John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Speaker Denny Hastert for coming to Texas this weekend to look at the situation on the Texas border and bringing a bipartisan delegation with him. The information that he received I think is invaluable for this House. I am proud of the fact that our Speaker goes out and goes to the areas where the crises are so that he can have a good view of what is going on. He was a great leader there. He was able to get information from these folks that showed that the borders have got to be defended and defended now. I am grateful for his attendance in Texas, and I am sure Arizona is, also.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Hazil Mohsen Shalesh, no longer a threat to the United States. Amir Saleh Ismael, no longer a threat to the United States. Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, no longer a threat to the United States. Hamdi Tantawi, no longer a threat to the United States. Majid Abdul Hameed Kazim, no longer a threat to the United States. Ahmed Qumra Isaa, no longer a threat to the United States. Arkan Jawad Jari, no longer a threat to the United States. Abdul Aziz Sa'dun Ahmed Hamduni aka Abu Ahmed, no longer a threat to the United States. Ammar Abu Bara, no longer a threat to the United States. Muthana Kahdum Al Madawwere, no longer a threat to the United States. Omar Sayel, no longer a threat to the United States. Yasser Fathi Ibrahim, no longer a threat to the United States. Muawiyah Muhanna, no longer a threat to the United States. Ahmed Mohammed Ali Ayed, no longer a threat to the United States. Jamil Mohammed Kutkut, no longer a threat to the United States. Ibrahim Ahmed Abdel Majeed Al Reemy, no longer a threat to the United States. Thamer Khamis Abdel Aziz Al Khamis, no longer a threat to the United States. Salem Saad Salem bin Soued, no longer a threat to the United States. Saud Abdullah Al Jadhii, no longer a threat to the United States. Harbi Khudair Hamudi, no longer a threat to the United States. Abed Sattar, no longer a threat to the United States. Karem Abed Ibrahim, no longer a threat to the United States. Adel Mujtaba aka Abu Rim, no longer a threat to the United States. Hazif Sattar, no longer a threat to the United States. Haidar Abu Bawari, no longer a threat to the United States. Salah Suleiman Loheibi, no longer a threat to the United States. Anad Mohammed Qais, no longer a threat to the United States. Sami Ali Faidy, no longer a threat to the United States. Abu Omar al-Kurdi, no longer a threat to the United States. Fares Younis, no longer a threat to the United States. Sheikh Yusef, no longer a threat to the United States. Nidal Arabiyat Agha Hamza, no longer a threat to the United States. Mullah Noor Mohammed, no longer a threat to the United States. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, no longer a threat to the United States. Muhammad Hamza al-Zubadyi, no longer a threat to the United States. Taha Yasin Ramadan al-Jizrawi, no longer a threat to the United States. Zuhayr Talib Abd al-Sattar al-Naqib, no longer a threat to the United States. Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, no longer a threat to the United States. Abd al Tawab Mullah Huwaysh, no longer a threat to the United States. Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, no longer a threat to the United States. Qusay Hussein, no longer a threat to the United States. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, no longer a threat to the United States. Uday Hussein, no longer a threat to the United States. Saddam Hussein, no longer a threat to the United States. Abu Zubaydah, no longer a threat to the United States. Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, no longer a threat to the United States. Ali Asad Chandia, no longer a threat to the United States.

Mr. CARTER. Mulvi Nida Mohammed, no longer a threat to the United States. Ahmadullah, no longer a threat to the United States. Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, no longer a threat to the United States. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, no longer a threat to the United States. Abu Faraj al-Libbi, no longer a threat to the United States. Patrick Abraham, no longer a threat to the United States. Mir Aimal Kansi, no longer a threat to the United States. Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, no longer a threat to the United States. Jose Padilla, no longer a threat to the United States. Rotschild Augustine, no longer a threat to the United States. Naudimar Herrera, no longer a threat to the United States. Lyglenson Lemorin, no longer a threat to the United States.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. We have now made 38. Mr. Speaker, anywhere in the world today you can wake somebody up in the middle of the night, you pick them, and you say, excuse me, wake up just a second. What is a marriage? They will say a union between a man and a woman. This is a confused world that we are trying to define here. The reality is marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Now, in China they might say a civil union. In Rome they might say a church union, but it has always been a union between a man and a woman. In my faith, I believe it is part of God's plan for the future of mankind. The sacredness of a marriage is based, to this Nation, and, quite frankly, every Nation on Earth, it is how the base governing we have in our lives starts. Mr. Speaker, that is why this should be a part of the United States Constitution. When activist judges would go try to change the real world, it is our job to step up and stand up for the moral values of this Nation. This is why I support this rule, and I support the legislation and the constitutional amendment to follow.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I was off the Capitol Hill complex when votes were called and was stuck in traffic, which caused me to miss the first vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this House about an issue that, at least as I travel around my district, as I travel around my State, is one of the defining issues of our time, and that is the issue which we are hearing about every day: What are we going to do about the immigration policy and the immigration influx into this country? I thought I would come down here today and see if we could not analyze this the way we sort of like to analyze evidence as we do in the courtroom. We need to take a look at what is the problem that brings us to this point that we have to address this thing, and I would propose first and foremost we need to look at the big problem and decide where is the crisis today as we stand here on this floor on July 12. Where would the American public define the crisis to be as we deal with people who are coming into this country from other countries? And when I say other countries, I mean many, many other countries but predominantly I am addressing today the crossing of our southern border out of Mexico. Where are we concerned and why are we concerned? Many people say, let us look at the big picture of this issue, which is that we have an estimate that is somewhere between 12 million and 15 million people that have come into this country since we granted amnesty back in 1986 or 1987 under the Reagan administration and opened the doors to the people who are here and gave them a fast track to American citizenship. We then said that we would go to the border and protect our borders and crack down on those people who would offer employment to folks who wanted to come in here illegally and we would prevent that. Mr. Speaker, the number, and whatever it may be but it is in the millions, clearly above 10 million and less than 20 million by most estimates, that are here in this country, as some like to say hiding in the shadows of our economy today, they are here. Now, why are they here? Did we enforce the border? No. Did we crack down on employers that were employing these people? No. Did we do what we promised the American people we would do when we basically granted amnesty to 3 million people back in the 1980s? And that 3 million, by the way, grew in great proportion, because when those people received amnesty they were also able to bring in their families, their children and their wives and their extended families, until that number grew to substantially more than what was estimated. We will not go into that today, but did we do our job? Did we, as Democrats for a long time and as Republicans for a long time, did we do our job? I submit to you that the evidence shows we did not. And because the great prize of being forgiven of your sins, if you will, was granted in the 1980s, millions more came. So is that the crisis? Those people, are they the crisis that have people so concerned across the country today? It is of interest. People are somewhat concerned, but I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is not the crisis that people are concerned about and that is on their minds when they sit down to breakfast in the morning or when they talk to their families at night or when they visit with their neighbors or when they go out in public. That is not the concern. The concern is that border and those people coming across. Mr. Speaker, we hear from people in this country, and there is certainly a valid economic argument for it, that we need these folks to come in here and take the jobs that Americans don't want. And there is some validity to that argument. There is some validity to many of these diligent hardworking people who have come to this country to take really tough jobs out there, working in the heat in Texas in the summertime, which is, believe me, having done it, it is a hard job. No matter where you are, if you are out digging post holes, laying asphalt, or putting a roof on in Texas, you are earning your pay. It is hot, tiring, almost thankless work. So we say we need these folks to build those fences, put those roofs down, and lay that asphalt. We need them. We have to have them. And there are those who can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for it. But is that the crisis that people are worried about in this country? Is that what people, your neighbors, are visiting with you about? Is that what you are talking about when you gather in your community: Oh, we have such a shortage of workers here. We have so many jobs that people are not doing. We are just really in such desperate need of help, it is a crisis in our country. Mr. Speaker, I would also submit that is not the crisis that the American people are concerned about. So then let's examine this picture further. Let's say, well, the statistics seem to show us that pretty regularly 1,000 people cross the Mexican-U.S. border into the United States every single day. That probably on many days is a very conservative estimate, but the average that both the Border Patrol and those who are down there that are trying to determine what is happening, that is pretty much what everybody agrees to, that at least 1,000 people a day are crossing our border, at least 30,000 to 31,000 people a month are crossing this border, or 365,000 people a year are crossing the southern border of the United States into our country. And they are doing it, Mr. Speaker, no matter what you want to call it, they are doing it illegally. The law says you can't do that, that it is against the law. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but it is breaking the laws of these United States, and these people are coming in at least in those numbers. And in addition to those people, or as a part of those people, who else is coming across our southern borders? Do we know? Well, we know a little bit. We know that last year we caught 68,000 what we call OTMs. Those are people that are ``other than Mexicans.'' And that is a term that has been adopted to define people from any other country but Mexico that have been caught and apprehended crossing our southern border. The Border Patrol and the immigration authorities have determined to call them OTMs, ``other than Mexicans.'' We have heard in testimony at hearings, just as recently as last week, that 30,000 Brazilians were shipped home a short time ago; that people from the Middle East, people from China, people from all over the Southern hemisphere have come into this country illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that that is the crisis. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that when people discuss what they are very concerned about, what they think has the potential to change their lives, to threaten their lives, it is who is coming across our southern border in these huge volumes. That is what the American people see as a crisis. Now, we are called upon, as we look at what is going on here in Congress, we are called upon to address these issues, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are called upon to do is to address the crisis first. I have used this example before, but if a series of wreck victims is brought in from a car wreck out on the highway outside of Washington, DC, today, and brought into the emergency room of the hospital, and we have one man who has a broken arm and we have one man who is skinned up because he slid on the pavement and maybe he has a broken hand and maybe a sore back, and then we have one man who has arterial bleeding from the throat, where is the crisis? The man with the arterial bleeding from the throat is going to bleed out and die in seconds if the emergency room does not immediately go and stop the bleeding where it is occurring because it doesn't take long for the heart to pump the body dry out of a main artery. Of course, our well- trained medical professionals in this country would recognize to go to the crisis and meet the crisis where the bleeding is. The bleeding, Mr. Speaker, is at the border. That is where the bleeding is. We have to do what we have to do to address how to stop the bleeding on the issue of immigration. Right now we have two bills that are about to be discussed in conference committee that supposedly the two Houses of Congress are looking at what is important to take care of so that we can start down the road of having a responsible immigration process. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that after three trips to the border in the last 9 months, I am absolutely convinced that not only is the need most important that we secure our borders, but what the American people want us to do is secure our sovereignty and our borders, both on the southern border and the northern border of these United States, but the bleeding right now and the numbers coming across are clearly in the south. I think the bill which has passed the House of Representatives is a bill that deals with the issue that is in crisis in America today on the issue of immigration. And I am going to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if any of our Members, and many of them have, and so I want to praise them for doing so, but if any of them will travel to the border towns of Texas, and I would highly recommend a trip to Laredo, Texas, or El Paso, Texas, or Del Rio, Texas, or Brownsville, Texas, or McAllen, Texas, or any of the other border crossings, but this day I recommend Laredo, Texas, and if you are not frightened about what you learn from the Nuevo Laredo citizens and from the Border Patrol immigration and ICE as to what is going on in Laredo, Mexico today, then your wood is mighty wet because you just don't see it. The fact is there is a drug war raging in Nuevo Laredo. That is a cartel war going on with people firing automatic weapons at both civilians and members of the police force and the army in Mexico right across the Texas border. Live fire is received across the Texas border constantly. Ask the Border Patrol, they will tell you about it. They know about it. Congressman John Culberson and I were there, with our colleague Mr. Cuellar, visiting on the southern border. John was walking out on the bridge and his foot slipped on something on the international bridge, a bridge, by the way, that being a native Texan who spent at least 45 years of his life in the central Texas area, I have crossed as many times as there are Members of the House of Representatives I would certainly venture to say, because I have a great love for the country of Mexico. I have visited Nuevo Laredo on numerous occasions. I have taken my wife Erica, my mother-in-law and father-in-law from the Netherlands, German visitors that have visited us from Germany, my wife's nieces and nephews from Germany, I have taken all these people across that border to have a good meal, to go shopping for souvenirs from Mexico, which are very, very cherished in Europe, and enjoyed a camaraderie with the Mexican people that was wonderful. It was a good place to take people to show them the fellowship between Texas and Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't recommend anybody crossing that international bridge today. Not one soul. Because what John Culberson stepped on on that bridge was a spent round of a nine millimeter automatic weapon that had been fired at our Border Patrol. Not because they were shooting at them, just because they were shooting in that direction. It had pock marks, where we could see on the international bridge that it had ricocheted off and ended up on the ground, and Mr. Culberson stepped on it. Mr. Culberson can show you that spent round, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you have seen it. We asked the Border Patrol, what's this? Oh, that is a 9 millimeter. About 3 days ago they kind of sprayed the bridge a little bit. It happens a lot. We kind of just duck and then keep the traffic moving. What kind of world are those people living in there? And then that night and every night before and every night thereafter, 1,000 breakers of the law cross that international line from San Diego to Brownsville and break the laws of the United States. Mr. Speaker, as we analyze the evidence here, it is pretty clear. We have a crisis on our southern border. Now, how are we going to deal with that crisis? The House bill says, let's go and target sealing up our borders as best we can. Nobody in their right mind who has ever been to south Texas or west Texas and seen those miles and miles of Texas that we are all so proud of, they all know it is going to be a tough job to secure Texas borders alone. And Arizona is just the same desert. It is the same wide-open country. And God bless Arizona and New Mexico and California, they don't have the ankle-deep Rio Grande to protect their borders. All they have is a barbed wire fence. So it is not an easy job for us to secure that border. But, Mr. Speaker, we have the technology and the know how. We have the people who can do the job. If we provide the resources, we can make it much more secure and move towards making it secure so those law- breakers who want to enter our country find it very difficult to enter our country. They find themselves being detained, being deported. Those people who come into this country from other countries find themselves not with a get-out-of-jail-free pass as they can wander among the populace of the United States as it used to be with our catch-and-release program, but under the House bill we would detain these people, these OTMs coming into this country. The Mexicans we would take back to Mexico and we would enforce the law. The people say to me in my district, when we start talking about immigration, at least 20 percent of the questions I have in my town hall meetings are, What's wrong with enforcing the laws we already have? I can't say a word because I agree with them. I agreed with them when I sat on the bench as a district judge and we would call Immigration to ask them to come pick up people who were clearly illegally in this country and have reluctance to do so. I saw it with a number of our people sitting in our jails in Williamson County, Texas, who were illegal aliens, taking up jail space that our taxpayers are spending good, hard-earned dollars for. I saw them at the emergency rooms in our little local hospitals and in our big metropolitan hospitals, overwhelming our medical system; and we could not get the response we needed. We have neglected our job, and now the House is saying we are ready to get the job done and we are submitting the resources and the ideas and the manpower and the technology to the Border Patrol and those agencies, including our Texas sheriffs and other law enforcement people in Texas and Arizona and New Mexico and California, so we can start to meet the crisis at the border and stop the bleeding. That is what our House plan says. And it says, this is a start. We will back this up with action. We will do the job and we will support the laws that exist, and we will make better laws on the books. Now the Senate has another plan. The Senate sees all those things that I listed in our evidence that we were looking at as to what is the crisis in immigration. The Senate is sitting there saying, We have to address all of them. In fact, they seem to be more interested in those things that our evidence shows are not bleeding than they seem to be interested in where the bleeding is at the border. Now, they have some things in what I would like to call the Reid- Kennedy bill, and I will explain that in a minute, but the bill that came out of the Senate. What they have done, they have some border enforcement provisions. I don't want to deny that. But they spend a lot of time trying to deal with what are we going to do with these people that are here, that are already here illegally, and what are we going to do about a work program. So they come up with a convoluted plan that, I am going to title part of this plan as the ``illegal document industries job security plan,'' all right, because one of the things we know, and I know that the Speaker knows this from his past experience, and others know, that most of the people, in fact, all of the people who are illegal aliens working in the United States, our employers 90 percent of the time are making sure that they have some documentation to show at least on their books that that person is legally in the country. And they are taking this documentation and putting it into files. But there is a real, solid industry along the borders of the United States producing false documents, false Social Security cards, false driver's licenses, false pay stubs, pretty much anything you want. It is interesting to note that part of that industry grew up and got its birth out of what, out of amnesty in the 1980s because it took some documentation to show that you had been in this country for awhile so we could give you that fast track to citizenship. So those people who came over last night were quickly out there looking for somebody to mass produce for them documents to show they have been here for a period of time. Now the Senate gives us a plan that says if you have been here so many years, you have to do this. So many other years, you have to do this, but you are on track for citizenship; and if you have been here 10 years or whatever their number is, you are in line, but you are behind everybody else. But you are in line for citizenship. We are going to require proof that you have been here that period of time, and the illegal document printing presses are rolling today in anticipation of the Reid-Kennedy bill, and it is now approaching a several million dollar industry. These poor people who came here to work are paying sometimes a month's pay just to get a false Social Security card or get a false document showing that you have been here for a certain period of time to meet this deadline. Or here are 20 paychecks dating back 10 years so you get in that other good line so you can become an American citizen. This provision of the Senate bill is a Federal Government boost to an illegal industry producing illegal documentation for the United States. Mr. Speaker, why do we know that? Because we have experience to prove it. The few cases that have been prosecuted, we find all kinds of fraud and illegal documentation on Social Security cards. Something that is interesting in my district, I have a lady who got a call from the IRS. I am going to say something on this. I am going to say the IRS seems to be doing at least some thinking outside of the box. The Social Security system, obviously everything must be computerized because there don't seem to be any human beings with common sense in the Social Security system. If you have a Social Security card, and I heard a number today of the billions of dollars of money that comes into Social Security, and everybody says it is all on ten Social Security cards and it is coming from 100 different sources on one Social Security card. They know it is there. They say, Hmmm, that's interesting. But I have a lady in my district who gets a call from the IRS. They said we looked at your last tax return and we show three sources of unreported income for you that you did not declare on your tax return. She said that is impossible because I am a stay-at-home mother and wife. My husband is the only source of income in our family. The IRS said, No, ma'am, according to our records you have three jobs in Arkansas working in chicken processing plants in three different cities. You would think that the man would realize just by his very statement that didn't make any sense. She said, How can I work in three different cities in three different processing plants every day? How would that work? He said, Yes, I guess that is right. Maybe we better take a look at this. It looks like somebody is using your Social Security number. They tracked down that Social Security number. A little stink was raised to try to get it done. Guess what. Not only did these three people have that Social Security number, but, lo and behold, they had gotten a valid copy of a Texas birth certificate to go along with it because as it turns out, all it takes to get your birth certificate is a Social Security number. So these people have been running up her income