[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14079-14085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this House about an 
issue that, at least as I travel around my district, as I travel around 
my State, is one of the defining issues of our time, and that is the 
issue which we are hearing about every day: What are we going to do 
about the immigration policy and the immigration influx into this 
country?
  I thought I would come down here today and see if we could not 
analyze this the way we sort of like to analyze evidence as we do in 
the courtroom. We need to take a look at what is the problem that 
brings us to this point that we have to address this thing, and I would 
propose first and foremost we need to look at the big problem and 
decide where is the crisis today as we stand here on this floor on July 
12.
  Where would the American public define the crisis to be as we deal 
with people who are coming into this country from other countries? And 
when I say other countries, I mean many, many other countries but 
predominantly I am addressing today the crossing of our southern border 
out of Mexico. Where are we concerned and why are we concerned?
  Many people say, let us look at the big picture of this issue, which 
is that we have an estimate that is somewhere between 12 million and 15 
million people that have come into this country since we granted 
amnesty back in 1986 or 1987 under the Reagan administration and opened 
the doors to the people who are here and gave them a fast track to 
American citizenship. We then said that we would go to the border and 
protect our borders and crack down on those people who would offer 
employment to folks who wanted to come in here illegally and we would 
prevent that. Mr. Speaker, the number, and whatever it may be but it is 
in the millions, clearly above 10 million and less than 20 million by 
most estimates, that are here in this country, as some like to say 
hiding in the shadows of our economy today, they are here. Now, why are 
they here?
  Did we enforce the border? No. Did we crack down on employers that 
were employing these people? No. Did we do what we promised the 
American people we would do when we basically granted amnesty to 3 
million people back in the 1980s? And that 3 million, by the way, grew 
in great proportion, because when those people received amnesty they 
were also able to bring in their families, their children and their 
wives and their extended families, until that number grew to 
substantially more than what was estimated.
  We will not go into that today, but did we do our job? Did we, as 
Democrats for a long time and as Republicans for a long time, did we do 
our

[[Page 14080]]

