Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I would just like to congratulate you on explaining exactly what your legislation is focused on. You articulated the problem, the challenge, and it seems to me not only a very common- sense approach but a very, very compassionate approach to the issue. I think any American that thinks about hundreds of people coming to this country because one person was allowed in sort of boggles your mind saying why has not anybody brought this up before. I think that look at your diagram there, and the level of legal immigration you are proposing per person, based on family relations, is quite reasonable. I don't think any of us, especially those of us that are a family from immigrants, my mother came from Australia, could say that is an unreasonable and an unfair proposal and unrational proposal at this time. I really want to compliment you at actually addressing this issue, because we are talking about a lot of other difference issues. But this is one that is sort of below the radar, people aren't talking about, and I am glad you are able to bring it up. I think that is why our Wednesday evening reports to the American people on the status of immigration is so important. I want to thank you sincerely for bringing up this issue and for introducing this bill.

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me say this as a Republican. I think the American people will be so pleased if the Democratic majority would bring a bill forward that addresses the major source of illegal immigration, and that is illegal employment. If the Democrats were brave enough to just come forward, not with an amnesty that rewards illegals for being here, not pandering to the illegals and the whole industry that has been built up around that, but went and actually did a project that addressed the real source of illegal immigration; and that is, have a simple employer verification system and a crackdown on the people that are profiteering from illegal immigration, and that's the employers. IF the Democratic Party did that, I think the American people would embrace that. I think it's a real chance for them to show that they can get the job done and get this issue done that the Republicans didn't get done. You know, as an American, I think that is more important than Republicans having to take advantage of this issue. I just wouldn't be happy as an American to see the Democrats sit there and actually get the job done so I could join them, could vote with them at doing, actually getting the legislation through that the American people have been waiting for too long. I would sure love to be surprised, and I am sure the American people would love to see us working as Democrats and Republicans for America first, not our party first and our Nation second. I just tell you, I think that our grandchildren would be well served, because all of us, I know the three of us here, if it meant somebody on the Democratic side getting credit for it, then God bless them. What's important is that we leave an America for our grandchildren that is worth our grandchildren living in, and taking care of this problem is going to be part of the important part of doing that.

Mr. BILBRAY. I think the key is the fact that every legitimate employer wants to have a simple system that lets them know who is qualified to work and who is not. The employer doesn't want to be the person having to make that determination. We require every employer in this country now to get a Social Security number for their employee. All we are saying now, with the Silvestre Reyes-David Dreier bill, H.R. 98, is we will now give the employee a card to prove that it's their number, so that the employer, when they get this number, gets it from a card, doesn't just take somebody's word. It gives us, as legitimate citizens or legal residents, the ability to prove this really is our number, not 20 other people that are using that number somewhere else down the road. This issue of upgrading the Social Security card seems so simple. We haven't done this since the 1930s, though every driver's license from every State has been upgraded since then. Now that we have done the real ID bill, where we are requiring finally that driver's licenses be upgraded, isn't it appropriate that the Federal Government do the same thing with our card, our Social Security, to upgrade it to be as tamper-resistant as the new driver's license would be?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hour. I hope the people in Colorado enjoyed prime time back there.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to present our report to the American people on the status of the immigration issue tonight, and it is an honor to be able to welcome you to the Speaker's chair. As a new freshman, or as one of your first times up there, I want to congratulate you on your advent to service of the people of America as the acting Speaker tonight. Mr. Speaker, actually tonight we are talking about an issue that a lot of Americans have asked for a long time to be addressed, and that is the many different ways that we are encouraging illegal immigration. But actually tonight, we are to be talking about one of the items that originally was not intended to be one of immigration, it was one to be basically addressing national security and neighborhood security. For good reasons, Congress in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, have said that the movement of capital funds, of bank accounts, was a major issue in fighting things like drug trafficking, of terrorist activities and of other illegal activities to where the United States' Congress, with this support and the consent of the people of the United States, said that before somebody opens a bank account, before they start getting involved in business transactions with a lending