[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16156-16161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             BUDGET DEFICIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting time sitting 
here and listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about the issue revolving around the budget, the budget deficit and 
spending problems we are experiencing. It is undeniably true that we 
are spending far too much money. It is fascinating to hear the 
discussion of this particular phenomenon, spending too much money, and 
having Members on the other side of the aisle decry that particular 
activity.
  It is fascinating because I sit on the Budget Committee, and on that 
committee we have for a number of years now looked at budgets that are 
offered by not just the administration, by the Republican Party, but by 
Members of the other party. To the best of my recollection, we have yet 
to see any budget proposed by the other side of the aisle that would 
address the issue of spending. Not one. In fact, every single budget 
proposed by Members from the other side of the aisle spends more.
  At no time to the best of my recollection have we said on this floor, 
while we debated any particular appropriations bill, any one of the 13 
appropriations bills the House has the responsibility to address and 
pass to keep the government moving, I do not recall, and I certainly 
could be wrong, but I just do not recall any time during the discussion 
of any one of those appropriations bills where the issue was we are 
spending too much from the other side. That is to say that they were 
complaining that the bill was too rich.
  They were oftentimes complaining about where the money was spent, but 
not that we were not spending enough. Nobody was complaining about the 
fact that it was overspending; complaints were almost always that we 
were not spending enough on particular programs.
  On every single appropriations bill, or at least a majority of the 
appropriations bills that come to the floor, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who has been around for approximately 20 years 
and has certainly seen a lot of budgets come and go in this process, 
but every year he stands up and to almost every single appropriation 
bill he attempts to add an amendment. He offers an amendment that is a 
limiting amendment.
  It does something really very scary. The ramifications would be 
incredible if we were to ever pass it. We fail to pass it every single 
time; but what this amazing, incredible thing that he offers to the 
Members of this body who are supposedly concerned about spending, he 
suggests that we should cut spending on each one of the appropriations 
bills by an enormous amount, or enormous around here, and that amount 
is 1 percent. Every single year he gets up and offers this amendment to 
every appropriations bill, let us just cut 1 percent off of this 
appropriation, and he fails. Almost all of the Members on the other 
side of the aisle vote against it, as do many Members on our side.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not rise here to defend the spending activities of 
this Congress, but I do suggest that when one does propose that we 
should not spend so much, when one stands up at this microphone and 
condemns the body for spending a lot of money, they should be willing 
then to vote to stop that, not just criticize it, but stop it.
  What, is the devil making us do this? That is what it sounds like: 
please, somebody stop me; I cannot control myself. Please, somebody out 
there deal with it. Institute some rule, institute some program because 
I have to continually vote to spend all of the money that I can 
possibly vote to spend, and then some. And then it is somebody else's 
fault. And the one continuing theme that ran through almost every one 
of the discussions that preceded mine here tonight discussing the 
appropriations process and the budget process, the continuing theme was 
this: the real problem, the real dastardly thing that we, the 
Republicans, have done over the course of the last 4 years is to reduce 
taxes. That is the most heinous crime with which we have been charged 
during the last hour.
  There was a lot of discussion about the economic condition that most 
Americans find themselves in and many families are wondering about how 
to pay the bills and especially their health care costs. All these 
things are undeniably true.