job? I submit to you that the evidence shows we did not. And because 
the great prize of being forgiven of your sins, if you will, was 
granted in the 1980s, millions more came.
  So is that the crisis? Those people, are they the crisis that have 
people so concerned across the country today? It is of interest. People 
are somewhat concerned, but I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is not 
the crisis that people are concerned about and that is on their minds 
when they sit down to breakfast in the morning or when they talk to 
their families at night or when they visit with their neighbors or when 
they go out in public. That is not the concern. The concern is that 
border and those people coming across.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear from people in this country, and there is 
certainly a valid economic argument for it, that we need these folks to 
come in here and take the jobs that Americans don't want. And there is 
some validity to that argument. There is some validity to many of these 
diligent hardworking people who have come to this country to take 
really tough jobs out there, working in the heat in Texas in the 
summertime, which is, believe me, having done it, it is a hard job. No 
matter where you are, if you are out digging post holes, laying 
asphalt, or putting a roof on in Texas, you are earning your pay. It is 
hot, tiring, almost thankless work. So we say we need these folks to 
build those fences, put those roofs down, and lay that asphalt. We need 
them. We have to have them. And there are those who can present 
evidence to that effect and make an argument for it.
  But is that the crisis that people are worried about in this country? 
Is that what people, your neighbors, are visiting with you about? Is 
that what you are talking about when you gather in your community: Oh, 
we have such a shortage of workers here. We have so many jobs that 
people are not doing. We are just really in such desperate need of 
help, it is a crisis in our country. Mr. Speaker, I would also submit 
that is not the crisis that the American people are concerned about.
  So then let's examine this picture further. Let's say, well, the 
statistics seem to show us that pretty regularly 1,000 people cross the 
Mexican-U.S. border into the United States every single day. That 
probably on many days is a very conservative estimate, but the average 
that both the Border Patrol and those who are down there that are 
trying to determine what is happening, that is pretty much what 
everybody agrees to, that at least 1,000 people a day are crossing our 
border, at least 30,000 to 31,000 people a month are crossing this 
border, or 365,000 people a year are crossing the southern border of 
the United States into our country. And they are doing it, Mr. Speaker, 
no matter what you want to call it, they are doing it illegally.
  The law says you can't do that, that it is against the law. You can 
call it whatever you want to call it, but it is breaking the laws of 
these United States, and these people are coming in at least in those 
numbers. And in addition to those people, or as a part of those people, 
who else is coming across our southern borders? Do we know?
  Well, we know a little bit. We know that last year we caught 68,000 
what we call OTMs. Those are people that are ``other than Mexicans.'' 
And that is a term that has been adopted to define people from any 
other country but Mexico that have been caught and apprehended crossing 
our southern border. The Border Patrol and the immigration authorities 
have determined to call them OTMs, ``other than Mexicans.''
  We have heard in testimony at hearings, just as recently as last 
week, that 30,000 Brazilians were shipped home a short time ago; that 
people from the Middle East, people from China, people from all over 
the Southern hemisphere have come into this country illegally crossing 
the Mexican border into the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would submit 
that that is the crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit that when people discuss what they are 
very concerned about, what they think has the potential to change their 
lives, to threaten their lives, it is who is coming across our southern 
border in these huge volumes. That is what the American people see as a 
crisis.
  Now, we are called upon, as we look at what is going on here in 
Congress, we are called upon to address these issues, and I submit to 
you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are called upon to do is to address the 
crisis first. I have used this example before, but if a series of wreck 
victims is brought in from a car wreck out on the highway outside of 
Washington, DC, today, and brought into the emergency room of the 
hospital, and we have one man who has a broken arm and we have one man 
who is skinned up because he slid on the pavement and maybe he has a 
broken hand and maybe a sore back, and then we have one man who has 
arterial bleeding from the throat, where is the crisis? The man with 
the arterial bleeding from the throat is going to bleed out and die in 
seconds if the emergency room does not immediately go and stop the 
bleeding where it is occurring because it doesn't take long for the 
heart to pump the body dry out of a main artery. Of course, our well-
trained medical professionals in this country would recognize to go to 
the crisis and meet the crisis where the bleeding is.
  The bleeding, Mr. Speaker, is at the border. That is where the 
bleeding is. We have to do what we have to do to address how to stop 
the bleeding on the issue of immigration.
  Right now we have two bills that are about to be discussed in 
conference committee that supposedly the two Houses of Congress are 
looking at what is important to take care of so that we can start down 
the road of having a responsible immigration process.
  I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that after three trips to the 
border in the last 9 months, I am absolutely convinced that not only is 
the need most important that we secure our borders, but what the 
American people want us to do is secure our sovereignty and our 
borders, both on the southern border and the northern border of these 
United States, but the bleeding right now and the numbers coming across 
are clearly in the south.
  I think the bill which has passed the House of Representatives is a 
bill that deals with the issue that is in crisis in America today on 
the issue of immigration. And I am going to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, 
that if any of our Members, and many of them have, and so I want to 
praise them for doing so, but if any of them will travel to the border 
towns of Texas, and I would highly recommend a trip to Laredo, Texas, 
or El Paso, Texas, or Del Rio, Texas, or Brownsville, Texas, or 
McAllen, Texas, or any of the other border crossings, but this day I 
recommend Laredo, Texas, and if you are not frightened about what you 
learn from the Nuevo Laredo citizens and from the Border Patrol 
immigration and ICE as to what is going on in Laredo, Mexico today, 
then your wood is mighty wet because you just don't see it.
  The fact is there is a drug war raging in Nuevo Laredo. That is a 
cartel war going on with people firing automatic weapons at both 
civilians and members of the police force and the army in Mexico right 
across the Texas border. Live fire is received across the Texas border 
constantly. Ask the Border Patrol, they will tell you about it. They 
know about it.
  Congressman John Culberson and I were there, with our colleague Mr. 
Cuellar, visiting on the southern border. John was walking out on the 
bridge and his foot slipped on something on the international bridge, a 
bridge, by the way, that being a native Texan who spent at least 45 
years of his life in the central Texas area, I have crossed as many 
times as there are Members of the House of Representatives I would 
certainly venture to say, because I have a great love for the country 
of Mexico.
  I have visited Nuevo Laredo on numerous occasions. I have taken my 
wife Erica, my mother-in-law and father-in-law from the Netherlands, 
German visitors that have visited us from Germany, my wife's nieces and 
nephews from Germany, I have taken all these people across that border 
to have a good meal, to go shopping for souvenirs from Mexico, which 
are very, very cherished in Europe, and enjoyed

[[Page 14081]]

a camaraderie with the Mexican people that was wonderful. It was a good 
place to take people to show them the fellowship between Texas and 
Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't recommend anybody crossing that international 
bridge today. Not one soul. Because what John Culberson stepped on on 
that bridge was a spent round of a nine millimeter automatic weapon 
that had been fired at our Border Patrol. Not because they were 
shooting at them, just because they were shooting in that direction. It 
had pock marks, where we could see on the international bridge that it 
had ricocheted off and ended up on the ground, and Mr. Culberson 
stepped on it.
  Mr. Culberson can show you that spent round, and I'm sure, Mr. 
Speaker, you have seen it.

