[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6885-6892]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Dahlkemper). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege and honor to be 
recognized by you to address the floor tonight.
  I am standing here trying to decide whether I want to support or 
rebut the statements from the gentleman from Colorado. I support a good 
number of the statements that he has made, and I may well try to rebut 
some of the other statements that he has made.
  But the statement ``replace a broken system with one that works,'' 
it's an interesting comment. I think it's clear that our immigration 
system is not working. Well, let me say that the system doesn't work, 
but I am not certain that the laws are incorrect. And that's the point 
that I would make is that I roll back to 1986 when Ronald Reagan was 
straight-up honest and failed me when he signed the amnesty bill of 
1986. And the intent was that about a million people would be granted a 
path to citizenship and that would be it, it would be the end, and 
there would never be another immigration bill ever as long as any of us 
lived, and we would preserve the rule of law, and we'd learn to respect 
the rule of law, but we would allow for the million or so that were 
here illegally to have their path to citizenship in order to put this 
away, package it up, and be able to move on.
  Well, it wasn't 1 million. It was closer to 3 million people, and 
there was fraud and there was corruption and there were counterfeit 
documents that were used that was part of that tripling. We might not 
have counted it right. It might have been more than a million. It might 
have been 1\1/2\ million. It was unlikely to be 2 million. But it 
turned out to be 3 million because people were gaming the system.
  In my particular office, I took applications in and I made sure they 
filled out their I-9 forms, and I took copies of their documents and 
made sure my files were complete and considered their applications 
because I was sure that INS would be into my office to go through my 
books and make sure that I followed the law because it was going to be 
enforced by this newly robust Federal Government. That was the 
commitment. Amnesty now, enforcement forever, never amnesty again.
  That was 1986. And here we are all these years later, 24 years later, 
and we have had by each succeeding administration--I'm not particularly 
happy with the enforcement we saw in the Reagan administration, and I 
was less happy with the enforcement that I saw in Bush 41 and less 
happy with what I saw under Bill Clinton and less happy with what I saw 
under George W. Bush, and I'm less happy with what I've seen under 
President Obama. Less and less effective enforcement.
  And they do find a way to put together the data so that they can 
point to their enforcement and allege that in this particular 
administration, the enforcement against employers appears to be 
marginally stronger than it was under George Bush, but the enforcement 
against illegal workers is significantly less than it was under George 
Bush, and I wasn't happy with what George Bush did.
  So is the system broken? I think the enforcement of the system is 
broken, Madam Speaker. I think that we have had a succession of 
Presidents who didn't demonstrate the will to enforce our immigration 
law, and because of that, there has been a growing disrespect for our 
immigration law. And even people that respect the law have seen that 
their competition who would hire illegals have a comparative advantage 
against them if they are going to adhere to the intent of the law. So 
the competition pushes other employers to violate the intent and the 
rule of law sometimes and hire the illegals to give them that 
comparative advantage against their competition. And slowly the respect 
for the rule of law and their adherence and compliance with the law has 
been diminished in this country to the point where I have people in my 
neighborhood that will say, Well, if you don't think I should hire an 
illegal, then who is going to fix my leaky roof? Who's going to paint 
my house? Who's going to do these other things?
  That's not my job, Madam Speaker. My job is to stand up for the rule 
of law. And, yes, if I think there are laws that are unjust, then I 
should join with my colleagues and we should find a way to change them.
  I don't happen to believe that our immigration laws today are unjust. 
I believe they are unenforced. And I think they are founded on good and 
just rule of law foundation.
  Not having the documents in front of me, but I will reach into it a 
little bit. I've seen some documents that illustrated the laws that 
Mexico has with regard to their immigration laws, which are if ours are 
considered Draconian, theirs, in fact, are Draconian. And President 
Calderon has been arguing against Arizona law while he is enforcing 
more Draconian laws in the nation of Mexico against people who would 
come into their southern border. Crossing the border illegally is a 
felony, punishable up to 2 years in the penitentiary. That's one of the 
examples that we have.
  So I would, Madam Speaker, just remind the American people that we 
have grounded these laws in just and rational cause. And now Arizona 
has seen that the Federal Government has been unwilling to enforce the 
laws, and they are watching a crime rate that, if you look at the data 
over the last 10 years, has increased in almost every category over the 
last 10 years. In order to be objective, not probably to the extent 
that has been articulated by many of the pundits, but it has been a 
gradual and significant increase in the crime rates in Arizona in the 
areas of murder and rape, violent crime, and

[[Page 6886]]