                              {time}  2045

  Here is the solution, then, as I heard them explain it. The best 
thing we can do to those people who are trying to figure out how to pay 
the bills in America is to increase their taxes. This will help us all. 
This will make everybody happy. It will solve all of our problems 
because you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that there are just too many 
Americans out there, middle-class Americans who are not paying enough 
to keep this thing afloat.
  Again I want to stress, I absolutely do not wish to defend the 
spending practices of this body, both Republicans and certainly the 
Democrats. We spend too much money. That is undeniably true. It is also 
undeniably true that something happened called 9/11 and as a result of 
that we did have extraordinary things occur. One, a dramatic drop in 
the economic activity of the country and, two, an inordinate increase 
in the amount of money we spent on homeland security and on national 
defense. Those things, I think, are understandable. Our expenses went 
up, our revenues went down as a result of an event. But I do not excuse 
the fact that we still spent money beyond what we took in to an ever 
greater extent every year. I believe that we should have made many more 
decisions about how to cut in other areas. Whenever the Labor, Health 
and Human Services bill comes up, which is a huge, huge, huge spending 
bill, all for social services, we shall see how many amendments will be 
offered by the other side to that bill to cut spending. We shall see 
whether or not anybody would vote for that 1 percent cut in that $400 
billion or $500 billion bill in order to reduce the size of the deficit 
that we all decry. I will vote for it. I guarantee you I will vote as I 
did every single time for every single 1 percent and I would have voted 
for a much higher percentage cut had it been offered, but I voted for 
every single one of those 1 percent cuts. What a scary thing that we 
proposed, 1 percent. We failed to get it.
  As I say, the issue evidently is spending. Nobody really tries to 
stop it around here. But the real scary thing to our friends on the 
other side of the aisle is that we may in fact be allowing people to 
keep too much of their own wages, too many of their own dollars. This 
absolutely astounds the other side. It is frightening to them. 
Everybody would be happier, as I say. We could go to every one of those 
families that are sitting around the table, that they talked about 
earlier tonight, wondering how to pay their bills and say, ``We'll help 
you figure out how to pay the bills. We'll take more money away from 
you in taxes. That will be better. Believe us. Trust us. That's going 
to help you out.''
  Does this sound weird to anybody else out there? It is a very strange 
philosophy but it is decorated with a lot of rhetoric so that all of a 
sudden it sounds logical. ``Of course, we just need to do that. We have 
to raise taxes, naturally. We have to spend all this money, take money 
away from everybody, it is only right. Everybody would be happier if we 
did, right?''
  I do not think so. I do not think so. I think most Americans do not 
think

[[Page 16157]]