and reporting it on that Social Security number by the employers, and they thought they were going to hold her responsible for that income. Mr. Speaker, that kind of false documentation is all over America today. So the Senate in that one section is creating, I would argue, another illegal industry in this country. Mr. Speaker, I have a background, and many of you in the House know, and I know you know this, Mr. Speaker, I spent 20 years as a judge on the bench in what I would argue, and you won't get much argument back in Texas, in the toughest county in the State on criminals. I spent 20 years putting people in prison for illegal behavior. We have prosecutors who do their jobs. We have law enforcement officers who do their jobs, and we have judges and juries who tell people: You do crime, and you do time in Williamson County, Texas. This is the world I grew up in, and it is the world I believe in, and it is the reason that today and for the last 10 to 12 years at least that I know of, the lowest crime rate in the State of Texas was in Williamson County, Texas. It is because criminals knew if you want to go into the criminal business, find some other county because in Williamson County, the cost of doing business is high. And I am proud to say my colleagues that were on the bench with me are maintaining that kind of standard in Texas today. But why do we do that? Because we want the citizens of our county and I want the citizens of my entire district to feel like they live and raise their children and go to work in a safe community, a community that respects the rule of law and does not tolerate unlawful behavior. And yet we have created an immigration system that for the vast, vast majority of people coming into this country, they are coming in illegally. There are good, hardworking, honest people who are doing it right to come into the United States. We are that beacon of freedom, liberty and opportunity. We are the same beacon we have always been. But the difference is, these people wait in line. If you are from the Philippines, they tell me you wait 16 years to come into the United States. It took my district director 18 months to bring his wife and two children. His wife was educated at the University of Texas in El Paso. To bring them in from Canada, he did it legally, and it took 18 months; the woman never even had a parking ticket. So there are honest, hardworking people that are doing it the right way, and those are the immigrants that we reference when we say: We are a nation of immigrants. That is right, we are a nation of immigrants that came here legally and came here to be Americans and to be part of America and to contribute to America and to learn to be part of our society. They didn't come in to live in the shadows of our Nation. That's the kind of immigrants we need to encourage. But our system now is so overwhelming that it is 50-to-1 illegal-to-legal people coming into this country today. Some of the other interesting things that the bill will do, the amnesty part of the bill that the Senate has passed, as a result of the amnesty provisions they have created, over 60 million new immigrants will be allowed in this country over the next 20 years. Do we need 60 million new people? I don't know, but it is an overwhelming number. Mexico, under the Senate bill, would have to be consulted before we built any barriers on our borders, protecting our sovereignty. We have to call up the President of Mexico and say, Excuse me, we are thinking about building a fence. We are thinking about building a wall. We are thinking about building barriers where you can't drive your vehicles loaded with dope across our border. Would that be okay? Oh, it's not? Sorry. We will call you later. What kind of thinking is that, Mr. Speaker? And then, you know, whether you believe the rhetoric that went on in the Social Security system argument that took place in this House a year ago or not, all logical thinking people will tell you our Social Security system has got some real problems meeting its obligations. Once the baby boomers are in the system it is going to be a problem. But the Senate doesn't see a problem because they are wanting to guarantee Social Security benefits would be provided to illegal immigrants. For the time they were in this country illegally we are going to give them Social Security benefits in this country. I hope the teachers back in Texas who don't get their Social Security benefits, and should, are hearing this message, that the Reid-Kennedy bill thinks they should have Social Security benefits, but unfortunately, Texas teachers don't get it. Also, I happen to have been blessed with four beautiful children and I am real proud of them. But when you get ready to send them to college you have got to be proud of them because they cost a lot of money, okay? And my wife and I can testify that sending four kids to college is one of the great experiences of life. Of course it is not going to be too bad an experience for illegal immigrants because rather than being out-of-state tuition payers like anybody from any other State or country that would come into this country, oh, no, the bill will guarantee them in-state tuition. And believe me, in Texas the difference between in-state and out of state, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is a substantial plus for these illegal immigrants, these people who broke the law. Some of them crossed that border, Mr. Speaker, 10 or 15 times before they dodged that Border Patrol. You know, you meet with those Border Patrolmen out there in the bushes and you talk to those guys and when you get them to kind of open up with you, they say, you know, kind of one of the frustrating things is some of these guys I know them by their first name. I catch these guys every other day until they finally slip past me. I know who their kids are just about, I have visited with them so much. But they ultimately get by and they ultimately get in, and then we don't find them. And I am just touching on a few points. So we are also going to create a worker program under the Senate bill to bring people in here. So let's see, we are going to deal with, somehow deal with the citizenship aspect of 12 to 15 million people who are already here. Then we are going to have a program that is going to bring in, I don't know the number, 250, 300,000 a year under a work program. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, and I know you have experienced this in your part of the country too and your part of the State. People who are waiting to do this thing legally, waiting to get their background checks, waiting to do the right thing, you know, to have sponsors that will vouch for them so they won't be a burden on our welfare system, this is what people who come in here legally do. They have to have a background check. The FBI checks them to make sure they are not terrorists, make sure they are the kind of people we want here. Someone has to stand up for them and say when they come here I will make sure they are not a burden on our society; I will guarantee that they will have a place to be and a job and these type of things. That is how it works legally. Of course these illegal people, none of that is done. So as we are going to process these people, at a minimum, and I would argue much more, but at a minimum, we put 15 million people into the system, all of whom are going to need background checks. If not, then how do we know that the one we don't give a background check to is not a terrorist? Because we know for a fact, we have caught people coming across our border from Iraq, from Iran, from Afghanistan, from Pakistan, and from areas that have harbored terrorists all over the Middle East have crossed our southern border. We know that because we have caught them, and we have actually caught some that are on the terrorist lists. Now, does that mean we are just going to, for this 15 million that are already here because they have been here for at least a couple of days, up to maybe 10 or 15 years, how do we know what their background is if we don't do a background check? So we are going to dump that 15 million people into the system. Then each year, in addition to that, we are going to dump 350,000 guest workers into a system, into a system, Mr. Speaker, my office that works in my part of the State of Texas in San Antonio, into a system where right now people who are trying to get clearances on their visas or trying to get clearances to become citizens of the United States. The San Antonio office is working on the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, with just the normal legal immigration issues that are in the system now. How are those folks going to deal with that 10 million or 150 million people that we are going to have to do all that processing on that we are going to all of a sudden anoint with some kind of route to citizenship? How are those people going to do in San Antonio, Texas with that 350,000 people that cross the border and have to have those things? Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the evidence of what has happened in the United States since amnesty, back in the 1980s, the evidence is overwhelming that when the system becomes overwhelmed by its burden, the system breaks down to where the system doesn't work. And I find nobody even thinking out just that little simple part of this as to how in the world are you going to be able to make this thing work without overwhelming people that are in the immigration and naturalization business? How are you going to do it? I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is going to happen to those folks if the Senate bill passes. I want to tell you, I keep calling this the Reid-Kennedy bill and it has a different title. But I think that is an appropriate title because this is actually a bill that was pushed through the Senate by the Democrats. And let me tell you just a couple of examples. Among the many Democrat amendments to the bill that was submitted when they started out with the Senate immigration legislation, our friend Mr. Kennedy offered one that would allow illegal immigrants who have worked less than 40 days to be eligible for green cards. The amendment was adopted with the support of 42 Democrats. 41 Republicans opposed it. The Senate legislation included a provision to award Social Security benefits, which I have already talked about, to illegal immigrants. The Republicans offered an amendment to strip this provision from the bill. Mr. Kennedy led the fight, the Democrats cast their vote, and now, under their bill, we are giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. An amendment sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy rejected English as our national language and supplanted a Republican amendment that would have required those seeking citizenship to learn English. And guess what? That is the law. You are supposed to. You know, when my wife became an American citizen, and that is something I ought to tell everybody and all of the Members of the House ought to know this, and I think many of them do. I certainly am not anti-immigrant. I am married to one, and she gave me four beautiful children, and she is a great American and proud to be a naturalized American citizen of the United States. But she had to demonstrate a proficiency in English to become an American citizen, as did those soldiers that I was at a ceremony where we swore them in who have served their country and earned the right to American citizenship less than a month ago when I was with a bunch of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas who became American citizens because of their service in our United States Army. They have proficiency in English. And yet, the Democrats in the Senate don't think you need proficiency in English. This issue, this is one I want to talk about just a little bit. This creates a lot of turmoil. Proficiency in English, English as the language. Now, folks, if you don't know English is the national language of the United States, you are brain dead, and that is all I can say. Anybody speaking any other language than English in here today, when you respond to me, Mr. Speaker, I expect you will respond in English, and my colleagues over on this side of the aisle will respond in English, although many of them are probably multi-lingual, and some over here are, but English is the language our society functions in, and it has functioned in since we created this country. This issue was debated by the Continental Congress. This issue was voted on by the Continental Congress, and at least the stories I have heard told is that what happened was German lost by like two votes or we would all be speaking German today. The whole face of the world might have changed. But we didn't. We selected English as the national language. Now, are there people in this country that want to create a whole society of second class citizens who don't speak our language, so they will always be kept down on that lower rung of a society, an English speaking society? I would submit that is a question that ought to be asked because I don't want any of our colleagues in this country, any American citizen to be a second class citizen. We heard a very impassioned speech about the Voting Rights Act today, and I highly respect that. And let me say, I don't want anybody of any color, any background, any language, to be a second class citizen. And in order to be a first class citizen in this country you have got to be able to function in the economy and the world we live in, and that function is in English. So you are not discriminating against people. You are giving them a lift up by saying, we need you to know how to function in an English speaking society. But not the Senate. They don't think that is a good idea. And our Democratic colleagues in the Senate made sure that the provision that we recognize America as an English speaking land was not in there. The majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Reid-Kennedy immigration bill. The majority of Republicans in the Senate voted against the Reid-Kennedy bill. So that is why I am calling it the Reid- Kennedy bill, because this is the Democrats' version of the solution for what we need to do in America today on immigration. Now, I have talked probably way longer than I should, but I am now very happy to be joined by one of my colleagues who wanted to also be heard on this issue today, so I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a very distinguished Congresswoman from that fine State, and I am proud to say a member of my class in this Congress, as much time as she wishes to consume.