Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, on July 13, I reluctantly voted against H.R. 9, a bill that significantly altered the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Contrary to popular opinion, H.R. 9 did not represent a time-critical reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA, which prohibits voter discrimination, is permanent Federal law. It never needs reauthorization. However, certain provisions of the Act (Sections 6-9 and Section 203), which were meant to be temporary and periodically reviewed by Congress, are due to expire a year from now--not today, this month or even this year. When enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act played a critical role in granting equal rights to all Americans to cast their ballots. At that point in our Nation's history, some jurisdictions used extraordinary voter suppression devices like poll taxes and literacy tests that were designed to discriminate against minority voters and indeed had that effect. Congress rightly responded in kind with extraordinary remedies that were deemed emergency provisions. The emergency or temporary provisions of the VRA include Section 5, which requires certain covered jurisdictions to pre-clear any change in their election laws or procedures with the Department of Justice. This means relocating a ballot booth in one neighborhood can require Federal approval. It also includes Section 203, added in 1975, mandating that ballots in certain jurisdictions be provided in languages other than English. Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is significantly flawed. For example, H.R. 9 does not simply re-authorize Section 5 of VRA but makes significant changes to the section. Specifically, it requires that for Section 5 pre-clearance that minorities as a group, not as individuals, be allowed to elect their preferred candidate of choice. Legal scholars disagree on the meaning of this phrase but many interpret it to mean that states will now be forced in decennial Congressional redistricting to maximize the number of districts where a certain political party wins. For example, in the recent Texas redistricting case it was found that if most members of a minority group vote Democratic, they are entitled to a district that elects a Democrat. If a minority candidate wins the district, that is not sufficient. It must be a Democrat minority candidate. That is not a voting right; it is a voting wrong. No less a legal authority than former Solicitor General Ted Olson has stated the following: ``For forty-one years, the Voting Rights Act has focused on protecting voters' rights to cast a ballot by forbidding States from adopting laws that `abridge[] the right to vote on account of race or color.' The new version of the Voting Rights Act, however, risks shifting the Act's focus to protect politicians' interests in holding office, by entrenching preferred candidates of choice. I believe that most Americans would agree that the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect voters' access to the ballot box, not to protect incumbents' reelection chances.'' Thus, Section 5 should be reauthorized as is without this new language. Another flaw of H.R. 9 is that it preserves 40-year-old criteria (based on the 1964, '68, and '72 presidential elections) to determine which states and counties are subject to provisions of the VRA. But minority-voting patterns are now dramatically different than they were 40 years ago. For example, today in Georgia, blacks are more likely than whites to register to vote and to exercise their right to vote. The VRA should be used to protect voting rights everywhere, not just the South and a handful of other counties. Discrimination today can happen just as easily in Michigan or New Jersey as it can in Texas or Georgia. Unless this section is changed, many of our grandchildren will continue to be punished for the sins of our grandfathers. That should not happen in America. Using election data from 1964--when 60% of Americans today were not even alive--to determine discrimination patterns today is deeply troubling and raises questions as to the fairness and constitutionality of the legislation. The criteria should be updated to the relevant last three presidential elections to assure equal protection under the law. Finally, I continue to believe that section 203 is bad public policy. In America, English is the language of opportunity. This common language binds us together as a people and strengthens us as a Nation. We must continue to emphasize the importance of learning English to those integrating into American society and culture. This is important to them and critical to the Nation as a whole. Those entering the country illegally clearly are not allowed to vote and naturalized citizens must demonstrate English proficiency before becoming Americans. Thus, contrary to popular notions, there are relatively few Americans not sufficiently proficient with English to cast a ballot. Those that are not already have their voting rights protected by laws permitting them to bring a translator into the voting booth with them. If a city or state wishes to print multiple ballots in numerous languages the Federal Government should not prevent them from doing so. On the other hand, the federal government should not mandate that they do it either. Simply put, taxpayers should not be compelled by federal law to pay for printing ballots in languages other than English. The amendments that I supported to shorten the bill's extension to 10 years, apply the VRA fairly and nationwide, remove jurisdictions from coverage when they have shown a consistent respect for the voting rights of minority citizens, and end a requirement forcing taxpayers to pay for ballots in languages other than English--would have greatly improved this bill. I hope that appropriate changes are made to strengthen this bill, so that I am able to vote for final passage when it comes back to the House. There is no doubt that the debate over the Voting Rights Act is an emotional one. For many Americans it has become and icon and rightfully so. The VRA has been a critical weapon in the struggle for civil rights and equal opportunity and should remain so. But the emergency provisions were written in a different time to address a different set of challenges. There is danger in allowing symbolism to overcome reality and principle. This is not a vote I took lightly. I know too often in America that when the accusation is racism, one may wrongly be considered guilty until proven innocent. I regret the phenomena but will not let it dictate my conscience. Everyday we should not only work to root out racial discrimination but should work to reduce race consciousness as well. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts opined in the case LVLAC v. Perry: ``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.'' I agree. Instead we should all work together to achieve Martin Luther King, Jr's goal of achieving a society that judges our children ``not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.''

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, trade with Oman represents four one- hundredths of 1 percent of our Nation's trade. Thus, we are clearly not debating the American economy today. Instead, we are debating whether or not we are a Nation of trade or a Nation of protectionism, and we are debating whether or not we will support or repudiate an ally in the war on terror. Free trade delivers a greater choice of goods and services to American consumers at lower prices. That means families can buy more using less of their paychecks. More trade means more competition, and competition has always helped the consumer. Mr. Speaker, we have 230 years of experience now to show it. But beyond all the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we must recognize that trade is fundamentally an issue of personal freedom. Nations do not trade with nations. People trade with people. And with the exception of national security considerations, every American citizen should have the right to determine the origin of the goods and services they want to purchase. Now, maybe we, in Congress, have the power, but do we have the right to tell Americans they cannot buy less expensive goods for their families from other nations? The answer should be a resounding no. Mr. Speaker, this agreement will also improve the national security of the U.S. In the recent 9/11 Commission, they recommended that the U.S. pursue policies to promote more open and freer societies to defeat the root causes of terrorism. That means trade. A free trade agreement with Oman will do just that, which is critical to our current situation in the Middle East. The nation of Oman has been a friend of the U.S. for over 170 years. They have been a valuable ally during the Cold War, as well as aiding us in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. They continue to be an important ally in the global war on terror, having taken a very strong stand against Islamic extremism that begets terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the agreement. Mr. Speaker, for over 200 years America has benefited from free trade and competition. I urge my colleagues to once again reject raw protectionism and partisanship and instead stand for freedom and security and support the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, thanks to the tax relief passed by Republicans in Congress, our economy continues to roll, creating 5.4 million jobs in just 2 years. And because our taxes have been lowered, Americans are working, saving, and investing even more. That means Republican progrowth tax policies have actually resulted in higher tax revenues, which in turn means that the budget deficit has now dropped from $423 billion to $296 billion. Madam Speaker, despite the opposition of the Democrats, the deficit is down, after-tax incomes are up, homeownership is at an all-time high, and more Americans are working today than ever before. In my district a worker in Mesquite is entering the workforce, a family in Jacksonville can better afford to send their daughter to college, a newlywed couple in Dallas can now put a down payment on a home, and a small business owner in Garland can hire three new workers. The numbers and stories reveal that tax relief is working and making the lives of Americans better. That is why we will continue to fight the Democrat agenda of excessive taxation, mind-numbing and senseless litigation that will only close down small businesses and hurt our jobs.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, tonight I rise in strong support of this resolution and to condemn the recent attacks upon Israel by Hezbollah. All of us tonight have the earnest prayer that the current wave of violence can end quickly. Innocent civilians are being lost in Lebanon and Israel, and the word ``tragic'' never does the situation justice. But peace can never be achieved by asking Israel to put at risk its security and the safety of its people. Let there be no doubt, this latest conflict began with Hezbollah. Rockets have now rained down upon Israel. Israel has been forced to defend her citizens and sovereign territory, and I believe that Israel has the moral, historical and legal right to do so. Holding the keys to peace in this situation are Hezbollah's state sponsors in Damascus and Tehran. They can and must use their influence to convince Hezbollah to return the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. By doing so, Syria and Iran will finally demonstrate that they are prepared to join the world community. Should they not, however, the world community must hold them fully accountable for being state sponsors of a terrorist organization. Also critical to achieving a lasting peace in the region is international support for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. Passed by the United Nations Security Council in 2004, the resolution calls on all foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon, and for all militias within Lebanon to be disbanded. Its full implementation, Madam Speaker, will promote greater independence for Lebanon and greater security for Israel, not to mention the rest of the world. Since 1948, the United States has stood with and supported the State of Israel, as it has defended herself from these who seek her destruction and deny her very right to exist. In return, Israel has been our staunchest ally in the region as well as a full partner in the global war on terror. Let us pass this resolution and assure Israel that we will continue to stand by her side in the face of terror.