so, either. They are not delusionary. Most Americans want us to spend 
less. That is undeniably true. I am with them. I am with them in that 
regard. I do wish that we could spend less and I do wish that we could 
prioritize better than we have been able to prioritize and I believe 
that it is incumbent upon us to continue the effort. But the last thing 
I think we should do is to turn over that process to the folks whose 
only history in dealing with budgets, by the way, around here for 40 
something years prior to the time that Republicans took control was to 
develop dramatic spending increases ad infinitum. I just really do not 
feel safe in thinking that the other way to handle this is to provide 
the other party with the keys to the treasury.
  Of course that is not the issue that I wanted to bring forward 
tonight. I just had to comment on that as I listened to the discussion. 
I wanted to talk tonight about an issue that does compel me to come to 
this floor often and that is an issue dealing with the policy of this 
government with regard to immigration and to hopefully address the 
broader concept that immigration, immigration policy, has a tendency to 
affect. There are many aspects, many facets to the immigration debate. 
That is why I find it so fascinating, quite frankly. I cannot think of 
another domestic policy issue that should command as much of our 
attention as should the immigration debate, what little debate I should 
say, that goes on. There is not an awful lot. People suggest that we 
should really pay close attention to this in the presidential race. I 
hope we do. But the reality is there is not all that much difference, I 
am afraid and ashamed to say, between the two positions taken by the 
presidential candidates. One is strictly pandering for votes and one is 
pandering light, I guess I would call it, but they are both in the 
process of trying to figure out a way to gain votes among those folks 
who are here as immigrants and/or people who have come to this country 
even illegally and who sometimes, in fact oftentimes, do vote.
  Let me talk a little about this whole concept of voting. This is 
really what has propelled me to come to the floor this evening. About, 
I guess it was a year or so ago, maybe 2 years now, a year and a half, 
I read something that was a statement by the then candidate for mayor 
of Washington, D.C. I found it disconcerting, to say the least, and I 
have quoted it often because a lot of people when I talk about the 
issue of immigration and citizenship which, of course, go hand in hand, 
people are surprised by the fact that there are places around this 
country, cities in particular, that have called themselves and/or we 
have called sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are cities that develop 
policies with regard to immigration. Of course, this is bizarre to say 
the least because the Federal Government is supposed to have the 
primary and unique role of determining our immigration policies. But 
what we are seeing happen all over the country, well, I should not say 
all over the country, primarily on the left coast and on the east 
coast, we see these peculiar things going on in local communities where 
they will say things like, in our community, in our city, we will not 
allow our police departments to communicate with the Department of 
Homeland Security. If they arrest someone and find out that that person 
is here illegally, we will not allow our police department to tell the 
government about that, tell the Department of Homeland Security. Some 
have gone farther than that, farther than saying that if you are in 
their community illegally, you will not be hassled essentially, that 
that little city will not participate in the process of trying to 
identify your status and/or have anything to do with the punishment of 
the crime. If, in fact, you have come into this country illegally, they 
will not help enforce the law of the land. I find this to be quite 
peculiar.
  I have spoken about this. We have attempted to amend other bills, 
appropriations bills, to stop this from happening but something 
occurred here just the other night that goes along with what the then 
candidate, or, no, I am sorry, he was mayor at the time, Mayor Anthony 
Williams. I see this article was back on October 1, 2002, when he was 
running again but he was the mayor. Mayor Anthony Williams said on 
October 1, 2002, that noncitizens in the District of Columbia should be 
allowed to vote in local elections. He had said this in response to a 
complaint from a Latino coalition where they issued a report in which 
they identified a lack of services and access to local government. 
Mayor Williams said, ``I am committed to expanding the franchise. The 
city needs to develop a new standard for voting.''
  This is the mayor of Washington, D.C., the Nation's capital. Again, 
only here on the east coast or maybe in some scattered pockets of the 
left coast would a statement like this not be incredible and would go 
without a great deal of attention being paid to it, but he says, ``The 
city needs to develop a new standard for voting, but it isn't 
citizenship.'' When the council's executive director, I think there 
they are talking about the city council of D.C., the executive 
director, Eugenio Arene, suggested that all local taxpayers be allowed 
to cast ballots, the mayor added, ``Sounds like a good standard to 
me.'' Asked about extending the vote to noncitizens, Williams pledged 
to work with local government officials and experts on the idea and he 
said he hoped it would be possible in elections for mayor on down.
  By the way, in this proposal, there was nothing at the time that 
would even indicate that they were entertaining the idea that people 
who are noncitizens should vote but excluding it from people who are 
here illegally. There is nothing in here to suggest that that was the 
case. In fact, it is just the opposite. Anyone who they say is a 
resident should vote. Anyone who is a resident should vote. This, of 
course, is an attack on the whole concept of citizenship. It is 
becoming less and less meaningful to many people, it is true. We are 
trying our best to eliminate anything that distinguishes a person here 
as a citizen from someone who is not and to accommodate, therefore, the 
massive numbers of people who are here illegally. If this is not 
pandering for votes, you tell me what is, Mr. Speaker. How can we 
possibly define such a thing, that a statement of this nature could be 
made and that people could possibly think that it was for any other 
purpose but to go after a voting group that perhaps is not solidly 
behind you or you want to sort of encourage, you want to make sure that 
you pay them back for whatever kind of political support they may give 
you, that you would even go to the extent of saying that citizenship in 
this country is not important, it is essentially meaningless. Because, 
you see, if it is not meaningful to the mayor for voting purposes, what 
in the world could it be meaningful for? What purpose does it have? 
What does citizenship mean? Is it of any value whatsoever?
  There is an oath that is taken when someone wants to become a citizen 
of the United States. It has been around for a couple of hundred years. 
In it we talk about the need to disavow any allegiance to any other 
government or potentate, I think the words are, in the vow itself. We 
are talking about somebody who is separating themselves from whatever 
they were in terms of their political affiliation to something new. We 
do that for a purpose, because it is important to have that 
distinguishment. It is important to have people who come here as 
immigrants. It is important to have people who are born here understand 
the importance of citizenship. It does distinguish someone here and it 
distinguishes us from other nations and other people groups. I think 
that that distinguishment is a good thing.
  I am constantly amazed at how much time and attention is spent on 
trying to minimize the importance of the whole concept of citizenship, 
that we are all just residents, that is the theory, that we are just 
here on the planet in this particular location. Nothing really holds us 
together as a nation except for the economic benefits that can be 
obtained by living in this particular geographic area. That is all. As 
bizarre as that sounded back on October 1, 2002, and to a certain 
extent I did not really worry about it because you can write that off 
to a political campaign

[[Page 16158]]

and the rhetoric of someone looking to pander to voters. Certainly that 
is the only way I could read what he said there.
  Come to find out last week, this particular little seed, bad seed, 
has begun to sprout.

