[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28552-28561]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4437, BORDER PROTECTION, 
       ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 610 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 610

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to 
     enhance border security, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two 
     hours equally divided among and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 
     to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     Each further amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

[[Page 28553]]

     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. After disposition of the 
     further amendments printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 
     without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be 
     in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 610 is a structured rule. It provides 2 
hours of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, shall be considered 
as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and shall be 
considered as read. It waives all points of order against the bill, as 
amended.
  This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in part 
B of the Rules Committee report. It provides that the amendments 
printed in part B of the report may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or 
in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against 
amendments printed in part B of the report, and it provides that after 
disposition of the amendments printed in part B of the report, the 
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion, and no further 
consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent 
order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 610 and the 
underlying H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and 
Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
  Today, this Congress continues an ongoing and difficult debate. The 
need for fundamental immigration reform is critical and long overdue. 
In 1986, President Reagan pushed for reforms to address this problem. 
In 1996, the 104th Congress pushed for more reforms to address the 
problem. Now here we are 10 years later. This Congress once again has 
an opportunity to debate how to best secure our borders and remove 
incentives for illegal immigration by enacting meaningful changes.
  I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King for this 
bill to close our borders to illegal immigrants and potential 
terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, since the attacks of September 11, 4 years ago, the 
debate on immigration is a fundamentally different debate. Border 
security is no longer just a legal or economic issue, which of course 
it still is. Secure borders now are also a matter of national security.
  Procrastination and ignoring the problem will simply not make it go 
away. Every day we put off debating and passing comprehensive reform 
creates more and more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our 
laws and violate our borders with the social, economic and political 
repercussions. For instance, there are an estimated 376,000 illegal 
immigrants who live in my home State of Georgia and bear an incredible 
toll on our social services and health care system.
  The burden of illegal immigrants continues to increase for the 
American citizens as hospitals and schools are filled with illegal 
immigrants who cannot pay for their education and medical expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, some of our schools continue to struggle simply because 
of the inherent burden of some illegal immigrants who require extensive 
remedial education at the expense of the American taxpayer and our 
schoolchildren. Regardless of their intention, this effect on our 
schools highlights the fact that illegal immigration is not a 
victimless crime.
  As this Congress continues to contemplate ways to relieve escalating 
medical costs, part of that expense is to reimburse doctors, nurses and 
hospitals who have treated illegal immigrants who could not pay their 
medical bills. I am a firsthand witness to doctors who have treated 
patients, only to have them skip out on a medical bill because they are 
here illegally and they do not want to be traced.
  Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the 
immigrants themselves. I do not think this can be stated too 
forcefully; illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the 
immigrants themselves. Just ask the families of the 19 illegal 
immigrants who were found dead in the back of a tractor-trailer truck 
in Victoria, Texas, in May of 2003. As long as incentives for human 
border smuggling persist, we will continue to see people manipulated, 
abused and, yes, even killed through this deplorable process.
  As I mentioned earlier and as is clearly evidenced and described, 
illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and H.R. 4437 goes a 
long way to combating it on multiple fronts, from the provision against 
illegal immigrants themselves to those who would either incentivize or 
aid them in illegally entering this country.
  First, Mr. Speaker, this bill will make illegal immigration into this 
country a felony offense, thereby increasing the penalties for jumping 
the border. H.R. 4437 will combat the economic incentives for illegal 
immigration by transferring the current employment verification system 
that validates Social Security numbers from a voluntary program to a 
mandatory program.

                              {time}  1145

  This bill also would increase civil and criminal penalties for those 
employers who knowingly and repeatedly employ or hire an illegal 
worker. Further, this bill would mandate detention for all aliens 
apprehended at the border while also stiffening the penalties for 
aliens already removed once from this country who try to reenter.
  Additionally, H.R. 4437 would increase existing and establish further 
mandatory minimums for alien smuggling and would vigorously combat 
through deportation members of alien street gangs. From the border to 
the street of every city, this bill takes a holistic approach to 
reforming our immigration laws, strengthening our border in defense of 
our country against a very real threat to not only American security 
but also, Mr. Speaker, American sovereignty.
  I ask for my colleagues' full support of the rule and this underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates that this legislation is simply 
not ready for consideration by the House. I have worked carefully with 
my Republican colleague on the Homeland Security Committee, Chairman 
King, to develop a border security bill that has made many good 
provisions. This rule defeats that.
  We could have given the House a Christmas present of a bipartisan 
bill that would secure our border in a real and fair way. Now this bill 
looks like a gift from an extremist Grinch, rather

[[Page 28554]]