institution, they need to show and prove who they are so we know who is moving this cash back and forth. The identification issue became critical to make sure that drug cartels and criminal elements and terrorist elements were not able to use our institutions of lending, of finance, as part of their terrorist and illegal activity. Sadly what has happened, though, is we passed a law that said everyone must be identified. There are lending institutions that have found ways to get around the law and say that if somebody is able to get a phony ID from a phony government document, we will look the other way and use that to be able to open bank accounts. A lot of this discussion is specifically about illegal immigrants being able to get these documents, because you have countries such as Mexico that are willing to give documents, ID documents to individuals without any proof of who they are. Thus, the document such as the consulate card from the Republic of Mexico isn't worth the paper it is written on. What has happened is these institutions, these American institutions, are actually participating in business transactions that they know violates the spirit of the law and accepts phony identification as a way to be able to engage in business that otherwise would be illegal for legal resident aliens and U.S. citizens to engage in, because the rest of us are required to show viable identification. At this time I have the privilege to recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee. At this time I would like to yield whatever time she may consume to Mrs. Blackburn.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady. Let me say at this time, it is my privilege to introduce the gentleman from Texas, who actually is a, in his previous life, was a judge who saw over 25,000 cases. So this is a man who knows a crime when he sees it. And at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from Texas pointed out a real issue here, and that is the special treatment being given to somebody who is being perceived to be legally in the country. If you are a resident, legal alien, if you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected by these institutions to show up with the proper documentation, viable ID to prove you are who you are. But under this misguided concept that if you are here illegally, we can't expect you to live up to the minimum standard that everyone legally is playing here, that we will accept this consular card, which, admittedly, is given without any documentation, without any verification, and could be used by drug cartels, could be used by terrorists, could be used by anyone as a way of hiding their identity. But because we perceive you may be illegally in the country, we will abandon all our standards that we apply to everyone else and allow you to have a special standard that does not hold you to the viable ID requirement. I just think that Americans across this country keep saying, how far off course can we go in America? And sadly, this is an issue that the Federal Government has been allowing to happen, that the administration has looked the other way on, and I think it is something that this administration has to address, this Congress has to address. And the American people need to call their Members of Congress and say, where do you stand on this issue of viable identification for the opening of financial arrangements? At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to be able to yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia, Virgil Goode.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia. Just to let you know, a lot of people might say, Mr. Speaker, how many illegal alien babies can be born in America, can it be that big a deal? Well, let me just say to the gentleman of Virginia, in my State of California, the cost of just giving birth to the children of illegal aliens every year is $400 million. That is just for the birth. Then the parents who are illegally in this country qualify to get welfare payments in the name of their children because we give them automatic citizenship, even though technically the parents are not totally subject to the jurisdiction as required by the 14th amendment. You can't draft them, you can't try them for treason. But $400 million just for the birth. And in fact, just the cost of the welfare, Mr. Speaker, paying for the children of illegals have gotten so big that even a great moderate like Arnold Schwarzenegger, our terminator, or what we call ``governorator'' has recognized that he wants to be able to provide health care to these children, he wants to be able to take care of the costs, but even he is proposing that we now have to cut off welfare payment to the children of illegal aliens at 5 years, not because he wants to cut it off, but because even the wealthiest State in this Union, California, can no longer afford to pay the benefits to illegal aliens that have been going on for so long. It has gotten that far. And I think anybody would recognize that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not exactly anti-immigrant. He is probably the flagship and the banner boy for the successful immigrant story. But even he has looked at the bottom line and said there is a place where you have got to be able to say enough is enough. How much are you going to take from the law- abiding citizens and the children of law-abiding citizens and shift it over and give it to people who have broken our laws? . I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for bringing that up. And all I have to say is a lot of people may talk about this issue of banks looking the other way and accepting these consular cards, even they are not viable because their argument is, but we are making money. This is America. We are supposed to be making money. This is breaking that fine line between legal and