                              {time}  2100

  The other day several Council-
members here in the District of Columbia introduced the ``Equitable 
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2004,'' a bill that will extend full 
local voting rights to documented permanent residents of the District 
of Columbia. The bill was co-introduced by Councilmember Jim Graham, 
and it goes on to describe them. The Voting Rights for All D.C. 
Coalition is actively seeking other co-sponsors. So in the City Council 
of Washington, D.C., they are proposing now to implement the Mayor's 
idea of having people who are noncitizens be eligible to vote.
  We know we will have the Washington, D.C. appropriations bill up here 
soon, and we will certainly look at that for an opportunity to address 
this particular issue, as the Federal Government does have a 
responsibility for oversight, and I will have an amendment prepared. 
But whether or not we offer it, whether or not it passes, I mean the 
idea that this is happening in cities across the country and here in 
the Nation's capital has got to be a sobering thought even for those 
people who press for more and more of the elimination, if the Members 
will, of anything that distinguishes individuals here as citizens of 
the United States.
  Massive immigration into the country, both legally and illegally, has 
consequences. And it is absolutely true that we have been successful as 
a Nation in assimilating hundreds of millions of people into this 
country and into this culture over the past 200 years. And it is true 
that sometimes that is assimilation happened easily and sometimes not 
so easily. It is true that many people faced hardships and 
discrimination and that it was not an easy thing to do, and that groups 
came into the country, and every time there was a wave of immigration 
from any particular area, there would be people here saying we have got 
to stop that. There is something bad about that particular group coming 
into the country.
  The country not only survived it but grew and prospered, and I think, 
for the most part, we can look back at the experience and say it was 
positive for the Nation.
  But there is a different phenomenon today. It is a different 
immigration, not just in terms of numbers. There are far more people 
coming into this country today legally and illegally than ever before 
in the Nation's history. But there is also this growing problem, this 
sort of cult of multiculturalism, as I call it, that has taken over 
much of certainly the media. Certainly our colleges and high schools 
and textbooks are influenced by this peculiar philosophy. I say 
peculiar because it is this: It is not just a recognition of our 
differences, which I think all of us can appreciate. It is not just 
extolling the virtues of diversity, of which there are many. It is not 
that at all. The cult of multiculturalism to which I refer is the kind 
of thing that pushes this idea that we should no longer identify 
ourselves as Americans because that is, of course, some unique 
distinction that is in some way troublesome; and that we should in no 
way extol the virtues of American society or the American creed. We 
should not tell our children in schools that there is anything of value 
in what we have established here, that there is nothing in Western 
Civilization in our history of which we can be proud, that everything 
is negative, that the only way that we can portray a sympathy and 
express a sympathy and an appreciation for another culture is to 
degrade and debase our own. That is the cult of multiculturalism, and 
it is rampant throughout the country.
  There was an interesting little spot on National Public Radio not too 
long ago about a school in Los Angeles, a public high school, 5,000 
students, most of them, as they said, had ``recently arrived,'' almost 
all from Mexico, almost all speaking Spanish. And in this NPR spot, 
they were interviewing the teacher, and they were talking about the 
fact that they did not have enough textbooks in the school, especially 
civics or history textbooks. And the teacher said, I do not care that 
we do not have any textbooks in the school because the textbooks that 
we have prepared for us and are given to us by the school district do 
not teach our kids about who they are. She said, They only teach about 
this other culture.
  Now, what was she talking about? Who were their kids and who they 
are, and who was the other culture that she was deriding and in saying 
that we should not be teaching children today? That other culture was, 
of course, ours, America's. Who were these children? She said ``our 
children.'' Not American children? No. No. So, therefore, she said, I 
have devised a different curriculum for these kids, and I do not want 
them using textbooks provided by the Anglo community. She said, Instead 
of using textbooks, we are going to go out and study murals.
  Mural, that is a euphemism, most of the time, for graffiti.
  So they went out, and the reporter went out with them, and they 
walked along the streets of Los Angeles. The school kids, instead of 
being in class studying American history, this was her alternative, a 
``mural walk.'' That is what she called it. And when the students got 
there and they talked to the ``artist'' who had created this thing, 
this mural, this historical monument, this psychological jewel, they 
asked him to teach the class. This was on radio. They were interviewing 
these guys, and this was all recorded. And the guy said, I want the 
students to know you do not belong here. That flag is not your flag, 
pointing to American flag. He said, You are just all a colony. This is 
a colony of the United States. You really do not belong here. You have 
no allegiance here.
  This is the cult of multiculturalism to which I refer. And it is 
there, and it permeates our society, and it is problematic when it 
meshes with massive immigration, when there is no longer a press for 
assimilation or pressure for assimilation, but all the pressure is just 
the opposite. It is all to divide us into subgroups, into hyphenated 
Americans in every way.
  I had a meeting, I remember, with a bishop in Denver, Bishop Gomez. 
And we were arguing this issue, and he said to me, I do not know why 
you are so concerned about people who are coming here from Mexico. He 
said, They do not want to be Americans.
  I said, Bishop, there are two things about that statement that really 
get me. First of all, that you assume my problem with immigration is 
that I do not want the people who immigrate here to become American; 
and, secondly, the fact is you are right. That is the problem, and it 
is exactly why I am worried. It is not that I should not be worried 
about that. It is that every American should be worried about it. There 
are many people doing exactly what my grandparents did and your 
grandparents and everybody else's grandparents or great grandparents or 
great great grandparents did. They all come here because they all make 
a very difficult choice to come to a brand new land. And it is true 
that that is the one thing we have in common, people coming today and 
people coming when my grandparents came: They want to come to America. 
But let me ask you if there is now a difference. Let me ask you if you 
can just get a feeling that, in fact, something else is different. They 
want to come to America. The question is do they want to be American?
  The answer, according to Bishop Gomez, is no. This is different.
  I see the gentleman from Virginia has joined me, and I will ask him 
to express his observations here in just a second.
  But I just want to point out that this cult of multiculturalism is 
truly having an impact on our society because historically public 
schools, we could at least rely on them. When I went to school, when my 
grandparents went to school here, we could rely on a public school as a 
place to help assimilate children into the American culture. There was 
a pressure to do so, first of all, of course, to learn English. That