than one from Santa Claus. The Committee on the Judiciary has so loaded 
up our bill with controversial immigration proposals that now it is 
opposed by every reasonable business, immigration or human rights group 
in America. The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform opposes this bill. 
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes it. The American Bar Association 
opposes it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes it. What 
reasonable group, Mr. Speaker, does not oppose it?
  Now the Republican leadership is grasping for straws as it tries to 
figure out what amendments can best fit the bill. We are now here 
debating a rule with only half the amendments to be allowed, but we 
have not even seen what the final version of the bill looks like. How 
can we be here debating amendments when we do not even know what we are 
amending? This feels like another Republican power grab.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to go slow and think this thing through. Let us 
take the bill back to the drawing board and pass a real border security 
bill that is fair and effective, not a partisan bill that almost no 
reasonable organization supports. And now, as we are about to return to 
our districts, let us think about the people that this bill will hurt, 
what kind of Christmas they will have.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey), my good friend, for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 
4437. Let me just say at the outset, because I know this will be a very 
heated debate over the next several days, let me say I have had nothing 
but the utmost cooperation from my good friend, Mr. Thompson of 
Mississippi, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. We 
did report out a piece of legislation which did pass by voice vote. And 
while there were differences along the way, they were resolved 
equitably. I wanted to commend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi for that 
and put that on the record.
  This legislation, which incorporates both the bill adopted in the 
Homeland Security Committee and then the bill adopted in the Judiciary 
Committee under Chairman Sensenbrenner, is a wide-ranging bill. All of 
us realize that more has to be done on the issue of immigration.
  This is probably the first step in a three-legged stool. Much more 
has to be done. This is a very, very significant first step in 
protecting our borders, because until the borders are protected, we 
cannot have any type of meaningful immigration reform.
  Just several of the high points is that it requires the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to do whatever has to be done to secure the border, 
using whatever physical infrastructure is required, whatever technology 
is required, whatever personnel is required. It also for the first time 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
Defense to utilize military technology to control the borders. This is 
a significant first step and I believe very, very important.
  It also ends the practice of catch and release, whereby hundreds of 
thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border would be 
captured and then released back into society and asked to return at 
some time for a hearing. Many, of course, never did. And the last 
several years we saw a significant increase in immigrants coming across 
the southern border illegally other than Mexicans, OTMs, which raises 
significant homeland security and national security issues.
  This has gone beyond just being an immigration issue, just an issue 
with social aspects. It also has very, very severe homeland security, 
internal security and national security issues. The attacks of 9/11 
made us aware of that. That is why I urge adoption of the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee for yielding me time, and I thank you, 
Mr. Speaker, very much for allowing me the opportunity to cast this 
debate hopefully in as broad a light as it possibly can be cast.
  I would like to suggest that members of the Homeland Security 
Committee and Committee on the Judiciary all have participated in what 
we call the ``heavy lifting.'' As a member of both committees, I know 
that there are individuals, well intentioned, who had come together to 
try to construct, if you will, a reasonable response to this pending 
and ongoing concern that Americans have expressed.
  But let me tell you why this rule is fractured and why the underlying 
bill needs to be returned back to not only the Rules Committee but the 
committee in order to put together for America the real comprehensive 
immigration reform that I hope legislators will bring to the floor of 
the House, as opposed to political sound bites.
  It is well known that America is asking for the enforcement of our 
immigration laws, but they are not asking for enforcement only. They 
want a comprehensive reform package that provides a pathway to 
citizenship and legalization and enforcement. As someone who comes from 
a border State, and particularly Texas, I can assure you that there is 
no divide amongst many Members on the needs for security and protection 
at the border. It was our State that experienced the viciousness and 
the seriousness of the Victoria deaths. Out of that particular tragedy 
I authored alien smuggling legislation which I am proud to say was 
included in the 9/11 legislation passed almost a year ago.
  We are very serious about border security, but this underlying bill 
does not speak to border security. What it does do is it provides the 
enormous burden of unfunded mandates and it is impracticable. It cannot 
work.
  What it does, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear us say this over and 
over again today, it criminalizes 11 million individuals, as the number 
seems to be of undocumented individuals, in this country. That means 
that they may be here, taxpayers, children in school, recognizing that 
they may have come to this particular place undocumented. But it 
criminalizes them by their very presence. That means they have to be 
mandatorily put in jail. Whether you are an elderly person, whether you 
are a child, you have to be mandatorily put in jail.
  The so-called ``employer verification program'' was a pilot program. 
There is no guarantee in this bill for full funding for that, nor is 
there a guarantee that the data base is secure enough that the 
employers can rely upon it. I believe employers should verify who they 
are employing, but they cannot do it with a system that is fractured 
and is not funded the way it should be funded.
  This bill requires a lot of work and the work is that we must combine 
comprehensive immigration reform. We must also address the question 
very quickly, Mr. Speaker, of giving the right equipment to border 
patrol agents. None of that is in there: night goggles, computers, 
helicopters, power boats.
  In the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, the 
ranking member, and myself offered an amendment that would equip the 
border patrol agents as they should be. You ask one American, Do you 
want your border patrol agents to have the right uniforms, the right 
ID, and the right equipment? They cannot function without helicopters, 
power boats, night goggles, computers and other technology to help them 
secure the border, nor can they work without doubling or tripling the 
number of border patrol agents. That is why this bill is fractured.
  So I conclude by simply saying, respond to what America is asking us 
to do: comprehensive immigration reform, earned access to legalization 
and, as well strong, strong enforcement.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee.

[[Page 28555]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I 
thank him for the work he has done on this and a wide range of other 
very important issues.
  We have by virtue of calling up this rule begun the debate on what is 
clearly one of the most contentious, challenging, and difficult issues 
that we will face as an institution. We know that this is a volatile 
issue, but it is one that does need to be addressed.
  This has really come to the forefront since September 11 of 2001, a 
renewed focus on something that is critically important for any nation, 
and that is the security of its borders. But in light of what we went 
through on September 11 and in light of the fact that we are in the 
midst of the global war on terror, there is a renewed understanding of 
how great the threat is to us.
  We have just this week passed the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act 
which is an important step in dealing with that. We have been able to 
put into place by virtue of seeing our friend from New York (Mr. King) 
here, that he ably chairs the Committee on Homeland Security, a 
Department of Homeland Security. We have made major modifications in 
the way we deal with the security of our borders. And yet we continue 
to have a very serious problem with the security of our borders.
  The thing that is very, very troubling for many of us is the prospect 
of seeing this debate degenerate into something that it should not be. 
I believe that we need to have a full recognition of the rights of 
every human being. I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to 
realize that 98 percent of the people who enter this country illegally 
enter here with one goal and one goal only, and that is to feed their 
families, to make a better life for themselves, to see their economic 
standing improve.
  In light of that, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can deal with 
the issue of the demand side on this question of border security and 
immigration reform in an important way. Much of what we are going to be 
doing in considering this legislation is focused on the supply side, 
trying to put a fence at the areas that are most dangerous. I am 
joining my colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, and several others, 
Mr. Royce. I know Mr. Gingrey will be supportive of our amendment, to 
focus as we have along the 14-mile stretch from the Pacific Ocean to 
the Otay Mesa at San Diego. We will be having an amendment that will 
deal with that.
  It is important that we do other things to focus on the supply side, 
but it is also equally important for us to focus on the demand side, 
the magnet that draws people into this country illegally. And it is 
also important for us to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is an 
economic demand that exists in the United States of America for a 
workforce. That is why as we proceed with this debate, I hope that we 
can recognize the dignity of everyone involved while doing all that we 
can to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, in 
fact, bring an end to illegal immigration.
  That is our goal. Our goal is to see an end to this kind of illegal 
action that has taken place. It is my sense that beginning with border 
security, which is what this measure that we are going to be 
considering does, it starts with that process.