illegal. Those who make money legally are totally separate from those who are making it illegally. And the banks are saying we are getting away with it, so let us keep doing it. Mr. Speaker, I think you would admit, this is right where the issue of racketeering brought the Federal government in to address people who were into bootlegging, though they were making big money, people that were into prostitution, people that were in drug dealing, people that were involved in the labor market below fair market value. We have laws against racketeering, and these major banks are involved in racketeering. They are profiteering from illegal activity because they are willfully and openly encouraging people that are in violation of the law, working and making money in violation of our laws, and then taking that money and profiteering by cutting a deal with the illegal alien that we will let you be in our institution if we get a wink and a nod and we are able to get our pound of flesh out of it. So I think it is something we need to address. I appreciate the chance to be able to be here tonight with you. And Mr. Speaker, let me just say that American people may say they hear a lot about the problem of illegal immigration and what do we do about it, but not enough people talk about simple answers. And I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and everybody that wants to find a simple answer, it is not a Republican or Democrat problem, it is an American problem. And there were two great Americans, one was a Democrat, a former Border Patrol agent called Sylvester Reyes, another was the former chairman of Rules, now ranking member of Rules, a Republican from California named David Dreier, who sat down with the Border Patrol agents, the men and women that are tasked with taking care of the immigration issue. And they were asked, what is the one thing you would do if you had one law to take care of illegal immigration? And they didn't say be mean to anybody, all they said is give the American employer such a simple way as a tamper resistant Social Security card, one document, only one document to prove who is legal to work in the United States and who isn't. Make it so simple for an employer to know who is legal that there is no excuse for somebody to hire an illegal so the Border Patrol agents then can go in and really crack down on those who are hiring illegals. Because the employers who are knowingly hiring illegals cannot hide behind the guise of well, I am like the little guy who didn't understand, it will become so clear. So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do us the privilege of looking at H.R. 98. Sylvester Reyes is a very respected member of the Democratic Party, David Dreier is a very respected member of the Republican Party. This bill has had the support from members of the Hispanic Caucus and members of immigration groups. This is where Democrats and Republicans can work together, and I think it is a place that America expects us to work together. And I would ask anyone that is within the range of my voice, call their Member of Congress, call their Senator. Mr. Speaker, all they have to do is ask where the Member of Congress stands on H.R. 98, because this is where both Americans, Democrat and Republican, should be able to come together for the good of our future and for the future of our children and our grandchildren. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield back my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. I hope you enjoy your duration up there, as many years ago, it must have been 1995, I had the privilege of my first time in the chair. I hope you enjoy it as much, and I hope everybody at home is watching you in your day of glory. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that, Mr. King. At this time it is my privilege as the new chairman of the Congressional Immigration Caucus to actually recognize Congressman Nathan Deal of the great State of Georgia, who actually has agreed to serve as the subcommittee chairman on the Immigration Caucus for Birthright Citizenship. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you very much to Mr. Deal for taking a leadership role on this issue. It is quite appropriate you are pointing out how broad the problem is of this automatic citizenship given to people that have no obligations, no responsibilities, and are leveraging the fact that some people think that everyone born on U.S. soil somehow gets automatic citizenship. The fact is I think that the Korean parents are a good example. The subject to the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment does not only mean that you can be arrested. It means that you must, according to common law, be totally obligated. You must be able to be tried for treason and be forced into the military. Can you imagine if these terrorists from Korea were told, sorry, you are now going to be drafted into the United States Army? People would come unglued. They would say that is inhumane, that is outrageous, how can you do that. Well, it is just as outrageous to give automatic citizenship to the people that have no obligations and no responsibility to the Federal Government, to give them citizenship, as it is to require them to be tried for treason against the United States or to serve in the military when they are not, quote, unquote, subject to the jurisdiction in a manner that applies to the 14th amendment. This thing we have to understand, that rights and responsibilities come together, and as these legal Korean tourists come to our country, they have certain rights and certain responsibilities, but they do not have total responsibility, and thus they do not have birthright citizenship. I think that is a clause to get into. I just wish that the people who would be as outraged about us drafting a Korean tourist or trying them for treason