Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3868, the Bipartisan No Tobacco for Kids Act of 1998. This legislation, which was authored by my colleagues, Representatives James Hansen and Marty Meehan, is aimed exclusively at preventing kids from smoking and reducing the adverse health effects of tobacco on children. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 3,000 kids each day become regular cigarette smokers. In light of recent statistics that shows youth smoking on the rise, I believe it is imperative that we act assertively here in Congress to crack down on youth smoking and access to tobacco. Before I came to Washington, D.C., I served on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and was responsible for passing one of the most stringent anti-smoking ordinances in the country. Because of my prior commitment to and involvement with this issue at the local level, and the startling statistics that show youth smoking on the rise, I am only too glad to support H.R. 3868 as an original cosponsor. H.R. 3868 is the only anti-tobacco bill in Congress (including the Senate) which has received the endorsement of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner David Kessler. In fact, Koop and Kessler stated that other bills in both the House and Senate do not go far enough to reduce and prevent youth smoking. This legislation establishes strong financial disincentives for tobacco companies that do not reduce tobacco consumption by minors by specified target dates. It has the stated goal of reducing tobacco use by children by 80 percent over the next ten years. This provision allows each tobacco manufacturer to determine the manner in which it will reach this mandatory goal. Federal requirements will apply only if the manufacturers are unable to achieve the reduction goals on their own. H.R. 3868 includes an increase of $1.50 per cigarette pack, which will provide a financial disincentive for youth tobacco consumption. In addition, H.R. 3868 codifies the FDA provision from last summer's tobacco settlement that provides the FDA authority to regulate nicotine as a drug or a drug delivery device. This provision of the bill also contains added restrictions on advertising and marketing to youth. H.R. 3868 contains a provision to prohibit smoking in public buildings and facilities, and it authorizes funding for essential federal tobacco education and prevention programs. In addition, the majority of the revenue generated from this legislation will be used to pay down the federal debt. While H.R. 3868 does not provide any special liability protections for the tobacco industry, it does offer to settle pending state tobacco lawsuits, such as the one recently settled in Minnesota. I believe that this legislation will help to create an adequate ``firewall'' to protect public health and discourage and prevent youth tobacco smoking and possession. I feel very strongly that we should not tolerate youth smoking in our society with a ``wink and a nod.'' We should treat teenage smoking as harshly as we would teenage drinking. As the father of two young children, I have a personal stake in passing this important legislation and helping to ensure that our kids do not develop this deadly habit. Statistics by the American Journal of Public Health show that minors illegally purchase 256 million packs of cigarettes each year. Our findings show that only 20 states have laws prohibiting tobacco possession by minors. We need to encourage states and localities to adopt and comply with strong anti-possession laws. The need for minor possession laws is illustrated by a CDC finding that 62 percent of minors who smoke say they buy their own cigarettes. In fact, I would support legislative efforts to require states to outlaw tobacco possession by minors as a condition of receiving federal funds. Mr. Speaker, my father died of lung cancer at the age of 53 due to his smoking habit. All three of my brothers smoke. There is little I can do to change that; however, I can do something to prevent my five children from starting to smoke. H.R. 3868 accomplishes these goals. Congress cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing while thousands of children pick up their first cigarette every day and begin this deadly habit. I commend Representatives Hansen and Meehan for initiating this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 3868, and build upon the bipartisan coalition of Members committed to preventing and reducing youth smoking.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think that we are all talking about the fact that we want to address the fact that everyone who is disadvantaged should have access to their educational opportunities. California is a very progressive State. We have been way ahead of the curve so many times in America that now people have just basically expected us to do this. I would ask that we talk about working together on this issue. Californians have recognized that we are not talking about turning the clock back. We are talking about moving forward. The fact is, the days of trying to justify fighting prejudice by being prejudiced is a thing of the past. The assumption that there are only certain groups, by the color of their skin or their gender, who are disadvantaged when it comes to educational opportunities is an antiquated concept. Mr. Chairman, if you walked in my neighborhood, a community in south San Diego, along the Mexican border called Imperial Beach, we could walk down, and I could show you where there was a Latino, an African American, a Pan Asian, an Anglo. You could not tell me that this person's children are advantaged, this person's children are disadvantaged. The fact is that the great disadvantages in our society today follow more economic-social lines than any other single denomination; and that happens to have a large, large impact to those who are people of color. I agree with that. I think there are opportunities for us to have affirmative action. In my county, we had affirmative action, and it was declared constitutional because we did not have quotas and set-asides. We did not judge men and women based on their gender or people based on the color of their skin, but we did address the issue. There are a lot of people that are disadvantaged and need help. That does not necessarily always follow based on the color of someone's skin or somebody's gender. Mr. Chairman, I think that we can work together on this, but we need to leave the old race-baiting approach and the gender baiting. We do not fight racism by being a racist. We are not going to end sexism by being sexist. Mr. Chairman, as somebody who has worked on affirmative action for over 20 years, we can do better. We do not need to deny a Filipino girl in San Diego access to the UC system because there happen to be so many more Asian Americans who qualify. I have three daughters and two sons who are alive. I hope to God that some day in the next century we can stand up and say that our daughters and our sons, no matter what their gender, no matter what their race, no matter their economic opportunities, will have equal rights under the Government of the United States.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my appreciation to Chairman Bud Shuster and express my strong support for the provisions in H.R. 2400 that promote the use of clean fuel vehicles and technology in public transit, and the incentives it provides which allow consumers greater opportunity to travel in environmentally sound modes of transportation. The CMAQ, research and development, bus and bus facility grant provisions of H.R. 2400 are examples of the Committee's effort to begin coordinating federal transportation policy with federal environmental policy. Giving states the opportunity to allow an electric vehicle with fewer than two occupants to operate in an high occupancy vehicle lane is yet another example. Mr. Speaker, as you know, promoting policies which improve our air quality is a subject near and dear to my heart. As a former mayor, county supervisor, member of my regional air resources board, and member of our county mass transit authority, I understand the difficulties local governments and the private sector face in meeting federal mandates. I saw first hand how the federal government subsidized polluting fuels, while at the same time heavily regulating small businesses over their emissions levels. Small businesses, local governments, and consumer vehicles have stepped up to the plate. It's time the Federal government do its share. How many times have you been driving down the street and saw black smoke belching out of a bus and that black soot entering into the air? Ninety percent of all bus purchases are paid for with federal dollars. While the federal government has been paying for these polluting vehicles, small companies, local governments and the private sector have been reducing their emissions levels, oftentimes under the threat of severe punitive action. It's time that the federal government lead by example and operate under the same set of clean air rules we require of everyone else. Yesterday, I testified before the Rules Committee in order to offer an amendment which would have phased out the spending of federal dollars in this bill on polluting fuels in mass transit. This amendment would have simply required that any federal funds in the bill which were to be spent on mass transit vehicles must be spent on technologies which meet EPA's definition of clean fuel technology. This amendment would not have been retroactive, and would have only applied to future vehicle purchases. Unfortunately this amendment was not ruled in order, but I was heartened by the positive response I received from my colleagues on this subject. In fact, I plan on introducing a bill later this Spring that would help accomplish this goal. Chairman Shuster has been very helpful in assisting me with moving this proposal along. In fact, we worked together to add Section 340 in the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 2400. Section 340 directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study to examine the current status of clean fuels technology, which is to be completed by the end of 1999. This study will be reported to the Congress by January 1, 2000. I am confident that this study will demonstrate what numerous major cities in non-attainment zones already know. The technology exists to move our mass transit systems to cleaner burning fuels. These cities are already accomplishing much in this area. San Diego County made the herculean effort to begin phasing out its diesel burning buses to natural gas buses. By the year 2000, 26% of its bus fleet will be using clean fuel technology that already exists. Again, I thank Chairman Shuster in working with me on this vital matter, as well as Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee, who has always given me the opportunity to pursue new methods of improving our air quality.