[[Page 16159]]

was an absolute must. Secondly, to learn about the history of this 
country and attach ourselves to it, which I did. That is gone. That is 
gone from most schools in this Nation.
  According to a study of San Diego high school students in the early 
1990s, after 3 years of high school, the proportion of students 
identifying themselves as ``American'' dropped by 50 percent from the 
time they came into the school. The proportion identifying themselves 
as hyphenated Americans had gone down by 30 percent, and the proportion 
of identifying themselves with a foreign nationality, overwhelmingly in 
this case Mexican, had gone up 52 percent.
  What did we teach them? To what did we say that they should attach 
themselves? As immigrants or as citizens who have been here for years, 
whatever that citizenship concept is in anybody's mind anymore? What we 
taught them is there is nothing unique, nothing that they should, in 
fact, attach themselves to; that they should stay separate, keep their 
own language, keep their on special identity, separate identity.
  I tell my colleagues this is the problem that the immigration policy 
has got to address. And I am pilloried many times certainly by the 
press, my opponents, because I talk about this issue. And there are 
always attempts to characterize my debate or my desire to debate this 
issue in the most nasty of terms. And the epithets that are thrown 
around here and at me oftentimes, we just have to accept that people 
wish to change the debate away from these kinds of issues that I am 
trying to address tonight on to the stuff of racism and xenophobia and 
that sort of thing.
  I have watched over the years, and there are people who have been 
here longer than I and have done far better work than I, far more 
productive work in many cases, I am sure, in this particular area than 
I have ever been able to do, and one is the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goode), who is here tonight and I am proud to say is a friend.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) for yielding to me.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts on bringing 
immigration reform to this Congress and before the American people. He 
has traveled across this Nation. He has gone to the border between 
Mexico and the United States. He has also been to the Canadian border. 
He brought back the tax returns and have weighed them of those who I 
believe were here illegally, trying to get money from the American 
Treasury and who, no doubt in my mind, many of which have been 
successful.