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding. I certainly thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, once wrote: ``Can the liberties of a Nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?'' Now, I have heard Democrat after Democrat saying that we should not be debating the Pledge Protection Act here today. Apparently, whether the phrase ``one Nation under God'' is stripped from our Pledge by activist judges is of little importance to them, but it is to most Americans, and it should be to our Democrat colleagues as well. Mr. Chairman, what we are debating here today is nothing short of our very liberty. What could be more worthy of this body than a debate about our liberty? When our forefathers gave birth to this new Nation, they also gave birth to a radical, revolutionary idea in history, the idea that our rights do not emanate from the State, that they are granted to us from the Almighty. Who among us have forgotten the words enshrined in our Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights? The answer appears to be some of our Democrat colleagues. Nothing is more central to the foundation of our very liberty than the acknowledgment of God in public life, not the Christian God, the Jewish God or the Muslim God, but God, the Creator, as broadly defined and acknowledged and worshipped in many faiths and traditions. But, Mr. Chairman, there is now a concerted effort among some, including apparently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to chase God from the schoolhouse, the courthouse and the statehouse, not to mention our very Pledge of Allegiance. Through H.R. 2389, using our powers under Article III, section 2, we should stop them and protect liberty by enacting the Pledge Protection Act.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 2754. Make no mistake about it, Congress is not debating banning stem cell research. It is legal. It is a question, though, of whether or not we will use the public's money to fund research that many Americans find morally and ethically reprehensible. I support this bill because, without destroying innocent human life, it prioritizes additional research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit, like umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells. That research is already yielding treatment to fight diseases like leukemia and lymphoma. Mr. Speaker, our sacred Declaration of Independence states that every American has the right to life, and I am personally opposed to any measure that would create life just to destroy it. This it is not the first nor the last time that I believe Congress will debate this important question, but whenever doubt or conflict arises, I hope that Congress will always, always, Mr. Speaker, err on the side of life.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman opposed to the motion? If not, I request the time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3496 for several reasons. Number one, Mr. Speaker, I don't quite understand why this is on the suspension calendar today. Second of all, Mr. Speaker, the Federal taxpayer is paying a lot of money already to help subsidize this particular transit system. I am not sure if more payments are really worthwhile at this time. Next, Mr. Speaker, we have over 10,000 Federal programs today. At what point do we say enough is enough? And, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that when the dots are connected, the dust settles, whatever metaphor you want to use, that unfortunately the taxpayers will be on the hook for an additional $1.5 billion that they had not counted on. And that money ultimately, Mr. Speaker, has to come from somewhere. First, Mr. Speaker, let me address the concern I have of why we have this on the calendar in the first place. Certainly under our House Republican Conference rules, legislation creating new Federal programs, I thought, was not supposed to be put on the suspension calendar. As we all know, typically our suspension calendar is used frequently to honor somebody with the naming of a post office, to congratulate a sports team, to declare breast cancer awareness week. I don't think it is to put taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 billion, which ultimately, if this bill passes, I believe could be the result. Now, I have no doubt that since it is on the suspension calendar that it will receive a very, very healthy vote as Members just start to arrive and, frankly, do not pay as close attention to the suspension calendar as opposed to bills coming up in regular order. But I fear at the end of the day, again, this does authorize a new program. If it did not authorize a new program, why are we here today? Why did we not simply have a Member propose an amendment to perhaps the transportation bill or the homeland security bill? So in that respect, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this is being handled on this particular calendar. Next, Mr. Speaker, how much is enough? I admit the Federal Government has had a lengthy partnership with the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority. $6.2 billion or 60 percent of the construction costs, I believe, were picked up by the Federal taxpayer; 40 percent of the capital costs over the last decade. But the WAMTA is already receiving formula grants under titles 5307 and 5309. So they are already receiving Federal funds, if you will, a dedicated revenue source from the Federal Government already. I believe in inflation-adjusted terms that is about $1.5 billion over the last 10 years. And I think if you look back, these annual grants are now more or less three times what they were 10 years ago. Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, how much is enough? You add it all up, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. Now, I certainly applaud the gentleman from Virginia for wanting to put in greater oversight and greater accountability into the system. I know that his committee provided a number of articles from a Washington Post expose, I think, dating back 9, 10, 11 months ago, that indicated that trains broke down 64 percent more often now than several years ago, that the Washington Metro Transit Authority had spent $383 million on 192 rail cars, and those cars break down almost as often as the old cars. Several hundred million, according to The Washington Post, was spent to refurbish old cars from the 1980s and those refurbished break down even more often. $9 million was spent to renovate 178 escalators, and a third break down more often than before renovation. So I would say if there was a system that perhaps was in need of a little greater oversight and a little greater accountability, this is it. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I fear that what we would be doing is punishing success and rewarding failure. I certainly hope that the gentleman from Virginia indeed did take these steps in his bill. And for that aspect of the bill, I certainly congratulate that portion of it. But, Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me the most is at a time that our Nation is facing unparalleled national debt, when we are a Nation at war, at what point do you say ``no'' to a new program? Again, according to the Heritage Foundation, we have over 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. How much is enough? I believe in our last budget we have $75 billion, more or less, in transportation funding. Now that is up 83.5 percent in just 10 years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have almost doubled the Federal contribution to transportation, almost doubled in just a decade. Again, how much is enough? I believe we have over 28 Federal programs dedicated to mass transit. And I believe in the most recent SAFETEA-LU bill, that translates to $45.3 billion. Are the number of government programs only limited by our imagination, the imagination of Members to come to the floor and propose it? No matter how worthy they are, again, how many are enough? Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should start limiting government programs by the ability of taxpayers in future generations to pay for them. Now, I certainly want to applaud the gentleman from Virginia from attempting to offer an offset to the spending. I think I may agree to disagree with the gentleman, but my fear is again when the dots are connected and the dust settles, I am not sure it is a real offset. My fear is that it will prove to be a mirage. What happens here, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman is claiming offsetting receipts from H.R. 4761. Now, when that bill was originally written, it was coming to the floor violating our Budget Act, violating our budget resolution. I am happy to say that that was corrected by a manager's amendment. But it appears that receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf drilling are spoken for, between State revenue sharing and several new entitlement programs that were included in H.R. 4761. I know that this is an authorization bill; but had it been a mandatory bill, if it had ultimately resulted in real spending, CBO would have scored this money in such a way that it would have busted the budget. And, Mr. Speaker, if the funding does materialize, again in the years that it is spent, it will end up contravening our budget. And I don't see that the revenue-sharing agreement is going away with the States. I don't see these other mandatory programs going away. So maybe the gentleman did indeed secure an offset. Maybe his program is fully offset. But, Mr. Speaker, if his program is fully offset, somebody else's program is not. At the end of the day, it is a little bit like musical chairs; and I fear when the music stops, the taxpayer is the only one who is left standing. Next, Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about what is happening in our Congress with respect to earmarks. According to the Heritage Foundation, this particular bill, weighing in at $1.5 billion, may constitute the largest earmark ever. I thought this was the House that wanted to start reforming earmarks, which among other things I would hope would lead to fewer of them, and perhaps less costly earmarks. I mean, recently we have had the bridge to nowhere, weighing in at about $250 million; the railroad to nowhere, weighing in at about $750 million; and now we have everything, the bike improvements, the curb extensions, the bus bays, the new rail cars of the WMATA weighing in at about $1.5 billion. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. And ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, someone is going to have to pay for all of this; and part of our job in Congress is to decide upon priorities and make some very, very tough decisions. But, again, if this all comes to fruition, ultimately there is $1.5 billion more that is going to be spent over 10 years than was expected. There are only three places that money ultimately comes from: either we place more debt on our children, we raise taxes, or we end up spending less somewhere else. Now, right now we are awash in tax revenues. We have the highest number of tax revenues we have had in the history of America. Corporate tax revenues are up roughly 40 percent last year. Individual tax revenues are up roughly 15 percent. We do not seem to have a taxing problem in the Nation's Capital. I do think, though, Mr. Speaker, maybe we have a spending problem. We are spending over $23,000 per American household for only the fourth time in our Nation's history. Since I was born, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family budget. In the last 10 years alone, Federal funding for international affairs is up 89 percent; agriculture, 118 percent; education, 113 percent; and as I mentioned earlier, the transportation function, 83 percent. Meanwhile, inflation over the same period grew 25 percent; median family income, 33 percent. We are