[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7130-7136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2145
                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klein of Florida). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Gingrey) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening on behalf 
of the Immigration Reform Caucus of this House of Representatives. 
Hopefully, as we go forward with the Immigration Reform Caucus in a 
bipartisan fashion, and our new chairman hopefully will be joining me 
during this hour, and that is Congressman Brian Bilbray from the great 
State of California who is determined to make the Immigration Reform 
Caucus of this House a bipartisan organization, and I really look 
forward to that change.
  As we reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
both Republicans and Democrats, I think we can solve this problem of 
immigration, and in particular, illegal immigration. We have to do 
that, Mr. Speaker.
  This is a hugely important issue. It is an issue to our security, it 
is an issue to our economy, and it is an issue to this great country, 
this sovereign Nation, the United States.
  Tonight I come to my colleagues to talk about a problem not regarding 
illegal immigration, we may have an opportunity tonight to discuss some 
of those issues which are so important and which we have worked so hard 
on in the 109th Congress and hopefully we will continue to do so in the 
110th Congress; but my concerns tonight will be addressed toward a 
legal immigration problem, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat that, legal. That 
is a situation that we refer to as chain migration. Let me try to 
explain that to my colleagues.
  I have here to my left a first slide, if you will, in this 
presentation. As we look at it, Mr. Speaker, at first glance those in 
the audience tonight might think, gee, Gingrey is up here with a chart 
of his high school or college chemistry periodic table; or somebody 
else may say, no, that is his grandchildren's Pac-Man game. It is a 
confusing chart to look at, but I am going to hopefully be able to, in 
a short period of time, to simplify this rather arcane, complex looking 
first slide. But this really is what this whole problem, this legal 
immigration problem is about, this chain migration issue, Mr. Speaker.
  If my colleagues will focus their attention at the bottom of this 
first slide, I point to this very prominent kiosk, this icon that would 
be a legal permanent resident in this country. That individual, man or 
woman, could be here through any one of several ways of entering this 
country legally. It could be a skilled worker. And that is indeed why 
we have an immigration policy, to make our country better, to bring in 
skilled individuals from countries throughout the world, as we have 
always done since we started this country. That is the whole purpose of 
being able to bring individuals in based on what they can contribute. 
Certainly we want to make their lives better as well, but we want them 
to be able to contribute to our great Nation and enjoy the privileges 
of citizenship eventually.
  So this individual comes, maybe as one of those legal immigrants, as 
a skilled worker; or possibly this first person that I am going to 
refer to at the bottom of the slide is a part of somebody's nuclear 
family, maybe it is the wife of a legal permanent resident who has 
already come; or maybe it is a minor child who has grown up and become 
of age to marry and have a spouse; or possibly this is an individual, a 
third category, who has sought asylum in this great country. And 
certainly that is what the Statue of Liberty is all about, that is what 
the inscription of the bottom of Lady Liberty says in regard to opening 
our arms to the oppressed and the people that need safety in this great 
country. So any one of these three categories, Mr.

[[Page 7131]]