certainly about the only thing, except illegal border crossings, which 
have diminished marginally over the last couple of years.
  And a year ago last August, there was a report that there were as 
many as 1\1/2\ million that have been in the United States illegally 
that reversed their travels and voluntarily deported themselves back to 
Mexico and points south. Most of that is attributable to the decline in 
the economy rather than the increase in enforcement.
  But it doesn't mean that there has been a diminishment of illegal 
drugs coming across the border or a diminishment in illegal activity 
along the border. In fact, those numbers are up. The violence numbers 
are up. The illegal drugs are up. The contraband crossing the borders 
are up. And the numbers of just individual illegal people by 
interdiction data that's delivered to us by Janet Napolitano, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, are marginally down.
  Now, it may or may not be that there are more illegal border 
crossings. It might well be that they are just simply interdicting 
fewer coming across the border and there is less enforcement. Although 
I do believe that there are marginally fewer illegal border crossings 
but more illegal drugs, more violence, more kidnappings. The State of 
Arizona has the highest kidnap rate in the Nation. In fact, some of the 
cities there have the highest or second highest kidnap rate in the 
world. That's because of the drugs and it's because of the cartels that 
are doing business in that area.
  So Arizona passed a law, and this law does a number of things. It 
sets up a situation where law enforcement--it requires all of the 
political subdivisions in Arizona, the counties, the cities, the other 
political subdivisions, and the State, to enforce Federal immigration 
law. It sets it up so that an individual has standing to sue the 
political subdivision, local government, if they fail to enforce 
immigration law. And it provides for reasonable suspicion for a law 
enforcement officer to pick up an individual that's out in public if 
they reasonably suspect that that individual is unlawfully present in 
the United States. Those are good things, and they are all that I have 
described within the parameters of existing Federal law today.
  The argument that has been made and the demonstrations that are 
queued up for May 1, and that will be this coming Saturday, they are 
trying to establish demonstrations all over America of people rising up 
to demonstrate against Arizona's immigration law. Well, look at what 
has happened. The Federal Government hasn't enforced immigration law.
  I would say that our immigration laws are true and just and right 
altogether. And our problem is not because our laws are wrong. Our 
problem is not because we need to replace broken laws. It's that we 
need to take this system that--``broken'' is not the right word for it, 
I would say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis). I think instead 
it's a system that is not being utilized because we lack the will to 
enforce immigration law in the United States. And that will has been 
diminishing over the years. The greater the number of illegals, the 
more people get to know their neighbors that may be in the United 
States illegally. They don't see that when you contribute to or allow 
or tolerate people who are unlawfully present in the United States in 
your neighborhood, when you hire them, you're contributing to the 
problem. People don't see that.
  They just understand that we're all God's children. They like the 
people that came in. They see that they work hard, and so, therefore, 
they become their advocates. It's a natural thing to happen. But at the 
same time, while our laws are being broken and our laws are being 
disrespected, there's an undermining of the American system.
  There's a reason that the people want to come to the United States. 
There isn't a country in the world where there aren't significant 
numbers of people that don't want to become Americans. And the reasons 
for that fall into a lot of categories, but one of them is we have 
respect for the rule of law. Our traditions honor the rule of law. Lady 
Justice is blind. When you think of the image of Lady Justice standing 
there blindfolded with the scales of justice balanced, without 
consideration for race, creed, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, 
or disability. That's the American creed.
  We have equal justice for all, and justice is blind with regard to 
those characteristics. So people want to come here. They want to come 
to the United States from countries, countries that do not have that 
tradition of honoring the rule of law. They want to come to the United 
States from countries that have a corrupt tradition where you have to 
pay to play and it's who you know and how you pay them off or you curl 
up and you try to avoid the scrutiny of government and interactivity 
with the government agencies.
  Here in this country, we're straight up, open, and honest, and, for 
the most part, moral and ethical, and we respect the law. But if we 
grant amnesty to 12 or 20 or more million people because it's described 
as an insurmountable problem, that the argument that's often made that 
we can't deport 12 or 20 million people, in fact, we could. We could do 
that. It's not logistically impossible to do so.
  I went over to London a little over a year ago to deal with the 
immigration issue over there. And I listened to them talk about the 
numbers of illegals that they have, and I have forgotten the exact 
number, but let's just say that we are in that 12 to 20 million 
category, and population ratio-wise, they are down in that 1\1/2\ 
million category, perhaps, of illegals in England. And what is their 
argument? You can't deport 1\1/2\ million people. It's too many. It's 
an impossible thing logistically.
  Well, interestingly we're here with 12 to 20 million. We're making 
the same argument. Well, then, how many could we deport? If it's not 20 
million and it's not 12 million and the British say they can't deport 
1\1/2\ million, could we depart 1\1/2\ million if we chose to do that, 
or is it 1 million or \1/2\ million or 100,000 or 10,000 or one? What 
is our capability logistically to deport people that are in the United 
States illegally?
  And I will suggest that it's in direct proportion to our resources 
and our will to enforce the law. Our problem is not that we can't do so 
logistically. Our problem is we lack the will to do so from a moral 
standard because we're listening to both sides of this argument. The 
argument that people are here, that they just want to work. They want 
to earn for their families. And for the most part, that's true. And we 
disregard the argument that is this point that I need to make, Madam 
Speaker, and that is that 90 percent of the illegal drugs consumed in 
the United States of America come from or through Mexico, 90 percent. 
It's a consistent number that comes from the Drug Enforcement Agency, 
and it's been consistent throughout several years.

                              {time}  2030

  And the illegal drug distribution chains in America, magically, and 
this is a Drug Enforcement Agency response, magically if every one of 
the people that are in the United States illegally, magically tomorrow 
morning woke up in their home country where they were legal to live and 
reside, if that happened by magic wand overnight, there is at least one 
link in every illegal drug distribution chain in America that would be 
severed because at least one link has an illegal alien that's part of 
that drug distribution chain.
  And so if it was in our endeavor to shut off the illegal drug 
distribution in America, we would simply make sure we enforced our 
immigration laws. And that would be a very temporary fix, and it might 
only last for hours or days, not much longer than weeks and perhaps not 
months, but it would sever the distribution of all illegal drugs in 
America, however temporarily that might be.
  So when we look at what happens when we have 12 to 20 or more million 
illegals in America, what are the effects on our society? First, they 
are delivering 90 percent of the drugs from or through Mexico. And some 
of them at