will be just as outraged about the people leveraging and taking advantage of our hospitality and then trying to demand rights where the rights obviously do not exist historically or in fact. I appreciate the fact that you took a leadership role on this after I got my 5-year sabbatical that the voters gave me from Congress. You picked up the baby and actually carried it, and I really appreciate that and your leadership will be appreciated. It is astonishing that back in the 1990s when we first brought up this issue, some people were saying, well, what is this issue. But more and more when you go talk to the American people, they want to know what has kind of been tagged this, what they call it, ``anchor baby'' issue because they see this huge open door for abuse. In California alone, I want you to know and I just say this to the people, how big a problem, how big a price tag can automatic citizenship to foreign nationals and illegal aliens can be. How big can it be? Just in California, it costs the State of California to pay for the births of the children of illegal aliens $400 million a year, and that is a price tag to people who are illegally in the country. Let us face it, that $400 million could sure provide a lot of basic health care to legal Americans, both immigrants and U.S. citizens, that is being denied those people of need, while we accommodate those who have broken our laws and their families and encouraged them to emigrate. So I thank you very much for taking this leadership role, and I greatly appreciate the fact that Georgia is represented on the Immigration Caucus, and that is a great advantage for us. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to serve on the Immigration Caucus, and as someone who grew up on the Mexican border between San Diego and Tijuana, I saw this issue as it has evolved over the last 45 years. I grew up in an area where illegal immigration was just sort of a matter of fact. You saw people going north, and I got to tell you, as a young man, you never knew where they were going. They were all going to a place called L.A. or norte, norte, and you never understood what was the impact in the communities beyond the border. But, seriously, I think the one thing that I would ask those of you that live beyond the border, you do not see on the border, like those of us that grew up there, I happen to have had the privilege to serve as a life guard in a small community on the border called Imperial Beach. In that job, I had the experience of rescuing illegals when they were drowning in the Tijuana River. I recovered their bodies when they did not make it, and in the 1980s, some of you may not remember a thing called the bonsai charges, where the coyotes, the smugglers, would organize illegals into huge groups at the border and rush them up the freeway. I would just ask any of you to consider what your reaction would be if you were driving along at 65 miles an hour, 55, and you saw massive pedestrians running at you on the freeway in a manner that you do not have a chance to stop. Well, let me tell you something. After seeing what happens when somebody gets hit by a vehicle at 55, 60 miles an hour, I became committed as a member of the county board of supervisors in San Diego to finally say stand up and say this is wrong, this is immoral, this is outrageous. Americans should be ashamed that we do not control our frontier, that we do not guarantee our sovereignty on U.S. soil. And the immigration issue is an issue of sovereignty. It is a concept of protecting the land that our forefathers have given to us and also protecting those rights and those privileges that should and can be rendered to those who are citizens and legal residents. But, sadly, we have found excuses to look the other way. Be it political correctness or some sick concept that encouraging illegal activity somehow is going to be good for America, it is sad that we allow not only illegal immigration but all the illegal activity that happens along the border. I am really encouraged, though, to see colleagues like the gentleman from Georgia and Mr. King, people from the interior, that get it, that understand that the immigration problem is not something at the border that can only be addressed at the border, but is something that is in our neighborhoods every day; that it is on the street corners, we see it every day; and that the American people, though they have been ignored on this issue for too long, are saying we are going to hold both parties accountable if you do not address that. I think in all fairness, as a Republican, I think we can all agree that a degree of the problems in the last election was that voters did not believe Republicans were doing enough and are going to demand that Democrats and Republicans put their partisanship on the side and take care of this problem. I am glad to see the kind of general support that we have seen working on this issue and the community support on this; and at this time, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. King.