Speaker, of legal permanent residence in this country can start this 
chain migration. Which clearly, clearly our country never intended that 
effect.
  What happens is this legal permanent resident is able to bring in his 
spouse or her spouse. And they can legally bring in their minor 
children. And let's say, based on the current fertility rate south of 
our border, our southern border, it is three children, three minor 
children. Now, that is one individual that, by virtue of bringing in an 
additional skilled worker under the quota for that particular country, 
has brought in four additional people by virtue of genealogy. And this 
is, of course, a nuclear family so far. We are talking then about a 
nuclear family, a husband, a wife and their three children.
  Now, once the husband and wife become citizens, then the real problem 
begins, because at that point then each of the husband and wife can 
bring in their parents. This is perfectly legal to do this. So there 
are an additional, assuming that both parents of both the husband and 
wife are still living, which is very likely, maybe it is a man and a 
woman on each side who are in their late forties or early fifties.
  In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, again, this 
one individual that is in this country legally, as a legal permanent 
resident, hopefully has become a citizen. At that point, then all of 
his siblings and all of his wife's siblings can come into this country. 
And that is where the chain really takes off, because you repeat this 
over and over again. And at the end of 17 years, a short of 17 years 
and two generations, what you end up with under this insanity of legal 
chain migration is that one legal permanent resident who was brought 
into this country as a skilled worker, as an individual seeking asylum 
from a country in which they are suffering the devastation of 
oppression, or it happens to be a spouse of a legal permanent resident, 
that one person in a short span of 17 years can bring in 273 people, 
Mr. Speaker; 273 people. And that counts against the quota for that 
country.
  So this is the problem, Mr. Speaker, that I think a lot of people 
just don't realize. We worry about a porous border. We worry about the 
fact that there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal residents, 
immigrants in this country, many of them, of course, most of them 
probably are hardworking, God-fearing, good people, moms, dads, good 
families, and they are trying to do the right thing. And the only thing 
that they have committed, of course, is coming into this country 
illegally. But it is a huge, huge problem for us, as I said at the 
outset, in regard to the stress and strain on our economy, on our 
infrastructure, on our safety net programs, on our public school 
systems. But here we have something that is part of our legal 
permission to let people come into this country, and then bring in 273 
additional extended family members. Not, Mr. Speaker, what we 
originally intended.
  I want to go back and talk about the Jordan Commission. In the early 
nineties, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas, a very, very 
distinguished Member of this body, chaired that commission to study 
immigration reform and clearly said as part of the recommendations, 
there were a number of those recommendations, only some of which, Mr. 
Speaker, were implemented, but one of them was to say very specifically 
that it should only be a nuclear family, not this situation where 
because of this chain effect, that in a very short period of time of a 
couple of generations, or really a short period of 17 years, we end up 
with 273 people. And they may be good, hardworking, skilled men and 
women that can contribute to our society, can make their lives better, 
can make our lives better. But it is really not based on that, it is 
based totally on genealogy, by virtue of being related in some extended 
way, first, second, third cousins, aunts, uncles, grandfather or 
grandmother and on and on and on.
  And what that does, other than just overwhelming the number of legal 
permanent residents who come into this country from a specific country 
on a yearly basis, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from Mexico to our southern 
border we are talking about maybe 30,000 a year, and that quota is 
surpassed in day one of the calendar year.
  So you can't say, well, it just doesn't matter; that means maybe you 
are going to push these skilled workers a little bit further behind in 
the queue, but they will get there eventually. Well, they may get there 
eventually, but instead of 2 or 3 years, Mr. Speaker, it may be 15 
years, it may be far beyond the time that it would be any advantage to 
them or us for them to remain in the queue. So this is the problem. We 
have a solution. I have a solution for it, and I want to talk about 
that as we go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this next slide that I have again just points out, and I 
hope my colleagues, I hope this writing is big enough. In case it is 
not for those in the back of the Chamber, I would be happy to go 
through it bullet by bullet. But this says ``Chain Migration Equals 
Inter-Generational Relocation Program.'' It gives visa priority to the 
cousins, to the adult children and distant relatives of legal 
immigrants. It creates a backlog of visa applicants. And it allows, and 
this is the final point on this slide, Mr. Speaker, and of course I 
have already alluded to these points in my opening remarks, but it 
allows genealogy, not job skills, not education, not English 
proficiency to determine who immigrates to our country. We just can't 
afford that. We absolutely must use common sense and go back to the 
Jordan Commission recommendation in regard to limiting genealogy entry 
into this country based not on skills at all, but on just who you 
happen to be related to. And I will get to that in just a few minutes.
  My colleague from Iowa is with us tonight. We call on him a lot, but 
he is always forthcoming with very, very good, useful information on 
many subjects, not the least of which is the issue of immigration. I am 
talking about Representative Steve King, my classmate. I thank him for 
joining me during this hour, and I look forward to his comments.
  I would like to go ahead and yield the floor to him now for however 
much time as he would like to take. We can colloquy back and forth. And 
I certainly appreciate him being with us this evening.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for 
stepping up here tonight and organizing this Special Order and bringing 
this subject matter before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the American 
people.

                              {time}  2200

  This immigration issue that is before America is I believe the most 
complicated and least understood piece of policy that I have seen 
debated in this country in my lifetime.
  I have been involved in the immigration issue since well before I 
came to Congress 5 years ago. Today as ranking member of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, I sit through immigration hearings two times 
a week, sometimes three times a week, sometimes more than that. 
Witnesses bring a lot of information before the committee, and we are 
required to read a lot of information. And then one has to read the 
press clippings to try to understand what the American people are 
trying to divine out of the things that we are wrestling with here in 
this Congress.
  As I state how complicated this issue is, and I look at the chart 
that Mr. Gingrey had up, the one that I believe demonstrates the 273 
people that could be brought into the United States under the chain 
migration program, the family reunification plan, the plan that 
presumes that all family reunions, however minor or major, are reunions 
that all must take place in the United States as long as there is any 
one person of one of those families that is here. That is quite a 
presumption, that you can't have a happy family reunion except in 
America.
  And the 273 that can generate from one individual that is lawfully 
present in the United States and starts this process, this is a 
calculation that isn't something that we happen to know in this 
Congress, because Mr. Gingrey has presented that here tonight; this is 
a calculation that is done by illegal immigrants and legal immigrants 
across