[[Page 6887]]

least touch the delivery of every illegal drug that's delivered in the 
United States of America while that's going on.
  What is accompanied by the illegal drug trade? Violence, murder, 
theft, rape, all of those things that go along with crime are wrapped 
up and associated with the illegal drug distribution. And the people 
that are illegally distributing drugs that are in the United States 
illegally are also, however inadvertently, the channel of their work is 
enabled by, and not always willfully, and sometimes even unknowingly, 
it's enabled by the illegal community in the United States. It becomes 
an underground railroad for illegal people and illegal drugs that are 
pouring through, from and through Mexico into the United States. And it 
is something that brings about a high amount of death and destruction 
and diminishment of human capital, human resources, and human 
potential. That's why we outlaw those illegal drugs in the first place.
  It doesn't mean that all the people that are involved in that are 
willfully evil or willfully trying to undermine our society. It might 
be inadvertent. But they are part of the problem. And if we are to have 
the rule of law, we have to enforce the rule of law. And to imagine 
that when law enforcement comes in contact with people who are here 
illegally that we would be unwilling to put them back into the 
condition that they were in at the time they broke the law is 
unconscionable for a rule-of-law Nation to think such a thing.
  Think in terms of this: if someone walks into the bank and robs the 
bank and would walk out of that bank with all of the loot, and we would 
interdict them with our law enforcement and decide, well, you really 
only want to provide for your family, so we are going to let you go on 
here because we don't have the will to stop you at this point. Or our 
immigration laws, simply deporting people is the equivalent of putting 
them back in the condition they were in before they broke the law. It's 
the equivalent of taking a bank robber and saying you don't get to keep 
the money, but we are going to take you out of the bank and set you 
outside the door and let you go. That's the equivalent of deportation.
  It is we put people back in the condition they were in before they 
broke the law. It's like taking a bank robber out of the bank, not 
letting them keep the loot, and you set them outside the door and say, 
okay, go. You are free to go. It's as if you never broke our law. 
That's what deportation is. It is not Draconian. It is not harsh. It is 
not cruel and unusual punishment. It is de minimis that we can do if we 
are going to enforce the law. And if we are not willing to put people 
back in the condition they were in before they broke our immigration 
law, then we cannot have enforcement of our immigration law whatsoever.
  It doesn't work to set a standard of amnesty that's been advocated by 
President Bush, President Obama, by many of the leaders over here on 
the left side of the aisle that we should give people a path to 
citizenship, make them pay a fine, force them to learn English. That 
seems a little odd to me, how you force somebody to learn a language 
and require them to pay their back taxes. Those are the minimum 
standards for somebody who would come into the United States legally in 
the first place.
  If you want to become an American citizen, get in line. Get in line 
in a foreign country. Don't jump the line. Don't jump the border. And 
when you do that, and you go take your citizenship test--first, you 
have to pass the test that asks the question what's the economic system 
of the United States of America? And the answer is free enterprise 
capitalism. That's a little heads up there, Madam Speaker, on that one.
  But when people come into the United States legally, they are 
required to learn English. If they want to become a citizen, if they 
want to go through the naturalization process, they are required to 
learn English. They are required to demonstrate proficiency in English 
in both the written and the spoken word. They have to understand our 
history and understand those principles that made America great. And we 
are not going to naturalize somebody that didn't pay their back taxes.
  And the idea of a fine for being in the United States illegally, and 
that's the only other condition that we would add, whether that would 
be pay a fee of $1,500--I remember when it started out to be $500. And 
then $500 seemed like a pittance, so they raised it to $1,000 and then 
$1,500. And under the Bush administration we had the discussion and the 
argument that their position was, well, it's not amnesty if they have 
to pay a fine. Oh, really? If the fine is cheaper than what you have to 
pay a coyote to sneak into the United States is it really a fine? And 
does the fine replace the penalty that exists for violating Federal 
law? And I say no.
  If you grant people the objective of their crime, it's amnesty. To 
grant amnesty is to pardon people for the violation of the law and 
grant them the objective of their crime. That's what amnesty is. And so 
if we are going to have amnesty, let's be honest about it, Madam 
Speaker. Let's ask the people in this Congress, the President of the 
United States, the executive branch of government, and the people in 
the United States Senate that are now crafting up legislation are you 
for or against amnesty. If they want to support amnesty, it's fine with 
me if they will just admit that. And then we can have a debate as to 
what degree of amnesty they are going to advocate.
  But it's offensive to the American people to hear United States 
Senators or Members of the House of Representatives, Congressmen and -
women, or the President of the United States, or his spokesmen or -
women, argue that amnesty isn't amnesty when we know very well what 
amnesty is. Pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the 
objective of their crimes. That's amnesty.
  President Reagan understood it. He admitted amnesty was amnesty. He 
signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Yes, he let me down, but he was honest 
about it. And we haven't been honest during the second half of the Bush 
administration, and we certainly aren't honest during the Obama 
administration, this first third or so of the Obama administration 
about amnesty or immigration.
  And so here are my concerns, that 90 percent of the illegal drugs 
that are consumed in the United States come from or through Mexico. Of 
all the violence that pours forth from that, it costs American lives 
dozens and dozens, in fact by the hundreds, every year Americans that 
die at the hands of illegals that are here in the United States of 
America illegally. That's the definition. And if we would be effective 
in enforcing immigration law, those people who died at the hands who 
are here illegally would still be alive.
  When the school bus wrecked in southwest Minnesota and we lost four 
or five young girls there because it was caused by an accident by an 
individual who had two or three times been interdicted by law 
enforcement in the United States but was turned loose again, those 
girls would be young women today. They would be alive today. And their 
parents know that. It happens over and over hundreds of times. In fact, 
it's happened thousands of times since we failed to enforce our 
immigration laws.
  So what do we do? We put together the will to enforce our immigration 
laws. The American people rise up and make the argument that we are 
going to have the rule of law, that we are going to shut off all 
illegal traffic at the border. We are going to force all that traffic 
through the ports of entry.
  It's been a little while since we have talked about the necessity of 
building a wall and a fence on the southern border. Someone said to me 
we can't build 2,000 miles of fence. Yes, we could. We could build 
2,000 miles of triple fencing. We could put sensors on it. We could put 
lights on it. We could build roads in between. We could patrol it. We 
could enforce it. We can fix it so nobody gets through all that. Yes, 
we can. And for the people that will argue if you build a 20-foot fence 
I will show you a 21-foot ladder, that's got to be the silliest and the 
weakest and the