                              {time}  1715

  We asked the Border Patrol, what's this?
  Oh, that is a 9 millimeter. About 3 days ago they kind of sprayed the 
bridge a little bit. It happens a lot. We kind of just duck and then 
keep the traffic moving.
  What kind of world are those people living in there? And then that 
night and every night before and every night thereafter, 1,000 breakers 
of the law cross that international line from San Diego to Brownsville 
and break the laws of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, as we analyze the evidence here, it is pretty clear. We 
have a crisis on our southern border. Now, how are we going to deal 
with that crisis? The House bill says, let's go and target sealing up 
our borders as best we can. Nobody in their right mind who has ever 
been to south Texas or west Texas and seen those miles and miles of 
Texas that we are all so proud of, they all know it is going to be a 
tough job to secure Texas borders alone.
  And Arizona is just the same desert. It is the same wide-open 
country. And God bless Arizona and New Mexico and California, they 
don't have the ankle-deep Rio Grande to protect their borders. All they 
have is a barbed wire fence. So it is not an easy job for us to secure 
that border.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we have the technology and the know how. We have 
the people who can do the job. If we provide the resources, we can make 
it much more secure and move towards making it secure so those law-
breakers who want to enter our country find it very difficult to enter 
our country. They find themselves being detained, being deported.
  Those people who come into this country from other countries find 
themselves not with a get-out-of-jail-free pass as they can wander 
among the populace of the United States as it used to be with our 
catch-and-release program, but under the House bill we would detain 
these people, these OTMs coming into this country. The Mexicans we 
would take back to Mexico and we would enforce the law.
  The people say to me in my district, when we start talking about 
immigration, at least 20 percent of the questions I have in my town 
hall meetings are, What's wrong with enforcing the laws we already 
have? I can't say a word because I agree with them. I agreed with them 
when I sat on the bench as a district judge and we would call 
Immigration to ask them to come pick up people who were clearly 
illegally in this country and have reluctance to do so.
  I saw it with a number of our people sitting in our jails in 
Williamson County, Texas, who were illegal aliens, taking up jail space 
that our taxpayers are spending good, hard-earned dollars for. I saw 
them at the emergency rooms in our little local hospitals and in our 
big metropolitan hospitals, overwhelming our medical system; and we 
could not get the response we needed.
  We have neglected our job, and now the House is saying we are ready 
to get the job done and we are submitting the resources and the ideas 
and the manpower and the technology to the Border Patrol and those 
agencies, including our Texas sheriffs and other law enforcement people 
in Texas and Arizona and New Mexico and California, so we can start to 
meet the crisis at the border and stop the bleeding. That is what our 
House plan says.
  And it says, this is a start. We will back this up with action. We 
will do the job and we will support the laws that exist, and we will 
make better laws on the books.
  Now the Senate has another plan. The Senate sees all those things 
that I listed in our evidence that we were looking at as to what is the 
crisis in immigration. The Senate is sitting there saying, We have to 
address all of them. In fact, they seem to be more interested in those 
things that our evidence shows are not bleeding than they seem to be 
interested in where the bleeding is at the border.
  Now, they have some things in what I would like to call the Reid-
Kennedy bill, and I will explain that in a minute, but the bill that 
came out of the Senate. What they have done, they have some border 
enforcement provisions. I don't want to deny that. But they spend a lot 
of time trying to deal with what are we going to do with these people 
that are here, that are already here illegally, and what are we going 
to do about a work program.
  So they come up with a convoluted plan that, I am going to title part 
of this plan as the ``illegal document industries job security plan,'' 
all right, because one of the things we know, and I know that the 
Speaker knows this from his past experience, and others know, that most 
of the people, in fact, all of the people who are illegal aliens 
working in the United States, our employers 90 percent of the time are 
making sure that they have some documentation to show at least on their 
books that that person is legally in the country. And they are taking 
this documentation and putting it into files.
  But there is a real, solid industry along the borders of the United 
States producing false documents, false Social Security cards, false 
driver's licenses, false pay stubs, pretty much anything you want. It 
is interesting to note that part of that industry grew up and got its 
birth out of what, out of amnesty in the 1980s because it took some 
documentation to show that you had been in this country for awhile so 
we could give you that fast track to citizenship. So those people who 
came over last night were quickly out there looking for somebody to 
mass produce for them documents to show they have been here for a 
period of time.
  Now the Senate gives us a plan that says if you have been here so 
many years, you have to do this. So many other years, you have to do 
this, but you are on track for citizenship; and if you have been here 
10 years or whatever their number is, you are in line, but you are 
behind everybody else. But you are in line for citizenship. We are 
going to require proof that you have been here that period of time, and 
the illegal document printing presses are rolling today in anticipation 
of the Reid-Kennedy bill, and it is now approaching a several million 
dollar industry.
  These poor people who came here to work are paying sometimes a 
month's pay just to get a false Social Security card or get a false 
document showing that you have been here for a certain period of time 
to meet this deadline. Or here are 20 paychecks dating back 10 years so 
you get in that other good line so you can become an American citizen.
  This provision of the Senate bill is a Federal Government boost to an 
illegal industry producing illegal documentation for the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, why do we know that? Because we have experience to prove 
it. The few cases that have been prosecuted, we find all kinds of fraud 
and illegal documentation on Social Security cards.
  Something that is interesting in my district, I have a lady who got a 
call from the IRS. I am going to say something on this. I am going to 
say the IRS seems to be doing at least some thinking outside of the 
box. The Social Security system, obviously everything must be 
computerized because there don't seem to be any human beings with 
common sense in the Social Security system. If you have a Social 
Security card, and I heard a number today of the billions of dollars of 
money that

