to talk about 
this topic because this isn't just a 1-hour topic.
  As a matter of fact, there's a colleague that we were with earlier 
today who said that we need to talk about this for a full day because, 
just from a process point of view, for people who are tuning in tonight 
on C-SPAN, Mr. Speaker, we think it's very important that we don't just 
go through this topic glibly, because we know this bill wasn't read in 
the Senate.
  We were betrayed by our colleagues in the Senate on this bill. This 
border security isn't border security. It's a fake border security bill 
that came through.
  We're not interested in that. The American people aren't interested 
in that, and we need to have a real debate.
  We don't want to see, here in the House of Representatives, that the 
People's Representatives are beguiled or have a boondoggle put in front 
of them or have a Trojan horse given to us, because one thing that 
could happen is we could have a great-sounding bill that we're given, 
and then we're supposed to vote for it.
  We could pass that bill. We could talk about it for maybe 10 minutes 
on the floor. Actually, it would be a little bit longer, not much, but 
talk about that bill here on the floor, pass this Trojan horse, sounds 
like a really good bill, pass it.
  And then it could go to a conference committee, where a Senate bill 
goes into a conference committee, and then that bill, all of a sudden, 
gets a legalization thrown into it. It can come

[[Page H4207]]

back to this Chamber, and then that's what we're all told that we have 
to vote for.
  And my guess is a lot of conservatives on this side would say, I'm 
not going to vote for this bill. It has an amnesty in it. And so then 
what we could see happen is that all of the liberals in this Chamber 
could vote for that bill because it has amnesty, and just enough 
Republicans could vote for that bill that it would pass, and it would 
go to the President's desk.
  And guess what?
  It would be Republicans who would be responsible for helping the 
President pass his number one political agenda action item early in his 
second term before he's even been sworn in for how long?
  And it's Republicans that would help pass the amnesty bill?
  May it never be.
  I think that the American people right now are just wringing their 
hands saying, who's going to listen to me?
  And I think one thing, Mr. Speaker, that at least we've been able to 
demonstrate is that we have Mr. King from Iowa, we have Dr. Fleming 
from Louisiana, we have the judge over there, Louie Gohmert, from 
Texas, we have Mr. Brooks from Alabama, we have Mr. Yoho from Florida.
  We've got six people here in this Chamber who are going to say, no 
amnesty no how. What we're going to do is demand border security.
  We're going to demand that this government finally live up to the 
promise that it's made to the American people, because we've got to get 
back to what Representative King talked about, and what each of these 
Members has talked about, the rule of law, because we think it means 
something. In fact, we think it's everything. We think, without the 
rule of law, you have nothing.
  And that's why I'm so grateful, Mr. Speaker, that we've had this time 
tonight to be able to be together and talk about this topic.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has a couple 
of minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Oh, we do have a couple of minutes.
  Well, then we're going to go full tilt.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). He has 
something on his mind, I can just tell.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. YOHO. I appreciate the gentlelady from Minnesota yielding.
  You were talking about the rule of law, and we heard about it over 
and over again and what the people back home think. I think the biggest 
thing is they're going to hold us accountable. They expect us to be 
accountable and they will hold us accountable, and the only way we can 
do that is by holding the President accountable. We must hold the 
President accountable and demand that he enforces the laws on the book, 
and if not, explain to us and to the American people why he chooses not 
to enforce the laws on the books. And if he is the chief executive 
officer of this country and he chooses not to do that, what would you 
do in business if you had the executive of your business not enforcing 
and running the company the way you are supposed to? I think we all 
know what would happen.
  And I'd like to end with this. There were three Presidents in the 
1900s that handled immigration differently. They did what was best for 
Americans. They sent people home--the Presidents did--because they were 
looking out for the American citizens. And I have to admire Presidents 
that would look out for the American citizens.
  I always like to refer back to Theodore Roosevelt when he gave that 
speech at Ellis Island standing on the soapbox overlooking a crowd, 
realizing and acknowledging that we are a country with a lot of 
immigrants here. He said, We welcome all immigrants. After all, we are 
a country of immigrants. But what we expect you to do is this. There's 
room but for one flag. It's the American flag. You need to learn to 
honor and respect it. There's room but for one language. It's English. 
And you need to learn it. You need to assimilate and become Americans 
in our culture. We'll respect your cultures.
  I agree with that, and I am so proud to have a President that would 
stand up and do what's best for this country. In the end, I think we 
need to make English the national language.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________