[[Page 6888]]

most specious argument I have heard here on the floor of the United 
States Congress. I have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security say 
build a 50-foot fence and I will show you a 51-foot ladder.
  Madam Speaker, what in the world could that mean? All right, if you 
build a rocket that will fly to the Moon, I will show you a rocket that 
will fly a mile past the Moon. So what? What does that mean? They are 
not going to be building a 51-foot ladder. And if they do, we are going 
to be sitting there with our sensory devices, our roads, our 
monitoring, and we are going to make sure if they can get over that 
fence they don't get to the next one. And if they get over that one, we 
are going to make sure they don't get to the next one.
  I have designed a concrete wall. And it is not the only barrier; it 
is not the only tool. And when those of us that talk about the 
necessity for extending the fence and the wall on the southern border 
and building double and tertiary fences and walls, the argument against 
it becomes this silly argument of, well, that's not going to solve the 
problem.
  None of us believe it's the total solution. None of us believe that 
building an effective wall and fence is the only thing we would do. 
It's among the effective things that we could do.
  So, Madam Speaker, here are some things that the American people 
don't know. The President doesn't know. His actuaries don't know. The 
Speaker of the House doesn't know. Harry Reid, the majority leader in 
the Senate doesn't know. And the committee Chairs don't know. And I may 
well be the only one in the United States Congress that knows this. 
And, Madam Speaker, now the whole world is going to know. Here are the 
numbers. About 2006 we were spending $8 billion on our southern border. 
Now we are spending about $12 billion on our southern border. All 
together. These aren't numbers that come out of the administration 
except one piece at a time. And you have to add them up and calculate 
it out and calculate it back to the numbers of miles of border that we 
have. $12 billion when you add up all of the expenses necessary for ICE 
that are operating down there near the border in that 20- to 40-mile, 
maybe 50-mile range of the border.
  You have to pay the personnel, their health care package, their 
benefits package, their retirement funds, their equipment, their 
vehicles that they drive, guns, uniforms, all those things that they 
do. And you add to that Custom Border Protection, our CBP people, our 
Customs personnel, our Border Patrol personnel. And all of the forces 
that are there lined up that are part of that coordinated effort to 
defend the border are right in the area of $12 billion. $12 billion for 
2,000 miles of border. That is $6 million a mile, Madam Speaker.
  Now, think of this. Most of us can think what a mile is. For me, I 
live on the corner on a gravel road in Iowa. And a lot of those corners 
you can stand out there in the middle of that intersection and you can 
see a mile in each of four directions. It is not the case in mine, but 
I know how far a mile is. Most of us do.
  Now, when I stand on my corner and I look to the west that full mile, 
a mile west, which is the clearest vision that I have, and I think 
would the Federal Government pay me--if that were the border, would the 
Federal Government pay me $6 million to guard that border for that 
mile? Could I do that for $6 million? Would I be willing to take on 
that contract and control that border for $6 million for that mile? And 
that's the average for 2,000 miles. Some of it's barren and desolate. 
Would I be willing to do that, Madam Speaker, for $6 million? You 
betcha. You betcha, to pick up on a phrase. I would do that for $6 
million a mile.
  And, furthermore, I would be willing to guarantee nobody would get 
across that mile. I would guard it, I would protect it, I would hire 
the personnel necessary. And, in fact, rather than paying a lot of 
people that were boots on the ground, I would have some, and they would 
be in mobile vehicles, and we would have sensors, and we would have 
some lights, and we would have radios, and we would have warning 
devices and ground-based radar. We would do all that stuff.