[[Page 14082]]

comes into Social Security, and everybody says it is all on ten Social 
Security cards and it is coming from 100 different sources on one 
Social Security card. They know it is there. They say, Hmmm, that's 
interesting.
  But I have a lady in my district who gets a call from the IRS. They 
said we looked at your last tax return and we show three sources of 
unreported income for you that you did not declare on your tax return.
  She said that is impossible because I am a stay-at-home mother and 
wife. My husband is the only source of income in our family.
  The IRS said, No, ma'am, according to our records you have three jobs 
in Arkansas working in chicken processing plants in three different 
cities. You would think that the man would realize just by his very 
statement that didn't make any sense.
  She said, How can I work in three different cities in three different 
processing plants every day? How would that work?
  He said, Yes, I guess that is right. Maybe we better take a look at 
this. It looks like somebody is using your Social Security number.
  They tracked down that Social Security number. A little stink was 
raised to try to get it done. Guess what. Not only did these three 
people have that Social Security number, but, lo and behold, they had 
gotten a valid copy of a Texas birth certificate to go along with it 
because as it turns out, all it takes to get your birth certificate is 
a Social Security number.
  So these people have been running up her income and reporting it on 
that Social Security number by the employers, and they thought they 
were going to hold her responsible for that income.
  Mr. Speaker, that kind of false documentation is all over America 
today. So the Senate in that one section is creating, I would argue, 
another illegal industry in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a background, and many of you in the House know, 
and I know you know this, Mr. Speaker, I spent 20 years as a judge on 
the bench in what I would argue, and you won't get much argument back 
in Texas, in the toughest county in the State on criminals. I spent 20 
years putting people in prison for illegal behavior.
  We have prosecutors who do their jobs. We have law enforcement 
officers who do their jobs, and we have judges and juries who tell 
people: You do crime, and you do time in Williamson County, Texas. This 
is the world I grew up in, and it is the world I believe in, and it is 
the reason that today and for the last 10 to 12 years at least that I 
know of, the lowest crime rate in the State of Texas was in Williamson 
County, Texas. It is because criminals knew if you want to go into the 
criminal business, find some other county because in Williamson County, 
the cost of doing business is high. And I am proud to say my colleagues 
that were on the bench with me are maintaining that kind of standard in 
Texas today.
  But why do we do that? Because we want the citizens of our county and 
I want the citizens of my entire district to feel like they live and 
raise their children and go to work in a safe community, a community 
that respects the rule of law and does not tolerate unlawful behavior.
  And yet we have created an immigration system that for the vast, vast 
majority of people coming into this country, they are coming in 
illegally.
  There are good, hardworking, honest people who are doing it right to 
come into the United States. We are that beacon of freedom, liberty and 
opportunity. We are the same beacon we have always been. But the 
difference is, these people wait in line.
  If you are from the Philippines, they tell me you wait 16 years to 
come into the United States. It took my district director 18 months to 
bring his wife and two children. His wife was educated at the 
University of Texas in El Paso. To bring them in from Canada, he did it 
legally, and it took 18 months; the woman never even had a parking 
ticket.
  So there are honest, hardworking people that are doing it the right 
way, and those are the immigrants that we reference when we say: We are 
a nation of immigrants. That is right, we are a nation of immigrants 
that came here legally and came here to be Americans and to be part of 
America and to contribute to America and to learn to be part of our 
society. They didn't come in to live in the shadows of our Nation. 
That's the kind of immigrants we need to encourage. But our system now 
is so overwhelming that it is 50-to-1 illegal-to-legal people coming 
into this country today.
  Some of the other interesting things that the bill will do, the 
amnesty part of the bill that the Senate has passed, as a result of the 
amnesty provisions they have created, over 60 million new immigrants 
will be allowed in this country over the next 20 years. Do we need 60 
million new people? I don't know, but it is an overwhelming number.
  Mexico, under the Senate bill, would have to be consulted before we 
built any barriers on our borders, protecting our sovereignty. We have 
to call up the President of Mexico and say, Excuse me, we are thinking 
about building a fence.