                              {time}  1200

  I happen to think that as we look towards moving this legislation to 
the President's desk, it should include comprehensive reform.
  Sitting on the front row here is my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who is in his last term here. He, 
unfortunately, has chosen to retire, but one of the issues that he has 
championed is the recognition that an economic demand that exists in 
the United States of America is addressed. That is why I happen to 
concur that a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker 
program is the right thing to do.
  I believe it is in our national security interest. Why? We regularly 
hear, Mr. Speaker, about the 11 million people who are in this country 
illegally. We know that we have not seen a terrorist from Mexico in the 
United States, and that is something that I think is important for us 
to underscore again and again and again so the people do not engage in 
the demonization of Mexico and Mexicans, but I think it is important 
for us to realize that there is the threat that a terrorist could, in 
fact, be among the 11 million people who are in this country illegally.
  That is why a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker 
program allows people to come from the shadows, and it allows them to 
become part of society without making them American citizens but, in 
fact, focusing on the need for their work and the need for our 
security.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as this debate proceeds, I hope very much that we 
are able to recognize the importance of security of our borders, 
recognize the importance of ending the problems of illegal immigration. 
We all have story after story, and I can tell my colleagues, coming 
from southern California, we have tremendous problems that have been 
inflicted, whether it is dealing with Mexican nationals who have 
reportedly killed law enforcement agents like Deputy Sheriff David 
March 3 months ago and fled into the country of Mexico, or dealing with 
the onerous responsibility of providing services to people who are here 
illegally and then, of course, other crime, and then, as I said a 
moment ago, the threat of terrorism. We need to deal with these issues.
  But let us do the first step by focusing on border security, and then 
as we move ahead with this legislation, look comprehensively at the 
need to address this very, very challenging question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough 
to advise both sides as to the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 24 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive 
rule and the underlying legislation which is nothing more than a 
xenophobic attack on immigrants who were in search of a better way of 
life for them and their children.
  The United States has long been a shining example of inclusion and 
diversity. Even in some of our darkest days of intolerance, we have 
always managed to rise above our differences and fuel the flame beneath 
the world's melting pot. By resolving these differences, we have 
cultivated a strong Nation of citizens from around the world.
  That is why I find it so troubling that some here today are 
determined to extinguish that flame with so-called immigration reform 
that does little to address current immigration challenges or make our 
borders safer.
  Even worse is the manner by which this legislation is being brought 
to the floor today. Under the rule, part A, a meager 15 of the 130 
amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee are actually made 
in order. That means that 115 amendments, 115 ideas, 115 voices are all 
shut out from debate under this rule, and you multiply that by their 
constituents.
  Included in these 115 blocked amendments is an amendment offered by 
my good friend from south Florida (Mr. Meek) which sought to remedy 
some of the double standard immigration practices that apply to Haitian 
immigrants. Also blocked from consideration under the rule are the 
Sanchez-Conyers substitute and the President's very own guest worker 
visa program offered by Representatives Kolbe, Berman, Flake and 
Gutierrez.
  I heard the chairman a moment ago say that we should have this guest 
worker program. Well, he did not put it in this rule, and all we had to 
do was do that to at least give some credibility to that argument. I 
was confused as I heard him. I did not know whose side he was on.
  Clearly, the autocracy in this Republican-controlled body has reached 
an

[[Page 28556]]