                              {time}  2115

  The gentleman saw how they were going to utilize the Earned Income 
Tax Credit on papers that the gentleman gathered in alleged trash near 
the Mexican border. The gentleman has done the research on items like 
the papers by the mayor of the District of Columbia. The gentleman has 
talked to the Border Patrol agents. The gentleman has done countless 
other things on behalf of bringing true immigration reform to this 
country, and I want to thank the gentleman.
  We heard speakers before the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
talk about the deficit, and I want to see the deficit reduced. I would 
like to see it eliminated. It is great to identify a problem, but you 
also need to address the problem.
  Reduce illegal immigration and reduce the deficit. Illegals come into 
this country and soak up not thousands, not millions, but billions of 
healthcare dollars that taxpayers of this country are paying for. If we 
stopped illegal immigration, we would have those billions of dollars to 
apply to the deficit.
  We can look at social services and social programs. Again, we are not 
talking about hundreds, thousands or millions; we are talking about 
billions of dollars.
  If we want to reduce the deficit, reduce illegal immigration. Stop 
it, and stop that money going to them from these social programs.
  Another area of concern are illegals getting Social Security. I have 
heard some say, ``Oh, we passed a law to stop that.''
  Yes, we passed a law saying if you are illegally in this country, you 
cannot draw Social Security benefits. But if you go back to Mexico, or 
you go back to whatever other country you came from to this country 
illegally, you can start dipping into the Social Security System and 
getting money out of it.
  If we were to get that totalization agreement with Mexico, which I 
surely hope we do not, the totalization agreement would override the 
statute that says illegals cannot get Social Security benefits. If that 
were followed by an amnesty of any type, form, shape or regularization 
or whatever euphemistic phrase you want to call amnesty, you are going 
to hear a sucking sound out of the Social Security fund that would turn 
all seniors whose heads are not gray gray, I would predict, because the 
drain on the Social Security fund would be significant and heavy. 
Again, it is not hundreds, it is not thousands, it is not millions; it 
is billions of dollars.
  So, if you want to reduce the deficit, let us stop illegal 
immigration and put a big dent in the deficit.
  Pretty soon we are going to get the September 11 Commission report. 
It is going to talk an intelligence czar, and I am anxious to see what 
they have to say about that. But I bet it will not mention too much 
about the fact that 19 of those terrorists who flew the airplanes into 
the buildings of this country and killed thousands of citizens in New 
York, Pennsylvania and across the river in Arlington, were in this 
country illegally. They had overstayed their visas, for the most part, 
illegal aliens.
  They committed suicide by flying those planes into the World Trade 
Center and into the Pentagon. They were in this country illegally, and 
if they were not here illegally, they could not have done the acts. If 
we stopped illegal immigration, then there would have been 19 fewer 
persons in this country to do those acts that they did. I hope, but I 
do not expect, the 9/11 Commission to address this facet of making 
America more secure.
  I remember the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) bringing to a 
meeting of the Immigration Reform Caucus, and I recollect it was held 
in the courtyard outside of the Longworth Building, the father of one 
of the September 11 victims. As I recall, the statements made by that 
individual, he said, ``If I had to pick out a key factor in what caused 
September 11, it was a huge sea of illegal immigration, whereby 19 
illegals could float around in that sea undetected.''
  What he wanted was to see a reduction in illegal immigration. I hope 
the 9/11 Commission will address this fact. I want to see America be 
made more secure, and one way to make America more secure is to reduce 
illegal immigration, just as one way to reduce the deficit is to reduce 
illegal immigration.
  So I would like to close by doing as I started and to thank the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for taking the time to come to 
the floor of this House on a repeated basis and point out the many 
problems and the many pitfalls of illegal immigration. I hope that the 
voting standard in this country will always be that you have to be a 
United States citizen to participate in our electoral process.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another issue when we talk about spending and 
deficits that I think is intriguing. We just passed last week the 
foreign operations bill. This is most often referred to as the foreign 
aid bill. There is an interesting aspect of this particular spending 
plan that really deserves our attention here, and I think we seldom 
ever address it.
  It is this: That beyond the money that we appropriate in that bill 
for governments all over the world, most of them, unfortunately, 
corrupt, and much of the money, of course, as we know, does not get to 
the intended individuals that most desperately need

[[Page 16160]]