                              {time}  1730

  We are thinking about building a wall. We are thinking about building 
barriers where you can't drive your vehicles loaded with dope across 
our border. Would that be okay? Oh, it's not? Sorry. We will call you 
later. What kind of thinking is that, Mr. Speaker?
  And then, you know, whether you believe the rhetoric that went on in 
the Social Security system argument that took place in this House a 
year ago or not, all logical thinking people will tell you our Social 
Security system has got some real problems meeting its obligations. 
Once the baby boomers are in the system it is going to be a problem. 
But the Senate doesn't see a problem because they are wanting to 
guarantee Social Security benefits would be provided to illegal 
immigrants. For the time they were in this country illegally we are 
going to give them Social Security benefits in this country. I hope the 
teachers back in Texas who don't get their Social Security benefits, 
and should, are hearing this message, that the Reid-Kennedy bill thinks 
they should have Social Security benefits, but unfortunately, Texas 
teachers don't get it.
  Also, I happen to have been blessed with four beautiful children and 
I am real proud of them. But when you get ready to send them to college 
you have got to be proud of them because they cost a lot of money, 
okay? And my wife and I can testify that sending four kids to college 
is one of the great experiences of life. Of course it is not going to 
be too bad an experience for illegal immigrants because rather than 
being out-of-state tuition payers like anybody from any other State or 
country that would come into this country, oh, no, the bill will 
guarantee them in-state tuition. And believe me, in Texas the 
difference between in-state and out of state, as you well know, Mr. 
Speaker, is a substantial plus for these illegal immigrants, these 
people who broke the law. Some of them crossed that border, Mr. 
Speaker, 10 or 15 times before they dodged that Border Patrol.
  You know, you meet with those Border Patrolmen out there in the 
bushes and you talk to those guys and when you get them to kind of open 
up with you, they say, you know, kind of one of the frustrating things 
is some of these guys I know them by their first name. I catch these 
guys every other day until they finally slip past me. I know who their 
kids are just about, I have visited with them so much. But they 
ultimately get by and they ultimately get in, and then we don't find 
them.
  And I am just touching on a few points. So we are also going to 
create a worker program under the Senate bill to bring people in here. 
So let's see, we are going to deal with, somehow deal with the 
citizenship aspect of 12 to 15 million people who are already here.
  Then we are going to have a program that is going to bring in, I 
don't know the number, 250, 300,000 a year under a work program.
  Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, and I know you have 
experienced this in your part of the country too and your part of the 
State. People who are waiting to do this thing legally, waiting to get 
their background

[[Page 14083]]

