Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as Members will see as the debate goes on, there is strong bipartisan support as evidenced by our next speaker. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my good friend from Michigan, and he is my good friend, and I have great respect for him. In fact, I truly admire his wit. I found his presentation extremely entertaining. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I would say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is the initials in opposition were not N.G. As a matter of fact, the initials N.G. has said they are very supportive of the mandatory 1-800 number.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment offered by my good friend the gentleman from Ohio. The author may be well meaning but he is simply wrong on this issue of verification, and his amendment will only serve to protect those special interest businesses who currently violate U.S. immigration laws. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truly a litmus test of our seriousness to curtail illegal immigration, protect jobs for Americans, and stifle low wages. Mr. Chairman, preventing illegal entry is a key to prevention and deterrence, but Congress can ill afford to ignore the 4 to 6 million illegal immigrants already residing and working in this country. This is where the gentleman from Ohio is misinformed. He completely ignores the fact that the illegal immigration problem must also be addressed in the Nation's interior, well away from the border. I agree that enhanced border enforcement is important. This bill addresses that. I also agree that stiff fines and employer sanctions are very helpful. These measures are fine, but simply not enough. Like it or not, Mr. Chairman, there are businesses in this country who knowingly break U.S. law and hire illegal immigrants. Short of more random checks and unannounced raids, alternatives that I am sure the gentleman from Ohio would oppose, a verification system is direly needed, and a 1-800 number is by far the easiest way to do this. The gentleman in his remarks makes inaccurate, misleading, unsubstantiated and maybe even ridiculous arguments against verification. A system of verification does not establish a data base. It does not create a Federal hiring approval process. The gentleman's amendment would wipe out any type of verification and, in effect, would only serve to protect those unscrupulous businesses which break U.S. law. His amendment would perpetuate a system which replaces American workers with low-wage employees. I urge sound defeat of this amendment.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Gingrich] the Honorable Speaker of the House.

Mr. GALLEGLY. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker remaining before closing. I do believe I have the right to chose; is that correct?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a couple of comments that the gentlewoman made. First of all, the gentlewoman is a friend of mine, and I take some personal dissatisfaction with a comment made, ``mean-spirited.'' As a parent of four and as someone who is a product of the city school system in Los Angeles, I am a strong supporter of public education. But one of the comments that she made was that these people were not participants in the decisionmaking process. I would submit to her that there were 40,000 adults that came to this country last year, illegally to this country, and received Pell grants that cost this country $70 billion. That was a decision they made, not their parents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California [Mr. Cunningham], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Education that deals with our elementary education K through 12, who has been long-time committed to education.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 brief seconds to respond to a couple comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California said far better to have the children in school than out in the streets and gangs. I could not agree with him more. He says that we do not have the resources, the financial resources, to incarcerate or deport these children. I would say, if we have the resources to educate, we should have the resources to deport. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on both sides?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 second to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, CA, Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of our subcommittee. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which seeks to overturn a provision I sponsored during the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 2202. The basic idea behind my original amendment was that the Federal Government should, under no circumstances, make benefit payments directly to those who we know are in this country illegally. This is precisely what is happening today. When an illegal alien present in this country gives birth to a child who, under the 14th amendment, becomes an instant American citizen, the American citizen is eligible for a whole range of social benefits. Today these benefits are awarded directly to the illegal immigrant with the intention that she pass them on to her child. While I believe that only a small portion of these Federal funds find their way to the desired recipient, I have a deeper problem with the status quo. I simply do not believe that the Federal Government should, under any circumstances, cut checks to those who have qualified for the aid by violating the laws of our Nation. Approving the amendment before us today will do nothing but preserve the status quo and perpetuate the message we have issued all too often to those who violate our laws by coming here illegally. That message is clear. It is illegal for you to violate our borders, but if you somehow can successfully do so, then you can have whatever you want. It is illegal for you to break into a candy store, but if somehow you find a way to smash the door down and get inside, then by all means, clear the shelves with impunity. I for one think this is wrong. I do not believe that we should reward those who break our laws and then remain here illegally with generous welfare checks. My feeling is that if we can find illegal immigrants to send them a check, we should find a way to provide bus service to return them to their homeland. Supporters of this amendment say that we should not punish the children for acts of the parents, that isolating illegal immigrants from benefits many improperly receive will somehow separate families. My response is that we are not trying to separate families under any circumstances. What we are trying to do is reunite the families and allow them to celebrate their status as legal residents of their respective countries and see that they be returned to their country of origin. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.