[[Page 7132]]

the world, not just across our southern border into Mexico and points 
down south towards the Panama Canal, but China as an example. So the 
going rate, if you are a pregnant Chinese lady, is $30,000 for a 
roundtrip ticket to come illegally into the United States, have the 
baby, get his little footprints put on a U.S. birth certificate and go 
on back to China. Then after the 18th birthday, that child can start 
the family reunification plan, and you start down the path of this 
chart that shows 273.
  Mr. GINGREY. And the same thing, as I said at the outset, anywhere 
from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants we estimate, and we hear talk 
about the need for a comprehensive bill that would include letting them 
pay a little fine and fess up and get a clear ID card, identify 
themselves, and all of a sudden become a permanent legal resident on a 
track to citizenship. Each one of those 20 million then could start 
this chain migration.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, that 273, that is the calculated 
number that one individual can bring in, and they might come in 
illegally and find the path to a legal lawful presence and then start 
the 273. When that chart was done, it was not really limited to 273 
except space on the spreadsheet confined it to 273. The number could be 
100 or more above that. And the size of the sibling unit, it might be 6 
or 12. And if I remember right, the size of the unit for the chart was 
3.1 siblings per family. A very conservative estimate.
  So we have the automatic citizenship plan, the anchor baby plan, and 
that will yield 350,000 babies born a year to illegal mothers but on 
U.S. soil. Some argue their constitutional right to citizenship. I will 
argue that they also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States when they are born. Therefore, it is a practice, not a 
constitutional right. But we have 350,000 new citizens that would not 
be citizens if we enforced our law on that. That is Nathan Deal's bill, 
another leader on immigration from Georgia. I certainly support that 
bill.
  But the family reunification, the chain migration, 273, and this 
usurps the kind of policy that the United States of America ought to 
have. Every nation, and we are the most generous Nation in the world 
when it comes to immigration, by raw numbers, by percentage of the 
population, by having a standard there that isn't a very strict 
standard at all, but we need an immigration policy designed to enhance 
the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the United 
States of America.
  As the gentleman from Georgia alluded, we are not measuring in this 
chain migration plan the relative merits of the individual immigrants 
that would come in. We are simply letting that be set by genetics of 
the family, maybe that and marriage and whatever kind of familial 
relationship they want to have. I would submit that we need to 
establish in this Congress, first we need to get control of the illegal 
flow over our borders. That is about 11,000 at night.
  I have sat on the border and I have heard the fence squeak at night, 
and I have watched the shadows go by me. It is twice the size of Santa 
Ana's army pouring across the border. And then we have the 350,000 
automatic citizenship anchor babies that are born, and the family 
reunification plan. All of those things are out of the control of the 
Federal Government right now.
  Because we have those elements and we have the overstayers of the 
visa that are not being enforced, because of that, the immigration 
issue has become so chaotic that we cannot engage in a rational 
immigration debate that can be designed to do the things I say and 
enhance the social, economic, and cultural well-being of America.
  If we can get enforcement back under the control of the American 
people, then I believe we need to put together a matrix, a score 
system, a score sheet that rewards potential immigrants for their 
education level, for the capital that they bring into the country with 
them, for the business acumen that they might have, for the likelihood 
that they can assimilate into this broader, overall American culture 
that we have, so we can have some cultural continuity in the United 
States of America and assimilate and tie together and maintain this 
vision of one people, one people under God. As we sit today, it is out 
of our control.
  Another thing that we are going to see, a White House initiative, a 
Senate initiative, and I believe a House initiative coming together 
trying to get a critical mass of voters between the Democrats and 
Republicans in the House and Senate to work with the White House on 
this bill that I believe clearly the American people understand, and 
that is amnesty. That is the bill which has been dropped in the House 
within the last day.
  But the thing we must insist upon, however the issue of amnesty is 
resolved, however the issue of the national ID card is resolved, we 
must insist on an overall national cap. The aggregate of all of 
immigration components that are there, and I think there are 30-some 
different categories that people can come into the United States 
legally under, that needs to be capped.
  So if a family reunification plan takes up to a million a year, fine, 
we hit the cap, we stop. No H-1Bs, no work permits. It is simply we hit 
the cap.
  Mr. BILBRAY. If the gentleman would yield on that, I think the 
American people don't realize that we take more legal immigration than 
all the world combined. We are taking now more than we ever have.
  But first, I want to stop a second and thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for hosting.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank him, and I would 
like to do it formally. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray), who is chairman of the Immigration Reform 
Caucus in the 110th Congress. I look forward to his leadership on this 
caucus of the Congress, this bipartisan effort on his part. The 
gentleman from California certainly knows of what he speaks.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I would thank the gentleman from Georgia for hosting our 
report on immigration to the American people tonight from the 
Congressional Caucus.
  People have to understand how really, really we have bent over 
backwards to accommodate people to immigrate to this country. We have 
about 800,000 people become citizens. We have a million that are 
allowed to be permanent resident aliens every year, and then we have 
another million-plus that are allowed to come here to work in the 
United States. That is almost 3 million people a year that we are 
accommodating from overseas in one way or the other. And when people 
say we are a Nation of immigrants, we are a Nation of legal immigrants; 
but there is a reasonable level of immigration. When the American 
people realize that we just absolutely have our doors open, there is no 
excuse for illegal immigration, and we have to make sure that our legal 
immigration policies are reasonable.
  I don't think it is much to ask, those of us who are sworn to 
represent the people of the United States, to make sure that the 
American immigration policy is for America first and for the immigrant 
second. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility to make sure 
that our immigration policy serves the American people. Like every 
other policy that the Federal Government is initiating, the American 
people should come first before anyone else.
  This issue of the cost of just the legal immigration, let me give you 
one cost that most people don't think about. The cost just in one State 
of giving birth to the children of illegal aliens in California is $400 
million a year. That is $400 million just for giving free birth to the 
children of illegal aliens. In San Diego County, it is $22 million a 
year just for birthing babies of people that aren't supposed to be in 
the country.
  You add that up, the impact on the taxpayers, there is no way in the 
world I can believe that any man or woman can stand up in this Chamber 
and say I am for a balanced budget, I am for fiscal responsibility, but 
I am for giving amnesty that has been estimated to be $50 billion if 
Mr. Kennedy and some people in the House get their way of rewarding 
people for being here illegally.