it, but we, nonetheless, distribute moneys to countries all over the 
world in the form of foreign aid.
  But most people I think do not understand or know that a great deal 
of wealth is also transferred in another way from the United States to 
other countries, and this is by the process of what is called 
remittances.
  Now, ``remittances,'' that is just a term that refers to the dollars 
that flow from people who are working here in the United States to 
people who are in other countries, mostly to family members who are in 
other countries.
  I was in Mexico not too long ago speaking to a gentleman who was the 
head of a newly created ministry down there called the Ministry for 
Mexicans living in the United States. I think it has changed its name, 
but that is what it was originally. But Mr. Hernandez, the minister, 
was telling me that part of the responsibilities he had as a minister 
of this particular agency was to make sure that the movement, the flow 
of Mexican nationals into the United States, was maintained, and, in 
fact, increased.
  That was such an odd thing, in a way. When I asked why in the world 
would a government agency be set up to increase the flow of their 
nationals to another country, he said, ``Well, it is actually kind of 
simple.'' He said, ``There are actually several reasons, but they are 
all beneficial to Mexico, and you can see why we would be doing this.''
  He said that the number of people between the ages of 18 and 25, 
Mexican citizens, that particular demographic profile, the number of 
people in that profile had doubled in 10 years, and he said the 
unemployment rate for that same group is about 40 percent.
  So on the remittance issue, he said the people coming into the 
country were in desperate need of a job, and what would happen when 
they get here, they get employed, and then they send money back home, 
in this case to Mexico. That was 2 years ago, and that amounted to $13 
billion. $13 billion.
  Now, you say, well, so what? That is a significant portion of the GDP 
of Mexico, as a matter of fact. Mr. Hernandez referenced it. He said 
this was an important thing, to have the money be sent back. It 
actually now approximates the greatest amount of foreign investment in 
the country of Mexico.
  Remittances. Far in excess of any sort of investment by any other 
corporation in the world; far in excess of the money that goes into 
Mexico from tourism. It is the highest source of foreign investment 
they have, except for PEMEX, the government-owned oil company.
  ``Therefore,'' he said, ``it is important for us to have this 
continual flow.'' He went on to explain there were other important 
things. He said, ``You know, the more Mexican nationals we have living 
in the United States, the more your government will be influenced in a 
positive way to treat Mexico.''
  Finally, he said, when I told him I thought these things were 
incredible in a way, that any government would be set up for the 
purpose of trying to actually influence our policy vis-a-vis their 
government by exporting people into our country, he said, 
``Congressman,'' he said this in a relatively condescending way, he 
said, ``Congressman, it is not two countries. It is just a region. It 
is not two countries.''
  Interestingly, Vincente Fox was here just a couple of weeks ago in 
the United States campaigning. The President of Mexico was in the 
United States of America, in Illinois, in Michigan and in Wisconsin, 
campaigning, talking to Mexican nationals living here, trying to get 
them to vote, and also promising them, by the way, that he would defend 
their rights in the United States, asking them to vote in the election 
in Mexico, saying that they will pass legislation to allow them to do 
so, because they wanted them to remain connected to Mexico.
  That gets us back to this issue we talked about earlier, about 
whether or not people come to the United States because they want to be 
in the United States, or because they want to be Americans. Two 
different things. In this case he is saying, ``I want you to come to 
America; I just do not want you to become Americans. I want you to stay 
connected to Mexico.''
  He is not the only person, and that is not the only country. The 
countries in the world, there are now seven or eight countries that 
have actually over 10 percent of their gross domestic product as a 
result of the remittances coming from the United States.
  Now, I suggest that we ought to reduce our foreign aid to every 
single one of those countries by the amount of remittances that are 
going there. Actually, the remittances are a better way of getting 
foreign aid to them, because it actually is going to people and not the 
corrupt governments.
  I have written the committee. I have written the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and asked him to consider this in the creation 
of the bill. He chose not to. But I suggest to you there is no reason 
we should not at least count this into the amount of money that we do 
in fact provide for foreign aid.
  The reason I think we should do this is because we have to, I think, 
begin to eliminate the allure of the remittances to other countries, 
because as they begin to depend more and more on the United States and 
their nationals working here to send money back home, then they press 
us more and more for open borders and for reduction in any sort of 
obstacles that might be placed in the path of immigration into the 
country, legally or illegally.
  Then we see the Mexican consulates and the Guatemalan consulates, 15 
countries that are now handing out these matricula consular cards, 
these cards to their nationals living in the United States, for the 
purposes of, again, making it easier and simpler for them to live here, 
and make money and, of course, send it home.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
  First and foremost I would like to honor my colleague from Colorado. 
All of us in Congress who take this issue seriously know that without 
the leadership of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), this 
issue would not be getting the attention it is, and it is not getting 
the attention it deserves as it is.

                              {time}  2130

  So the fact is that he has taken many hard knocks; he has been 
attacked personally and politically for the leadership that he has 
provided on this issue. I salute him. And, let me just say that I am 
proud that on most of these fights that I have been able to rush down 
here and be at his side and fight the good fight, because this issue is 
determining the well-being of the people of the United States of 
America.
  That is what we are supposed to be doing here, is it not? We are here 
elected to watch out for the well-being of the people of the United 
States; more than anything else that we do, that is supposedly our 
responsibility. Yet, we have seen almost no action on the part of the 
political establishment of the United States to deal with the issue of 
illegal immigration, and our people are paying for it. They are paying 
for it in a big way. There is no doubt what effect this massive flow of 
illegal immigration that continues into our country is having. And if I 
would just have any difference with my colleague, it would only be to 
stress that it is not just illegal immigration from Mexico. And, by the 
way, we would not care if it was illegal immigration from Ireland or 
from Germany or Italy or anywhere else. We have an out-of-control flow 
of illegal immigration into this country. Today, I believe the biggest 
source of illegal immigration into our country actually is not Mexico, 
but is China and countries in Asia.
  Again, people who come, for them we have, I would say, the most 
generous legal immigration policy of any country in the world. We admit 
more legal immigrants into our country than all other countries in the 
world combined. But to permit millions more on top of that to pour into 
our country is having a dramatic impact on us, and it is heroes like 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) who are stepping up to the 
plate and trying to do something about it.