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to H.R. 2921, the Multichannel Video Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1997. This Act, which I cosponsored earlier this year, will allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct an inquiry into competition in the multichannel video market. I agree with my colleague, Representative Billy Tauzin, whose goal with respect to video markets, is to create a policy environment that encourages vigorous competition. This will provide consumers with a choice of providers, new services, and competitive rates. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Representative Tauzin for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him in the future to enact this bill into law. A recent action by the Library of Congress flies in the face of these goals. The Library of Congress has upheld a decision of the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel, which dramatically increases the price that Director-To-Home (DTH) satellite television companies pay in copyright fees. At the moment cable operators pay an average of 9.7 cents per subscriber for superstations, and 2.5 cents for network stations. DTH companies, on the other hand, have been paying an average of 27 cents per subscriber for both signals since the Library of Congress decision came into effect on January 1 1998. At these rates, the satellite service providers will be paying 275 percent and 900 percent more respectively for the very same signals. In the short term, this has a detrimental impact on America's 7.5 million satellite subscribers. For example, in my home state of California, these costs have already been passed on to consumers through DTH subscription increases. Strangely enough, cable subscribers could suffer too. In the year between July 1996 and July 1997, we witnessed cable rates increase at nearly 4 times the rate of inflation. In order to remedy this situation we must listen to some sensible advice from the FCC. They have told us that the most effective regulator of cable rates is more robust competition from satellite television services. Let's create an environment in which the satellite television industry can compete, not one where their competitiveness is reduced. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and help create a better multichannel video market for consumers.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. I would like to clarify an issue. The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) stated that we have never placed any language condition on any territory that was considering statehood. I want to clarify that that is false, that in fact in 1811 Congress specifically required that Louisiana adopt English as the official language of their proceedings, of all government writings, and all government functions. They not only required Louisiana in 1811 to do it, they required Oklahoma and New Mexico to specifically have to teach in English as a primary language. In fact, Arizona was required to guarantee that its executive and legislative officials would conduct business in the English language. So let us not talk about singling out anyone. The fact is this has a historical record that says that when the issue of language has become a question, English is the common language of these United States; that has been clarified by Congress again and again, and has been placed as a requirement on any territory wishing to gain statehood that they must, too, adopt English as their official common language. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York proposed a substitute to the substitute, which really shows where some people may be coming from on this issue. That is, their substitute to the substitute says let us make Spanish the official language of Puerto Rico. I think what we are saying is let us be up front about it. We should clarify to the people of Puerto Rico that part of the transition from territory to State is going to be transition from Spanish to English. That is de facto. Let us do it up front, be truthful to the people of Puerto Rico, let us not promise them State and local government we cannot deliver. The fact is the assimilation of any territory into the greater Union is going to happen not just politically but culturally, socially, and linguistically.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, until 3 years ago, I was a county supervisor supervising the registration system for voters in a county of over 2.5 million people, and I know now what I knew then. There are two ways of violating a voter's rights. One is not to allow qualified voters to vote, and the other is to allow unqualified voters to vote and negate those qualified voters from voting. Now there is a lot of talk on this floor year after year about democracy and how important it is. This vote is about the integrity of our electoral process that sends every one of us here. And if what we are trying to say now is that the integrity of that vote, that qualified voters are being given the right to make their vote count, then vote for the bill offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). It is a very moderate approach. If my colleagues want to find excuses to walk away from this issue, I ask them to consider the fact that in the 1960s there were those who found excuses not to stand up for the right of voters to be able to have their vote count. Today, in the 1990s, sadly there are those who are finding excuses to allow unqualified people to have access to the voting polls to disqualify good, qualified voters.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of a gentleman who changed not only many of us personally but who changed this institution overall. Sonny Bono truly was the Will Rogers of this Congress. He was a man who brought common sense and the reminder to all of us that what really matters is what happens to America, not what happens to those of us in Congress. He reminded all of us that the people who are really important are not people in Washington, D.C. but the people out in the rest of America. I think that I had the privilege of knowing Sonny actually before the other Members of Congress for a lot of reasons, not just because I was from California but because myself and Sonny Bono ended up being seated together during freshman orientation, and it was my privilege to learn about a man who had gone through many things, who had accomplished many things without all the benefits and advantages that many of us here in Congress had. Sonny Bono was a man who was able to remind us again and again that we are not what is essential for America, but what we do for the American people is what is absolutely essential. Sonny's legislative packages were not highlighted with great press conferences and great activity, but things like defending the right of the initiative of the people's vote by requiring three judges to review the citizen's initiatives before it is overturned was basic, strong, good legislation, not just for California but for all of America. Sonny Bono's position on the Salton Sea that the Federal Government and the State government and local communities should work together to help clean up environmental problems was a strong message that Sonny Bono was able to send us. Mr. Speaker, Sonny's death hit many of us very, very personally. Mary Bono and her children had their husband and father taken away from them at a very critical time in their life, and our hearts go out to Mary and the children. Congress may think about the fact, and those of us that knew Sonny may say, Congress will not be the same without Sonny Bono on that front aisle reminding all of us to be up front. I think what we need to remember is Congress will never be the same because Sonny Bono sat in that first aisle and was so up front.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise to commend a group of small business owners in the downtown Village of La Jolla who have contributed thousands of hours to improve the economic vitality of this area. Starting with a small group of local business owners in 1987, this business association named their group ``Promote La Jolla, Inc.'' The name identified their goal of developing, maintaining and promoting a healthy local business community. Capitalizing on the charming, picturesque nature of this 100-year-old seaside Village, they identified the visitor industry as a key element to long term economic strength and vitality. They worked with local tourism organization and developed special hosted day long events to this lively Village by the sea along with a promotional program to build positive awareness of La Jolla as a very desirable visitor destination. Over this ten year period, this small group of business owners recognized that achieving economic vitality in a downtown area would require a much more complex strategic plan and a broader membership base. In 1992, this group of pioneering business owners joined with the City of San Diego to form the ``La Jolla Business Improvement District.'' Now, representing over 1,400 businesses covering a 30 block area, the La Jolla Business Improvement District is the largest in the State of California and one of the largest in the United States. Combining the entrepreneurial energy of small business owners along with the leadership of this group of 15 dedicated Board members, the Promote La Jolla Business Improvement District has developed a comprehensive strategy of Promotions and Marketing, Beautification and Design, Economic Development and Restructuring. This approach to improving economic vitality of the seaside Village of La Jolla has made Promote La Jolla Business Improvement District one of the leading business organizations in the City of San Diego. The founding members of the board: Alexander Bende, Gerhard Klein, Robert Carlyle, David Brands and Friedhelm Worunann set the foundation for the latest group of board members who continue to donate hundreds of hours each year to improving the economic vitality of the historic 100-year-old downtown Village of La Jolla. This year, Mrs. Bende and Mrs. Klein celebrate ten years of dedicated service and executive director Christopher Stokes celebrates his fifth year. I extend my best wishes to Bill Price, Alexander Bende, Candice Stephens, Joyce Snell, Jeff Stone, Gerhard Klein, Joost Bende, Gerhard Bendl, John Wolfe, Steve Riddle, Patti Keyes, Beth Dunn, Ron Searfoss, and Mike McGeath, the current Board of Directors who have shown the continued dedication to make the Village of La Jolla, the ``Jewel of the California Coast'' for now and many years to come.