[[Page 7133]]

  I think there is a basic issue that we ought to call down and say, 
since when does this country believe that those who follow the law 
should be punished and told to stay at home, but those who break the 
law get rewarded and get into this country?
  And since when is it not the right thing to do to make sure that our 
immigration policy serves the people we are sworn to represent in this 
Chamber and in the Senate? It is a major issue that the American people 
need to be asking those that they have sent to Washington.
  I, as the new chairman of the Immigration Caucus, look forward to 
working with Democrats and Republicans because I think in all fairness, 
immigration is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an American 
issue. And Americans across this country on both sides of the political 
divide believe it is time we address this issue reasonably and not make 
the terrible mistake we made in 1986 of rewarding people with amnesty 
and not doing something about enforcement.
  I appreciate the chance to be able to address the issue. That chart 
scares me to death. And I just say this as a practicing Catholic with 
five children. Your numbers are a lot lower than for those of us that 
are in my Mass every day. I think we have to recognize this number as a 
huge threat of really overturning the entire concept we have of 
reasonable immigration levels, and those reasonable immigration levels 
are not only our right to set here in Washington, it is our 
responsibility to do that.
  I yield back.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman, and I hope the gentleman will be 
able to stay and continue as we have a colloquy on this issue.
  Just by coincidence, we have the Catholic caucus here, as we have the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Iowa and myself, so we 
know about these large families.
  But to put it in perspective, in regard to numbers, Mr. Bilbray 
mentioned the fact that a million come into this country as permanent 
legal residents every year. It varies from country to country and 
hemisphere to hemisphere, the overall quota. And then that million 
additional that come in under all of the visa programs, the H-1B, et 
cetera, temporary agricultural workers and various skill levels, you 
are talking about an additional million.
  But from 1776 to 1976, 200 years of our country's existence, the 
average number of immigrants was about 250,000. So that just shows you 
where we are today; and of course we are not talking about the 3 or 4 
million illegals if we don't close down our border and secure our 
border. Not close it down, secure our border. Then you are going to 
have 3 or 4 million illegals in addition to that.
  The gentleman from Iowa has been mighty quiet for the last few 
minutes, and I yield back to him.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  The thought that goes through my mind as I listen to that discussion 
about the cumulative total of legal immigrants in the United States, it 
occurs to me that the Senate bill that passed last year that they said 
was not amnesty, that the American people rejected because clearly it 
was amnesty, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, 
would have legalized over the next 20 years, and that is the 
calculation period of time that we have for immigration, 66.1 million 
people.
  It also occurs to me that back in 1986 when President Reagan signed 
the amnesty bill, that was supposed to legalize 1 million people, and 
that went over 3 million people.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Actually, it was----
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the 
gentleman to make any clarification he likes, but I have a flow in my 
thought process here that I want to make sure I can stay with here.
  The published numbers, though, was supposed to be amnesty for 1 
million and ended up being 3.1 million the numbers I have. Then if you 
go up to 1996 in California, when President Clinton accelerated the 
naturalization of a group of citizens in the number of 1 million in 
1996.
  So I am pointing this out that 1 million people was an outrageously 
high number in 1986, was an outrageously high number in 1996, and last 
year, the Senate passed a bill that legalized 66.1 million people, and 
we swallowed that and talked about it not in terms of the magnitude of 
it but just simply is it amnesty or is it not amnesty.
  But put this into the scope, that the point I want to make here is 
that my numbers show, my census numbers, from 1820 until the year 2000, 
and those would be the years when our census was keeping track of the 
naturalization, that period of time, 1820 to 2000, the sum total, the 
cumulative total of all naturalized citizens come into the United 
States was 66 million.
  So the Senate would have legalized a number in one of the stroke of 
the pen equal to the sum total of all legal immigrants that have come 
into America in all of its history and still leave these kind of 
programs here. That is the essence of the point I wanted to make.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I just remember I was involved with running the County 
of San Diego in 1986, and I remember that before the bill was passed 
the number estimate was 300,000. It was after the bill was passed that 
they said, oh, it might be as high as 1 million, and then they kept 
continuing the deadline and increasing those who qualified to apply, 
and it ended up being 3 million. So I just think people have got to 
remember, when the bill was passed, what was being told was 300,000, 
and what ended up being the final number was 3 million.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California.
  So, picking up on this point, I want to broaden this discussion, if I 
could, a little bit, too, and that is, the labor supply in the United 
States of America. We hear continually from the other side the specious 
argument that we do not have a labor supply in the United States, and 
so since there is a demand for more cheap labor, therefore, you ought 
to bring in more cheap labor, as if the United States of America was 
just a giant ATM and there was nothing more to our Nationhood than a 
giant ATM.
  We are more than a giant ATM. In fact, we are a sovereign Nation 
based upon a constitutional foundation, and we have a whole series of 
foundations that have created and established American exceptionalism, 
and without going down into the components of American exceptionalism, 
I would point out that we do have a labor supply, Mr. Speaker. That 
labor supply is not something where you just go looking at an 
unemployment rate and say, well, traditionally, it is kind of low, it 
is 4.6 percent. How many does that make? A few million out there you 
could hire. You could add up a few that are on the welfare rolls.
  It is more than that. Look at the whole United States of America as 
if we were one huge company. If you were going to establish a company 
in a locale, you would not just go into that locale to measure how many 
were on the unemployment rolls and count them and say that is the only 
available labor supply. You would hire a consulting company to go in 
and survey that region and find out how many people were underemployed, 
how many people were not in the workforce, and how many people were 
unemployed so that you could look at the universe that could be hired 
from.
  I did that for the United States of America. It was not hard to do. I 
am kind of astonished those big business interests did not do that. So 
I went to the U.S. Department of Labor's Web site, and I started to add 
up what about the people that are not in the workforce.
  Well, between the ages of 16 and 19, there are 9.3 million that are 
not even doing part-time work, and then you go into the ages of 20 to 
24, and there is a number there that I believe is 5.1 million. 9.3 
million for the teenagers, 5.1 million for the 20- to 24-year-old, and 
you go on up the line. So I began adding up these available workforce, 
and I went on up to 65, and then I thought but you know Wal-Mart is 
hiring up to 74. They get greeters there to hand you