[[Page 16161]]

  The average person out there knows that his children and the working 
people themselves are suffering from the fact that their wages are 
being kept down. Yes, we had a huge growth in our GNP, but the wages of 
our middle class and our working class people have been kept down by a 
massive flow of illegals into our country. There is nothing wrong to 
think that people who work in hotels changing beds and cleaning should 
earn a good living, but their pay has been kept way down. People who 
pick fruit and vegetables, yes, okay, so it is going to cost us 10 
cents more for a hamburger. The bottom line is, the people of this 
country who make hamburgers and are involved with that industry should 
be paid more money, but they will not be paid more money and the people 
who clean the buildings and take jobs like this, they are being paid 
less. The working people are being hurt by this. Of course, we are not 
going to provide them health care, because we have plenty of illegals 
who work and are not getting health care. The taxpayers pick up their 
health care.
  In California we know wages are being kept down for normal people. 
The health care system in our State is collapsing, and around the 
country there is strain, especially in the southwest. The education 
system in California, because of the illegal flow of illegals into our 
system, our children are not getting the education they deserve. It can 
be traced right back to a massive, uncontrolled flow of illegals into 
our country, bringing their children, so that they can get benefits 
that they could never afford in their own country. We should not blame 
the illegals. Blame us. Blame the government. Because this government 
is supposed to watch out for the welfare of our people. We are not 
doing it. The criminal justice system in California is breaking down. 
Over 40 percent of the people in our prisons and our jails are illegal 
immigrants.
  This is a huge burden on the taxpayers but, also, on our own people. 
Do my colleagues know what happens when those people get out of jail? 
They do not send them back to the countries they came from; they let 
them out among our population and they commit more crimes. Not only the 
terrorists who came into our country legally and just overstayed their 
visas, not only have they murdered our people, but every day someone is 
killed in this country by someone who is not supposed to be in this 
country because they are not here legally. We are talking about our 
citizens being murdered, their wages being kept down, their children's 
education system and health care system going to hell. This is a major 
issue and it is not being addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo), by continuing to bring it up over and over again, he is 
doing a tremendous service to our people, and I am proud to stand with 
him tonight again to try to motivate the people in this city, in 
Washington, D.C. They say that Washington, D.C. is 64 square miles 
surrounded by reality. We have to bring some reality here to 
Washington, D.C. Our people are suffering because of this issue. Let us 
deal with it. Let us deal with it, yes, in a fair way. And again, this 
has nothing to do with where illegals are coming from, but it has 
everything to do with getting control of an out of control situation 
that is hurting our people.
  So I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I am proud to work 
with him on the issue.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I am certainly 
proud that he is a friend and has become, and has been for a long time, 
not become, but has been a major and important voice for reason on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, just a note that I will be giving a 
Special Order in about an hour on 9-11, so if people are looking in to 
see about this, this is not the Special Order that I will be giving.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Stay tuned. Stay tuned.
  Mr. Speaker, I will end this Special Order with just this last 
reference. It is to one thing that was written in a book called ``Who 
Are We?'' By Samuel Huntington. This has become I think one of the most 
important books written, and it just came out actually in May, but it 
is a fascinating analysis of this whole issue we are talking about in 
terms of trying to understand the merging of multiculturalism, this 
sort of cult of multiculturalism and the issue of massive immigration 
and the erosion of the concept of citizenship.
  Samuel Huntington puts it this way: ``The erosion of the difference 
between citizens and aliens, the overall declining rates of 
naturalization, and the naturalization spike of the mid 1990s, all 
suggest the central importance of material government benefits for 
immigrant decisions. Immigrants become citizens not because they are 
attracted to America's culture and creed, but because they are 
attracted by government social welfare and affirmative action programs. 
If these are available to noncitizens, the incentive for citizenship 
fades. Citizenship is becoming, in Peter Spiro's phrase, one more 
generally available `Federal social benefit.'. If, however, citizenship 
is not necessary to get the benefits, it is superfluous. As Peter 
Schuck and Rogers Smith argue, it `is welfare state' membership, not 
citizenship, that increasingly counts. Membership in the welfare state, 
in contrast to membership in the political community, is of crucial and 
growing significance; for some, who are wholly dependent upon public 
benefits, it may be literally a matter of life and death.''
  It is citizenship, it is the concept of a nation State that we are 
today debating. Whether or not its existence can be assured, certainly 
we do not know, but I can guarantee my colleagues this, that the 
threats to its existence are great and are exacerbated by the cult of 
multiculturalism and unrestrained immigration.

                          ____________________