Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from San Diego, California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for a clarification. The point that needs to be made, that has not been made so far, is that this amendment does not deny educational benefits to anyone. It does not require schools to do anything. It simply gives the State the discretion to decide whether it wants to continue to provide illegal aliens with a free public education at taxpayers' expense. Nothing less, nothing more. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Packard]. (Mr. PACKARD 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 believe that most of my colleagues here share my view that the Nation's education system is in crisis. Classrooms are overcrowded. Teachers are in many cases overburdened and resources are in short supply. Experts in the field agree that we are barely able to provide a basic education to American students today. We know that there is a problem, but the body has historically refused to acknowledge the devastating effect of illegal immigration on our education system. This amendment would change that by giving States the option of denying free taxpayer-funded education to those with no legal right to be in this country. Last year, more than 40,000 Pell grants worth a combined $70 million were awarded to illegal immigrants. It is estimated that California alone spends more than $2 billion each year to educate illegal immigrants at the primary, secondary, and post- secondary level. New York spends $634 million; Florida, $424 million; Texas, $419 million. Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on, but the dollars and cents are only part of the story. Equally important is the fact that illegal immigrants in our classrooms are having an extremely detrimental effect on the quality of education we are able to provide to the legal residents. When illegal immigrants sit down in public school classrooms, the desk, textbooks, blackboards in effect become stolen property, stolen from the students rightfully entitled to those resources. I want to be very clear here. This amendment does not apply to the children of illegal immigrant who were born in this country and instantly became citizens under the 14th amendment to our Constitution. My amendment applies only to those who have themselves illegally entered this country or who have entered legally and then remained beyond the valid terms of their visa. In its 1982 decision in the case of Plyeler versus Doe, the Supreme Court ruled by 5 to 4 that States were required to provide a free education to all students, regardless of their legal status under the equal protection clause to the Constitution. Many of my friends who oppose this amendment will invoke this constitutional mandate as justification for their opposition. But something that the defenders of the status quo ignore is that in the 1982 decision the court also ruled that Congress had failed to do its job. In the court's majority opinion, Justice William Brennan said Congress shared some responsibility for illegal immigrants occupying public schools. He wrote: Faced with an equal protection challenge respecting the treatment of aliens, we agree that the courts must be attentive to the congressional policy. The exercise of congressional power might well affect the States' prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular class of alien. Today the House takes up Justice Brennan on this invitation and exercises that power. Some will argue that we have a responsibility to educate illegal immigrants simply by virtue of the fact that they have successfully broken into our country. My feeling is that an act of geography is not the same as an act of jurisprudence. Just because someone has busted through the front door, that does not entitle them to the contents of your home. The promise of free education is only one of the magnets we hold up to those who would break our laws by violating our borders. It is clear to me that any solution to our immigration crisis must include an elimination of such incentives. Allowing our States to make their own decision on this education serves this purpose. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has received strong endorsement of the Republican Governors Association, National Taxpayers Union and many others. Mr. Chairman, illegal immigrants belong back in their countries of origin, and we should do everything possible to encourage them to embrace that simple truth. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Understanding that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the policy is, and I would ask for a parliamentary ruling. Is a unanimous-consent request in order for the purpose of extending the time period?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would just like to say there have been a lot of things said here in the past few minutes, but, very simply put, this issue is very straightforward. The issue simply put is that we, as U.S. taxpayers, should not be using our Federal dollars to reward those that have illegally come to this country, broken the laws, and reward them with a welfare check. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment that would provide welfare benefits to those that have broken the law and illegally come to this country. Please vote no on this amendment and put sanity back into the bill where it was passed out of the full committee.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York, when she said this was not about illegal aliens, it was about children. That could be the furthest thing from the truth. This provision does one thing and one thing only: It denies anyone illegally in this country from being paid directly a check from the Federal Government. It says nothing about children; only that an illegal alien cannot receive a check.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. GALLEGLY

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would further yield, I would hope that he would still consider strongly supporting the bill, in the final analysis, that he has worked so hard on, like so many others of us have.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have great personal respect for our relationship. We have worked hand in hand on the issue of illegal immigration for many years. But I think the gentleman would be the first to yield to the fact that this is an issue that I have worked very hard for a long, long time without any partisan involvement at all. It is a philosophical issue that I have a tremendous passion for, that I think affects all Americans. I think that is one of the reasons that we saw a fairly significant number of Democrats that voted for that as well.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am sure the gentleman knows the answer to that: Because it was in the bill that passed out of the committee, the full committee that we both serve on, by a vote of 23 to 10, but was changed by leadership prior to coming to the floor.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the reason why, the people that are violating the law today are not going to participate in the voluntary system. They are not the ones we are looking for. The ones we are looking for are the ones that intentionally violate the law.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I think it is very simple. If we have a voluntary system, there is no compliance.