checks, waiting to do the right thing, you know, to have sponsors that 
will vouch for them so they won't be a burden on our welfare system, 
this is what people who come in here legally do. They have to have a 
background check. The FBI checks them to make sure they are not 
terrorists, make sure they are the kind of people we want here. Someone 
has to stand up for them and say when they come here I will make sure 
they are not a burden on our society; I will guarantee that they will 
have a place to be and a job and these type of things. That is how it 
works legally. Of course these illegal people, none of that is done.
  So as we are going to process these people, at a minimum, and I would 
argue much more, but at a minimum, we put 15 million people into the 
system, all of whom are going to need background checks. If not, then 
how do we know that the one we don't give a background check to is not 
a terrorist? Because we know for a fact, we have caught people coming 
across our border from Iraq, from Iran, from Afghanistan, from 
Pakistan, and from areas that have harbored terrorists all over the 
Middle East have crossed our southern border. We know that because we 
have caught them, and we have actually caught some that are on the 
terrorist lists.
  Now, does that mean we are just going to, for this 15 million that 
are already here because they have been here for at least a couple of 
days, up to maybe 10 or 15 years, how do we know what their background 
is if we don't do a background check?
  So we are going to dump that 15 million people into the system. Then 
each year, in addition to that, we are going to dump 350,000 guest 
workers into a system, into a system, Mr. Speaker, my office that works 
in my part of the State of Texas in San Antonio, into a system where 
right now people who are trying to get clearances on their visas or 
trying to get clearances to become citizens of the United States. The 
San Antonio office is working on the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, 
with just the normal legal immigration issues that are in the system 
now.
  How are those folks going to deal with that 10 million or 150 million 
people that we are going to have to do all that processing on that we 
are going to all of a sudden anoint with some kind of route to 
citizenship? How are those people going to do in San Antonio, Texas 
with that 350,000 people that cross the border and have to have those 
things?
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the evidence of what has happened in 
the United States since amnesty, back in the 1980s, the evidence is 
overwhelming that when the system becomes overwhelmed by its burden, 
the system breaks down to where the system doesn't work. And I find 
nobody even thinking out just that little simple part of this as to how 
in the world are you going to be able to make this thing work without 
overwhelming people that are in the immigration and naturalization 
business? How are you going to do it?
  I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is going to happen 
to those folks if the Senate bill passes. I want to tell you, I keep 
calling this the Reid-Kennedy bill and it has a different title. But I 
think that is an appropriate title because this is actually a bill that 
was pushed through the Senate by the Democrats.
  And let me tell you just a couple of examples. Among the many 
Democrat amendments to the bill that was submitted when they started 
out with the Senate immigration legislation, our friend Mr. Kennedy 
offered one that would allow illegal immigrants who have worked less 
than 40 days to be eligible for green cards. The amendment was adopted 
with the support of 42 Democrats. 41 Republicans opposed it.
  The Senate legislation included a provision to award Social Security 
benefits, which I have already talked about, to illegal immigrants. The 
Republicans offered an amendment to strip this provision from the bill. 
Mr. Kennedy led the fight, the Democrats cast their vote, and now, 
under their bill, we are giving Social Security benefits to illegal 
immigrants.
  An amendment sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy 
rejected English as our national language and supplanted a Republican 
amendment that would have required those seeking citizenship to learn 
English. And guess what? That is the law. You are supposed to.
  You know, when my wife became an American citizen, and that is 
something I ought to tell everybody and all of the Members of the House 
ought to know this, and I think many of them do. I certainly am not 
anti-immigrant. I am married to one, and she gave me four beautiful 
children, and she is a great American and proud to be a naturalized 
American citizen of the United States. But she had to demonstrate a 
proficiency in English to become an American citizen, as did those 
soldiers that I was at a ceremony where we swore them in who have 
served their country and earned the right to American citizenship less 
than a month ago when I was with a bunch of soldiers at Fort Hood, 
Texas who became American citizens because of their service in our 
United States Army. They have proficiency in English. And yet, the 
Democrats in the Senate don't think you need proficiency in English.
  This issue, this is one I want to talk about just a little bit. This 
creates a lot of turmoil. Proficiency in English, English as the 
language.
  Now, folks, if you don't know English is the national language of the 
United States, you are brain dead, and that is all I can say. Anybody 
speaking any other language than English in here today, when you 
respond to me, Mr. Speaker, I expect you will respond in English, and 
my colleagues over on this side of the aisle will respond in English, 
although many of them are probably multi-lingual, and some over here 
are, but English is the language our society functions in, and it has 
functioned in since we created this country.
  This issue was debated by the Continental Congress. This issue was 
voted on by the Continental Congress, and at least the stories I have 
heard told is that what happened was German lost by like two votes or 
we would all be speaking German today. The whole face of the world 
might have changed. But we didn't. We selected English as the national 
language.
  Now, are there people in this country that want to create a whole 
society of second class citizens who don't speak our language, so they 
will always be kept down on that lower rung of a society, an English 
speaking society?
  I would submit that is a question that ought to be asked because I 
don't want any of our colleagues in this country, any American citizen 
to be a second class citizen.
  We heard a very impassioned speech about the Voting Rights Act today, 
and I highly respect that. And let me say, I don't want anybody of any 
color, any background, any language, to be a second class citizen. And 
in order to be a first class citizen in this country you have got to be 
able to function in the economy and the world we live in, and that 
function is in English.
  So you are not discriminating against people. You are giving them a 
lift up by saying, we need you to know how to function in an English 
speaking society.
  But not the Senate. They don't think that is a good idea. And our 
Democratic colleagues in the Senate made sure that the provision that 
we recognize America as an English speaking land was not in there. The 
majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Reid-Kennedy 
immigration bill. The majority of Republicans in the Senate voted 
against the Reid-Kennedy bill. So that is why I am calling it the Reid-
Kennedy bill, because this is the Democrats' version of the solution 
for what we need to do in America today on immigration.
  Now, I have talked probably way longer than I should, but I am now 
very happy to be joined by one of my colleagues who wanted to also be 
heard on this issue today, so I am going to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a very distinguished 
Congresswoman from that fine State, and I am proud to say a member of 
my class in this Congress, as much time as she wishes to consume.