[[Page 7134]]

your cart at 74. So they are available workforce, too, not a lot of 
them, but they are there. You add this up, there are 6.9 million 
working illegals in America, and there are 69 million nonworking 
Americans of working age.
  So any company that is worth their salt would look at that and say 
all we have to do is go hire 1 in 10 of those that are not in the 
workforce. One in 10 is all it takes to replace the illegal labor that 
is in America.
  If you want to look at it from another perspective, Mr. Speaker, I 
would submit this, that 4.7 percent of the workforce is illegal labor, 
and they represent 6.9 million workers but they are not as productive 
as more educated, more efficient and more effective workers that are 
the American workers. So they are really only doing 2.2 percent of the 
work. Well, if you wanted to replace 2.2 percent of the work, if this 
great huge megafactory of the United States of America got up in the 
morning and realized that 2.2 percent of your labor force was not going 
to show up for work, it could happen all at once but it will not, then 
you could make an adjustment on your production line and you would just 
say to the people, well, you know that 15-minute coffee break that you 
have in the morning and the afternoon, for the sake of this emergency 
that we are in, we are going to shorten that down to 9.5 minutes in the 
morning and 9.5 minutes in the afternoon, and you have picked up 2.2 
percent of your productivity. Eleven minutes a day will more than 
recover all the illegal labor in America in the size of the economy 
that we have.
  We are not in a labor crisis. We just simply always will have more 
demand for cheap labor as long as we have more labor that makes it 
cheaper.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I want to move back now 
for just a moment and focus again on the solution to this problem of 
chain immigration, and we will get into further discussion of some of 
the many things this Congress, and the 109th Congress when we were in 
the majority and led this great House of Representatives, some of the 
many good things that have been done in regard to controlling illegal 
immigration.
  But let me just for the moment, before my colleagues some possibly 
have to leave, refocus on this issue of chain migration, Mr. Speaker, 
because we have presented the problem. We have spent maybe 20, 25, 30 
minutes talking about the problem of chain migration, the one person 
bringing in 273 others, not based on skill, strictly being, I guess, 
based on the luck of your birthright, geneology, and how inappropriate 
that is and how we cannot afford to continue to do this. We have a 
solution.
  But Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to call my colleagues' 
attention to this next slide, and again, it depicts on this scale of 
justice, as we have here in the middle of this slide, on the one side 
you have an imbalance, too much emphasis, too much weight in regard to 
the second cousin of an immigrant, i.e., chain migration.
  On the other side, however, not weighing so heavily in this scale of 
this balance of justice is the skilled laborer waiting to emigrate into 
this country.
  This is what this hour is mainly about, Mr. Speaker, that we need to 
correct this. We need to get back to what Congresswoman Barbara Jordan 
recommended to this House back in the early 1990s as she chaired the 
Commission on Immigration Reform.
  Basically, this is what she said, Mr. Speaker, in this next slide: 
Proposed tripartite immigration system, legal immigration. That 
basically, as I said at the outset of the hour, people come to this 
country first and foremost maybe as a skill-based worker, skill-based 
admission; or possibly on the far side of the slide, come in as a 
refugee for humanitarian reasons, a humanitarian admission; and then, 
finally, the nuclear family admissions that Congresswoman Jordan, the 
distinguished lady from the great State of Texas talked about, nuclear 
family admissions, Mr. Speaker.
  That is the solution to this problem, and how we got away, how we did 
not follow her recommendation, there were a number of things that were 
recommended that were enacted by this body, but we missed the most 
important, and that is in regard to nuclear family admissions.
  This print is far too small for my colleagues to see, even in the 
front of the room, so I want to point out, under nuclear family, the 
first priority would be spouses and minor children of United States 
citizens, under the nuclear family. The second priority would be 
parents of the United States citizens, and the third priority, as we 
talked about, would be spouses and minor children of legal immigrants. 
Of course, hopefully they will become and we want them to assimilate 
into our society. We want them to be part of this great country, the 
United States of America, and at that point of course they could bring 
their parents, both husband and wife, as part of this nuclear family.
  Mr. Speaker, in my final slide, here is the result of that. Again, 
this is the initial skilled worker that comes in legally. This is her 
husband or his wife and their three minor children. That is a total of 
five people, one permanent legal resident and an additional four. Now, 
when husband and wife become citizens of the United States, then each 
of them under this new Nuclear Family Act, and that is what I want to 
present to my colleagues tonight, the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 
938, remember that number, many of you on both sides are considering 
signing on to this bill. Many of you already have. I think we are up 
over 60 at this point, and hopefully, there will be many more when they 
understand the magnitude of this problem that we are presenting 
tonight.
  So H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, taken almost verbatim 
from Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's recommendations back in 1990, 
again, a distinguished Democratic Member of this body, these two, 
husband and wife, when they become citizens, they can bring their 
parents. Assuming both parents are living, then that is four additional 
people, and then they in turn having become citizens can bring their 
parents in. There is a possibility that if the parents were divorced 
and remarried, that instead of two on each side, there would be four.
  I do not want to confuse my colleagues with another arcane slide, but 
basically, this is the bottom line to take home. On this slide, if all 
of these people came in under the Nuclear Family Priority Act, you are 
talking about 35 people. Chain migration, which currently is the 
policy, you are talking about 273 people.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about cutting that down by 87 
percent, and that is not small change. That is a significant solution 
to this problem, moving in that direction to enact the Nuclear Family 
Priority Act.
  So, again, it is straightforward. I leave this slide up and let my 
colleagues continue to look at it. I want to yield back now to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I would just like to congratulate you on 
explaining exactly what your legislation is focused on. You articulated 
the problem, the challenge, and it seems to me not only a very common-
sense approach but a very, very compassionate approach to the issue.
  I think any American that thinks about hundreds of people coming to 
this country because one person was allowed in sort of boggles your 
mind saying why has not anybody brought this up before.

                              {time}  2230

  I think that look at your diagram there, and the level of legal 
immigration you are proposing per person, based on family relations, is 
quite reasonable. I don't think any of us, especially those of us that 
are a family from immigrants, my mother came from Australia, could say 
that is an unreasonable and an unfair proposal and unrational proposal 
at this time.
  I really want to compliment you at actually addressing this issue, 
because we are talking about a lot of other difference issues. But this 
is one that is sort of below the radar, people aren't talking about, 
and I am glad you are able to bring it up. I think that is why our 
Wednesday evening reports to the

[[Page 7135]]