                              {time}  2045

  But we would also build a fence and a wall as a barrier to slow that 
traffic down and make it hard enough that they wouldn't come through my 
mile at all. In fact, I would shut down all the traffic in that mile 
for $6 million. And if you award me that contract, I would be willing 
to let you dock me from that contract. I would guarantee it. I would 
bond it. I would let you dock me. If they got across my mile, then 
subtract from my contract every illegal crosser that is there. Then you 
would put the incentives in place to actually succeed in what we're 
doing as opposed to just simply doing--it's not catch and release back 
into America anymore. It's catch and release at the port of entry and 
turn them back in to Mexico, and then they come back around with a 
smirk on their face. And I have watched them do that, Madam Speaker.
  Another tool that we need to have is the New IDEA Act. New IDEA is 
legislation that I have introduced in the last three Congresses. The 
New IDEA stands for the New Illegal Deduction Elimination Act. That's 
the acronym, New Illegal Deduction Elimination Act. It comes from this 
part. If you look around, across the agencies of the Federal Government 
and think about those agencies and how aggressively and how effectively 
they do their jobs, we have the Department of Homeland Security, which 
has really pledged that they're not going to deport illegal workers in 
America.
  In fact, they picked up some illegal workers by accident in Boston 
some months ago back in December or January. They found out that they 
were illegal. They processed them. These workers were on their way up 
to Gillette Stadium in Boston. So ICE, after they processed them, 
hauled them up to work. They gave them chauffeured transportation up to 
their job to be groundskeepers at Gillette Stadium in Boston, a 
complete lack of focus on their job.
  I mean, you talk about open borders. Jump across the border, come in 
here and sneak in and get yourself a job and have your documents being 
invalid, falsification, whatever it might be, misrepresents your 
status. And if we run across you by accident because our ICE people are 
out there doing what they do, we will take your fingerprints and your 
names, and then we'll give you a chauffeured ride on up to work at 
Gillette Stadium. That is bizarre. It is so far away from an 
understanding of what it takes to enforce the law.
  I take us back to a time in the fifties when my father was a manager 
of the State police radio stations, and he also was the mayor of a 
small community. The local town cop came across an illegal who happened 
to be traveling through the community, and I don't know how they 
interdicted him, whether it was his license plate light that was out or 
whatever it was, but he was arrested. He was incarcerated. He was held 
up in the city jail, and they had to process him. And my father, as 
mayor, was the justice of the peace as well. There never was any 
consideration about turning him loose because it was too hard to 
enforce the law. The only thing that could come from that was the 
person that was illegally in the United States was going to go back to 
their home country. And by my recollection, that's what happened.
  But the New Illegal Deduction Elimination Act recognizes that the 
Department of Homeland Security hasn't shown a complete will to enforce 
immigration law. They have got good officers out in the field. They 
want to do so. They want to deliver on a mission and accomplish a 
mission statement. They want to accomplish their mission statement, but 
the lack of will from the White House down through the Secretary of 
Homeland Security prevents them from being as effective as they can be.
  So there's your agency. Department of Homeland Security is not as 
effective as they can be, enforcing against employers because 
politically that's more palatable but refusing to enforce against 
illegal workers because they have decided that those illegal workers

[[Page 6889]]

can be Democrats. I stand on that statement, Madam Speaker. They've 
decided those illegal workers can become Democrats, so they want to 
pander to them.
  We've got the Social Security Administration that has a database that 
should be feeding information to the Department of Homeland Security. 
Whenever you have duplications of those Social Security numbers, you 
can bet that as soon as the second one shows up, if it's outside the 
neighborhood in the driving range of the first one, that you have one 
illegal there at least that's working off of that Social Security 
number--and maybe both of them are illegal.
  The Social Security Administration is willing to take the checks that 
come from the payroll taxes of those millions who are working illegally 
in America, paying their payroll taxes because it's withheld from their 
paycheck, but declaring the maximum number of dependents so that they 
pay Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but not State and Federal 
income tax. The Social Security Administration's willing to take those 
checks from those illegal workers and not explore the duplications on 
those Social Security numbers because the money's going into the 
account which is being spent by this Congress but is kept in an 
accounting process in Parkersburg, West Virginia, in a filing cabinet. 
And bonds that are worth no more than this piece of paper was, a print 
on top of it. I happen to have one in my filing cabinet as well. $3.54 
billion in bonds in the Social Security account. It's an IOU from the 
government to the government. They put them in a filing cabinet in 
Parkersburg, West Virginia. But illegals pay into that out of 
proportion because they're not going to file a tax return. And so the 
dollars that are contributed on that Social Security number go into 
that filing cabinet along with those bonds.
  And we have the Department of Homeland Security who is not willing to 
enforce the law to the extent that it must be against illegal workers. 
They may be willing to enforce the law in even an increasing degree 
over the Bush administration against employers who are hiring illegal 
workers. The Social Security Administration is cashing the checks of 
people who have fraudulently misrepresented their identity, and so 
neither agency has demonstrated the will to enforce the law.
  So I brought this legislation called the New IDEA Act which clarifies 
that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for 
Federal income tax purposes, and it establishes that there will be a 
cooperative working effort between Social Security, Homeland Security, 
and the IRS. The IRS, who has demonstrated they do have a desire to 
enforce the law, they have been vigorous in enforcing the law, and they 
would be very useful in stepping into the enforcement of illegal 
immigration law, and they happen to be in just exactly the right 
position to do so.
  And so under my bill, should it become law--and in fact, my bill has 
been advocated by the Democrats in the Senate who are proposing 
immigration legislation, Senator Schumer and others. They didn't define 
the title of the bill, but they defined the bill within their talking 
points, so I can commend them for recognizing the need.
  New IDEA, the New Illegal Deduction Elimination Act, clarifies that 
wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for income 
tax purposes, and it directs the IRS to go in under the normal course 
of their audits, run the Social Security numbers of those employees 
through, which will show up on the tax forms, run them through the E-
Verify program. E-Verify is the Internet-based program that can verify 
the identity of the employees. It identifies a person who can lawfully 
work in the United States, and it has a very, very high degree of 
success and accuracy.
  So the IRS would come in in an audit, and they would audit 
corporation A, and say corporation A has 25 employees. Their Social 
Security numbers will be listed in their tax forms. They will punch 
those Social Security numbers in to E-Verify. If it comes back that 
they can lawfully work in the United States, fine. No problem. If it 
comes back that they can't verify, then the IRS can give the employer 
an opportunity to cure those records, to straighten them out and to 
correct them. But failure to correct those records then can be 
concluded by the IRS, under the New IDEA Act, the New Illegal Deduction 
Elimination Act, the IRS can then deny the tax deductibility of the 
wages and benefits paid to the illegals.
  When the IRS denies that, then those wages--let's just say that it's 
$1 million worth of wages that are paid, are deducted as a business 
expense like you would deduct, oh, let's say, fuel or any of your 
overhead that you might have, input from produced products or whatever 
it might be. That business expense would be denied. And when it's 
denied, presumably, it goes over into the income column. So $1 million 
worth of wages are denied as an expense because it was paid to illegals 
and denied by the IRS. It would go over here to the other column on the 
profit side.
  And I did this calculation at 34 percent corporate income tax, and it 
might well be 35 percent today, and I think it's more accurate to say 
so. But at 34 percent, your $10 an hour illegal, by the time you add 
interest and penalty and the 34 percent tax, becomes a $16 an hour 
illegal. The IRS steps in then to enforce immigration law by denying 
the deductibility of wages and benefits paid to illegals, adding the 
interest and the penalty, and the $10 an hour illegal becomes a $16 an 
hour illegal. Employers will understand that instantly, and they will 
set about cleaning up their workforce, using E-Verify.
  And, by the way, we give that employer safe harbor if he uses E-
Verify, using E-Verify to clean up his workforce. And an employer that 
can't function with the illegal staff that he has may make the decision 
to incrementally transition over into legal employees over a period of 
time. Whatever it takes. It's not draconian. It isn't stark. It isn't 
something that shuts businesses down, but it is something that sets up 
an incentive for businesses to comply with our immigration law. Should 
they choose not to do that, then they can pay the Federal Treasury the 
difference of $10 an hour up to $16 an hour.
  We need to fix E-Verify, and we do in my bill. We set up E-Verify so 
that an employer can use E-Verify to verify the employability status of 
the applicant upon a bona fide job offer rather than having to hire the 
individual. Under current E-Verify law, you can't use E-Verify to 
determine if a job applicant can lawfully work in the United States. 
You can only do that after you actually hire them. So if you hire an 
individual, and you run their data through E-Verify and it comes back 
that they can't confirm that they can lawfully work in the United 
States, then you have to turn around and fire them.
  And I'll take the position that American employers should not be 
compelled to hire illegals in order to find out that they're illegal. 
They should be able to say to the individual, Sam, John, Larry, Sally, 
whoever you are, I'm offering you this job, and the job that I'm 
offering you is contingent upon your data being approved through E-
Verify. I will do that now if you're willing to accept this job. If 
they say yes, you run the data through. You've got, at a maximum, a 6-
second delay to get this verification done. If they don't meet the 
test, you don't put them on the payroll. I think that it's immoral to 
hire people that are illegal, and I don't want to be compelled to do 
that because we've got a flaw in our E-Verify law.
  So I appreciate the statement that Mr. Polis from Colorado made that 
he's for zero illegal immigration. I don't know how you get to that 
unless you're willing to enforce the law. I think we need to force all 
traffic--legal and illegal--and all products--human and other 
products--through the ports of entry on our southern border. I think we 
need to go ahead and build a fence and a wall. And at the expense of $6 
million a mile, that's the maintenance of our border. What will it cost 
us to build a fence and how much will it cut in the cost to maintain 
the enforcement of that? If we can, for a couple million dollars a 
mile, build some very effective barriers, that means that