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides to listen to the discussion. I heard my colleague talk about when the borders used to be open in Canada. I remember walking up and down the beaches along the Mexican border all the time. We do it today. But this debate is really showing that we need to have internal enforcement. Do not try to do it all at the border. I do not care if it is in my neighborhood, that of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] and mine with Mexico, or Canada. I call on everyone saying that they want to see the good things continue to go across the border and to stop the bad things; let us finally sit down and work on internal enforcement. Do not try to do it all on the borders or all in the Canada neighborhoods or in the Mexico neighborhoods of those of us who live next door to it. Let us get together and say all of America should be participating in controlling illegal immigration. Not just those of us on the frontier who just happen to live along the border, but all Americans should join in this. Let us take this debate and accept that there is a problem here and in Mexico. Back and forth, we need to have a check system. In Canada we need it. But we also need a check system on every employer and every social program in America.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the 49th District of the State of California, San Diego, which has one of the largest concentrations of pharmaceutical companies in the world, but also has more biotech industries in the area than anywhere else in the world, including a combination of Britain and Japan combined. Mr. Speaker, I like this bill, and I think my constituents will appreciate this bill, not because of those industries, but because of what it does for consumers. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of hurting a patient. One is to give them inappropriate treatment. But the other, and sadly all too common way of hurting a patient, is not to provide appropriate treatment and to deny that appropriate treatment to people who are ill. One of the problems we have had in the past is that there have been medication and treatment that have been denied the American consumer that have been available all over the world. This bill is a progressive, well balanced bill that will finally now improve the situation to allow the American consumer to have what they need desperately: safe, effective drugs, as soon as possible. I appreciate the support for the bill.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, we are really talking about fairness and common sense here. Now, last year we passed an Immigration Reform Act that was based on dividing legal immigration and illegal immigration. And about the concept of fairness, that we do not reward those who have broken the law and punish those following the law. I am listening to the speakers that support 245(i), at least the great majority of them. If you go back in the record, you will find they did not support the Immigration Reform Act last year anyway. It passed by 320 votes, because the American people wanted fairness and common sense put back into our immigration law and stop punishing people for playing by the rules and stop allowing people to buy their way out of illegal status. There are those that say, well, they will be legal; they are legal anyways, they would qualify. Except they are illegal aliens. If that was not true, then why are they opposing this bill? They would not need this exemption if they were actually legal as stated. Mr. Speaker, I will include for placement in the Record a letter by James Dorcy, a veteran of 30 years of the Justice Department. He worked most of his career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. His statement, he writes to me, and I would like to put it in the Record. He says that ``245(i) sets up an irreconcilable conflict of interest within the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The conflict arises with the agency charged with enforcing our laws against illegal immigration actually profit from illegal immigration as it does through section 245(i). With such a conflict of interest, the INS cannot possibly fulfill its duties and obligations to remove aliens ordered removed or even to seriously act to prevent illegal immigration.'' This is an immigration agent, somebody with 30 years experience, saying there is a problem here, a major problem. Mr. Chairman, let us be fair about this. There are people who did not like that vote of 320 votes. Let us not reverse the Immigration Reform Act. This compromise just says we will allow a compromise, but we will not allow a permanent extension of 245(i). I would challenge anyone again to look at the motion. It says we oppose the permanent extension of 245(i). Mr. Speaker, I include the letter I referred to in the Record. San Diego, CA, October 28, 1997. Hon. Brian Bilbray, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Via Fax: 202-225-2948. Dear Brian: I am a retired 30-year veteran of the Justice Department. Most of my career was served in the Immigration and Naturalization Service with my last nine years working in the public integrity field in the Office of Professional Responsibility of the INS and later the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Justice. It is from my experience in fighting internal corruption in our government that I want to call your attention to an extremely serious flaw in Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Sec. 245(i) sets up an irreconcilable conflict of interest within the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The conflict arises when the agency charged with enforcing our laws against illegal immigration actually profit from illegal immigration as it does through Sec. 245(i). With such a conflict the INS cannot possibly fulfill its duties and obligations to remove aliens ordered removed or even to seriously act to prevent illegal immigration. Hundreds of positions within the INS are becoming totally dependent for their existence on the fees collected from aliens. Employees whose livelihoods are dependent on these fees and their coworkers are so compromised that it is virtually impossible for them to objectively fulfill their duties and responsibilities in enforcing and administering law prohibiting illegal immigration. It is estimated that there are more than 2 million aliens now on the immigrant visa waiting list residing in the United States illegally. There are potentially millions more aliens who now qualify or in the future will qualify for immigrant visas who will attempt to enter the United States illegally. For the INS to take action against such aliens, it would forfeit a potential of several billions of dollars in fees that it can collect from these same aliens through Sec. 245(i). It is absolutely outrageous that Congress would put an agency into such a position of conflict of interest. This provision of law was scheduled to sunset on September 30th of this year. It has been temporarily extended but is due to expire on November 7th. The Senate has voted to permanently extend the measure in the appropriation bill for Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary. On Wednesday, October 29th, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher intends to introduce a motion to instruct conferees on this appropriation bill to oppose adoption of this measure into the final bill. I urge you to support and vote for the motion. If this law is allowed to continue, we run a terrible risk of institutionalizing corruption that might very well spread throughout our government. Nobody should ever be allowed to buy a pardon for doing wrong, and that is exactly what Sec. 245(i) does. For government employees and the agency they work for to be put in a position of profitting from commerce in such pardons defies all reason and rationality. This form of institutionalized bribery is something one might expect of a Third World country, but it has no place in a great country like ours. Again, I urge you to support Mr. Rohrabacher's motion to instruct and to do all you can to rid the Immigration and Nationality Act of this corrupting provision. Sincerely, Jim Dorcy.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am here to address an item that has not been discussed very much at all here on the House floor this year, but something that was discussed extensively last year with the passage of the Immigration Reform Act. This item will be considered under the Commerce, Justice, and State conference report very soon. This item is called 245(I), the notorious illegal alien amnesty program. It is a program that allows that somebody who has violated our immigration laws can pay $1,000 as a payment to be exempted from the immigration laws of the United States. This 245(I) allows those who have broken our laws to gain special status that those who are waiting patiently to immigrate into our country do not have access to. 245(I) means that the people who have played by the rules are being punished and that those who have broken the rules are now going to be rewarded. Mr. Speaker, I think there was one very clear message that we tried to articulate in the Immigration Reform Act of 1997, and that was that it was unfair to punish those who played by the rules and to reward those who broke the rules. And in fact that bill, the immigration reform bill, which was aimed at ending these types of policies, was passed by an overwhelming majority, by 320 votes in this House. Democrat and Republican joined together to tell the American people that we were going to stop the absurd process of rewarding illegal immigration. And also those 230 Members of Congress voted together here in this House to send a message not just to America but to the world that the days of rewarding people to come into this country illegally was going to end; and to tell everybody in the world that if they want to come to this country, then come here legally. If they play by the rules, then we will reward them. Break the rules, and they will not be rewarded. Well, 245(I), Mr. Speaker, continues to reward those who have broken the law and continues to punish those who have played by the rules. Now, there is an action in the other body that discusses the idea of extending this again another 4 years. And this was a program that was snuck in 3 years ago and was only supposed to be around for 3 years. Let me remind my colleagues that there are 3,000,500 people waiting patiently to immigrate legally. They do not have the chance to pay $1,000 and get on the fast track, because they have played by the rules. The fact is there is a million people in this country today that have been identified by the immigration department that are potentially eligible to buy into this amnesty program with $1,000. Now, originally, when this bill was passed and this amnesty program was put in, it was estimated that only 10,000 people would take advantage of this program, and they said that only 10,000 would be initiated. The fact is 400,000 have applied, Mr. Speaker, 400,000 people that have said we want to buy our way out of our illegal status and pay a bribe to the U.S. Government so that they will forgive us for being illegal. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this number has gotten so big that over $200 million is acquired by the United States from this bribe, what we call in my neighborhood ``mordida,'' and it is a bribe to get the Government to look the other way. Now, there are those who will say we have to keep this program now because we are making over $200 million, and that somehow we are going to make benefits off of this. Let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of these individuals who are paying the $1,000 to acquire this legal status are doing so to qualify to receive public assistance benefits from the Federal Government for their children and so that they can then get a check. The fact is the $1,000 will be recouped by many of these individuals if they have minor children who were born here in the United States while they were illegally in this country. Now, I think it is quite unfair that there are those 3\1/2\ million people waiting patiently to immigrate who are not offered this kind of option. Their children are not given automatic citizenship, their children are not offered automatic welfare benefits, and they, by paying $1,000, do not automatically qualify for public assistance and welfare in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is time that this Congress has the guts to stand up again, like it did last year, saying that the days of rewarding illegal immigration are over with, the days of punishing those who played by the rules are over with. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for this body to publicly discuss the fact that if 320 Members said it was time to end this program a year ago, why is the Senate and why is this House even considering extending this program? I think it is time the American people called every one of their Congressmen and said stop the alien amnesty program, stop 245(I), and let us start treating people fairly and rewarding them for playing by the rules.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Citizenship Reform Act of 1997. The Citizenship Reform Act of 1997 amends the Immigration and Naturalization Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States who were not born by parents who are legal resident aliens or permanent residents, or U.S. citizens. Now, Members may say there are not that many people out there who are born to citizens of tourists or illegal aliens, and it is not that big a deal. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that this has become a big deal. In California alone, we have addressed this issue and seen this issue grow. Over 250,000 children of illegal aliens are now qualified in the county, in one county, of Los Angeles, over 250,000 qualify for benefits such as Medicare, AFDC, WIC, and SSI. In fact, two-thirds of the births in Los Angeles County, Mr. Speaker, in the public hospitals of Los Angeles County, are to parents who are illegal aliens. The fact is that the cost to the State of California alone is $500 million for providing welfare and health benefits to the children of illegal aliens. Forty percent of all births in the State of California are children of illegal aliens. These costs are not just borne by the people of California, they are borne by everyone. I think it is an issue that we now have a responsibility to address. The fact is we have created a loophole and created a benefit for people who break our laws. I do not fault the mothers who come to the United States so their children can get automatic citizenship and get all these benefits. I do not fault them at all. They are only doing what is legal for them. Who I fault is Congress in Washington, DC, for having this huge loophole, this great encouragement for people to immigrate illegally. Just in Texas there has recently been a report coming out showing that birth certificates are being sold to Mexican nationals for children that were never even born in the United States. In fact, one midwife has sold over 3,800 phony birth certificates so children could then qualify for welfare benefits and Social Security benefits. In fact, it is estimated that in one sting operation alone where there were 89 people arrested, over $400,000 of alleged fraud was committed under the guise of utilizing the automatic citizenship clause through phony certificates. The granting of automatic citizenship to children born in the United States has led to this kind of fraud. Regardless of the parents' status, we are rewarding people for violating our laws. We are talking about fairness here, too, Mr. Speaker, because how many people are waiting out there, 3,500,000, to immigrate legally? How many children are born to these 3,500,000 people who are playing by the rules? Do we give them automatic citizenship? No. We tell them, like we should be telling the children of illegal aliens, you have the right to apply for citizenship like anyone else, but we are not going to give you automatic citizenship. I think it is quite unfair that we tell one group of people that your children get automatic citizenship because you broke the law and then tell another group of people, 3,500,000, that you will not get this privilege because you did not break the law. Fairness tells us we need to take care of this problem. Thousands of legal immigrants are waiting, and many, many thousands of illegal aliens are getting rewarded. There may be those who say that H.R. 7 is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of illegal aliens getting automatic citizenship for their children. They have ruled on legal aliens, and they have said that because legal aliens were allowed in this country and agreed to come to this country, they have the burdens of loyalty and obligations of service in the draft. With that obligation comes the inheritance for their children of automatic citizenship. Illegal aliens do not have that obligation, and thus cannot pass on a citizenship right to their children as legal immigrants can and U.S. citizens. Mr. Speaker, the status of H.R. 7 is we have 51 bipartisan sponsors. The hearing was held on June 25. We are looking forward to a markup in early November, and frankly, I would encourage every citizen in the United States and every legal resident to contact their Congressman and ask them to join in the Immigration Reform Act of 1997, and bring some logic and some fairness back into our immigration policy. Let us start rewarding people for playing by the rules and stop punishing them for obeying the laws.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an item that is being considered by this body, at least for markup, very soon. That is the Citizenship Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 7. For many of us, we may think that under the 14th amendment, the privilege of automatic citizenship is something that is automatic and applies to everyone born on U.S. soil. H.R. 7 clarifies the fact that under the 14th amendment not every one born on U.S. soil gets automatic citizenship; that there is a conditioning clause in the 14th amendment that says you must be ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof''. To clarify this fact, consider that the children of diplomats here in Washington, DC, or back in New York do not get automatic citizenship at this time because their parents are not ``subject to the jurisdiction''; the same way that native Americans did not get automatic citizenship until the 1920's because Congress granted it, because basically Indians who were in the tribal environment were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because they owed loyalty and obedience to their tribe before the United States. H.R. 7 clarifies the fact that illegal aliens do not fall into the category of ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States, because they first of all are not obedient to the immigration laws, and are committing by their presence on U.S. soil a violation of national sovereignty; and, No. 2, they do not owe allegiance or loyalty to the United States. I think everybody would agree that if an illegal alien was tried for treason and brought before a court for treason, that the most liberal to the most conservative American would be outraged at the fact that somebody who was illegally in the country was now being required to be loyal. Mr. Speaker, the same argument goes to automatic citizenship. If the child is born of parents who do not owe loyalty to the United States, if that basic obligation is not being met by the parents, the child should not get the automatic citizenship. This is a thing of fairness, too. Let me remind all of my colleagues, there are people waiting patiently to come into this country legally, and while they are waiting patiently they are, some of them, having children. Those children, whose parents are playing by the rules, do not get automatic citizenship, but right, today we are rewarding those parents who violate the law in coming to this country illegally. Some people may say it is not that big a deal, why even talk about it? Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you it is a big enough deal that 96,000 births in California alone were the children of illegal aliens. We are talking about 40 percent of the Medicaid births in the State of California are children of illegal aliens. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year that one State is spending with Federal funds. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is first and foremost an issue of fairness. Why should we require the children of people who are legally waiting to immigrate, to go through the naturalization process and ask for permission from the United States to become U.S. citizens? When at the same time, we will reward the parents who have broken the law and give their children automatic citizenship with no processing at all? It just is not rational. It is not fair. Mr. Speaker, I think that we must also recognize that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. In fact, in the one case that is pointed out so often, the Wong Kim Ark case back in the late 1880's, the court ruled specifically that his parents were legal residents and that legal residents owe allegiance and owe loyalty and must obey the law. And by their legally immigrating, they showed that they were obedient to the Federal Government and the Government of the United States, and that they were ``subject to the jurisdiction'' by getting permission to enter this country legally. That definition does not fall on those who have broken our laws and immigrated illegally. In fact, the case that we are referred to again and again is a 1608 case in England, the Calvin case, that says that people who have obligational loyalties get citizenship; those who do not do not get automatic citizenship. In the words of the English, in their flowery way of saying it, they say it is the loyalty and the obedience, not the soil and not the climate that render citizenship. I think in all fairness we have got to understand that those who are obedient and play by our laws should be rewarded. But, Mr. Speaker, those who have broken our laws, violated our national sovereignty and refused to recognize that they must be ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States should not today have the right of automatic citizenship. This Congress should finally tackle this issue, address this issue and send a very clear message, not just to our own citizens, that we believe in fair and equitable treatment but that we will no longer reward illegal immigration with automatic citizenship. I ask everyone to contact their Member of Congress to address this issue and support H.R. 7.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, let me first say, as one of the original cosponsors of the bipartisan campaign finance legislation, I would ask those of us on both sides of the aisle who truly want to see this body finally address that issue to go to our colleagues and ask them to quit the dilatory procedures in asking for adjournment after adjournment so we can get through the budgetary process, not have to have a CR, not have to be threatened with the close-down of the Government. And then we can address the issue that we all want to take a look at, especially those of us who cosponsored the bipartisan campaign finance reform. That set aside, I am here to specifically address an issue of fairness and an issue of common sense. It is the bill that is called H.R. 7. It is the Citizenship Reform Act of 1997. It amends the Naturalization Act to stop giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and tourists. It is basically there because those of us who have worked in local government and had to address this issue in local communities realize that it is a much bigger issue than what most people say. I served as a county supervisor in a county in California. We came to the conclusion that Washington has to quit giving incentives to people to break our immigration laws. Madam Speaker, in California, in fact in Los Angeles County alone, there are over 250,000 citizen children of illegal aliens who qualify for such benefits as Medicare, AFDC, WIC, SSI. And, de facto, their parents get that money rewarded to them for breaking the law and having a child here. We are talking about two- thirds of the births in the largest populated county in the United States, Los Angeles County, and those public hospitals, are children of illegal aliens. We are talking about a cost in California alone to the State of California of over $500 million annually in providing health care services to the children of illegal aliens. Now, some people may say that 40 percent of all births paid by Medicare in California going to illegal aliens is not that big a deal because it is California. But, Madam Speaker, all of the United States pays for this and all the people of the United States bear the responsibility of sending the wrong message, and that is, we will reward people for breaking our laws and punish those who wait patiently. This loophole needs to be closed. It is not the responsibility of an illegal alien to close this loophole. It is not their fault that Washington has invited people in to get paid for breaking the law. The fact is, this loophole falls on our shoulders. It is not the mother of illegal aliens that should be blamed. It is Washington and our lack of commitment to fairness and common sense. In Texas alone, there were fraudulent birth certificates sold to foreigners just so they can gain access to these public benefits. In fact, in one county in Texas, over 3,800 phony birth certificates were sold to the mothers so their children could get this automatic citizenship. Eighty-nine people today are being indicted, and over $400,000 worth of welfare fraud has been identified. Now, granting automatic citizenship to the illegal aliens in this country is one of those terrible bait and switches that we say, come on in, break our laws, and we will reward you. We are talking fairness here, because there are thousands of would-be immigrants who are waiting patiently to immigrate into this country who do not get these benefits because their children were born while they were waiting. The other issue is, what is really the difference between an illegal immigrant who comes in with a child who is 1 year old in their arms? Do they not have as much need for service as somebody who came across and gave birth right after getting on U.S. soil? It is totally absurd, and we have got to talk about the fairness. Madam Speaker, there are those who will say that it is unconstitutional not to give everyone on U.S. soil automatic U.S. citizenship. I remind you, the children of diplomats do not get automatic citizenship and the children of certain tribes did not get automatic citizenship until 1924. The 14th amendment has never been clarified by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the right of illegal alien children to get automatic citizenship. I think it is the obligation of Congress, under the fifth section of the 14th amendment, to raise this issue, bring it forth, and let the chips fall where they might. Why are people so scared of fairness? Why are they so scared of taking care of this? Madam Speaker, I close with the fact that we have 51 bipartisan cosponsors. A hearing was held on June 25. We are looking forward to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, setting a date in October. I encourage everyone to join with us, call your Congressman, let us address this issue fairly and up front.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of fairness and of common sense. I know those words may seem extreme to some people in this House. Fairness is the issue. There are people who are playing by the rules waiting to enter this country legally. They do not get an option to buy their way into a fast track. Common sense says we do not reward people for breaking the law, and do not give them vehicles for people breaking the law that are not available to those who play by the rules. I want every Member here who voted for the immigration reform bill last year to remember this provision is a veto of the most commonsense part of that bill that says we will stop rewarding people for breaking our laws and coming here illegally.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rogers for clarifying the funding for this important program, TOGA, which not only predicted the El Nino but also predicted the massive floods that we saw last year in the Northwest. I would also take this opportunity to thank you for including an increase of $2 million in your bill fro NOAA's climate research programs, including additional funds requested for the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction [IRI]. The IRI is cohosted by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego, and the Lamont Doherty Earth Laboratory at Columbia University. The IRI provides experimental forecasts on seasonal-to-long-term time scales of changing physical conditions, such as ocean temperature, to predict rainfall. It then assesses the regional impacts of these variations. This information is then used to support practical decisionmaking in critical sectors such as agriculture, emergency response, and public health and safety. This funding increase will be used to improve regional forecasts, and to increase regional research and demonstration projects to explore impacts of these forecasts on specific areas. This information is increasingly important, as we are now learning with the onset of El Nino. However, the IRI does not focus on such applications here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you to explore how we might find additional support within the bill for the important research, separate from the IRI itself, which underlies the Climate Research Program. I recognize and appreciate the tight restrictions which you have had to work with in crafting your bill, and know the difficulties you face. However, given the importance of this forward-looking research, and the benefits which our own Nation can derive as a result down the road, I believe it is important that we take every advantage of this opportunity to expand our understanding in this field. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, there are three specific functions within this program which would benefit from the additional funding which was originally requested by NOAA: Additional research to do seasonal-to-long-term forecasting for all of North America; beginning a regional applications process in the United States to make this forecasting useful to climate-sensitive regions, such as agricultural areas; and intensify the research effort into understanding long-term climate variability. Scientists now believe that long-term variability has as great an impact on North America as the El Nino. As the chairman knows, I originally was prepared to offer an amendment, along with my colleague, the gentlelady from San Jose, to add $4.9 million to this bill for the purpose of ensuring that the TOGA Program would continue. Given the chairman's earlier clarifications of the TOGA Program, however, I would not seek to offer the amendment at this time. But if the gentleman would be agreeable, I would like to work further with the chairman and our colleagues between now and the conference to ensure the stability of the underlying research base on this important topic.