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We have been debating this bill for several hours now, and we have more to come. But I am here to tell you that this is the watershed moment in immigration reform. This is the litmus test for sincerity. This is where Members will decide to either get serious about ending illegal immigration, or to just keep talking about it. The simple truth is we not fight illegal immigration without a reliable, reasonable way of determining who is here legally and who is not. We have to start right there. We need a system, a mandatory system, to ensure that illegal immigrants are separated from the jobs that motivate them to come here in the first place. The voluntary verification system now in this bill will not cut it. I have often said that a voluntary system will have about as much effect as a voluntary speed limit, a very little, if any at all. Today the documents are supposed to provide definitive proof of who is here legally and illegally. We have got green cards, we have pink cards, Social Security cards, birth certificates, and a myriad of others. Unfortunately, the range of documents has only widened the range of options to counterfeiters. In many areas of this country you can buy a fake Social Security card good enough to defraud any law abiding employer for about $30. Just think about it: A $30 investment buys a lifetime of illegal employment in America. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. That is the beauty of the telephone verification system. This amendment, which I call 1-800-end fraud, makes counterfeit documents obsolete because it renders them irrelevant. Mr. Chairman, there has been an incredible amount of misleading information spread about this issue in recent weeks. Believe me when I tell you that Pinocchio has nothing on those who have opposed this critical effort. I know this because I have personally received calls from my constituents urging me to vote against my own amendment. When I asked them what they think we are talking about here, what exactly, well, first, they pause because responding to questions is not part of the script that they have been given, and then they say, ``This is a national I.D. card. This is a dangerous tracking provision that is going to follow me into my own home and put all my personal private information into a government computer.'' It is just absolutely incredible. I thought our discussions on Medicare had established a new low for this body in terms of misinformation and scare tactics. But that is nothing compared to what we have been dealing with on this issue. In the name of truth and reason, I would like to take a second to review how this pilot program will work. Specifically, within 3 days of hiring someone an employer would make a simple toll-free telephone call to ensure that the Social Security number presented by the worker was valid; that that number matched the name and it was not being used by 40 other people working in 40 other places. That is all there is to it. This program has been strongly endorsed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the largest State chamber in the Nation, because it provides safe harbor for employers and gives them a clear and easy way to comply with the law. For too long we have tried to turn employers into junior INS agents. This amendment shifts the responsibility back where it belongs, to the Federal Government. Just a few of the facts: This system does not create any new data base, period. This system does not collect any information that can later be misused by the Government, period. This system does not do anything other than verify the people employed in this country are eligible to work in this country. Nowhere in this system is there an ability for the Government to know whether you have got a gun, whether you home school your kids, or whether you prefer Cheerios or Wheaties at the breakfast table. The critics of this amendment know all this, but they have taken great lengths to make sure that the people they claim to represent do not. A familiar refrain is that we would not need this system if we just focused more on the border. Well, this bill already does focus on the border. But it, frankly, is beyond me to know how the border enforcement can deal with those 4 to 6 million illegal immigrants already working in this country, or how any provision can provide determining who they are or who they are not. I have consistently supported increased border enforcement, but increased border enforcement will not solve all our problems, and it certainly will not solve this one. This system puts the teeth into immigration reform. This system makes immigration reform work. Without it, we are left with a watered down bill that sounds great, but has only a limited effect. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the modification of the amendment made in order by a previous order of the House is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified, made in order by the rule.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. I want to especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee for including two of my amendments in this text. My first amendment would expand a criminal alien identification system pilot program to include Ventura County. This program will help INS officers to identify whether persons arrested are illegal aliens or previously convicted criminal aliens and will help speed deportation. My second amendment addresses the ability of illegal aliens to receive Federal housing assistance despite the fact that HUD housing law expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving this assistance. My amendment would tighten existing HUD law and regulations by closing waiting list loopholes, would require verification of eligibility, would prorate assistance for families of mixed eligibility and would suspend assistance if a family knowingly permits other non- eligible tenants to use the assistance. I want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Lazio and ranking member Kennedy and their staffs for their assistance. I also want to express my appreciation to HUD for their constructive input and their support. I urge passage of this amendment.