all-time high when a Republican President cannot get a vote on his own 
proposal.
  I offered an amendment to the rule this morning at 7 a.m., barely 3 
hours ago, that would have made the Kolbe-Berman amendment in order, 
but Republicans on the Rules Committee, except one, rejected my 
amendment and blocked this amendment from being considered by the 
House.
  I understand that the House leadership has told many in the majority 
that it intends to consider the President's proposal on the floor 
sometime before the House recesses this week. If that is, in fact, the 
case then why did the chairman of the Rules Committee specifically tell 
his assembled Republican colleagues this morning to vote against making 
the President's proposal in order?
  Perhaps it is because the majority do not want to consider what they 
cannot defeat or perhaps they have zero intention of ever considering 
the Kolbe-Berman amendment.
  Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dollar for every time 
the Republican leadership promised a Member something and failed to 
keep that promise since 1995, well, I would be a Republican. Words are 
cheap until they are backed up with action, and if anybody thinks that 
this part A is getting ready to have the necessary appropriations to 
undertake the meager measures on border security, then I have a bridge 
in Mr. Nadler's general area that I would like to sell them.
  Our immigration laws are in dire need of revision. Everybody in this 
House knows, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration laws are broken. The 
current system is rife with double standards, quota limit, wet foot-dry 
foot, air foot-boat foot, student visas, just to name a few.
  The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address these 
shortcomings in the law. Instead, it is a harsh set of laws that favor 
heavy-handed enforcement in the guise of protection.
  Mr. Speaker, my south Florida-based district staff, as I am speaking, 
work every single day, and today as I speak there are immigrants lined 
up throughout the halls of the office that I am privileged to serve, 
lined sometimes as many as 30 or 40 people deep snake through the 
hallways of that office. Some came here legally. Others arrived 
illegally. Regardless, all of them share the same American dream with 
one another and all of us. Our rich and diverse cultural backgrounds 
are our strength.
  The underlying legislation, however, mocks that diversity and creates 
a system under which simply applying for citizenship would be risky. 
Arbitrary factors could deny naturalization on the basis of whether an 
alien is a person of good, moral character.
  If this bill becomes law, anyone who has ever had an illegal presence 
in the United States will be arrested, convicted of a felony and 
jailed. Even those who seek asylum from honor killings, human 
trafficking, and forced prostitution would immediately be branded as 
felons and thrown into American jails.
  This wide net of prosecution is also cast upon American citizens 
accused of helping, hiring or transporting potential immigrants. We 
have a wonderful and rich history of churches and philanthropic groups 
who serve as a lifeline for newly arrived immigrants who diligently 
seek legal status.
  Business owners could also be fined and penalized for not verifying 
the citizenship of every worker through a new system of stringent 
checks that is an unfunded mandate at best. These checks would require 
approximately 7 million American employers to screen almost 140 million 
workers. These are the people who do not believe in big government.
  We owe it to all who live here, whether born on this soil or not, the 
chance to contribute in a fair and meaningful way that protects our 
safety, provides for our prosperity and values our distinction.
  Let me go back and say that there are people in this country, there 
are elected officials in this country whose parentage may very well 
have been brought here under certain circumstances, forced here under 
others, came here of their own volition, and likely were here 
illegally. Many of those persons are some of the stellar citizens in 
our respective communities. I look no further south than my district 
and can tell you the significant number of Cuban Americans and Haitian 
Americans that all of us ought be proud they are here and Jamaican 
Americans, the whole Caribbean basin, many from South America, 
everybody ain't in this category of 11 million people who we are 
getting ready to felonize.
  We need look no further than our own families to appreciate the 
richness and diversity of this country. Most of us here today in this 
House are no more than two to three generations away from an ancestor 
who traveled to America by boat, plane or even on foot or were brought 
here by others to work for nothing. Many came at great risk and 
sacrifice. Thousands died on the way here. They journeyed here not for 
a free ride but for a better way of life, not for a handout but for a 
hand up.
  I went a few months ago to the Statue of Liberty, and I had my 
grandson with me. We stood and we looked and he began to understand 
what it meant more and more. He is 11 years old, and I could see the 
pride as he thought of his many friends that he goes to school with 
that come from other countries and his understanding the need for 
tolerance that that great symbol signifies for this Nation.
  As a nation of immigrants, it is beyond irresponsible to address this 
issue with such closed minds. It is time for us to undertake 
comprehensive illegal reform, and I urge my colleagues to reject this 
restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is well aware that we will be 
having another rule and additional amendments made in order under that 
rule. Many of the ones that he mentioned hopefully will have that 
opportunity to be made in order and to be discussed.
  I want to point out also that the give and take between the Democrats 
and the Republicans on the Rules Committee brought to the attention 
this potential problem of criminalizing existing illegal aliens, and we 
will have a manager's amendment in the next rule that corrects that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Keller), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the number one issue my constituents raise with me at 
town hall meetings is the need to strengthen our border security by 
cracking down on illegal immigration. Why? Our current immigration 
system is broken, and the American people expect us to secure our 
borders.
  We have 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. Illegal 
aliens continue to enter the U.S. from the Mexican border at the rate 
of 8,000 per day. Last year, our border patrol agents arrested 1.2 
million illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States. 
Significantly, 155,000 arrests of illegal immigrants were from 
countries other than Mexico. They included illegal immigrants from 
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.
  This poses a very serious national security problem according to the 
testimony of CIA Director Porter Goss before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on March 17 of this year.
  Our law enforcement authorities believe that the mass movement of 
illegal aliens across the porous Mexican-U.S. border offers the perfect 
cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S., especially since 
tighter controls have been imposed to airports.

                              {time}  1215

  For example, when we go to the airport, our names are checked against 
the terrorist watch list. We have to produce a photo ID, we remove our 
shoes, we walk through a metal detector, and we send our briefcase and 
luggage through an x-ray machine to

[[Page 28557]]