more than spending over inflation, and the Federal budget is growing beyond the family budget. When do you say enough is enough? Let's look at the national debt. Although we have had great news recently in reducing the Federal deficit, the debt continues to increase. We have gone from roughly $5.5 trillion to $8 trillion in just 5 years. Unless we balance the budget tomorrow, every new program's cost is going to get added to the national debt, and ultimately that burden is borne by our children and our grandchildren. We know that our entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is growing way beyond our ability to pay for it. And we know that we are facing a rather nasty fork in the road. If you look at CBO, OMB, GAO and anybody who has looked at Federal budgetary trends, they will tell you. Within one generation, either we are going to have no Federal Government, except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There will be nothing else left to give the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, much less the border security or FAA or anybody else. Or the other fork in the road is we will have to double taxes on our children and grandchildren just to balance the budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to make tough decisions, and I have no doubt that the gentleman is sincere in that this money would go for a very, very good purpose. But there are lots of good purposes out there, Mr. Speaker, including the purpose of ensuring that our children and grandchildren do not inherit an America with greater debt and less freedom and less opportunity. If we say ``yes'' to every Member's program today, no matter how worthy it may be, we are going to end up saying ``no'' to our children's future tomorrow. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to H.R. 3496. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I am unconvinced at the end of the day that the combination of these two bills is not spending additional taxpayer money. In fact, I have in my hand the committee report, before the two bills were separated, dated April 26 that on page 11 it clearly says for those grants, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $1.5 billion to the Secretary. I admit that is a report before the two bills were separated. But a combination of the two, again, is going to put the taxpayer on the hook for an additional $1.5 billion, and I think, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is peel away the layers of the onion here and see what we have. Again, we already have Federal programs in place to help fund WMATA. We already have moneys flowing. So either we are looking at new funding today, or we are looking at a new program, or we are looking at both. Regardless, a combination of the two, I believe, will spend more money, and Mr. Speaker, even if it was budget neutral, even if it was budget neutral, when we are looking at a Federal debt that has gone from roughly $5.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion in just about 5 years, I am not sure I want any new Federal programs until we do a better job in preventing this debt from being imposed upon our children, at a time when we have the highest level of tax revenues we have ever had in the Nation's history. Again, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a taxing problem. We have a spending problem, and I am not here to say that there are not many worthy provisions of this bill, and I am glad to hear about all the accountability features of the bill. I don't quite know why that has to be combined with a billion and a half new spending since, again, the Federal taxpayer is already contributing to this mass transit system at a very healthy clip. But one of the reasons I would be leery of authorizing new funds, as President Reagan, one of my favorite Presidents, once said that the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program. So what happens in the outyears as this program continues on and on and on? I am not sure anybody here on this floor today knows for certain. I can tell you this: I got into the fatherhood business 4 years ago. I now have a 4-year-old daughter and 2\1/2\-year-old son; and I can tell you once I helped bring them into the world, they have been very hungry, very expensive, and very needful people. Now, I love them very much, but again, using this analogy, they can get very expensive in the outyears. So, Mr. Speaker, another point I would like to address as many speakers came here today to make a very compelling argument that this was a vital transportation program, that it was a very vital program related to our homeland security, God forbid should another 9/11 occur. But if this is true, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, why was this program not originally funded in the homeland security appropriations bill? Why was this project not originally funded in the transportation appropriations bill? Many competing interests come together in those bills, hopefully within a budget constraint, and decisions are made about Federal priorities. So, again, if this is such a priority, I am wondering why it was not included there. But again, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, my concern here is that somehow, some way a combination of these two bills is going to mean at a time when tax revenues are at their highest, at a time when the national debt is at its highest, at a time where we already have 10,000 Federal programs and they grow each day, that we are going to have a new Federal program, and again, no matter how worthy it may be, without taking away some other lower-priority Federal program, and I just do not believe that the OCS dedicated revenue stream that was already spoken for, that even if the gentleman from Virginia has been successful, and maybe he has been, in dedicating that funding to his bill, then some other program has gone unfunded; and therefore, again the Federal taxpayer today in the future will be on the hook. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would urge defeat of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the horrific 9/11 attacks on America taught us that border security is homeland security. But just last year, Customs and the Border Patrol stopped over 1 million people who illegally crossed our border. And of that 1 million, 160,000 were from countries other than Mexico, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Last week, expert witnesses at an International Relations subcommittee field hearing in Laredo, Texas, testified that unlike in years past, many illegal immigrants who sneak across the border are no longer good people who are simply in search of honest work, but rather, increasingly, they are criminals who belong to violent gangs and drug cartels. Reynaldo Gaza, the Border Patrol chief in Laredo, testified that he worries now about the links between the drug cartels and the terrorists. Hundreds of illegal immigrants will cross our southern border today. Some of them will be criminals, some gang members. I pray none are terrorists. But the truth is, we don't know. A nation without borders ceases to be a nation, which is why we must secure our border first.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding again. And she used an interesting phrase earlier about securing our borders: stop the bleeding. It is a phrase I hear over and over and over from my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. And, indeed, the House has now passed a border security bill that we believe would go a long way towards stopping the bleeding, and now finally the other body after many months has now acted. Mr. Speaker, I know that Americans recall their Civics 101, and they know that you pass a House bill, you pass a Senate bill, they have to come together in a conference and come up with just one bill. It gets passed by both of our respective bodies yet again before it is sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity now to take a look at that Senate bill; and, frankly, most of us believe that it is wrong-headed and would head America in a very bad direction. Number one, Mr. Speaker, we don't understand why, if there are contentious issues that are out there, and we agree there are many issues associated with illegal entry that are contentious, but if they are, can't we all come together, Democrat and Republican, after 9/11 and say we have got to secure our borders? Can't we at least as a body agree on that and maybe work on some of these more contentious issues later? As we know, in the House bill what we do is, number one, we increase personnel on the border, at least immediately 1,000 additional agents, 1,500 K-9 units. We erect literal walls and virtual walls on much of our border. We increase the sanctions for employers who knowingly hire those who enter this country illegal. If you want to help stem the tide, you have got to deal with the magnets that are drawing people into the Nation illegally. We end this ridiculous program known as ``catch and release,'' which at least from my part of Texas catch and release is for fish; it is not for those who enter the country illegally. But what we have is a system where particularly those who are known as OTMs, those other than Mexicans, that are caught coming across the border, they are simply released until, Oh, why don't you show up, say, in 60 days and come to a hearing so we can decide whether or not to deport you. Well, we know how many will not show up for that certain deportation hearing. Our bill would end that catch and release program. Our bill does a lot, Mr. Speaker, to stop the bleeding. But if you look at what the Senate bill does, it takes a different direction. Number one, it provides amnesty for many of those who entered the country illegally. Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before, about 20 years ago. It was one of those ideas that might have looked good on the blackboard, but guess what, it didn't work. It simply did not work. And now the Senate wants to offer amnesty to those who have been here for 5 years if they will pay some back taxes and some kind of fee. They want to provide them an opportunity to cut in the line of citizenship when, as I said earlier, I just welcomed 95 new Americans into this country who played by the rules, who waited for those 5 and 7 and 10 years to get here. And we are going to say, No, you played by the rules, we are going to reward these people over here who didn't. What does that say about the rule of law, Mr. Speaker? I don't think much. Additionally, the Senate bill would provide benefits to those who come here illegally. It would provide Social Security benefits to those who have come to the country illegally. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House Budget Committee, and I have seen the most recent report of the Medicare and Social Security trustees. Unfortunately, Social Security is due to go broke at least one year earlier than last predicted. Now, we know our seniors are okay; but for future generations like my children, Social Security as we know it won't be there for them. And, guess what, the Senate wants to start handing out benefits to those who came here illegally. Additionally, they want to hand out in-state tuition, in-state college tuition for those who come to our country illegally. Mr. Speaker, how are you ever going to stop illegal entry when you are actually strengthening the magnet that is drawing people here in the first place?