[[Page 6890]]

we can cut down on the cost to the boots on the ground to enforce those 
sections and focus our boots on the ground that we have in the areas 
where we have trouble with enforcement. That's a logical thing to do.
  Look around the world. Look at the barrier that they have in Israel, 
for example, where they had suicide bombers coming through over and 
over and over again. They built a barrier there, and it's set up to 
protect the Israelis from the people that would come and do them harm. 
Is it immoral for them to protect themselves from that kind of damage 
to their lives and to their limbs and to their treasure? I suggest it 
is not. And those that would argue that a wall on our border is 
comparable to the Berlin Wall just completely and intentionally and 
willfully miss the most important point, and that is that a wall to 
keep people out is morally and fundamentally different than a wall to 
keep people in. The Berlin Wall was about keeping people in. You don't 
hear the same people argue against the Great Wall of China because they 
know the Great Wall of China was designed to keep people out, not in. 
We know that the barrier in Israel has worked. We know that our 
barriers on our southern border where we have them have worked.
  We have tertiary fencing down there in San Luis, Arizona, that is, as 
near as I can determine, that section of fence--however short it is--
it's three layers of fencing. As near as I can determine, it has not 
been defeated by anyone. It's easier to go around the end than it is to 
go over, around, under, or through. I don't suggest we build 2,000 
miles of wall and fencing with sensors and monitoring and patrol roads. 
Madam Speaker, I suggest that we simply build a fence and build a wall 
until they quit going around the end. If we do that, it may take 2,000 
miles. It may not. We may just be building the 784 miles that are 
required by the Secure Fence Act. We would need to have a smart 
immigration policy.
  And here we are, down into the depths of this downward spiral of our 
economy, this economy that's been referred to a good number of times as 
the ``great recession.'' And we're talking about, what, granting 
amnesty to people, perhaps moving pieces of legislation through this 
Congress that would legalize 12 million to 20 million people in an 
economic environment where we have 15.4 million unemployed Americans 
that fit the category, that fit the definition, another 5 million to 6 
million Americans who no longer fit the definition for unemployment 
because they quit trying. So we have over 20 million Americans that are 
looking for work or should be looking for work or have given up, and we 
have at least 8 million illegals that are working in the United States, 
taking up jobs that Americans could and should be doing.