check if there are any weapons or explosive devices. Of course, this 
does not happen to 8,000 illegal aliens who enter the U.S. every day 
from the Mexican border. There are no terrorist background checks, no 
photo ID checks, no shoe removal, no metal detectors, and no x-ray 
machines for bombs or weapons.
  In addition to threatening our national security, illegal immigration 
places a crushing burden on the American taxpayers who end up getting 
stuck with a tab for over $45 billion a year for the health care and 
education of illegal aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, we must get serious about strengthening our border by 
cracking down on illegal immigration. Good fences make good neighbors, 
but that is only a start. We need to build more fences, hire more 
border patrol agents, use unmanned aerial drones to enforce the border, 
authorize our local sheriffs to enforce our immigration laws, and hold 
our employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. This 
bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to take 
positive action today to secure our borders. Vote ``yes'' on the rule 
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4437.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will debate legislation attempting to 
address immigration in our country, the challenges of which are 
extremely complex. Unfortunately, this legislation focuses entirely on 
border security and cracking down on illegal immigration. It fails to 
truly address the underlying issue of why people risk long boat rides 
in cargo containers, open rafts, extreme temperatures crossing deserts 
and risking death to come to the United States. This legislation 
overlooks the multifaceted nature of immigration and sadly ignores the 
fact the immigration system is broken.
  Individuals waiting years to receive a visa is not an uncommon 
occurrence, nor is it rare for someone who came to the United States 
legally for work or to study to wait years at a time to bring their 
spouses, children, and loved ones to this country to join them.
  What we cannot forget is that these are real people. My grandparents 
were immigrants. So many people from California, Florida, North 
Carolina, Texas, New York, I could go on and on, are immigrants. We 
should take a breath and hold for a moment before we rush this. What we 
do to address our broken immigration system must be thoughtful.
  Like many of our districts, my hometown of Sacramento has an 
immigrant population, and in Sacramento that population includes many 
from Russia and the former Soviet Union. I am currently helping some of 
my constituents to bring their 13-year-old son back to the United 
States. Seven years ago, this constituent legally came to our country. 
This past June, the family traveled to Russia for vacation and on 
return was shocked to learn that their son's eligibility had been 
canceled. Their son was barred from reentering this country with his 
parents. We are working as fast as we can to correct what seems to be a 
mistake and reunite this family. Until then, this young boy must remain 
in Russia.
  As a mother and grandmother, I cannot fathom what this family must be 
going through, nor can I understand how we have not reformed a system 
that would allow this separation. We must not put families in a 
situation where they feel they must make a decision to enter legally or 
illegally or separate their families. We must reform our immigration 
system to end backlogs and to help reunite families.
  As I said before, this is a multifaceted issue of which family 
unification is only one component. There are an estimated 11 million 
undocumented immigrants in the United States. They came here illegally 
in search of a better opportunity, to work on farms and restaurants, 
hotels, and hundreds of other service jobs. Whether we like it or not, 
they are part of our economy and fill a needed gap in our labor force.
  That is why the chamber of commerce, the business community, the 
immigrant community, and the President all support a guest worker 
program. That is the only way to end the incentive to enter the United 
States illegally to find work, and bring out of shadows the illegal 
immigrants already here.
  This legislation, however, ignores these issues. That is not to say 
it is without some needed provisions. I support increasing the number 
of border patrol agents and port inspectors as well as adding radiation 
detection equipment at all of our maritime ports. However, on the 
whole, it is filled with ill-considered provisions. What makes this 
worse is that there is no reason why we need to rush this through in 
the last days of the session.
  It is clear there are many questions surrounding this legislation. 
The action we take on immigration will reverberate across the country 
and affect people's lives. We need to know its full implications before 
we proceed. It is not clear that we need to do this now. The American 
people deserve clarity now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my physician colleague 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
and strong support of the underlying bill. As was previously stated on 
the debate on the rule on the pension bill, let us not make the perfect 
enemy of the good. This is not a good bill; it is a very good bill. It 
is a step in the right direction. Yes, we do need to do more.
  I have been saying for years there is no greater disconnect between 
the will of the American people and the inside-the-Beltway environment 
than on this issue of border security and illegal immigration, and we 
are finally taking a strong step in the right direction here.
  I want to address one of the most important features in this issue, 
and that is the fundamental issue of security, of securing our borders. 
The American people know that coming across the border are some people, 
and the FBI Director has testified to this effect in the committee that 
I serve on, there are some people who are not economic immigrants. They 
are coming from countries other than Mexico, Middle Eastern countries; 
they are here to do us harm. So it is desperately important we secure 
our borders.
  This bill gets at one of the most important things that I think we 
need to address, and that is employer sanctions. I want to share with 
my colleagues a story. My brother-in-law installs air-conditioning 
systems on construction sites in New York, and he told me the story of 
how on one Monday morning he saw a new man on that construction site 
and he asked the gentleman to explain to him in his broken English when 
he came to the United States. He said that he had come on Saturday. He 
had come across the American border and he had gone to a safe house in 
the Southwest, gotten a plane ticket, flew to New York specifically for 
a job that was waiting for him there.
  We need to put a stop to this, and we need stronger sanctions against 
employers. We need better enforcement of our existing laws. This is a 
national security issue. We desperately need to pass this bill, and we 
need to do more to end this way of illegal immigration and secure our 
borders.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my classmate and good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, what an underhanded, sneaky rule and bill 
this is. The Social Security Act has a provision that prohibits, that 
prohibits the use of Social Security trust funds for changing the 
Social Security cards. This bill repeals that provision. CBO estimates 
the cost that could be incurred there by between 5 and $10 billion to 
be looted out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by that 
provision of this bill.
  Now, I offered an amendment to restore this provision, to repeal the 
repeal. Mr. Thomas ran into the Rules Committee at midnight last night 
with

[[Page 28558]]