[[Page 14084]]


  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me some time.
  I come to the floor this evening to speak out against the Senate's 
amnesty plan because, let's be honest, that is really what it is.
  Since the Senate decided to forego sensible, I am repeating, sensible 
border security and grant a sweeping amnesty program to illegal 
immigrants, everyday citizens have had to virtually consider taking 
matters into their own hands.
  Some of my constituents have actually been sending bricks, and why 
they are sending bricks to us is to send a message to finish the wall, 
to build the wall so that we have a secure border. That, ladies and 
gentlemen, is what our constituents want. Obviously, if they feel so 
compelled to be sending these bricks to Members of Congress, they feel 
very strongly about it.
  Mr. Speaker, our borders are hemorrhaging with Americans looking on 
daily in disgust at the Senate's bill and wondering what is going on 
here in Washington. Instead of tougher border security that Judge 
Carter has said should be an absolute first step, and enforcing current 
laws, our constituents saw the Senate granting a free pass to law 
breakers.
  The Senate bill is fundamentally unfair as it applies only to those 
who broke our laws instead of those who applied legally to come to our 
country. The Senate bill should be called the ``No Illegal Alien Left 
Behind Act,'' because it gives aliens, for example, in-state tuition 
rates at colleges, and it prohibits local law enforcement from working 
in cooperation with border patrol to make sure that our borders are 
secure and that illegal aliens are apprehended.
  The bill in the Senate also counts time illegally in our country 
toward the 10 years, or 40 quarters, that a person must work to be in 
the Social Security system.

                              {time}  1745

  That is just wrong. They were here working illegally.
  Even their attempt to get it right is kind of wimpy. They cited 
English as the ``common and unifying language'' instead of making it 
the official language that we all know that it is. The Senate also says 
that they want a fence, but their language provides one that is too 
small to really do any good.
  Further, in the Senate bill, it would allow 217 million new 
immigrants over the next 20 years. That is two-thirds of our current 
population. That is just not an acceptable public policy.
  When I was back home over the break, I believe it was during Memorial 
Day, a young man asked for an appointment. And, Judge, I am sure that 
when people ask for an appointment, they usually want something, they 
want us to support something. And I always meet with people who want to 
meet with me who feel that compelled that they want to spend the time 
to give me their opinions.
  And this young man was from Bosnia. And like every Member of 
Congress, we have people whom we will never forget, who truly touch our 
hearts. He was 17 years old when we went into Bosnia, and he went over 
to the American consulate, and he asked for the ability to come to this 
country as a political prisoner. And he told me a story, that he loves 
America so much, he actually has applied to become a naturalized 
citizen. And, of course, I am thinking, Okay, this is where he asks me 
for something.
  He did not ask me for anything. He put in his application in 2001 in 
August. He knew that they were only up to February. But his comment was 
so poignant, he said, I did everything right. I didn't come here 
illegally. I came here under political asylum. I applied for the right 
to be a citizen in your great country, to be a naturalized citizen in 
your great country. And he said, What really worries me is that we are 
going to let all of these other people in line, people who came here 
illegally. People who truly do not love our country.
  And his comment, I just will absolutely never forget. His comment was 
so poignant and he was so passionate. He said, As everyone here, we 
don't object to their applying to come to this country, but let them do 
it legally. Do not let it be a back-door pass to get in the front of 
the line to become a citizen.
  I am sure that every Member of Congress's caseload is very similar to 
mine. You have upwards of probably 200 immigration cases, 200, 300 
immigration cases, that every single office is trying to help. These 
are people who came here legally. These are people who are trying to 
stay here legally and/or to bring over some of their relatives. And to 
count time illegally in our country towards Social Security is 
something that our forefathers must be turning over in their grave, 
Judge. I can only assume that.
  So with the bill that the Senate passes, I am so pleased that 
Americans can differentiate between the Senate giveaway bill and the 
House bill that says we need to secure our borders first. When I am 
back in the district, I tell my constituents, I do not believe 
government can multitask. I do not believe that we can do both. I think 
we need to secure our borders and then look at some sort of a guest 
worker program that really works.
  Certainly, like every Member of Congress, I have businesses in my 
district who are using immigrant labor. Hopefully, they are legal 
immigrants, but we want to have a guest worker program that truly 
works. But first and primarily, we must secure our borders.
  I do not think that my constituents are any different than the 
gentleman from Texas's constituents. Actually, they probably feel even 
more passionately about it.
  I was recently down at the border in El Paso and spoke to some 
sheriffs there who say, No, secure border, finish the fence. Where we 
were, there actually was a fence, but they are concerned about all the 
other areas on the border where there are no fences. And most of the 
sheriffs along the southern border have joined together and are working 
cooperatively with our Border Patrol. And that is a good thing. That is 
a very good thing. Under the Senate bill, they would be prohibited from 
doing that.
  That is not what we want. If we ask our citizens back home what they 
really believe we should do, they want the borders secured.
  I was over in my office, and I heard the good judge talking about the 
fact that other than Mexicans are coming over. So this obviously is not 
just an issue of border security and immigration. It is a national 
security issue. Keeping our borders secure is so important. If you do 
not know who is coming and going across those borders, that is where a 
danger to our country, to our security, actually exists.
  Those of us who are parents know that you do not reward bad behavior. 
I am just not certain that that is the slogan in the Senate, because it 
appears as if they are rewarding bad behavior. You break the law, you 
come here, you stay here, we do not know anything about your criminal 
background, and we are going to reward you. That just is not in the 
American tradition of fairness. That is not what our citizens want. If 
the Senate bill only benefits those who came here illegally, overstayed 
their visa or violated their visa terms, that is not what our citizens 
want.
  Do we really want these law-breakers as new citizens of our great 
Nation? Should we cave to law-breakers who take to our streets waving 
other countries' flags and demanding rights?
  Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to legal immigration in any way, shape, 
or form. As a matter of fact, everyone here, their ancestors were 
immigrants. I have certainly come to respect the process that people go 
through to become Americans. Obviously, we in Florida, in particular, 
have a lot of immigrants who came here from a very dictatorial country, 
Cuba, and these people are some of the most passionate people about the 
rights of citizenship in America and how the illegals should go through 
the process legally. They want to make sure that their neighbor, the 
person who may be driving their children on a school bus, that they 
have had some sort of a background check. They are angry at people who 
kind of sneak in the back door and that