American people on the status of immigration is so important. I want to 
thank you sincerely for bringing up this issue and for introducing this 
bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California, 
the gentleman from Iowa, for being with me tonight. The hour is getting 
late. I appreciate their sharing their knowledge. It is so important 
that our colleagues do that, because we have very bright Members of 
this body on both sides of the aisle. We are not all experts on every 
issue, but we help one another. We share our knowledge. We rely on each 
other.
  I am very grateful to Mr. Bilbray and Mr. King of Iowa for being with 
me today, to help me talk about not just this issue of chain 
immigration, that's the main focus of the hour, but to discuss the 
overall problem of Georgia.
  It is a huge problem. We can't really afford to turn our backs and 
shut our eyes and bury our head in the sand with regard to 3 or 4 
million additional people coming in every year illegally on top of 
those 2 million that are coming, as the gentleman from California 
pointed out in his earlier remarks. There is no way, this country 
cannot sustain that.
  He talked about the cost in California and their problem, indeed, as 
a border State, is a lot bigger than it is in the State of Georgia. Of 
course, their population approaches 55 million, and the population of 
Georgia is 9.3 million. But on a percentage basis, we have a huge 
problem in Georgia as well, maybe fourth or fifth number percentage-
wise of illegal immigrations of any State in this country. I think the 
last count in Georgia was about 750,000.
  We have got a problem. Certainly, we are a great country. I think 
that we have done some great things in the history of this Nation. 
Indeed in 1969, we put a man on the Moon. If we can do that, we can 
solve this problem. We just need to have the will. I think my 
colleagues are helping bring that to the attention of the Members of 
this House and this Congress, both House and Senate, to the 
administration, to the American people. I like it when we talk during 
these times to our colleagues in a bipartisan way and say that, look, 
we can do this together. We all worry about who has got the power and 
who is in control, and who is in the majority, and who is the Speaker, 
and who are the committee chairs, and who is the next President. Of 
course, that will be upon us pretty soon.
  But in the meantime, there are so many things that we can do in a 
bipartisan way and really pat ourselves on the back, because I don't 
think our constituents care whether the Democrats solve this problem or 
the Republicans solve this problem. They want us to do it in a unified 
way.
  We have got such a few more on the Democrats side of the aisle in 
this 110th, a few more on our side of the aisle in the 109th back to 
1994, these things go back and forth. But we can't let that tie our 
hands and keep us from going forward and getting things done for the 
American people.
  I know that my colleagues that are here with me tonight, and I think 
all the colleagues of this 435-Member body would hopefully say, right 
on, Gingrey, we agree with you on that.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Let me say this as a Republican. I think the American 
people will be so pleased if the Democratic majority would bring a bill 
forward that addresses the major source of illegal immigration, and 
that is illegal employment. If the Democrats were brave enough to just 
come forward, not with an amnesty that rewards illegals for being here, 
not pandering to the illegals and the whole industry that has been 
built up around that, but went and actually did a project that 
addressed the real source of illegal immigration; and that is, have a 
simple employer verification system and a crackdown on the people that 
are profiteering from illegal immigration, and that's the employers. IF 
the Democratic Party did that, I think the American people would 
embrace that.
  I think it's a real chance for them to show that they can get the job 
done and get this issue done that the Republicans didn't get done. You 