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. King, first of all, I have to say I am so proud that you are our ranking member on the Immigration Committee. With you on that, leading the Republican side of that committee. Hopefully you will be able, and I know it is a tough sell; I am going to meet with your chairman and try to point out what is the obsession that the Senate and some Members of the House of Representatives have to give amnesty and reward 12 to 13 to 15 million people for breaking the law? Do they really think we can defend the concept, the rule of law, by having up to 60 million people in this country celebrating the fact that they are here because they broke the law? You know, I am thankful that I was able to listen to you tonight, because I keep saying, and I was saying to a couple of Senators this week, what is the obsession, what is the motivation for giving amnesty and rewarding people for breaking our laws? What message have you seen? What agenda are you fulfilling? What political group are you fulfilling? Now that you brought it up, you are right, you point out you gave amnesty to a group that originally was proposed to be 300,000, ended up with all the delays in the agenda to be 3 million; then you get all of their relatives coming in. This is the group that is lobbying and able to vote to encourage more people to come in, and this downward spiral has started. If we don't stop it now with the American people that really believe in the rule of law, that really believe in the concept of common decency that you do not punish somebody for waiting patiently to immigrate legally while you reward somebody who breaks the law, if we are not willing to stop this downward spiral now, it will continue to grow larger and faster down the line. I think the American people here know this is not a Republican or Democratic issue; this is an American issue. If anybody doesn't believe that the rule of law is important, I can take you to a lot of places I spent a lot of time in other countries where people can buy off the law by politics or by money. This amnesty, it just seems like the most un-American concept I heard. Let me tell you something, my son was sitting there, 19 or 20 years old, and he brought up the interesting issue, and I guess from the mouths of babes, he said, Dad, let me get this straight, Mr. Kennedy says that if you break the law for 5 years, you now get rewarded for it? Does this mean that if I am willing to testify that I have driven without a license for 5 years, I get a license for free? Because that is what people think they can do with immigration and make it work. It won't work with the traffic situation; it won't work with an immigration issue. I am glad you bring this up, and just seeing a self-made special interest group that is driving us toward an abyss of the destruction of the entire concept of what this greatest Republic we call the ``American experience.'' I yield to Mr. King. Mr. KING of IOWA. I thank the gentleman from California for adding to this subject matter in that way. A piece that I left out was that the 66.1 million that would have been legalized by the Senate version of amnesty last year happens to be, and I believe coincidentally, the sum total of all Americans who have immigrated into the United States and become naturalized, most through Ellis Island, but done so legally. We are talking about doing that in one fell swoop. So, in 1986 it was a 300,000, maybe a million number. That was a great big piece to try to swallow and get our brains around. In 1995, before the 1996 election, there was an accelerated effort, especially in California, to naturalize a million people so that they could go to the polls and vote in that Clinton/Gore election. And we all know where the incentive was, on which side of the aisle that was. That was perhaps 1 million in 1986. At most, it was 1 million in 1995 before the 1996 elections. That was an appalling number to think about a million people getting fast-tracked to citizenship or amnesty. And this is a time now we are seriously talking about 66 million people. Sixty-six times an amount that was too many in 1995, it was too many in 1986, it is absolutely too many today. There is another component of this, too, and that is that we know on the left, and I am going to say on the part of Democrats, they recognize that they are going to pick up about two out of every three immigrants that would have amnesty. They have a strong political motive that subordinates the United States, our Constitution, their oath of office, by the way. That is the incentive. It is a political incentive on the left hand side of the aisle. On the right hand side of the aisle we have elitists. They aren't all on the right hand side of the aisle; we have plenty of left-wing rich folks, too, that are capitalizing on cheap labor. They believe that they have some kind of birthright to always be hiring cheap labor and continue getting richer off the backs of the people they are hiring. Think of this kind of like a barbell. On the one side, the weights over here on the barbell are the liberals that get all the political power that comes from illegal immigration. On the other side there are probably about 2-1 Republican conservatives that get empowered by getting rich off of cheap labor. In the middle is the handle of the barbell, that is the middle class, the middle class that used to be an ever-broadening, an ever more prosperous middle class that now is losing its purchasing power and being narrowed by the greed of the people that are politically greedy on the one side, and economically greedy on the other side. I asked this question to the business community in America, because I know I will not convince the people on the other side of the aisle, where will you apply your trade once we have destroyed this America that is based upon the rule of law? I will yield back to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me say, what we are fighting for here is nothing short of the middle class. The fact is there are those on the left and the right that say we desperately need more poor people. You know why? It is because the major corporates want cheap labor on the right, and the left wants cheap votes. And they are willing to sell their children's birthright out, their grandchildren's future out just to be able to capitalize off of this illegal activity. At this time, I have the privilege of recognizing the gentleman from California who has agreed to be the subcommittee chairman on the Border Security Policy Committee team for the Immigration Caucus, Mr. Royce. Mr. Royce, I yield to you.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Royce. Seeing that you are the chairman of the Border Security subcommittee, it is good to hear today that the administration has found the money to finally fill in the border tunnels across our border. A lot of people when I say the fence isn't working, if the fence wasn't working, the cartels would not be spending millions of dollars trying to figure out how to tunnel under the fence.