[[Page 14085]]

those people might get preference to those patiently waiting in line.
  And you know what? They are right to be angry. Toying with mass 
amnesty is a slap in the face to those who are fighting to keep our 
borders secure. If Congress condones the crime of crossing our borders 
illegally, then what have we been fighting for? If we do not mean what 
we say and illegal entry is okay, why even have immigration laws at 
all?
  The Senate bill is kind of like some fashionable religions that think 
that the Ten Commandments are just suggestions because they totally 
ignore the fact that these people have broken the law. So many of us in 
this House believe that the key to our homeland security is border 
security; and I cannot agree with and I cannot support the Senate plan 
that pits border security against a free-for-all amnesty plan. We do 
not have the resources to hold back the tide of illegal immigrants, and 
promising amnesty will only bring millions more rushing to our shores.
  The gentleman from Texas and I worked and spoke very favorably about 
the bill that we passed in this House, H.R. 4437. And it is a good bill 
that secures our borders. It is a bill that sends a very strong message 
that we are not going to tolerate illegal aliens, and one that does not 
give away citizenship like free candy.
  When I started receiving these bricks, I initially wrote back to my 
constituents suggesting that they send them over to the Senate. But I 
am afraid that once the Senate passed that bill, they will not be 
sending them. They might be throwing them.
  Judge Carter, I appreciate the opportunity that you have given me 
this evening to join you in discussing the differences between the 
Senate and the House plan.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
joining me here and giving a very good presentation of what a 
Representative of another State besides Texas feels about this, one 
that is not on the border, but sees the crisis on the southern border 
of the United States. And, again, I thank the gentlewoman for joining 
me.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that my time is about to run 
out. I want to tell you that one of the things we all in the House 
should be proud of, and we over on this side of the aisle, the word I 
am hearing is we are going to stand fast and we are not going to reward 
unlawful and illegal behavior by giving a free ride to anybody. We are 
going to say we will enforce our border, and then we will take a hard, 
studied, intelligent look at what we need to do to deal with the rest 
of these, part of the big picture, but not crisis issues that are 
addressing our country today.
  And we have got great thoughts and great ideas, biometric 
identification on your Social Security. Many, many great ideas, all of 
which we should take our time, do it right, because with all I have 
talked about, about enforcement of the law, which is my background, I 
still remember we are talking about human beings. And if we do not plan 
right, with compassion, do it to where it makes sense, then a couple of 
questions come to mind. If our bureaucrats get overwhelmed, what 
happens to the people that are here? They are going to be overwhelmed 
too. And what are they going to do? Stay in the shadows.
  I hear so many people using the rhetoric, ``You can't deport them 
all.'' I have not heard anybody in this House talk about deporting them 
all. But if they do not get in the program because it is so 
overwhelming and it is not well planned and they stay in the shadows, 
then what do we do with them? Nobody has even talked about it. They 
assume everybody is just going to just step up and say, It works like a 
clock, no problem, we will all be processed in 30 to 60 days, 
hallelujah, praise God, we are Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it has not been thought out. The plan submitted to us, 
the Reid-Kennedy bill, it does not have any of these hard questions 
thought out. And it will bring worse chaos to a chaotic system that has 
laws in place we could enforce today.
  I hope that our friends across the country will contact our friends 
in the Senate and say, please, let us think this national issue out 
long and hard and right, always promising we are going to resolve it. I 
am not saying run from it, but let us go where the bleeding is.
  Go to the border. Stop the bleeding. Enforce the House bill, border 
security first. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we will be walking down the 
road to making a better life for all those who wish for liberty, 
freedom, and economic security of the greatest Nation on Earth.
  I thank the Speaker for giving me the time to address this House 
tonight.

                          ____________________