know, as an American, I think that is more important than Republicans 
having to take advantage of this issue. I just wouldn't be happy as an 
American to see the Democrats sit there and actually get the job done 
so I could join them, could vote with them at doing, actually getting 
the legislation through that the American people have been waiting for 
too long. I would sure love to be surprised, and I am sure the American 
people would love to see us working as Democrats and Republicans for 
America first, not our party first and our Nation second.
  I just tell you, I think that our grandchildren would be well served, 
because all of us, I know the three of us here, if it meant somebody on 
the Democratic side getting credit for it, then God bless them. What's 
important is that we leave an America for our grandchildren that is 
worth our grandchildren living in, and taking care of this problem is 
going to be part of the important part of doing that.
  Mr. GINGREY. You know who else would be pleased, and that is the 
employers in this country, and a lot of the industries. In Georgia, I 
mean we have got agriculture, we have the poultry industry, we have the 
carpet industry. We all have the homebuilding industry in every State, 
and I know that most of my friends that are in those businesses pay 
good wages, they pay good benefits, they are treating their employees 
in a compassionate way.
  In return, they are getting a heck of a day's work for their wages 
that they pay, and I think they would welcome, I think that the 
employers would welcome. I know Representative King, in a bill that he 
introduced in the last Congress and has championed in regard to an 
identification system that is foolproof, and we can do that, we can 
have a tamper-proof, biometric identification card. And I think our 
employers, and I have talked to many of them, and I commend them, but 
there may be a few that are paying low wages and gaming the system. You 
always have that problem. But we will ferret them out.
  At the same time, kudos to those who are playing by the rules and 
doing the right thing.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I think the key is the fact that every legitimate 
employer wants to have a simple system that lets them know who is 
qualified to work and who is not. The employer doesn't want to be the 
person having to make that determination.
  We require every employer in this country now to get a Social 
Security number for their employee. All we are saying now, with the 
Silvestre Reyes-David Dreier bill, H.R. 98, is we will now give the 
employee a card to prove that it's their number, so that the employer, 
when they get this number, gets it from a card, doesn't just take 
somebody's word. It gives us, as legitimate citizens or legal 
residents, the ability to prove this really is our number, not 20 other 
people that are using that number somewhere else down the road.
  This issue of upgrading the Social Security card seems so simple. We 
haven't done this since the 1930s, though every driver's license from 
every State has been upgraded since then. Now that we have done the 
real ID bill, where we are requiring finally that driver's licenses be 
upgraded, isn't it appropriate that the Federal Government do the same 
thing with our card, our Social Security, to upgrade it to be as 
tamper-resistant as the new driver's license would be?
  Mr. GINGREY. There is no question about that.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I wanted to make the point that we tried mightily 
in this House last year to bring immigration reform, we passed H.R. 
4437. It had a lot of the things in it that would clean up the problems 
that we have with an enforcement here, internally, domestically, with 
employment enforcement, as well as border enforcement. That bill, of 
course, didn't make it through the Senate. The Senate passed their 
amnesty bill, and we passed our enforcement bill.
  We came back and we did the one thing that we could agree to, and 
that was provide the online border security at the fence. That was 
something the American people wanted and demanded, and it was right, 
and it was appropriate, and it was just.