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for joining me here and giving a very good presentation of what a Representative of another State besides Texas feels about this, one that is not on the border, but sees the crisis on the southern border of the United States. And, again, I thank the gentlewoman for joining me. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that my time is about to run out. I want to tell you that one of the things we all in the House should be proud of, and we over on this side of the aisle, the word I am hearing is we are going to stand fast and we are not going to reward unlawful and illegal behavior by giving a free ride to anybody. We are going to say we will enforce our border, and then we will take a hard, studied, intelligent look at what we need to do to deal with the rest of these, part of the big picture, but not crisis issues that are addressing our country today. And we have got great thoughts and great ideas, biometric identification on your Social Security. Many, many great ideas, all of which we should take our time, do it right, because with all I have talked about, about enforcement of the law, which is my background, I still remember we are talking about human beings. And if we do not plan right, with compassion, do it to where it makes sense, then a couple of questions come to mind. If our bureaucrats get overwhelmed, what happens to the people that are here? They are going to be overwhelmed too. And what are they going to do? Stay in the shadows. I hear so many people using the rhetoric, ``You can't deport them all.'' I have not heard anybody in this House talk about deporting them all. But if they do not get in the program because it is so overwhelming and it is not well planned and they stay in the shadows, then what do we do with them? Nobody has even talked about it. They assume everybody is just going to just step up and say, It works like a clock, no problem, we will all be processed in 30 to 60 days, hallelujah, praise God, we are Americans. Mr. Speaker, it has not been thought out. The plan submitted to us, the Reid-Kennedy bill, it does not have any of these hard questions thought out. And it will bring worse chaos to a chaotic system that has laws in place we could enforce today. I hope that our friends across the country will contact our friends in the Senate and say, please, let us think this national issue out long and hard and right, always promising we are going to resolve it. I am not saying run from it, but let us go where the bleeding is. Go to the border. Stop the bleeding. Enforce the House bill, border security first. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we will be walking down the road to making a better life for all those who wish for liberty, freedom, and economic security of the greatest Nation on Earth. I thank the Speaker for giving me the time to address this House tonight.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, there was an historic debate on the House floor last week between both sides of the aisle concerning the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, I got a call late on Wednesday evening that my wife Erica had been rushed to the hospital with a serious medical emergency, and I was absent from that debate because I had to go to my wife's bedside at the hospital. I am happy to report she is at least out of the hospital, although the infection in her hand is still giving her a lot of trouble. I wanted to at least state my opinion on the war in Iraq and the consequences of American action, and I think heroic action, that is taking place in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, we are involved in a war on terror. The battle for Iraq and the battle for Afghanistan are clearly part of that war on terror. And if you want to talk about terror, how terrible could it be that what we have discovered happened to two of our fine soldiers, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, who were slaughtered and butchered by our enemy, and we are just learning of the horror of what they did to those poor young men, those heroes, those American heroes who were willing to stand in the gap and be counted so that the people of Iraq can do what they have done, form up a government, make that government functional, get that government to where it is operational so that we can meet our goal. Our goal is a free Iraq, a democratic Iraq, because, as the President says, when we have free democratic countries, we don't have disputes with those countries that go to war. We are trying to advance the cause of freedom around the world and protect ourselves from people who would slaughter our citizens of this country. This is not warfare that we are talking about of these people. We are abiding by the rules of war; they are abiding by the rules of terrorism, which is no rule. And that is why we have to continue to take this fight to the enemy where they are until we have established a victory for the United States. And I honestly believe that victory is on the horizon. I have made three trips to Iraq. I have visited with individual soldiers in Iraq. They are proud of their mission, they are proud of their accomplishments, they are proud of the things that they do for the Iraqi public. They have stories to share, as one soldier shared with me who was in the hospital and had a rose there with him, about a little girl who gave him that rose and said thank you. He didn't understand the language she was speaking, but he knew it meant thank you. These troops are doing humanitarian as well as soldierly efforts to make life for the Iraqi people better. But, more importantly, we as American citizens should never tolerate an enemy that would butcher our troops. If there is any amount of decency in these people, they would at least abide by simple, simple rules of war. But they don't. We have had beheadings. We have had slaughter and mutilation of our American corpses. Mr. Speaker, we are on the right side of Iraq. I am proud that the 4th Infantry Division, which is in my district, and the 1st Calvary Division have been active participants in making life better for the Iraqi public. And, Mr. Speaker, I honor them by standing here today and say I fully support America's war on terror and the war in Iraq. And I apologize that I was not here for the debate, but I am grateful for all those who stood up for the United States of America's effort in the battle of Iraq.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Mr. Dale Alley of Hutto and Round Rock, TX, for his retirement after 50 years in the community banking profession. Achieving 50 years in the community banking profession is a rare honor and Dale should be commended for having reached this milestone. On June 25, 2006, Dale will retire with grateful acknowledgment from his communities, customers, and friends. He leaves behind a legacy of tireless service, active community participation, and positive impact on local economies. As community banks are merged and acquired at a rapid rate, it is important to note that there are still bankers who participate fully in their communities and strengthen those communities by their dedication to service and goodwill; Dale Alley is such a banker. Community bankers fuel the engine of small businesses and literally built Texas communities from the ground up. Dale Alley leaves a dynamic blueprint and a commendable legacy for those assuming his positions at Union State Bank and the other institutions where he has served. In 1956, a young man nervous with anticipation walked into First State Bank in Denton, TX, for his first day of employment. He wasn't sure where this initial job might take him, but he knew that he wanted to be involved in the banking industry. Now, 50 years later, that same man is putting the finishing touches on a brilliant career in community banking. Dale began his employment with First State Bank in Denton, TX, in 1956. During the next two decades, he worked both as an administrative assistant in the Texas State Banking Department and an executive vice president and loan officer with Farmers State Bank in Round Rock. Over the course of his distinguished career, Dale served as president and board chairman of the Hutto State Bank, which he opened in 1986. As president and board chairman, he achieved his ultimate goal of becoming the chief managing officer. After the sale of that bank, Dale was approached by B.M. Beck, president and chairman of Union State Bank, in regards to opening a Union State Bank Branch in Round Rock. Dale accepted the offer and operated a service-oriented and profitable banking branch. In 2003, Dale accepted the position of executive vice president and chief lending officer for all five Union State Bank locations in Central Texas. Over the course of his career, Dale consistently emphasized the importance of customer service and making his clients feel appreciated. Dale's career path has been filled with success, but he would tell you his proudest accomplishments come from the impact he has made on his community. In fact, Dale recently wrote, ``My favorite part of working in the banking industry for 50 years has been the satisfaction gained from being a community banker and experiencing the economic growth and vitality resulting from the bank's activities.'' The efforts of Dale and his fellow community bankers are essential to the success of communities throughout America. Small businesses come to community banks for financial help because they know and trust the banker they are working with. In turn, community banks realize their success revolves around the overall growth of the community. It's a reciprocal relationship in which the small business and the community bank depend on each other for future growth; neither can be successful without the other. Independent Community Bankers of America, ICBA, Chairman Terry Jorde explained the relationship well when he said, ``Each of our nearly 5,000 bank members is a shining example of how community banks are still joined at the hip to our communities.'' In addition to his many work contributions and other honors, Dale was responsible for establishing the Hutto Chamber of Commerce and also served on the Hutto School Board for many years. Having had the opportunity to witness firsthand his contributions to the Hutto and Round Rock communities, I am certain his impact will continue to be felt after his retirement. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, my constituents, Union State Bank, and the communities of Round Rock, Hutto, Georgetown, Florence, Liberty Hill, and Killeen, I would like to thank Dale for 50 years of distinguished service to the banking industry and the communities throughout Central Texas. Although his daily presence at Union State Bank will be sorely missed, I look forward to his continued contributions to the banking industry. I thank Dale for his service and friendship, and wish him the utmost happiness and success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, in May 2006 LTG Thomas F. Metz relinquished command of the III U.S. Corps in Fort Hood, TX. This successful and decorated general has had an illustrious career and will be missed at Fort Hood. After his graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the infantry. His career has taken him to locations throughout the world including Germany, Italy, and Iraq, with such varied positions as assistant professor at West Point and Combined Joint Task Force 7 commander in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He assumed the post at Fort Hood in February 2003. Since then, he deployed the III Corps to Iraq in January 2004 and was commanding the Multi-National Corps--Iraq until May 2006. He will now continue to serve our country at Fort Monroe as U.S. Army Training Doctrine commanding general. In his career, Lieutenant General Metz has been awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal with two Service Stars, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 3, Expert Infantry Badge, Senior Parachutist Badge, Ranger Tab, and Belgium Brevet ``A'' Commando. He and his wife, Pam, have been and remain good friends of mine and my wife, Erika. Pam has been an active part of the community of Fort Hood and the families on base will not soon forget them. I had the honor to visit Lieutenant General Metz and the Fort Hood soldiers under his command during a recent trip to Iraq. I saw firsthand the powerful leadership he demonstrates and the strong support he enjoys. Lieutenant General Metz is the pride of the United States Army and will be dearly missed at Fort Hood.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2006, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 287 due to a family emergency. On rollcall vote No. 287, if present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On June 16, 2006, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 288 due to the same family emergency. On rollcall vote No. 288, if present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee. She is a real asset to this Congress, and I am just proud to be able to be with her tonight to talk about the war on terror. I live in a district where on any given day we have between 15,000 and 20,000 American heroes standing on that wall protecting freedom in the United States, in harm's way, giving their lives and limbs and time so that we can sit here in this House and so that our children and our wives and our loved ones can walk the streets of the United States free. You know, this war on terror is a war on a cancerous idea that is, when you really think about it, is really one of the most horrible, horrible things there is; that there is a group of people that are fighting a war not against military soldiers as proud warriors marching off to war. No. In fact, they do not want to even see an American soldier anywhere near them, if they can help it. They want to terrorize society. And that terrorism, in their way of thinking, starts with civilians, not military. We got a real good dose of that on 9/11, a dose that I do not know how the American people can ever get it out of their minds. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, they attacked our military installations at Pearl Harbor. But when we were attacked on 9/ 11, a building full of business folks was attacked. This was not an attack on a military target, this was an attack on a civilian target, and its sole purpose was to kill American citizens. We need to thank the Lord that their timing was slightly off and that the building was not completely full. If it had been, instead of numbering in the thousands we might have been numbering in the hundreds of thousands of people in those two buildings that might have died. But that was their purpose. Their purpose was to change how we live by hitting us where we live. I just can't think of anything more horrible. You know, I was in the judge business for a while, as were several people in this room here today, and we know from experience that there's a lot of evil out there in the world, and we spent our time trying to deal with that evil. And I think, from what I know of my colleagues here in the House, we did a pretty good job of fighting evil. One of the things we did to curtail evil was we put them away, and we put them down so that the price of being evil was a high price in the places where we lived. And we are proud of that. I think the American soldier knows that the hard part of fighting the war on terror, on fighting people who are really not out to fight them but are out to fight their children and their wives and their moms and dads back home, and moms and dads and children of people in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other countries in this world, the Philippines, Indonesia, and the list goes on and on and on, they are always attacking the innocent trying to live their lives. But what is their theory behind this? I have thought about this. And I want to say that Mr. King gives some great insight into some of the things he has read, and I was fascinated by some of the things he had to say. But I think about this, and what they are really trying to do is to change the way we live until we just really cannot tolerate living that way any longer and we are willing to compromise and give in to what they view as a world view, until their radical Islam dominates the world. They want our school children in Texas, or our school children in Tennessee, or our school children in Iowa to get up in the morning, every morning, and be afraid to stand at the bus stop, be afraid to ride on the school bus, be afraid to go to their school for fear that somebody might blow it up, somebody might shoot at the bus, somebody might hijack them or kidnap nap them. That is the world they are developing right now that we are tearing apart right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not easy work for our soldiers. Our soldiers are out there in a special role that soldiers have never been in. Soldiers are trained to fight soldiers. Soldiers are trained to go onto a battlefield and fight a battle. And sometimes it is an unconventional battle, and we are trained to fight unconventional battles. Our soldiers are not policemen, although some are trained as policemen. Our soldiers shouldn't be policemen, but today the American Marine on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan has a special mission, and that mission is to make sure that the safety of that population is as safe as the safety he wants for his population back home. And he cares about those people. He cares about those kids. A great story I heard when I was back in Iraq was about a soldier walking down the street and a little girl comes running out and hands him one rose. A beautiful rose. He later gave it to a lady at the hospital who told me the story. She explained, and somebody was able to speak the language and tell this to the soldier, that that was the only thing living left in their garden. But she knew he deserved to have that rose because he was keeping her garden safe. This was a little 10-year-old girl. Now, I'm sure that soldier will go for the rest of his life with the memory of that little girl. And I know sometimes they have to be standing out there in 115 degree heat with all that armor on and saying, man, this is a tough job. But that is the kind of thing that tells us what we are fighting for. We are fighting to protect innocent human beings. Not warriors, but to protect innocent human beings from being terrorized until they surrender their freedom and their will to terrorism. That is what terrorists want. That is what they do. They just attack the innocent until the innocent throw up their hands and say, whatever you want, you can have it. And we have examples of how they have done that. Look at Lebanon. Look at the other places around the world where the terrorists have just run rampant through the streets until Lebanon, which used to be called the Riviera of the Middle East, is now an example of destruction when people use the term Lebanon. So why are our American soldiers doing this? They are doing their duty with pride and with conviction. And I will tell my friends on the other side of the aisle who seem to have this cut-and-run mentality, I want them to think about the times, and I know they have visited Iraq and they have to have talked to the same soldiers that I have talked to, but the soldiers that I talked to are proud of what they are doing in Iraq. They are confident that they are succeeding in what they are doing. They do not understand why the American people don't hear about their successes. But, folks, even when we don't publicize their successes, they are having them. This last week has been a huge step forward in the war on terror because we took out the top terrorist. And from his little notebook, over the next couple of days we took out 17 other locations. Today we had another very successful raid. And we are not only getting rid of the bad guys and punishing them for their misbehavior by putting them into the Never-Never Land, but we are also capturing things that tells us more. So I say to the terrorists: Beware. The American soldiers are coming. Beware. We are learning every day and we are getting better and we are learning more and more information about you, and we are coming to get you. We are going to stop what is going on. I was real proud to know when Zarqawi was killed that the first people at the site were my boys in the 4th Infantry Division. Proud of them. They are the guys who caught Saddam Hussein. They are the guys who have been up front on every war, as has the 1st Cav. The 1st Cav. Gave us free elections. The 4th Infantry Division gave us Saddam Hussein, and now the first people on site after that beautiful job the Air Force did. But you know what, the real war on terror, and we need as American citizens to think about this real strongly, is the first time the President spoke, I think it was after this thing happened, and he said what would be our top policy on the war on terror. He said if you help our enemies, you are our enemy. We are taking the fight to the enemy. I think that is the right policy. I think the right policy is to say, we are not going to stand for people who kill innocent civilians no matter where they are, and we are going to stand up to them. Why? Because as Prime Minister Blair said right here in this House, it is our turn. We are the beacon of freedom in the world. We have the resources, intelligently used, to meet the challenge. People say, oh, but it is going to be a long war. You know what? I think it is going to be a long conflict, but it's going to be a conflict that is going to have a series of battles in it. We are misdefining Iraq by calling it the war in Iraq. We are misdefining Afghanistan by calling it the war in Afghanistan. It is the battles in Iraq, the battle in Afghanistan. And maybe whatever we do in the way of successes will postpone the next battle. Folks, we went into what we called the Cold War, and the Cold War included the battle of Korea and the battle of Vietnam and the battle of Panama and a lot of other battles that took place. But we won the Cold War by sticking to the principle that freedom and democracy and the ability to live your life in a world that was peaceful and loving was worth fighting for and worth standing up to people who wanted to change that and put totalitarianism in place of freedom. We have now got a group of people who are fanatics and who want to put this radical Islam in place of freedom. And, unfortunately, once again, we have to stand up and be counted. And we will, as long as we produce people like I have met at Fort Hood and many other places where I have gone with the military, these quality young men and women. And as long as the American people are willing to stand the ground and do the job we back here have to do to win the war on terrorism, we will succeed. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the American public realize that the only thing standing between us and another 9/11 is the will to face the terrorists' onslaught not only with our troops but with our hearts and minds in America we should stand up for what is right. There is right and there is wrong in this world, and imposing the will by terror, by Islamic terrorists, is wrong. Standing up for freedom and letting our kids be able to go to the park and play without fear of terrorism or wander the streets or your wife to go shopping at the grocery store or you be able to go to work every day without the fear of terrorism, that is right. It is the freedom we fought for and died for in this American country, and it is the freedom the whole world should be able to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say, I am proud to say that I am an American and that Americans stand for right, I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to be here tonight and for allowing me to address this House on an issue that I feel is probably a life-changing issue to the United States of America. It is a life-changing issue for what is somewhere estimated to be between 11 and 15 million people who have entered and are living in this country illegally. And it is a life-changing issue, I think, for every American. As we are in a time of concern about national security and great expenditures on homeland security, we have got a crisis on our border. I am not going to go too much in detail about this crisis, because anybody that turns on the television these days can see pictures of hundreds of people storming past our border patrols on our southern border as they leave Mexico. Most of those pictures come from Arizona. In the last about 9 months, I have visited the Texas border on three occasions. Twice I went down to Laredo and visited with the border patrol and all those persons involved in immigration in the Laredo section of the Texas border. This past weekend, I went with the deputy whip, Eric Cantor, down to El Paso, and with other members of a congressional delegation, to discuss the issue of what is going on in the El Paso sector of the Texas border. We have got an estimated 16,000 people crossing our border every night or every day coming into the United States. These are 16,000 people most of whom are not caught and most of whom are entering this country, for what purpose we know not, Mr. Speaker. We can't presume that every one of them, as has been just a moment ago described, are poor impoverished workers coming here looking for a job. Many of them are. But we don't know who these people are, and we don't know why these people are here in every instance, because we have done nothing to inquire as to their purpose or who they are or what they are coming up here for because our system has been overwhelmed. We are now going into conference, the House and Senate, with our colleagues over in the Senate, on two versions of what we think needs to be done to address the issue that is facing this Nation right now on immigration. I want to propose to this House and to the Members of this House that we have already addressed many of the issues in 1986 in a bill, that I am aware the Speaker here tonight was involved in. Mr. Speaker, I have looked at that. I have actually gone out and pulled up the law and looked at what we are operating under today, and I find it is very curious that there is a lot of very good enforcement procedures in this bill, the 1986 bill. There are things in that bill, if they had been done and done correctly, we would not be addressing this massive intrusion across our southern border. But what has happened? What reason has this gone on? My whole point of this speech here tonight is to say it is time for us, I think, to slow down and address a life-changing issue in detail and see where the system has been overwhelmed in the past and make sure that we don't make the mistake that I think democracy makes a lot in the legislative process of taking something, sticking a bunch of new patches on it, and hoping it will solve the problem. Patches on an old used tire almost inevitably start to leak at some point in time, and then rupture, and the tire goes flat. I think when it comes to immigration laws, it is time to buy a new tire, not just put in a patch tube or stick patches on the tire. We need to look at our immigration laws of this country from top to bottom and in a very businesslike and studious manner, come up with solutions for the problems that are going to face the people that I have described here tonight. There is estimated, as I said, 11 to 15 mile people that have come into this country. The other day we were on the border in a place where there was a triple fence and a ditch at our border. A very interesting aside, it was explained to us in El Paso, the construction of that fence and ditch, which has been there now quite awhile, but when that was put up, street crime in El Paso dropped so substantially that El Paso went from one of the worst street crime cities in the Nation of a population of over 500,000 and less than a million, to today, after construction of the fence, street crime in El Paso, Texas, has improved so drastically it is now the third safest city of that size in the United States. And that is clearly reflected by everyone in law enforcement in that town as a result of 17 miles of fence in the populated area of El Paso. So the proposals for fencing that the House bill has, for instance, fencing in the populated areas, have an effect on the lives of the people that live in that city. The people who go to work, take their kids to the park, to school, are safer in El Paso, Texas, because of 17 miles of fence. Now about 60 people a night still try to cross that fence. They catch most of them. In the conversation somebody asked: How many didn't you catch? They said that would be speculation, and they weren't going to speculate because that wouldn't be proper. One of the comments behind me was we know somewhere between 11 and 15 million they didn't catch. That is what we have to look at as we look at this thing. The system we have today has totally failed. It can be blamed on every administration since this bill was passed that they did not either provide the resources or the bureaucrats were overwhelmed by the problem; and when overwhelmed, just did not address it. Or addressed it in a minimum amount. Now, I think by that experience that we have had, and we learn from experience, we should know that overwhelming the system will cause the system to shut down and not work. The Senate bill, I would propose the things that we have heard, and unfortunately I have not been able to get a copy of what they are proposing yet, but I will be back on this House floor to discuss it when I get it, but some of the things that they are proposing, and with all due respect to the Senate, I would like to say that I do not think they have thought out some of the things that they have done here. If we have a system that cannot process effectively, that clearly has not processed protection of our borders for people trying to come into this country illegally, how can we take that system and dump between 11 and 15 million people into that system to try to come up with an amnesty for them? How can we process them with the people we have in the immigration department? If it is overwhelmed today, how can we dump that many people in the system and expect it not to be overwhelmed tomorrow? If the idea that you might get amnesty increases our border crossings from the approximately 2 to 3 million people that were dealt with during the Reagan administration to the 11 to 15 million people that are here today, how can processing those people and the additional waves that will come across without border security, how can the system but be overwhelmed by that process? The citizenship issue is very interesting. Americans who are qualified to be in this country legally are making application for citizenship, are finding unbelievable delays in the processing that goes on through our immigration department so that they can meet the qualifications of citizenship. In fact, some of that processing is as much as 6 years behind. In the San Antonio office, those trying to bring people into this country legally are finding delays from 18 months to 10 years to bring people into this country legally. Background checks, which we have about 200 to 250 cases in my office alone, requesting background checks on the process of bringing someone to this country, in the San Antonio office we have been told they are processing 1998, 1999 and 2000 cases. This is 2006. So in the best-case scenario, they are 6 years behind; and in some cases they are 7 and 8 years behind. How can that system do background checks on 15 million people or 11 million people that are currently in this country to make sure that their background is such that they should be allowed to remain in this country and be American citizens? How can that system even take 2 to 300,000 people in a guest worker program and do the background check processing to make sure that the people coming in as guest workers are safe for our American citizens? Even that number, what will that do to the background checks being required? And let's not forget that we also require that every person wishing to come into the United States as an immigrant must have a medical exam to make sure that they are not bringing communicable diseases or other illnesses into this country that we want to prevent from coming into this country. Without even going into the possibility of a pandemic if there should become an avian flu pandemic from the avian flu virus, and it is estimated there could be the death of 200 million people as a result, let us just look at the fact that the World Health Organization has told us that there is a strain of tuberculosis in Mexico and South America that right now we can't cure with our existing drugs to stop tuberculosis because it has mutated to a point we cannot cure this form of tuberculosis. How do we know about the health of these people that are here and those people wanting to come here in the program that the Senate has? We have to know. If we have to know, we have to process them. If we are already overwhelmed, how are we going to be able to meet the demand that is going to come to the system? What do we know that happens when we overwhelm the system? We know nothing happens when we overwhelm, and we remain with the status quo. I would argue that is the result of what happened to what was a good bill in 1986. When I go to Texas and I am addressed by many members of the press, they ask me what about making these people's behavior illegal. You know, Mr. Speaker, maybe I am a little different, but I kind of grew up in a system when you talked about the law, you checked the law to see what is in it. I found, and you will hear that being in the United States illegally, in other words they have caught you after, and they can't identify that you came across the border illegally, that is a civil process and has a process for removal. But what you do not read is if you are caught coming across the border, it is an illegal process. It is illegal to enter the United States in any form or fashion without proper identification. First crossing carries a possibility of a fine and up to 6 months incarceration. But normally and properly, most of these people are just removed. Harboring an undocumented alien under the bill we are operating under now carries a fine and imprisonment of up to 5 years. Alien smuggling carries a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years. Any crime that causes serious bodily injury or places the life of anybody in jeopardy, and that includes the person being transported, it carries a penalty and fine of up to 20 years' imprisonment. If criminal smuggling or harboring results in the death of any person, the penalty includes life in prison. This is the law today, right now what is on the books. Felony charges punishable by fines and imprisonment of not more than 2 years are applicable to reentry. So if you have come in once and you have been caught and documented and you are caught reentering, you can get up to 2 years in prison or jail. Reentry after a previous nonaggravated felony or three misdemeanor entries or convictions results in a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years. So those who say, why is the bill that the House passed wanting to criminalize this activity, we are not criminalizing the activity. It is already criminal. We need to make ourselves very clear. Having evidence that you crossed the border illegally, acceptable, provable evidence, which is basically catching you doing it, can result in the penalties in the various categories that I just read. This is illegal behavior. Let's not kid ourselves about what this is. What have been some of the solutions we have come up with that are overwhelming the system? One is removal by deportation. You know, one of the things that I think is of most concern to people when they hear about it is what they call in the immigration business, in the border business, OTMs, people from other than Mexico. Let me stop right here and say this because it is a question that comes from my Hispanic counsel, and I want to say that everything I am saying about the southern border I also agree with on the northern border. Just recently, very recently from the time I am talking right now, we found a major terrorist cell planning major attacks in Ottawa, Canada. There are bad guys to the north of us, and there may be bad guys to the south of us. When we are talking about this, we are talking about illegal immigration, whether it be from Canada or Mexico, comes in on a ship or airplane. It is anyone who violates the law and overstays their welcome and hides out and is of concern to every American citizen that is here. Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that putting a patch on a system that already works, and that patch includes the possibility of dumping between 200,000, 300,000 people, or up to 15 million people into an overwhelmed system, is basically going to result in the same results we have had since 1986: nothing is going to get done. Now I would argue to this House that I believe there is a great degree of experience and intelligence in both the House and Senate; and well-intentioned people on both sides of the aisle, if given the opportunity to study in detail and look where the holes are, without knee-jerk reacting and being in a hurry, we can come up with a plan and the resources necessary to implement that plan so we can actually do what we are setting out to do, and that is protect our Nation from intrusions across our border and protect the sovereignty of the United States and deal fairly and equitably and compassionately with the people who are involved in this behavior. Mr. Speaker, let me make myself extremely clear. I do not intend to support nor do I support rewarding illegal behavior. I spent 20 years of my life punishing illegal behavior as a district judge in Texas. And those people who know the county I come from, Williamson County, know that Williamson County judges and juries punish severely criminal behavior. Maximum sentences are fairly well the norm in the county that I come from. So I certainly am not going to change careers to Congress and start rewarding criminal behavior. And I am very concerned that some of the things that are coming to us in the Senate bill are rewarding criminal behavior, especially as you compare it to those people who are fighting this broken process of coming in here legally, because they are going to get to have sneaked across the border, hid out long enough that they get in line for citizenship, in some form or fashion, whatever delays and punishment or fines or back taxes or whatever you impose upon them, they are still getting a reward for criminal behavior. So I think as we design a system we need to take that into account and realize that we can do and deal with these families and these people compassionately. We can make commonsense decisions as to how to handle, for instance, the problem of children who are born to a family of illegals who are now American citizens and how we would deal with that. And common sense would say that would take special categories and special dealings. But Mr. Speaker, my experience in Texas, and I think the experience of anyone who has lived in a State where this issue has been for my entire life. This is not something that I have been dealing with, as some States have, for the last 8 or 10 years. In the State of Texas, the issue of illegal aliens coming across our border has been with us since my birth, and so we are very familiar with these people and we know, many of them are great people, God-fearing people who work very hard. And I am proud to say that I have worked side by side building fence with people who I knew were illegal immigrants. And I will tell you they are hard working good people, the ones that I have encountered. This has nothing to do with being against those people. I am against rewarding illegal behavior. I have talked about some of the things that will overwhelm the system, the processing of amnesty, the processing of this ID card which we can do, and I agree we can do, but the processing in the present system will overwhelm it. The process of the whole guest worker program and what it takes to get the people properly documented so they can do this is going to require a tremendous amount of additional work on those who are in charge of that system. And are we providing for them? Are we going to be ready for that? Can we deal with that? We are not ready for that. We have got to address that more in detail. The background checks, I can't tell you how far behind that is going to get, but it is going to get 10 or 15 years behind. The health checks should be and necessarily need to be required. Some of the provisions that really have upset people back in Texas that I have talked to, and let me say, I have not talked to a single person, and I have talked to a bunch of them, that live in Texas that aren't completely overwhelmed by the Senate version that has been passed and just totally against it. One example is, I understand the Senate has a provision for retroactive Social Security payment to illegals. Now, you tell that to Texas teachers, or for that matter, Federal employees, who don't get their Social Security by the nature of their retirement, that they are going to reward people who broke our laws on multiple occasions by giving them retroactive Social Security. I am telling you, I have got some teachers that are fighting mad about that issue in Texas. And I think if the Federal employees, which make up the vast majority of the people who are in that hole that don't get their Social Security, will also be very concerned about the fact that we are offering to give people who broke our laws Social Security, when people who have abided by the laws, at least in their opinion, feel like they have been deprived of money they paid into the Social Security system. You know, when you come in here legally, there are some things you have to do. My wife is a legal immigrant to the United States and now an American citizen, so no one should ever accuse me of being anti immigrant. I married one. I have four children with one, four living children with my beautiful wife. My district director is married to a Canadian. They have two children. It took us 18 months to get his wife from Canada to Texas, doing it legally. Now, she could have hopped in her car, with that blonde haired, blue eyed, almost golf pro from Canada, she was probably one of the top amateur golfers in the country, a scholarship athlete at a university in the United States and went back home and had her children, and now we had to get them out of Canada to be with her husband in Texas. It took us 18 months. And she cannot work at all by agreement for a year. And then she can apply to possibly go to work, but maybe they won't let her work for the next year. She has to register and reapply every year annually to maintain her status in the United States. This is a person whose background check showed she never even had a parking ticket in her life, much less anything. But the background check took forever. A person who flew from Northern Saskatchewan to Montreal to have her interview with the Immigration Department and flew back. She went through all the hoops to come in here. She is denied employment for a year. She has to register every year. She is required to have a sponsor who will stand up and say they will be responsible for the expenses that she might incur so that she will not be put on the welfare system of our country. And yet, people who come in here illegally are taking advantage of every program that is out there, including an overwhelming of our hospital system. You know, we all would like to have free medical care in this country, but there are some who have it, and many of those people are not citizens of this country. And there is a something out of whack on that, Mr. Speaker. And let me say, I want to preface all this by saying, I am compassionate for the people that are here and I care about them. And I think this system so overwhelms our system, what the Senate is proposing, that it is going to overwhelm these shy people. And let me tell you, most of them are very shy and staying in the shadows because they know they are here illegally. And if anything is too much for them, I do not expect them to participate. I will also tell you, Mr. Speaker, having talked to many illegal immigrants about where they come from, what they are here for, there are many of these people that didn't come here for citizenship and don't care to get it. So citizenship is not going to be a plum that brings them out of the shadows. The fact that the Senate has put a provision in on prevailing wage shows that they really don't understand why people have hired these folks from Mexico and from Honduras and Guatemala and Nicaragua and all points south. If they needed to hire somebody for prevailing wage to pick fruits in the central valley of California, if they were going to pay, if the pickers intended to pay prevailing wage, which by every interpretation of the 22 Federal contracts that I have worked on as a lawyer in my lifetime, and at least the five cases that I can recall that were before my court, prevailing wage, no matter whether you mention Davis Bacon or not, is presumed to fall under the provisions of Davis Bacon and the rulings made by the Labor Department as to which each region has as prevailing wage. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, minimum wage is not there. I can tell you that anywhere in the valley, Rio Grande Valley you can pour a slab for minimum wage. But if you are under a Federal contract, you will pay at least three times what you can pour any slab for in the valley, because the Davis-Bacon Act and the prevailing wage provision requires that kind of expense. So, by putting that in there, right there, there are going to be a lot of people that say I don't want any part of that because I am going to lose my job if my employer is required to pay that kind of wage to me. So I will stay right here. And if they do try to get that wage, I think, unfortunately, there are people, even with employer sanctions, that are still going to be looking for that next wave of illegal immigrants to come across our southern border. So, with all these problems, I would like to propose to this House that we consider doing this right. All these issues as to the people that are already here illegally, and the people that are coming across every night, and the people who would be willing to come over here as part of a work program, all of these issues need to be, we need to step back and look at all the holes that is in what we are proposing today and try to figure out how we can put together a system that will really work to solve these problems. So I propose that the House bill and those Senate provisions which enhance border security that are in the Senate provision, Senate bill, should be what we pass out of conference to this floor to be voted into law today. And I would also propose, Mr. Speaker, that in that bill, we give a pledge, you can call it a contract with the immigration community, that we will expedite a study and solution that works, that doesn't overwhelm, that has the resources to make this whole system work over the next 12 to 18 months as a dedication of this House to fix this problem correctly, not 2 weeks debate in the Senate, and put patches on a leaking tire. Mr. Speaker, if we will calm down, defend our borders and address each of these issues in an appropriate order to come up with sanctions for employers and means to identify these people that have a valid reason to working and a valid card, some kind of biometric thing, if we will create those things, and as we do it, say, and how is this system going to work and maybe we have to do something else to make that system work. Does it take an FBI agent to do every background check? I think that is a question that needs to be addressed. I think there are a lot of questions that are coming up in what I would consider a rushed decision to judgment on immigration, and we are still leaving the base of what we call legal immigration totally and completely unworkable. And many of our work visa programs that we have in this country that want to bring this some of the technical workers that we really need here are overwhelmed also to the point where they become unmanageable for the people involved. With this, I propose, Mr. Speaker, that we think hard about giving a pledge to the American people and to the immigrant community that we will work out a workable system fair to Americans and fair to those people that are here. I don't know what it will be. I have ideas. There are many great men and women in this House and in the Senate who have good ideas too. And we can study those ideas, bring in experts, get the real numbers, know what the real problems and the real solutions to these problems, slow down and do it right because, Mr. Speaker, if we don't do it right, nothing will change in the immigration policy of this country, and nothing will change on our borders. And that is a fear that I, quite frankly, do not think the American people are willing to live with. And finally, Mr. Speaker, with all those thoughts about immigration, you and I know, as I know you well, you are very concerned about the security, the homeland security of this country. And Mr. Speaker, all of that has to be planned in here so we know who is coming and who is not and who we didn't catch and how to hunt them down so the terrorists and the people who would do us harm or just the common criminals who come here to steal, rob, rape, pillage and whatever they plan to do, we know them, we can find them, we can incarcerate them, we can give them a fair trial like we give everybody that is inside the continental United States or subject to our jurisdiction and deal with them properly. But the unknown is intolerable. So Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late, and the reason I am here late is because I think this message is so very important to the American people. Let's pass border security and let's make a proper effort to come up with a solution to these problems, not a patch. And with that Mr. Speaker, thank you for being here with me tonight and thank you for the late hour.