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that the IRS should not be violating the rules and the procedures that we impose on everyone else; that this is a privacy issue. The IRS has got to be kept within proper boundaries. Technologies need to reflect the privacy laws of this country, and we should be leading by example. Even the IRS should be leading through example to show the rest of society how we should operate. Posting this information on the front of a piece of mail, where anybody can look at it that opens up that mailbox, really should be addressed. The private sector would probably go to jail for doing this. I do not think those of us in the public sector should be exempt from those privacy rules.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had the privilege of being American citizens and being raised here in the United States know that the United States has always prided itself as being a Nation of laws, of citizens that respect their laws and serve the Nation, rather than a Nation that serves men and ideas of individuals over the concepts of good laws. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7, the Citizens Reform Act of 1997, is a legislative correction by Congress for an issue that has been ignored for much too long. The issue really before us is the issue of who qualifies for automatic citizenship in the United States by right of birth. Now, many of us assume that if we are born on U.S. territory, no matter what the situation, we get automatic citizenship. The fact is, here in Washington and in New York the diplomats and their children do not get automatic citizenship in the United States, because the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that not all persons born in the United States are given citizenship, only those who are born or naturalized and who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now, that conditioning clause has been interpreted in many different ways over the hundred years and plus that it has been in effect. The definition of ``subject to the jurisdiction'' has clearly stated that the children of diplomats do not get automatic citizenship, and that is not a punitive action. That is a calculated interpretation of the fact that diplomats do not owe allegiance, loyalty to the United States Government, and that their children do not receive the rights of automatic citizenship because the parents do not bear the obligation of loyalty. Now we may ask, what does this have to do with 1997? Well, Mr. Speaker, across this country there are individuals who are entering this country illegally, who are violating the law, who are violating the trust of the American people, and then are demanding or acquiring automatic citizenship without due process for their children. Now I, for one, am very sensitive to this. I was raised by an immigrant of a foreign country who came here legally, who played by the rules. I think it is just an assault on our entire concept of fair play to say that there are those who are waiting patiently to immigrate legally, whose children are born in foreign countries, who do not acquire automatic citizenship but who are required to go through the process and naturalize. At the same time, there are those who enter this country illegally or enter this country, as most illegals do, and I want to point this out, legally, and then violate their agreement with the Federal Government by overstaying their visas. Then their children who are delivered here in the United States gain the right of automatic citizenship, while those who are playing by the rules, their children, as I stated before, do not. H.R. 7 points out that we need to address this issue of fairness, we need to make sure that we send a very clear message to everyone. And I want to point out quite clearly, it is not the immigrants' fault; it is Congress' fault. The Fourteenth Amendment says that Congress will have the responsibility to statutorily enforce these sections. Congress has ignored this problem because they did not think the problem was very big, did not think it was worth addressing. Mr. Speaker, let me just say quite clearly, even if it was one person benefiting from the violation of our national laws, that would be enough. But in California alone in 1993 we had 96,000 children born to illegal aliens who qualified for automatic citizenship. That is 40 percent of the Medicaid births in the State of California, the largest State in this Union. That population in itself sends a very clear message that we are sending the wrong message to the rest of the world. Now I did not do a poll, and a lot of people in Washington did not do a poll, but I just received information from California that a group did a poll asking women who are illegally in the country, why did they come to the United States. Frankly, even those of us who are involved in illegal immigration were shocked to see that a quarter of them stated that one of the major reasons to come here was so that their children could gain the privileges and rights of automatic citizenship, of citizenship in the greatest Nation in the world. Now, I do not fault them for doing that. But I do fault a Congress that stands by and ignores the fact that we are telling people who want to come to this country, ``Come here illegally and we will reward you. Wait patiently to come here legally, and we will make you toe the line.'' I think that is a very wrong statement to send. I think it is one that we need to correct. H.R. 7, Mr. Speaker, corrects it. It says if you are a citizen of the United States, a resident alien in the United States that has been accepted as a resident by the United States, then you bear the responsibility of loyalty and service to the American people, and we will give your child automatic citizenship. With the obligation goes the rights. But if you are a tourist who is just asking to pass through, or if you are an illegal alien who has violated our laws, we will not reward you or your child for you breaking the law while we require those who wait patiently to immigrate to play by the rules. Mr. Speaker, this item goes back many years. First of all, many may say, again, I thought everyone on U.S. soil was automatically a citizen. In fact, it was not the 14th amendment that allowed native Americans to become automatic citizens of the United States. In fact, many, many individuals in this country who come from native American backgrounds did not get their right of being automatic citizens from the 14th amendment, because the Supreme Court ruled in a case back in the 1880s that Indians, native-born Americans, did not qualify as being subject to the jurisdiction thereof as conditioned by the 14th amendment. The fact is the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans could not be tried for treason and could not be drafted and could not be held liable, though they could be arrested, but they could not be held liable for not being loyal to the U.S. Government, and thus their children did not qualify. The first case of that, that reflected that, was the Elk versus Wilkins, which was a situation where an Indian who had left his tribe went to qualify as a voter and tried to register as a voter. The registrar of voters refused to register him because they said, you are not a citizen. John Elk, an Indian born within the territory of the United States, in Nebraska, went to the Supreme Court and said, I was born within the United States; the 14th amendment gives me automatic citizenship. The court ruled that the Indian born of a member of the tribe within the United States was still not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that Mr. Elk was not a U.S. citizen by right of the 14th amendment. Let me remind my colleagues that this is the same 14th amendment that a lot of people say illegal aliens should get automatic citizenship for, that a legal Native American within the United States has been ruled not to be a U.S. citizen. But this House and this Congress and this Federal Government has continued to assume that illegal aliens qualify under that category. I think that any reasonable person would say there should be some major questions raised here. I think the question illustrates quite clearly that not all individuals born within the territory of the United States automatically get citizenship under the 14th amendment, because there is that conditioning clause ``subject to the jurisdiction.'' The next case that is always brought up on this issue, Mr. Speaker, is a case that people that want to give automatic citizenship to illegal aliens point out, and that is U.S. versus Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was an individual who was the son of two Chinese immigrants, legal resident aliens, who were allowed to set up business within the United States, and the child was born while they were here legally in the United States. When Mr. Wong Kim tried to come back from a visit after his parents had been extradited through the Chinese Exclusion Act, he went to visit them in China, tried to come back into the United States, and he was told he could not because he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled quite clearly on that and made a reference to a case, which was our British common law case, that the parents had been legal under a case called the Calvin case, and that the Supreme Court ruled that because they were residents of the United States and had been permitted under British common law and United States immigration law to be in the United States, that the child had the rights, because while the parents were in the United States, they had a temporary allegiance through legal immigration. This may really sound like a bunch of legal gobbledygook, but it comes back to the point of fairness, and it comes back to a point that I think those of us in Washington forget too often. The whole case that we are talking about citizenship and automatic citizenship comes back to a basic rule that there are rights and responsibilities, and that people or individuals cannot claim rights without bearing equal responsibilities. Actually in the Calvin case, which was a case where a Scotsman was basically told by one group that he was not a citizen and could not qualify in the English courts, that he had no rights there, that Calvin was able to prove that he had rights because he had obligations; that his parents could have been tried for treason, could have been drafted for service to the king; that his parents in a most gross sense could have been drawn and quartered as traitors because they had an obligation to be loyal to their government, and because of that obligation, there became a right to the child. The same argument has to be reflected, that there are those in our society who think that rights come without responsibilities. I think we may debate back and forth when and where those begin, but I think it is quite clear here with this case that the law that we base our immigration birthright citizenship is based on a British law that was articulated in the Calvin case which said if the