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank you for that. Because before the fence, as somebody that grew up down there and watched this game being played, any criminal on either side of the border could jump across the border and avoid enforcement on the other. Even in Mexico, they had the area called the Zona Norte, the northern zone, and everyone knew that it was a criminal hideout because they could always jump onto the American side if the Mexican officials came. So this issue of creating a barrier is common sense and common decency. As Governor Ruffo of Baja, California, once said, he said something in Spanish and said in Mexico, we have a saying, Good fences make good neighbors. Frankly, I think those people that always attacked the concept of having secure borders should just listen to Ruffo's advice that common sense does go a long way. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that. The fact is most Americans may not understand that it is so out of control that they have had over 30 police officers murdered in Tijuana and over nine Federal prosecutors assassinated in Tijuana. In fact, it was so bad that the Mexican government 10 years ago sent their army to the American border. You hear an outcry here when we talk about the possibility of sending our troops or our National Guard down to the border. I wonder where these people are that are so outraged about America exercising our sovereignty, using our resources, when they ignored the fact that Mexico did the right thing by bringing their troops up. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your work on this and look forward to working with you. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about border control, but I want to make sure that the American people and everybody recognizes, in your district, the real problem exists that those who hire illegals are the ones who are creating the number one source of illegal immigration. When we talk about the violence at the border, when we talk about people dying, drowning at the border trying to come into this country illegally, the people that are at fault for that are those employers who provide the incentive for people to break our immigration laws and those who are profiteering off illegal immigration, and that is the illegal employers. I would ask you and I would ask every Member of Congress and I would ask everyone who is listening across the United States to take a look at H.R. 98 which is a bill that Silvestre Reyes, a very respected Democrat from El Paso, who is a former Border Patrol agent, and David Dreier, a Republican, former chairman of the Rules Committee, put together working with the men and women who actually have to control our frontier and control immigration, the immigration agents themselves. They put together a bill called H.R. 98, and it is so simple that there is no excuse for anybody not to support it, unless they think that there is an advantage to encourage illegal immigration. In this bill, it says one thing. It says, let's get rid of the 37 different documents that anybody can prove they are legal to be in the country to work. Let's go down to one simple document, a tamper- resistant Social Security card to allow Americans and foreign nationals alike to prove that a Social Security number that they are required by law to provide for employment is actually their number and not one that they have taken or 20 of their buddies have taken from somebody else and are using because they have stolen a Social Security number. One document for any employer to know to check, to be able to verify electronically that whoever is in front of them is qualified to work in the United States. Because it is essential that we give employers a simple, verifiable way of knowing who is legal and who is not legal so that we can do what I think Democrats and Republicans who really care about America can do together and, that is, crack down on the employers who knowingly hire illegals. We all know who they are, we know where they are, and we need to eliminate the excuse for hiring illegals. We need to start cracking down on that. I just ask that when we get into this issue, let's not talk about amnesty, let's not talk about excuses for rewarding people for illegal immigration, let's talk about working together and cracking down on the illegal employers, making it clear that if you want to come to this country and work, then you come here legally, you play by the rules, you get rewarded for that. So, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people may not know, but I am privileged to have a mother who is a legal immigrant who came back to this country back in the 1940s. And as she reminds me so often, everyone who rewards illegal immigration is insulting those immigrants who came here and played by the rules. Anybody who talks about giving amnesty or any reward to those who have violated our immigration law is insulting the hard work, the patience, and the perseverance to be a legal immigrant and everyone who has played by the rules and stayed within the law. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say tonight that every Wednesday night we are going to try as the Immigration Caucus to give a report to the American people about what is going on with the immigration issue. It is something that politicians have ignored for too long, but it is something that the American people are demanding that we finally address if we want to stay in this city representing the people. So tonight I appreciate the time to be able to address this issue. 