                              {time}  2100

  The argument that there is work that Americans won't do, we haven't 
heard much of that argument in the last year or so, since the economy 
went into the downward spiral. They haven't said that as often. I have 
always argued that there isn't work that Americans won't do. We do 
everything. There is no job in America that is not being done by 
Americans. No matter how many legal or illegal immigrants might be 
doing that work, there will always be Americans standing there doing 
that work as well.
  When we travel around the world and look at the work that is being 
done, work that is characterized as work that Americans won't do, I see 
that work being done by every nationality in every country. There is no 
work that Americans won't do. When John McCain talked about he would 
pay $50 an hour for people to come and pick lettuce, I am not sure that 
he ever wrote that check; but I was quite concerned that I would lose 
my construction crew, who might all migrate down to Arizona to pick 
lettuce for $50 an hour.
  It isn't a matter that there is work that Americans won't do, it is a 
matter of there has been a flood of underskilled labor that are mobile. 
They are more reactive. They can beat Americans to that job because 
they are not as tied to real estate. They don't have those kinds of 
possessions. They have a cell phone network, and if they need 25 people 
to pick the lettuce in Arizona, that network brings a lot of illegals 
in there to do that. It doesn't mean Americans won't do it. There is no 
work Americans won't do.
  I mentioned John McCain, and it isn't for the purpose of being 
critical of the positions he has taken in the past, I say my hats off 
to the people who have served this country. He is an authentic American 
hero. He has gone through a tremendous amount of torture and pain and 
suffering, and he has not lost his resolve to defend this country in a 
fashion that be believes as a United States Senator.
  I would just suggest, here are some real facts. I have asked this 
question, and I come down to a bottom line consensus: What is the 
toughest, dirtiest, most dangerous job that we ever ask Americans to 
do? I will suggest that it is not in the United States. It has been and 
perhaps will not be again in that particular location, but it is 
rooting terrorists out of places like Fallujah, or places in 
Afghanistan, where we ask our soldiers and our marines to put their 
lives on the line to do that, sometimes in 130 degree heat with 70, 80 
pounds that they are carrying. They go in and root those terrorists out 
of Fallujah. They root them out of Afghanistan. They do that, and if 
you calculate them at 40 hours a week, for about $8.09 an hour.
  If Americans will do that, if they will take on the toughest, the 
hottest or the coldest, the dirtiest, and the most dangerous jobs in 
the world for that kind of money, there is no argument to be made that 
there are jobs that Americans will not do. We work hard and are willing 
to take a risk. We stand up for freedom and liberty and the rule of 
law. The people who put on the uniform to put their lives on the line 
are very much about defending the pillars of American exceptionalism, 
the principles that made American great, and they are not about 
defending someone having a path to citizenship being granted through 
amnesty.
  We owe the honor to the people who have defended our liberty and 
freedom to stand up for the rule of law. The rule of law has been 
reestablished by the statute in Arizona, the immigration legislation 
that they have passed and has been signed into law by the governor.
  These immigration laws in Arizona are laws that reflect the Federal 
immigration law. They fit within the umbrella of the Federal 
immigration law. Yes, there is a standard called Federal preemption, 
and that means if the Federal Government passes a law, provided it is 
constitutional that supersedes that of the States, that is Federal 
preemption. But we don't have any statutes that preempt immigration law 
in Arizona because they have drafted their immigration legislation to 
fit within the umbrella of the Federal immigration law.
  And they have set up some clear standards, clear standards that there 
shall not be racial profiling used as the only criterion when it comes 
to interdicting or stopping an individual.
  Now that happens to fit consistently with Federal case law. We have a 
responsibility and a duty and an obligation and a legal standard that 
allows our law enforcement officers to use a profile provided their 
race isn't the only criterion. And reasonable suspicion includes a 
whole lot of other criteria in addition to race. We don't want to be 
foolish or stupid about this.
  I recall an incident that took place in Urbandale, Iowa, 15 or more 
years ago. It is a community that at the time was not populated by 
minorities in any significant percentage. There was a Cadillac being 
driven down the street in a higher income residential area by an 
African American. The law enforcement officer saw that and wondered, 
and maybe it was actually Windsor Heights, come to think of it, but it 
was one of the suburbs of Des Moines, and the officer saw that and 
thought, That doesn't quite fit what goes on in this community. It 
could have been the same police officer in an African American 
community that would have made the call if it were perhaps a white 
person in that community.
  But it turned out to be the other way around. He ran the plates on 
the car

[[Page 6891]]