[[Page 7136]]

  But the reason that that was the one thing we could agree on, because 
there is a tug of war going on in this country, a tug of war would be 
going on between big business that wants to have a supply of cheap 
labor, and people that want to have a supply, a long supply of voters, 
or at least people in the United States they can count for the census 
purpose. There is a lot of political power, most of that is on the 
left, and there is a lot of business power, most of that is on the 
right.
  We have this, it's an unusual, odd and some would say an unholy 
alliance. I think of it as a set of barbells where you have the weight 
on the right of the business interests, where you have the weight on 
the left is the political power, and the barbell in the middle, that 
handle that you pick it up with, the bar, that's the middle class. The 
middle class is being squeezed ever more narrow because of the overload 
on the upside and the overload on the downside our economy.
  We got to this point last year, and we did all we could do. But the 
American people became cynical because they weren't seeing legislation 
get to the President's desk that fixed the problem. Now we are faced 
again this year with trying to arrive at a consensus, trying to arrive 
at something that preserves the rule of law, does not provide amnesty, 
satisfies the interests on both ends of that barbell that I described, 
and doing it quickly. Because once we get past the summer, once we get 
past the August break, we are into the fast slide into the next 
Presidential race, as well as the elections here and a third of the 
Senate.
  But the Presidential race, if it's done and if it's done right, we 
will take this issue up in Congress, and if we don't solve it first, it 
will be become the issue du jour of the Presidential debates. And I am 
looking forward to a Presidential candidate that will step forward with 
clarity on this issue and start that inertia towards the White House. 
That is the one thing that can solve this issue. That is my best hope.
  Mr. GINGREY. The point the gentleman from Iowa is making is that we 
have really tried hard in this body to address this problem. We on this 
side of the aisle, when we were in control and had the majority in the 
109th, felt very strongly that first and foremost to solve the problem 
and ultimately decide what to do with the 20 million that are estimated 
to be here illegally, is to stop the hemorrhaging. As a physician 
member, I use that expression a lot, having been a surgeon in my 
previous life, OB/GYN physician, but you have to stop the bleeding. If 
you sit there and let the patient continue to bleed, and that is 
analogous to the porous borders, the 3 or 4 million that continue to 
come in every year, in addition to the 2 million that the gentleman 
from California was talking about earlier, then the patient is going to 
die. That patient, as the lifeblood seeps out of us, is the United 
States of America.
  So it is so important to do the things that we have done, tried to do 
in regard to Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislation. He was a champion in 
regard to the REAL ID Act. Basically the REAL ID Act was just in 
response to the request of the survivors of the 9/11 victims. As they 
testified before the 9/11 Commission and made those recommendations, 41 
or so specific recommendations, one of the most important ones was to 
say you have got States that issue driver's licenses without requiring 
any proof of legal residency. The 9/11 hijackers, 19 of them I think, 
had something like 53, a total in the aggregate of 53 legal issued 
driver's licenses from some 10 or 12 States.
  So basically what we said is, look, we can't tell you, we the Federal 
Government can't tell the States how to run their motor vehicle 
department and how they issue driver's licenses and to whom and how 
long and how much you pay for driver's licenses, what age you have to 
be, whether you have to take driver's ed or not. That is a State 
prerogative, certainly. But if they do not have proof of legal 
residence, not citizenship, because a permanent legal resident 
certainly can be granted a driver's license, then they can't use that 
license from that State for Federal purposes, like getting on an 
airplane and blowing it to smithereens or using it as a guided missile.
  I see Mr. Speaker is tapping me down. I didn't realize, I was having 
so much fun with my colleague from California, the chairman of the 
Immigration Reform Caucus, that all of a sudden our time has expired.
  I appreciate his patience and indulgence. I continue to promote the 
Nuclear Family Protection Act. Let's all get behind it and thank you.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hour. I hope the people in 
Colorado enjoyed prime time back there.

                          ____________________