Mr. CARTER

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

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Exactly.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, you know, we are mighty proud that we serve in the people's House. And what we try to do and we endeavor every day to meet is what the people of the United States care about and need. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the accomplishments of the Republican majority over the period of time that I have served in this Congress, because the efforts that we have made have been for the lives of the people of the United States and to a lesser extent people around the world Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues has just told you, we have had one of the longest continued periods of prosperity in the history of the Republic. But let's relate this to people, real people. Let me share a story with you about a young man that lives in Round Rock, Texas. He got laid off. It has been about almost 3 years now. He got laid off on a job. He had a good job. He had a college education. He got laid off and it was a bad time for that young man at that time because he had a brand now baby girl. Life looked a little bleak for him and for his family. But he, being a typical American, who would never say no, he went out and got two part-time jobs to keep the wolf away from the door at his house as he looked for another job. But about the same time within that neighborhood, we started to see what happens when you give the American people their tax money back and let them spend and invest their tax money, based upon a tax bill passed by this Congress for the people of the United States. For those taxpayers who pay taxes, we reduced their taxes. And that money was starting to work on behalf of this young man in Round Rock, Texas. The other day I ran into that kid with his almost 4-year-old daughter now coming back from one of her little dance recitals, on their way to their new home. He was real proud of his new job, which is directly associated with providing a satellite industry that services the new Toyota plant that is opening in San Antonio, Texas. All of this, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the good tax policy of this House which encourages investment, employs people, and brings our unemployment to a record of all time, consistent low unemployment. But it is really about that little girl and her daddy and her mamma and how life is better for them in Texas today. These stories, those untold stories are everywhere in this Nation as a result of the actions of this House. I am very honored and privileged and humbled by the fact that I now in my direct represent the largest military facility on earth, Ft. Hood Texas. 50,000 solders have marched to war on multiple occasions on behalf of this Nation in the very recent past, and currently we have almost 19,000 solders over there now doing their duty for the United States. And this House remembers these people in uniform who are serving our Nation. And we have remembered them by the greatest increase in spending on behalf of our veterans, overwhelming what was done in the past few decades. We gave our military retirees and our veterans the opportunity to have better health care, and we strengthened TRICARE. We strengthened veterans benefits. We have increased benefits for veterans every year. And the veterans life is better than it was 4 years ago. And they know it and they are grateful for it. And we solved a concurrent receipt problem that they had for 100 years. Mr. Speaker, why do we do it? Because those are the people of the United States. And this House is about the people. As we face an immigration debate, an immigration debate that harms our Nation, the fact that we have got an invasion coming across our border, it was the House, the people's House that recognized it, not only the strain and stress upon the American people, but the harm being done to those foreign invaders. They came in unlawfully into this country. Let us not forget these human beings that come across this border who suffer and hide in the shadows. But this House stepped up and said we are going to stop the bleeding. And we passed, what has it been, almost 8 months ago, passed a bill that said enough is enough. We are putting resources on the border and we are going to put a stop to it. And this House is going to stand firm to hold the border secure of the United States for who? For the American people. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and very humbled that I have colleagues such as my colleagues that are here tonight that are going to speak to you to tell you that we have done our duty for the people of America. And when we see that we have given them the extra income, we have given them the freedom of their time, we have allowed people to invest, and maybe they can give up that second job, so they can go to the ball park, take vacations, have a life with their families, which we treasure so greatly in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. It is all about the people of the United States. And it is all about the people's House remembering the people. As Mrs. Blackburn said, tomorrow we are going to go home. I get home every weekend, and most of the Members of the House do that, because we want to be with the folks that sent us up here. We want to know where they are shopping, what they are spending, how much their milk costs, not the milk in Washington. We want to be able to say they are our neighbors, because that is what we are up here for, to represent our neighbors. And I think we have a proud record that we can go back to our neighbors on and say we have given you a better life. Life is better today as the result of the people's House, the House of Representatives. I am honored that I have the opportunity to serve that House. I am honored to be with the colleagues that are here tonight, and all of my colleagues, especially my Republican colleague on this side of the aisle who never throw up the obstructions that we face from the other side, but always try to do what is right for the people. Energy, the other issues that the people are so concerned about, we have got a solution not rhetoric. And we are moving forward as Mrs. Blackburn said. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, my mother's home State, and say that I am very, very pleased to tell and report to you today that the people's House still firmly stands for the people of the United States. With that I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, we have an old saying around the courthouse, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. We have tried a bill just like the one that the Senate sent over to us. It is headed our way that they just passed back in 1986. And President Reagan, a man who never lacked in the courage to speak the truth, called it what it was, an amnesty bill. That amnesty bill resulted in 15 million additional illegal immigrants coming into the United States. It was a plum that said, come on up here, boys, the water is fine. Now, why in the world would we ever think that the same exact program would bring any different results? I join my colleagues, both of my colleagues here in totally opposing amnesty. Amnesty is not a solution to this problem. It is the problem. I take the position and I think most of the Members of this House take the position as I mentioned that we have got to stop the bleeding at the American border. The other night I went into detail about the criminal activity that is going on on our southern border. I am sure we got problems on our northern border too, but I only live about 130 miles from our southern border so I have firsthand knowledge of what is going on on the southern border. I have visited that border. I have seen the drug dealers that are crossing in waves, bringing evil that I spent 20 years on the bench fighting. The biggest drug pipeline in the world runs up I-35 right through the middle of my district. I have seen the night vision pictures of troops of drug dealers hauling large satchels of illegal substances across our southern border. These are not folks coming over here for work. These are folks coming over here for evil. We have got to secure that southern border and all of our borders. If we cannot protect our own sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, we are having a hard time arguing we are a sovereign Nation. So our sovereignty is important enough for us to take our time and plug the hole and make our life safe for the American citizens. And then my position is at that point in time these other issues that we are discussing is, address them sensibly, take the time to examine all the options and fix all that is broken in our immigration policy from top to bottom; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, in my district, background checks on people wanting to come into this country legally, we are now working on those backgrounds checks from 1999 and 2000. We are going to have a real interesting crisis when we dump 15 million people into a background check program. That is just one of the little things we need to take our time and figure out. So I am going to join, I guess the colloquy with my friends here and we will talk about all of this. Mr. Rohrabacher, I have heard him. He is passionate on this subject, and I am looking forward to his passion. But most importantly the thing we want to say is to the American people, we haven't forgotten you. We hear you. We hear you. I just got off the phone less than an hour ago to one of my folks back in Williamson County and the other counties I have in the 31st Congressional District of Texas. They are united like a solid front for border security only. Our people that live on the battle line know where the battle is. One individual, out of his own pocket, has sent out the phone number of every senator in the United States Senate to every voter in my district, paid for it himself, just to tell them to call the Senate and tell them what they thought of the Senate bill. That is passion for this war that we are fighting to protect the sovereignty of our Nation. So, as we are getting passionate, we are passionate because the people are passionate, and I am just glad to be able to step up here with my colleagues and tell you that we have not forgotten you. We know the American citizens' concern is from Maine to California, from Texas to Minnesota. You have told us, we listen.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time we have left?

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank my colleague for joining us here tonight. He is always a very calming influence when he addresses the House, and I am always fascinated to listen to him speak. This is my whole premise that I was talking about, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time that we take a deep breath and address one of the biggest issues that this House has had to deal with in a long time and an issue that actually can be, as has been explained here tonight, a nation-changing issue. I personally have a great, as I started out saying, have a great compassion for our neighbors to the south. And I welcome good, honest legal citizens of this country as does everyone. And no one in this House is talking about the Trail of Tears massive deportation to the border. We have issues that have to be addressed. But the problem, the hemorrhaging, the bleeding is at the border today. That is where we have got to go and get this slowed down and get it ready. And then you know I would like to hear quite honestly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We have never really. The Democrats' plan for immigration does not seem to be out there today. I would like to hear their solution to the problem. I would like for both sides of the aisle to sit down and say, let's work this thing out intelligently. And I will give you just one example, a couple examples not being addressed. One right now, there is a tremendous backlog on background investigations of people who are coming and have come into this country illegally to get their visas extended. They have to have a background check or to get into this country with a background check. That thing could take anywhere from 18 months and the backlog just once they start processing it, it can take up to 18 months or longer. Right now in my part of Texas, our San Antonio office is working on the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. We are going to take that system in its present condition and dump 15 million-plus people into that system for background checks? Or do they get to miss that part that the legal immigrants have to take? Health exams have to be done for everyone that comes in the United States. What are we going to do to examine the health of 15 million people in this country to make sure that there are not communicable diseases in this country? This is an issue that is part of our law. It is required by law. If we are going to process them, that needs to be here. Then a question I do not hear anybody addressing is what do we do to the people who do not join our program? We love America and we think everybody comes here to be an American citizen. But I can tell you from personal conversations with people who have come here, I have worked building fences side by side with folks that, I never asked them, but since they did not speak any English and they told me they were from Mexico, I kind of figured they were illegal aliens. I can tell you, they didn't come here to be American citizens. They came here to work. And their families were back in Mexico, and they really wanted to go back there. And they sent 80 percent of their paycheck home because they were able to live on social services over here so they can afford to do that. Now, what about the guy who says, well, that is great, but I do not want to pay back taxes and I do not want to pay a $200 fine, and I do not want to get a health check, and I do not want to get a background check; I will just stay in the shadows. Are we addressing that issue? Are there going to be consequences to those people who continue to stay in the shadows? If you care about the people that come in here, do we want anybody in this country starting their life on American soil under the cloud of criminal behavior? But we know that 15 million people crossed our borders and broke the law. I did not say felony. I did not give a classification. I said broke the law. We have laws in this country, and it was broken. Let's be intelligent. Let's be smart. Let's seal the borders, put our resources there and then study this program and get a system that we can administer and we can work and we can pay for.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, it is very seldom that we get good news around here, but the purpose of this amendment is the continuation of a program that is a success. Tarleton State University has put together a data mining program in which they have been examining the operations of the crop insurance program. And they have to date saved this country $450 million in waste, fraud and abuse from the crop insurance program. And it is estimated that they have at least prevented the same. Mr. Chairman, this is a good program that returns 22 to 1 on its expenditures.

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.