parents are obligated to be loyal and to serve the government, with that obligation comes the rights of the child to be a citizen. The British said it in their very poetic way. It says quite clearly that it is not the ground that really matters, it is the state of mind. The terminology that was used in the Calvin case was that it is not the soil or the climate, but the loyalty and the obedience that makes the subject born. I think anyone here would agree that it would be absolutely absurd to think that an illegal alien owes loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. Government. If we can come to that conclusion, that a person who has violated our immigration laws, that has come into this country illegally or stayed in this country illegally obviously does not have either the concept of loyalty to the United States or the obligation being enforced of that loyalty. In fact, I would remind a lot of my colleagues who think that the concept of not giving illegal aliens automatic citizenship is such an outrageous concept, I would ask those colleagues to remember how long would you stand by in this House if an illegal alien was tried for treason, if an illegal alien was being drafted to serve in the U.S. Army, and that illegal alien said, ``Look, I want out of it, I don't want to have to serve, I would rather go back to my country.'' The concept of trying an illegal alien for treason is as absurd today as it would be in the 1860s when the 14th amendment was passed. That same absurdity applies to the fact that you give automatic citizenship to somebody without the related obligation to them or their parents. Mr. Speaker, it may seem like an academic debate. I think that we have pointed out again and again as we talk about illegal immigration that this city, Washington, DC, and this Federal Government has an obligation, an obligation to start clarifying what behavior is appropriate, and what behavior will be rewarded, and what behavior is inappropriate, and what behavior will not be rewarded. That may seem radical and extreme to somebody. In my family, I try to make sure that we send that message to our children and to our friends, and it is about time Washington understands that common sense may seem extreme here, but America wants to see more of it coming out of this place. It is not the obligation of illegal immigrants to make rhyme and reason out of our immigration laws. It is not the mothers of illegals who are responsible to make sure that our citizenship laws reflect common sense and reflect the historical precedents that have been set over the decades, over the centuries, that to have the rights you must bear the responsibilities. When we talk about who bears the responsibility here, it is not the mother who wants to cross a border or come in from Europe or Asia illegally to get automatic citizenship. The responsibility bears right here in Washington, DC. Washington, DC, has to bear that responsibility. I still remember an illegal woman telling me one time, an illegal alien woman saying, ``Mr. Bilbray, if you really didn't want us to do it, you wouldn't be rewarding us for doing it.'' I think that it is time that we send that clear message, and we send it quite fairly and quite strongly, that we do not blame them, we blame ourselves, for the lack of commitment and involvement in this issue; that we have sent the wrong message for too long, and that we are going to address it. The 14th amendment, Mr. Speaker, does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. The 14th amendment says that you have to be born in the United States and must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you do not only have to be subject to being arrested and prosecuted, as so many people assume in this country, but to be subject to the jurisdiction as defined in British common law and as inherited by us through our own Constitution, because even in the Wong Kim Ark case, it was quite clear the Supreme Court ruled there is no common law in America except the British common law; that the British common law said that to be subjects, you must be not only obedient, but you must be loyal; that the obligation of obedience is only one-half of the responsibility of being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that loyalty is the other half. The 14th amendment specifically was trying to address, after the Civil War, the issue of the Dred Scott case, to ensure that everyone was given equal protection for the right of citizenship regardless of race. One of the biggest problems we had was that there was an assumption that only white Europeans had the rights under the British common law. So to clarify that it was universal, the 14th amendment was passed to specifically say that everyone, regardless of their race or their past servitude or any other condition, had the same rights. But the 14th amendment did not change the conditions for birthright citizenship in a general sense. The Supreme Court ruled over three times that the 14th amendment was to reinforce the concepts that had been accepted by the United States, and by the Colonies before the United States, and by the English empire before that, that being that those who are going to gain automatic citizenship have to be the children of people who are subject to the jurisdiction, people who are obedient to the law, and obligated to serve the Government and to be loyal to the Government. Today, Mr. Speaker, most people do not know this, but legal resident aliens are obligated to serve in the military and are obligated to be loyal to the Government while they are here. They have a temporary allegiance of loyalty. When the courts reviewed this under the Calvin case, they clarified that when a legal resident comes into the United States, there is a contract between a legal resident and the Government. The act of allowing someone into your country, you are saying to them, or your Government is, you may come into this country and be a resident, but you must act with the obligations of being a citizen, and you can be drafted, you can be taxed, and you are obligated to be loyal. When an illegal alien comes into the country or when a diplomat comes into the country, there is no contract between the Government and the person entering the country. That contract has not been made, and the obligation does not exist. The obligation does not exist and the rights of automatic citizenship do not exist. I know there are those in this city that would love to say there are all kinds of rights out there, but no obligations and no responsibilities. That is not reflected in the text of the law or the historical background of automatic citizenship. Now, we can debate the issues of rights and responsibilities, but one thing that is made quite clear, when the Senators were debating the 14th amendment, there was no concept that they were going to pass an amendment that would encourage people to break the laws of the United States. Senator Howard, who was one of the authors of the citizenship clause, specifically made reference to the fact that he wanted to treat fairly those individuals who had lived in our country and lived by our rules and followed our laws. In fact, his statement, referring to the slaves, were that they lived by our laws, they have borne the responsibility of citizenship, they are here because we choose them to be here, and, in fact even, without them having a choice to be here, and they have the right and their children and grandchildren have the right of citizenship. Mr. Speaker, that does not exactly sound like an illegal immigrant to me. It sounds like exactly what it was meant to mean, that those who played by the rules, that have been loyal and served this country, have a right for their children to be automatic citizens. But those who have violated our laws, again, should not be rewarded for it. I have to say that I live on the Mexican border and I see very interesting things happen. I know of individuals who were in Mexico who are waiting patiently for their immigration status, and I know they are having children in Mexico. When they get here, they will immigrate, they will come here legally, they will wait for years and years to be able to play by the rules, and their children will then have to apply to naturalize, just like everyone else. But when I talk to a lady, like this one lady from El Paso, about how outraged she was at the concept while she played by the rules, someone could cross the border illegally and their children get automatic citizenship, and then their children qualify for welfare, and their children qualify for Medicare, that is probably the greatest sin, is to continue to tell those who have played by the rules, ``Hey, you were crazy to play by rules. Break the rules. This is what this country rewards.'' I do not think the American people want that to continue. Mr. Speaker, if the people that really believe that everyone who was born on U.S. soil should get automatic citizenship, if they really believe it would be so unjust to enforce the clause that says that you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, if people think that my legislation and that H.R. 7 is so outrageous, then let them have the guts to finally stand up and say, look, from now on, every child born to a diplomat will get automatic citizenship. From now on, any time anybody violates U.S. territory, there will be no problem, they will get automatic citizenship. But today, tomorrow, and next month, there will be children born in the United States to people who we allowed to come here legally, who will not get automatic citizenship, and those are the children of diplomats and their aides and their support staff. Those individuals are not having their rights taken away. We are not punishing their children. We are just reflecting not only the 14th amendment, but the British common law and the law that we have all inherited into this land. So the hypocrisy of this issue is there are those who will oppose H.R. 7 and then will continue to ignore the fact that we are today saying not everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. Again, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for the fact that this bill has to be brought up, but I think that there are those who have not read the law, the root law, which was the case where you had an individual claiming to be a citizen, and some people saying he was not, and that case goes all the way back to 1607. This is not a new case, 1607. You had a Scotsman who said I am a British subject, and I am a British citizen, and I should have some rights. The courts ruled then that the determining factor was did the parents have responsibilities? With those responsibilities, they