his own amendment, because they saw the damage this could do. And his 
own amendment ostensibly repeals this, but it does not. The Thomas 
amendment only applies to the Social Security trust fund, but allows 
the looting of the Medicare trust fund. It allows monies from all trust 
funds, including Social Security, to carry out section 707 of the bill, 
a smaller expenditure, but a major expenditure.
  The Thomas amendment limits the prohibition against raiding the trust 
funds to title VII of the current bill. My amendment prohibits the use 
of these monies for any costs incurred in developing and implementing 
any change in Social Security cards. The Thomas amendment leaves open 
the possibility of future legislation looting all the trust funds.
  Why will we not simply restore the provision, as my amendment would, 
that this bill would take out? Why are we opening up the Social 
Security and Medicare and disability and unemployment insurance trust 
funds to be looted for these purposes? Mr. Thomas's amendment undoes a 
little of the damage, but it leaves wide loopholes. Wide.
  Does anybody know that in the immigration bill we are debating is 
permission to take $5 billion to $10 billion out of Social Security and 
Medicare and unemployment and disability? Is that what we want to do?
  I urge the Rules Committee, if it wants to make sure this is honestly 
done, make my amendment in order, not just Mr. Thomas's amendment, 
which is self-executed in this rule, although only brought to the Rules 
Committee at midnight last night. Make my amendment in order so we can 
stop the looting of the Social Security, disability unemployment, and 
Medicare trust funds.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4437.
  This is not a theoretical exercise for me. No congressional district 
in the United States suffers more from the degradations of illegal 
immigration than mine. For years now, we have had the largest number of 
apprehensions in the country. In fact, more people cross the border 
illegally in the border-patrolled Tucson sector than all, all of the 
other border States combined. The strain on law enforcement, on 
education, on health care, and on social services is severe. It is real 
and it hurts.
  No, Mr. Speaker, in my part of the country we know what illegal 
immigration means. So I will listen today with a mixture of anger and 
amusement to all the things said here today by the experts who, for 
more than a decade, have paid no attention to the complaints and cries 
of alarm to those of us along the border.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today does nothing to solve the 
real problems of immigration. In fact, it is worse than nothing. It is 
worse than nothing because it tries to fool the public. It pulls the 
wool over their eyes. It pretends we are doing something to secure our 
border, when in fact we are doing nothing except throwing words and 
money at the problem.
  Anyone who really cares about a solution to our immigration woes 
knows that border enforcement is one prong of a three-part solution. 
The first is enforcement, border enforcement and employer enforcement. 
Second, you have to have some means of allowing those who want to work 
and are willing to work come into the United States legally to work on 
a temporary basis. And, third, you have to deal with the 10, 11, 12 
million people illegally in this country now.
  Now, that is the reality. But the bill brought before us today is an 
amnesty bill. That is our dark little secret, the unspoken truth that 
no one wants to talk about.
  Why do I say that? Because if you are really for enforcement, you 
have to get those 11 million people out of the country. We have to 
round them up, apprehend them, and ship them back home. But this bill 
does not do that. It ignores the problem.
  The committee knows that. The leadership knows that. We are going 
down this path, continuing this charade, continuing to lie to the 
American people, continuing to pretend we are doing something to 
prevent illegal immigration.
  The real question, Mr. Speaker, is when will this body have a serious 
dialogue about immigration issues? When will we engage each other and 
the American people on this difficult problem? We can only hope someday 
soon. But not today, Mr. Speaker. Not today. Not with this bill. Not 
with this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle from 
Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in part because I disagree 
with the previous speaker in the well on many points dealing with the 
immigration question and border security. But I rise to oppose the rule 
precisely because of our disagreements.
  I rise in reluctance, but these are the circumstances in which we 
confront this. Here we are rushing toward the Christmas holiday break 
and at the last nanosecond of the 11th hour, we are going to debate 
this important question. The American people deserve more.
  No, there will not be unanimity on this question. Illegal immigration 
threatens our sovereignty, our security, and our reverence for the rule 
of law. It discriminates against American workers, particularly those 
who struggle to survive at the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

                              {time}  1230

  It also locks illegal aliens into a permanent underclass to be 
exploited and discarded. It demands that we give serious deliberative 
attention to the question of illegal immigration on our economy, on the 
health care system, our public school system and our criminal justice 
system. Because it is so important, we need more time to deliberate and 
debate and make the right choices. Vote no on the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a no-spin zone in my district called 
Radams. As a family-owned agriculture supply store, this is a place 
where normally 40 to 50 farmers and growers meet every morning before 
the sun comes up to talk about the issues of the day. I was there last 
Friday, and the mood was not a happy one because we all learned the day 
before the Judiciary Committee had marked up this immigration bill, and 
I do not think there was a single hearing on that bill.
  I am one that does not believe you can do a broad, bipartisan 
comprehensive immigration bill without including provisions related to 
guest workers. My district is a microcosm of the country. That means I 
have agriculture. In fact, I have a ton of fruit and vegetable growers, 
and they rely on good, migrant labor to harvest their crops, starting 
with asparagus in the spring, going through apples in the fall. None of 
those family operators, none of them, can survive without migrant or 
seasonal workers. Many have between 50 and 150 workers. Yet in this 
legislation there are no provisions, none, that will help my growers 
keep a viable workforce in order to pick their crops.
  Whenever I raise this issue, this shortcoming in this bill, I am told 
the Senate will deal with it. They will save it. They will take it up.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we punting on the issues? Amendments were 
submitted to deal with this, but they were rejected by the Rules 
Committee. That means if this rule passes, there will be no debate, let 
alone a vote on whether these provisions should be included. I think 
that is wrong, and I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule 
so amendments can be considered. This is too important an issue to gag 
this debate. Let us have a real debate, a constructive debate that will 
actually do something about the problem of illegal immigration.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

[[Page 28559]]