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, in the 230-year history of our country, the United States has fought in conflicts both at home and abroad that have tested the resolve and unity of the American people. During that time, the purview of the Commander in Chief has justly been scrutinized and questioned. These debates are a part of our past and will be a part of our future as long as we send our men and women into battlefields to fight for our country. Today's debate is no exception. The question we must answer for ourselves is a fundamental one that speaks not to our approval of the War in Iraq but rather to our commitment to the men and women fighting this war. It is a commitment we must reaffirm without question or doubt. With commitment and unity. Now it seems to me that we have two courses of action we can take regarding the War in Iraq. We can pull our troops out immediately and leave the stability of the region up to an increasingly violent insurgency, thereby admitting defeat, or we can send in further reinforcements to work with Iraqi Security Forces to seize control of their country. We can all agree that a change in the status quo must be made. With an increased level of violence between Sunni and Shia insurgent groups, an escalating cost, and the loss of American lives, it is imperative that we have a legitimate and substantive debate on the direction of this war. However, if we are to succeed in Iraq and complete the mission, then the United States House of Representatives should not waste its time debating a nonbinding resolution criticizing the Commander in Chief. This resolution offers no real policy alternatives for Iraq and does not bring our men and women home any sooner. It is a political shot aimed at the President, but it is really our troops who suffer most from these grandstanding tactics. I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital to hear from the wounded who have been to Iraq and sacrificed so much for their country. I talked to a wounded soldier who had a bone infection that prohibited him from returning to Iraq. He was not concerned about his physical well-being but instead he was upset that he could not go to finish the job that he had started. His feelings reflected the thoughts of many of the soldiers that I had the privilege to sit and talk with that day. The fact is we face a moment of unparalleled opportunity to, in voice, in one vote, fulfill our promise to our troops--the promise that we will give them the resources, the armor, the manpower and reinforcements they need so that they may safely and effectively win the War on Terror and come back home.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am privileged to yield to the second best surfer in Congress, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of the great State of California, and I yield to him whatever time he may consume.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California. And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina. And at this time I yield to the gentleman from the Volunteer State, the great State of Tennessee, Chattanooga's favorite son, Congressman Wamp.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be able to present this issue before this body. I think that, as the Congressional Immigration Caucus has pointed out, there is an issue here that obviously the American people are interested in and we were able to present tonight. I just have to close with a few comments. One is the fact that the White House has discussed that there are procedures they have to go through. I think it is quite clear to anyone who reads the Constitution that the White House, the President, does not have to go through any procedure except to the decide either to pardon or not to pardon. We hear a lot over the years of Executive privilege. Executive privilege. And every White House since George Washington has loved to discuss the concept of Executive privilege. But with that privilege goes Executive responsibility. And the White House bears the responsibility and the sole responsibility to issue pardons where there has been a miscarriage of justice. And I think the consensus is among many of us that this is exactly the kind of situation that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they proposed that the Executive and only the Executive would have this power, and this unencumbered power, separate from other procedures, to be able to right a wrong when the justice system has failed. I think that this is a chance that we can talk about. But the thing that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, as being a Member who was born and raised on the border, I think that what has happened in Texas with this case reflects the total lack of understanding of just how out of control our borders are. I hear people again and again in the Federal Government say that there are not the resources down at the border to be able to enforce the laws against drug smugglers, that there just isn't enough money and manpower to be able to address the problem, that we must allow these people to go free. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was enough money to go down into Mexico, find a drug smuggler, negotiate a back-room deal with this drug smuggler, bring the drug smuggler back, and give them amnesty not just once but twice, if there were enough resources to cut this kind of deal and make this kind of effort to make sure that two Border Patrol agents get convicted, my God, aren't there enough resources to use the same effort to go after the drug smugglers? And I really ask that we consider that. I would just like to say that tonight we were able to spend almost an hour discussing an issue that is very near and dear to those who are concerned about the fact that our borders are out of control, that this incident happened in an area where Border Patrol agents had a firefight with smugglers with automatic weapons a few months ago, if you remember. And we wanted to remind the American people how out of control and absurd the situation has become in a lot of ways. We hope, as the Congressional Immigration Caucus, Mr. Speaker, that over the next few months that Wednesday night will be spent as a night where those of us who are concerned about the illegal immigration issue and the out-of-control border will spend an hour every Wednesday night reporting to the American people of what is going on, on this most critical issue that Democrats and Republicans both care about. If there was ever a situation and ever an issue where partisanship should be put aside and being an American should be first, it is time that we find a way to work together on the immigration issue. I call on you and everyone that has the honor of working in this House of the people to join together to address that. I invite you and every Member of the House to join the Immigration Caucus, so that we can work together for the good of all Americans.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. As you know, my constituents have been directly impacted by the very issue we are voting on today. The previous Congressman from my great Congressional district, Randy Cunningham, used this Chamber and his position to line his pockets with bribe money from lobbyists. He violated the trust of his constituents and his colleagues with his behavior, tarnishing this institution. Unfortunately, the taxpayers will be forced to pay a sizeable pension to him every year. I think this legislation is an important first step in denying pensions to Members of Congress who abuse the trust of the people. However, I want to note that this legislation did not go far enough. First, it has a 2-year implementation window, which would allow any Member convicted over the next two years to maintain their pension. I think this is the wrong message to send. If it was constitutional, I would support retroactively taking away the pensions of convicted felons such as Dan Rostenkowski and Randy Cunningham. Additionally, I think H.R. 476 does not go far enough in detailing the types of crimes that would trigger these provisions. That is why I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 14, sponsored by Congressman Mark Kirk. His legislation, the Congressional Integrity Act, would deny a Congressional pension to any Member convicted, and denied a final appeal, for a much more expansive number of crimes directly related to the official duties of a Member of Congress. This legislation is long overdue. I was proud to support a similar measure, H.R. 4011, in the 104th Congress along with many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and our former Speaker Dennis Hastert. I call on Speaker Pelosi to widen the scope of this legislation to help us regain the trust of the American people and withhold the pensions of those who violated that trust. Furthermore, I call on Speaker Pelosi to consider important legislation to develop stricter, more transparent regulations on pork- barrel spending, also known as ``airdropped'' earmarking. I was proud to introduce legislation that would ban the practice of slipping earmarks into Conference reports that have not been approved by either the House or the Senate previously. These items do not have the benefit of being debated in Committee or on the floor of the House of Representatives. By requiring the Conference Committees to only consider items that were passed by one of the Chambers; we can ensure that all projects were examined in the light of day, not the backrooms of Congress. I ask for consideration of this important provision.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. Make no mistake; H.R. 5 is a bad bill which does not live up to its title. In fact, this legislation provides no assistance to help future and current students attend college. Instead of helping increase attendance, this legislation seeks to reduce interest rates for those making payments on their student loans. This is a worthy goal. But this legislation accomplishes this by taxing private lenders, ultimately reducing the number of lenders willing to participate in the student loan program. H.R. 5 provides a short-term reduction in interest rates for students who received federally guaranteed subsidized loans while they were attending college. In order to pay for this required rate reduction, this legislation forces private lenders to reduce their rates below market value. Additionally, this legislation doubles the tax imposed on these lenders by increasing the lender origination fee from .05 percent to 1 percent. Over the course of this debate we have heard stories from Members of Congress about how the ability to go to school greatly added to their quality of life. I agree wholeheartedly that there are numerous benefits to attending college. However, not one of those Members of Congress would have had greater access to college if H.R. 5 had been in effect when they were undergraduates, because this bill does nothing for aspiring students. Finally, I think it is important to note that we have a very competitive private marketplace providing student loans. When the government places mandates reducing their ability to compete--we all lose by driving competitors out of the marketplace. H.R. 5 directly targets the Federal family education Loan industry, dealing a devastating blow to the industry that has helped millions of students go to college. I urge my colleagues. to oppose this legislation and work toward a bill that will actually help college students realize their goals of furthering their education.