and the car was registered to a Caucasian female who lived in the 
neighborhood. So the officer suspected something was out of order, 
pulled the car over, and found out that the African American driving 
the car was the husband of the Caucasian lady whom the car was 
registered to who lived in the neighborhood.
  Okay, it wasn't what you would normally see as typical. One could 
argue it was racial profiling, but I would argue it was police work 
picking up the things that were inconsistent and trying to pick the 
populous. In any event, the settlement was $60,000 paid to the driver 
of the car, the husband of the lady who owned the car and was a very 
legitimate resident of the community and as far as I know, was a very 
well-respected Iowan.
  But sometimes you get caught in the anomaly, and you have to give the 
police officers their due. They are picking out those things that are 
out of order and don't fit the normal practice in the neighborhood. And 
I know the difference. I live in a rural neighborhood. When somebody 
drives down my road, we generally know who they are and where they are 
going. If I drive down the road, they know me. It is part of our own 
built-in security system.
  Where I reside out here in D.C., I know who stands on the street and 
what the flow of traffic is, and you see those things that are outside 
the normal flow. That's what police officers do. It isn't and should 
not be targeting people because of their race. But race can be a factor 
in a legitimate police activity as long as it is not the only factor. 
That is what the Arizona law says.
  I want to presume that those police officers are operating to enforce 
the rule of law and protect society and to use the tools that they have 
to protect the people. That's what they are. They provide security all 
across this country. Having grown in an law enforcement family, I 
respect the job that they do and the risk that they take and the 
judgment and the education that is necessary for them if they are going 
to enforce the law.
  In Arizona, the executive order by the governor ensures that they are 
going to continue to teach and train their officers so that they stay 
within compliance of Federal law, Arizona law, Arizona Constitution and 
the United States Constitution. And if there are deviations from that, 
I am very confident that the people who are driving wedges between us 
as Americans will find a way to litigate.
  I regret and it saddens me, and in fact it infuriates me, Madam 
Speaker, that we would see the people who are race baiters who are 
seeking to drive wedges between the American people, trying to 
capitalize on this and scare the American people and make it out to be 
something that it is not. What it is is, it is a law that sets up and 
honors the Federal immigration law that uses the Arizona law 
enforcement people to enforce an immigration law that is now a State 
law that is the mirror of the Federal law. We need to understand that 
in the case of U.S. v. Santana Garcia, and several others, that there 
are Federal precedents that local law enforcement implicitly has the 
authority to enforce immigration law.
  Regardless of whether there is a 287(g) agreement, local law 
enforcement has the authority to enforce immigration law, and there is 
a Federal law that prohibits sanctuary cities. It has been exploited by 
many cities in the country, including San Francisco and Houston, a 
number of cities that want to boycott Arizona, the violation of the 
Federal law from prohibiting cities from becoming sanctuary cities has 
been a circumvention, and it says the series of requirements that are 
in there that prohibit local cities from, let me say, protecting 
illegals in their communities, and have they found a way to pass 
memorandums of understanding or city ordinances that direct their 
police officers to not gather information, because the statute that was 
written wasn't tight enough and requires that once they have the 
information, they have to transfer it on to Federal law enforcement 
officials, so they just prohibit their local law enforcement officers 
from gathering information on illegals.
  And so they become sanctuary cities and the streets of the city fill 
up with people who are here illegally. They are taking jobs from 
Americans. They are among the 8 millions taking jobs from Americans; 
and as the streets fill up, they are also turning a blind eye to the 
illegal drugs and the violence and the abuse that comes out of that 
community in its entirety.
  Madam Speaker, I go back to 12 to 20 million illegals living in 
America, at least 8 million working in America, 15.4 million 
unemployed, another 5 to 6 million that quit looking for work that fit 
that category except they are not trying any longer, over 20 million 
Americans who need a job, 8 million illegals that are occupying jobs 
that would all go to people who are either Americans or lawfully 
present in the United States, in an economy that has been declining and 
shrinking.
  And by the way, we have 1.5 million green cards that are issued on an 
annual basis. If you look at the workforce in America, 10 years ago the 
workforce in American was 142 million, now it is 153 million.

                              {time}  2115

  It has increased about a little over 1 million a year over the last 
10 years. And if you would go back and look, the numbers of green cards 
has accelerated from about three quarters of a million in that period 
of time--and that actually is a guess, Madam Speaker--on up to about 
1.5 million a year now. Almost the sum total of the expansion of our 
workforce has been attributable to the legal immigration green cards 
that are a component of this. And so our economy has to grow and create 
1.5 million new jobs a year just to accommodate the legal immigration, 
let alone the illegal immigration. Those are the facts of what we're 
faced with today.
  So, Madam Speaker, I'm going to make this statement, that we have to 
put a stop to the illegal immigration in America. We've got to direct 
all traffic through our ports of entry where we can stop the traffic of 
illegal drugs, contraband, and people coming into the United States. We 
need to enforce our immigration law. We need to adopt the new ID Act so 
the IRS can help us enforce immigration law. And then, while all this 
is going on, we've got to take a look at the legal immigration in 
America and make a determination as to how many jobs we want this 
economy to create to accommodate those who are coming in here legally, 
and we have to have an economy that's going to be robust.
  Furthermore, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a 
household that's headed by a high school dropout costs taxpayers in 
America an average of $22,449; $22,449 over 50 years of heading the 
household, a $1.5 million cost to the taxpayers to help sustain this 
household because we have become a welfare state. When my grandmother 
came here before the turn of the previous century, she didn't come here 
to a welfare state. She came here to a meritocracy, and they wanted to 
ensure that the people that came through Ellis Island were physically 
and mentally fit and could sustain themselves. And even though they 
were screened in Europe before they got on the ship, 2 percent of them 
were sent back from Ellis Island because they didn't meet the standard.
  And so here we are today, 1.5 million legal immigrants who are 
granted work permits in the United States consuming all the new jobs in 
America and expanding the workforce when we have many more Americans 
that we could tap into to do this work that we haven't tried. That's 
15.4 million unemployed, plus 5 to 6 million who no longer meet that 
category, 20 million altogether. And if I would put them into this 
category, those Americans of working age are in the area of 80 million 
Americans of working age who are simply not in the workforce. So if we 
would just simply hire one out of 10 of those, we could replace all the 
illegal workers by hiring 10 percent of those who are not in the 
workforce, but are of working age; and about 20 million of those are 
looking for work.
  So, Madam Speaker, we have an economy we need to heal up. We've got a 
rule of law we've got to reestablish.

[[Page 6892]]

We have demonstrations that are likely to come across America that are 
designed to just pit Americans against Americans, race-based, race 
baiting for political purposes, when what we're really looking for here 
is the enforcement of the rule of law and a robust economy that's going 
to employ American workers.
  We are the most generous country in the world when it comes to 
allowing legal immigration, roughly 1.5 million a year. No other 
country comes close to matching that. We need to take a look at our 
economy, the rule of law, the culture in America, enforce the rule of 
law, stand with Arizona--who has not done anything except define their 
Arizona immigration law to reflect that of the Federal law. And the 
President of the United States, who has directed the Justice Department 
to examine Arizona law, I think is finding out that it's 
constitutional, it's statutorily consistent, it cannot be and should 
not be preempted by Federal law, and it should be honored and respected 
and supported, not investigated, nor litigated. And I encourage and I 
thank the people in Arizona for having the courage to step up and pass 
their legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________