  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Listen to Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Upton and Mr. Hayworth. This rule will bring 
to the floor a bill which is an insult to the intelligence of the 
American people and an insult to the intelligence of this body. We can 
have all kinds of debates; guest worker, no guest worker; birthright 
citizenship, no birthright citizenship; fence, no fence. These are 
legitimate arguments to have. But a bill that the Speaker of the House, 
the chairman of the Rules Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee know cannot solve the crisis of illegal immigration, they 
know from the start, that they bring up and ask this body to pass in 
order to tell the American people they are doing something about a 
problem they know cannot be solved by the bill they are presenting is 
insulting the intelligence and trying to con the American people. This 
rule should be rejected for that reason.
  In this bill is an employer-eligibility system which is a critical 
component of a comprehensive approach to dealing with illegal 
immigration. How are you ever going to impose effectively an employer-
verification system where every person who is hired and every person 
who is now working has to be verified by the Social Security 
Administration when you have 11 million people in this country, almost 
all of whom are working except for the children, almost all of whom are 
working in undocumented fashion for an employer, the heart of the 
perishable fruit and vegetable industry, the heart of a number of other 
industries in this country, and expect that system to pass. This is a 
con.
  There are only two things going on. Mr. J.D. Hayworth is right: 
Either they expect the Senate to add the program for adjustment of 
status and guest workers and bring it back to the floor to the squeals 
of many of the people on the other side of the aisle, or they intend 
never to see this bill again but say for the next elections that they 
are solving a problem or trying to solve a problem that they know 
intellectually and personally and have said over and over and over 
again in conversations and in the press will not solve the problem.
  Vote no on the rule. Reject this con, put together a proposal that 
solves the crisis in illegal immigration, that does something about the 
national security issues that illegal immigration threatens, that does 
something about the humanitarian tragedy that now exists, that 
recognizes the crisis and that provides the solution that the American 
people are entitled to.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
rule as well as the underlying bill. This legislation is absolutely 
long overdue, and it is time we enact some very pragmatic and useful 
methods to prevent noncitizens from moving freely back and forth across 
our borders.
  Quite frankly, the American people have lost their sense of humor 
when it comes to illegal immigration. They are demanding action, and it 
is no secret that our borders are porous. Every day, countless 
individuals are entering our country illegally and advantaging 
themselves of government services at taxpayer expense, and they take 
the jobs that otherwise could go to American citizens as well as those 
immigrants who came here legally, who abided by our laws.
  It is time that we put these practices to an end. It is time that we 
as Americans take more responsibility in the fight against illegal 
immigration.
  One of the most important provisions in this bill ends the ludicrous 
practice of catch and release with detained illegal aliens. Upon 
passage of this bill, anyone caught in this country illegally will be 
detained until further judicial action can be taken. It is unfathomable 
that this has not been the procedure since day one, but I am pleased 
that we are finally going to put an end to that.
  Another key feature of this bill is the increased cooperation between 
Federal authorities and local law enforcement. This bill will reimburse 
sheriffs on the southern border for immigration enforcement and treat 
any individuals in their custody as Federal detainees. I hope this is 
the beginning and not the end of immigration reform. And let us keep in 
mind that while we are having this national debate today, that because 
our laws currently require us to count noncitizens for the purposes of 
the apportionment of congressional seats, that a number of Members of 
this House represent districts where fully 30 to 40 percent of their 
constituents are illegal aliens or noncitizens. So perversely, illegal 
aliens will be well represented in the U.S. Congress on the vote today 
to secure our border and to crack down on illegal aliens, and it is my 
hope that the issue of congressional representation for American 
citizens can also be dealt with as we move forward in this process so 
the full voice of the American people can be heard and that American 
citizens do not continue to have their vote disenfranchised. I support 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, every country has a right 
to control its borders to regulate who enters, and that includes the 
United States of America. Several speakers have mentioned that this 
obligation or right has been elevated since 9/11, and I think we all 
acknowledge that is true. Unfortunately, the administration has 
completely dropped the ball when it comes to regulation of those 
entering the United States without authorization.
  I want to talk about just one item, which is the citation and release 
of individuals who are apprehended, who then promise to appear for 
their proceedings and then promptly disappear. The failure-to-appear 
rate appears to be in excess of 80 percent.
  We have heard psychologists say that the definition of insanity is 
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different 
result. If so, the administration has lost its mind because this 
citation release program has not resulted in individuals appearing as 
promised.
  Does this bill do anything about that, about the hundreds of 
thousands of individuals who are in America who made a promise to 
appear? Unfortunately, no, it does not.
  Now, I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House 
Judiciary Committee, and I have gone through this bill in some detail. 
There are some things that have absolutely nothing to do with unlawful 
immigration.
  Section 404 of the act is something I want to mention because it is 
going to be important to a lot of Americans. This provision provides 
that the Secretary may deny admission to any person from countries that 
unreasonably delay or deny repatriation of citizens whom we have 
ordered deported. That is not about unlawful immigration; it is about 
people who are legal residents of the United States, husbands and wives 
of American citizens, who can be denied admission to the United States 
even though they are legal because the country they were born in has 
done something wrong. This is the new Chinese exclusion act which we 
repealed.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo some of the sentiments of 
some of the earlier speakers, particularly Mr. Kolbe from Arizona. We 
have to have comprehensive reform, and until we do, we are ignoring the 
elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the 11 million or so 
illegals who are here at present.
  This is called an enforcement bill, but it does nothing to enforce 
the law and the interior. It says that if you are employing an illegal, 
you have up to 6 years to check their status; 6 years for that person 
to stay in the shadows, driving without a license, driving without 
insurance. That is not enforcement.
  We have to have comprehensive reform that deals with border security, 
a temporary worker program and also dealing effectively with those who 
are