investigated that the parents did have them, they were obligated to be loyal, they were obligated to serve the Government, they did not have the right to leave the country based on the fact that they were aliens and foreigners, that they had the obligation of loyalty, and with that obligation the child received automatic citizenship. It is not a popular thing to talk about, Mr. Speaker, but it is a fairness issue now. No one in the United States can say that it is a good policy to reward individuals and their families for breaking the law, and that it is a good policy to tell people that if you play by the rules, you will be disadvantaged, if you follow the law, you will be disadvantaged. Now, I am not talking about punishing the children or punishing immigrants. I am talking about let us stop punishing the people who play by the rules. Let us make a law statutorily under section 5 of the 14th amendment that reflects the intent of the Senators when they stated we are here to protect those who have played by the rules, are here because we choose for them to be here, and we look forward to their ancestors being here henceforth. I think that we can talk about Elk versus Wilkins, we can talk about the Calvin case, we can talk about many different cases, but I think when it really comes down to it, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the future. We have got to talk about how many people are being smuggled in from all over the world. What is the message being told to people, like my cousins in Australia, that say my God, we hear you guys really want illegal immigration; my God, you reward people for breaking the laws. We have got to send a message that ambassadors are not being discriminated against and their children are not being discriminated against. There is no impunity meant here. We are just reflecting what the law is, and we need to send a quite clear message around the world that if you want to come to the United States, then come here legally. We will reward you and your children if you play by the rules. We will reward your generations to come. But we will not reward you for violating our national sovereignty, for breaking our laws, and for violating the basic concept that when you go into somebody else's neighborhood or somebody's home or into their country, you go there as a guest, not as an intruder. Mr. Speaker, I hope this House, I hope the Committee on the Judiciary, will consider H.R. 7, and at least have the guts to raise the issue and quit ducking the issue. The 5th article of the 14th amendment specifically says Congress will have the responsibility to enforce the appropriate statutory sections. This is our responsibility. It is not the states of the United States, it is not even the illegal aliens' responsibility, it is our responsibility. If those of us think that this is too hot an issue to talk about, too hot to take care of, then maybe we ought to talk about going somewhere else, because the Constitution says this issue falls square in the lap of the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to clarify this, and I ask the Speaker and the leadership to allow H.R. 7 to be brought up for a vote and to move through committee so this issue can be debated at length. It is one that has been ignored for too long, it is one with many misperceptions, and it is one that can be really clarified very quickly. I am sure there are those that will say if somebody is in the United States illegally by their presence, they have obviously showed they are not obedient to the Federal Government's laws. If somebody is here in the United States illegally, they are not held to the same loyalty standards, which is obviously one of the conditions. With those two conditioning clauses, the children of illegal aliens and the children of tourists who are just passing through fall in the same category as native-born Indians did before 1924 when Congress, Congress, had the guts to finally give all Indians automatic citizenship. The children of illegals, of tourists, fall in the same category as children of diplomats, and the Congress, as it had the guts to address the issue in 1924, has to have the guts to address the issue now in 1997.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary, in support of H.R. 7, the Citizens Reform Act of 1997.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas asked the question, would we want troops in our neighborhoods? I live within sight of the border. I am probably the closest, maybe the gentleman from El Paso, a quarter mile from the border. Let me assure Members as somebody who has seen the death and destruction, seen the assassinations by the drug cartels, and somebody who lives not only north of the border, but north of a military installation, I would much rather see my children tonight being defended by American troops than to be exposed to the drugs and the violent activity that is going on along the border. But we are not talking about that, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about giving the President the option. What are Members so scared of? Is it that the argument is so logical, so rational, that they fear that we even discuss this rationale? I would say to my colleague, there are troops at the border today, all along the border. Nobody stood up and protested the troops being placed at the border, and not one Member here protested the troops being at the border. Those troops are the Republic of Mexico's troops, Mr. Speaker. The Republic of Mexico saw the conditions along the border were getting out of control and that they needed to take some action. They took appropriate action. They were not racist, they were not anti-American, they were prolaw enforcement, and the troops at the border in Mexico are appropriate for the crisis that Mexico has recognized. We are not proposing that we put troops there today, but we do recognize and ask Members to recognize that the President may recognize in the future the need to have an extra reserve to address a crisis that is coming on faster than most of us in Washington want to admit. Mr. Speaker, I call on Members again, quit finding excuses for doing the right thing. Quit saying we do not want to have a fence, we do not want to have borders, we do not want to have this or that. Just do the right thing, enforce the law, and let us have safe borders, good fences, but large gates. Let us encourage the legal activity, discourage and stop the illegal activity; and let us learn, even from our friends from the south, that sometimes appropriate action means taking strong, firm action.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, a very moderate proposal, probably the most moderate proposal the gentleman from Ohio has ever presented while I have been on this floor. It does not say that we shall put troops at the border to secure our national frontiers like the Republic of Mexico has done. The Republic of Mexico has felt it is so important to fight the drug and the illegal activities along the border, they have placed their troops at the border. No, this proposal, Mr. Speaker, does not say that. This proposal is so moderate that it only says that if the administration feels it is absolutely essential to protect the sovereignty of the United States, to enforce its laws, to basically be able to secure our borders, then under their discretion, under the President's discretion and his administration, then they may if they want to use it. The gentleman from Ohio is not mandating any operations at any borders or any ports. He is authorizing that the President in his good judgment, if it is needed in a crisis, will have a resource available to him that Congress has ignored for too long. Mr. Speaker, let us ask the American people, is it so bad, is it so absurd to think that American troops that travel all around the world to defend the borders and the frontiers of many, many countries for decades, that are in foreign countries all over the globe today, is it so wrong to think that those same troops may, if the President thinks it is essential, have the right to defend the soil that they are born in and that the taxpayers of that soil are paying for their salaries? Is it so wrong to have American troops be authorized to defend their American soil? Mr. Speaker, I give you that. The gentleman from Ohio is not only moderate and reasonable, I think he is intelligent beyond the level that this House has been willing to accept in the past. Common sense says this moderate proposal is not only our right as a House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility of the representatives of the people that we say we represent. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow Californian, David F. ``Bud'' Wilson of Chula Vista, CA, who will be installed as president of the Nation's largest insurance association-- the Independent Insurance Agents of America [IIAA]--next month in Hawaii. Bud is chairman of the board of Wilson Insurance Agency, Inc., an independent insurance agency located in Chula Vista. Bud's career as an independent insurance agent has been marked with outstanding dedication to his clients, his community, IIAA, the State association--the Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West [IBA West]-- his colleagues and his profession. On the State level, Bud served IBA West on various committees and as president in 1981. From 1983-1986 he served as the IIABC representative on IIAA's board of State national directors. In 1987, Bud received the P.S.W. Ramsden Memorial Award, the highest honor bestowed by the California State association. Bud's love of politics and legislative affairs served him well during four highly successful years as chairman of IIAA's government affairs committee. In recognition of his outstanding work on behalf of all independent agents as government affairs committee chairman, Bud was bestowed IIAA's Sydney O. Smith Legislative Award in 1994. Bud was elected to IIAA's executive committee in 1994. In the time since, he has exhibited a spirit of dedication and concern for his 300,000 independent agent colleagues around the country. Bud's selfless attitude also extends to his involvement in Chula Vista-area community activities. He is past-president of the Chula Vista Rotary, the Chula Vista Jaycees, the Chula Vista Community Hospital Board of Trustees and the Chula Vista Salvation Army. He also has been involved in numerous other Chula Vista community projects. I have complete confidence that Bud will serve with distinction and provide strong leadership as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America over the next year. I wish him and his lovely wife, Sandra, all the best as IIAA president and first lady.