[[Page 28560]]

here illegally at present. I hope if we do this bill that we move 
quickly on to more comprehensive legislation that will do all we need 
to do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend and classmate.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, all Americans have an interest in securing 
our borders, but this bill is neither genuine security nor fairness. It 
threatens American businesses, agriculture, and it certainly threatens 
to destroy border commerce and punish hardworking border citizens.
  This is just the latest in a series of bad bills that appeal to the 
worst fears and prejudices of xenophobes rather than advancing 
meaningful immigration reform. It is a cynical bill because it is not 
comprehensive. There is no one-dimensional solution looking solely at 
law enforcement that can succeed. There is no wall that can be built 
high enough to solve this problem.
  Over a century ago, my own great grandfather came from Sweden to 
Louisiana to chop sugar cane. He came for the same reason that many 
people come to this country today: to take on the most difficult jobs 
in order to have a better life. Until we address that economic concern 
with a meaningful guest worker program, we will not address immigration 
today.
  To the extent that the border is inadequately patrolled, this is a 
direct result not of the lack of a law, but a lack of will by the Bush 
administration in its mismanagement of the Border Patrol. Last year, 
this Congress approved 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and 
President Bush responded by saying we only need 210 of those 2,000 
Border Patrol agents for the entire country. In September, even our 
Texas Republican colleagues demanded that President Bush ``stop raiding 
our Texas Border Patrol'' and called the reassignment of agents to 
Arizona an ``outrageous action [that] is crippling border security in 
Texas.'' Today, instead of Border Patrol agents, the Republicans say we 
need to punish church workers who live their faith by assisting persons 
in need without first checking their visas.
  The kind of measure we are offered is not new. It is part of a sad 
and recurring theme in American history. In the 19th century, it was 
the work of the Know-Nothing Party. Today, there are some in this 
Republican leadership who want to make the Republican Party the Know-
Nothing Party of the 21st century.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the 
purpose of closing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce.

                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, December 15, 2005.
       Members of the United States House of Representatives: As 
     you prepare to debate the rule on H.R. 4437, the ``Border 
     Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control 
     Act of 2005,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this 
     legislation due to its adverse impact on employers, and asks 
     that you reject House Resolution 610. The process that led to 
     the development of this legislation and its consideration on 
     the floor has been seriously flawed. The Chamber remains 
     strongly opposed to this legislation.
       We have been urging Congress to fix our broken immigration 
     system for years, which would include securing our borders, 
     creating an employment verification system that is fast and 
     reliable, designing a temporary worker program that meets the 
     future demand for workers, and reasonably addressing the 
     legal status of the undocumented workers and their families 
     currently in the United States. With the notable exception of 
     border security, this bill, particularly the provisions of 
     Title VII, would make our dysfunctional immigration system 
     even worse.
       The bill mandates that all employers of all sizes comply 
     with a new government-run electronic/telephonic verification 
     system to ensure that all employees are authorized to work. 
     The concept is based on past, very limited pilot projects, 
     and it is doubtful whether a new mandate of this breadth, 
     applicable to over seven million employers and over 140 
     million employees, can realistically be implemented, 
     particularly under this legislation's deadlines. These pilot 
     projects were limited to approximately 3,600 employers and 
     only new hires, while the legislation will also apply to 
     existing employees. Further, there have been many practical, 
     documented compliance problems under the program. While 
     improvements have been made, the extension of this program to 
     a much broader universe creates serious questions as to its 
     practicality in the real world. The proposal also includes 
     massive, in some cases uncapped, increases in penalties 
     against employers. Paperwork violation penalties are 
     increased 25 fold--up to $25,000 per individual.
       Furthermore, the bill would now transform into a felony 
     with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for 
     unauthorized presence in the United States subject to fines 
     and deportation. This provision is directly inconsistent with 
     the President's proposal, which recognizes the economic 
     contributions of these workers, and that there should be a 
     pathway for these workers to earn legal status. The debate 
     over the proper status of these workers should have been left 
     to the context of comprehensive reform initiatives.
       The Chamber continues to support the concept of a workable 
     verification system as part of a comprehensive reform 
     package, but new laws that simply place more burdens on 
     employers through worksite enforcement alone are not the 
     answer. The Chamber has repeatedly called for legislation to: 
     1) provide for increased national security and control of our 
     nation's borders; 2) create an efficient temporary worker 
     program that allows employers to recruit immigrant workers 
     when there is a shortage of domestic workers; and 3) provide 
     legal status for qualified, screened undocumented migrants 
     now in the country. As the President has stated, all three of 
     these elements must be part of any initiative.
       The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical 
     issues, and is dismayed that the House rule essentially 
     forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas. 
     Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business 
     community and our nation's economy, the Chamber will use the 
     vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. 
     Again the Chamber urges you to vote `no' on House Resolution 
     610, the rule on H.R. 4437.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.

  Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of this letter states, ``The Chamber 
has supported efforts to address these critical issues and is dismayed 
that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on 
these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to 
the business community and our Nation's economy, the Chamber will use 
the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again, the 
Chamber urges you to vote no on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R. 
4437.''

                              {time}  1245

  The Chamber's display is the same dismay that we have seen in a 
bipartisan fashion here. It is not that we do not need reform. But what 
is needed is comprehensive reform. And simply put, we are not reaching 
that with the legislation that we are making a rule on at this time. 
And we cannot do that, I might add, with a restrictive rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will draw this first debate to a close by again congratulating the 
Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Sensenbrenner, as well as the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Chairman King for bringing this 
comprehensive bill before the House today.
  As I stated in my opening remarks, the problem of illegal immigration 
poses multiple threats and must be addressed in multiple ways, and I am 
pleased that this bill before us today goes a long way and is a great 
first step to attacking the problem, both from the supply-and-demand 
sides of the equation, as well as from the security side.
  Mr. Speaker, through both strengthening our borders and diminishing 
economic incentives for illegal immigration, we stand a much better 
chance of truly reducing this problem in a meaningful way. And, yes, we 
do intend, in an expeditious manner, to address the issue of a solution 
for the existing 11 million illegals, most of whom are working hard to 
support their families.
  Again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this rule so we can move forward with the initial 
consideration of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the 
resolution.

[[Page 28561]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________