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I certainly appreciate her leadership of what I believe is perhaps the number one issue that is facing us today, and that is clearly winning this war against terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind, and I believe no doubt in the minds of most Americans, that border security is homeland security. Mr. Speaker, we ignore our borders at our own peril. Too often even today we do not know who is coming across our borders, we do not know what their purpose is, we do not know where they are going. And times have changed; times have changed since 9/11. There was a time in our Nation's history where the illegal entry problem was one of a trickle. Today, it is a flood. There were over 1.2 million apprehensions of those who entered our country illegally last year, and those were just the ones that were apprehended. Again, we do not know who all these people are. We do not know what their purpose is. We ignore border security at our own peril. I live in Texas, Mr. Speaker, one of the border States. Mexico is a very important neighbor to us. We have had excellent relations with the country for many, many years; and there is no doubt that a number of those who enter our country illegally are simply people who are trying to feed their families; and I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I have compassion for these people, but at the same time we must protect Americans. We must know who is coming across the border. And what we see, particularly when we talk to people on the front lines of this war, particularly our border sheriffs, we learn that the border is a very different place than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Increasingly what we see is a very armed and dangerous group of those who enter this country illegally. Increasingly we are seeing AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades associated with those in the drug traffic. And increasingly our border sheriffs are concerned about what contact and what connection the drug lords may have with the terrorists. We hear from our Border Patrol that attacks on agents are up. We have our border sheriffs in Texas tell us that they believe, they believe that some of the drug shipments across the border have come with military escorts. Increasingly we know that we are being infiltrated by the MS-13 gangs from Central America. Again, Mr. Speaker, we ignore border security at our own peril. And perhaps most importantly, I am not sure if all of the American people know this, but Iraqis have been captured trying to infiltrate our southern border. And we know, we know from the Department of Homeland Security, that al-Qaeda has made contact with human smugglers in Mexico. We ignore border security at our own peril. But besides being a threat to our homeland security, unbridled illegal entry into the U.S. is not just a threat to our border security, it is a threat to our economic security as well. Coming from Texas, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the taxpayers of Texas pay billions of dollars to educate the children of those who have entered illegally. That is just not fair, Mr. Speaker, it is just not fair. Hundreds of millions have been spent on health care. Now, again we do not want to deny essential emergency health care to anybody who walks into the room. But to have this serve as some kind of magnet for illegal entry is just wrong, and the cost associated with incarceration, again unchecked illegal entry into this country is a threat to our border security, it is a threat to our economic security. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it is a threat to the rule of law, one of the foundations upon which this great Nation was built, a nation of laws, not of men. Is the first lesson we want to teach somebody who comes to this country that our laws are optional, that they are mere suggestions? Do we want to tell people that, well, because you managed to sneak across some border, you fooled us; here are your citizenship papers? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that that is what we need. Now, Mr. Speaker, as important as this debate is, I agree with the gentlewoman from Tennessee that unfortunately, unfortunately, there are many in this country, there are many, many in this body that are trying to take a debate that should be about whether America has the will and the means to control its border and whether there is a right way and a wrong way to enter America, they are trying to twist that, they are trying to twist this into some kind of debate about ethnicity. They are trying to twist this into a debate about whether America is a nation of immigrants. I do not see anybody debating that proposition, Mr. Speaker. America is a nation of immigrants. It always has been; I believe it always will be. We would like to shine up the Statute of Liberty. We want to find room for people who want to work hard and who love freedom. But there is a right way and a wrong way to come to America. My friends and my neighbors come to the front door in the light of day and they knock on the door and they seek permission to come into my home. They do not sneak in the back door under the cover of night. There is a right way and a wrong way to come to America. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest privileges and honors I have had as a Member of Congress took place Saturday before last in Garland, Texas, in my congressional district. I spoke to a swearing-in ceremony of 95 new Americans. And it was one of the most awe-inspiring experiences I have had as a Member of Congress. And let me tell you a few things about these 95 new Americans I was able to welcome as new Americans into Garland, Texas. Number one, each and every one of them, Mr. Speaker, waited in line, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, to come and achieve that great privilege of American citizenship. They followed the rules. They learned the English language, which is the language of opportunity and something that binds us together as a people. Mr. Speaker, besides that, they learned our history; they learned our culture. I would wager that a number of them could do better on an American history test than some of us, some of us in this august body here. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but as a Member of Congress, sometimes people actually want to have their picture taken with you. I am flattered and humbled that so many of these 95 new Americans wanted to have their photo taken with me. I met a young lady who was born in Laos, who is now an American. And I asked her, ``What is it that made you want to come to America?'' after she had her photo taken with me. It was a one-word answer, Mr. Speaker. We all know what that answer is. Freedom. Freedom. These were 95 new Americans who wanted to roll up their sleeves, they wanted to work hard, and they loved freedom. And we welcome them. We welcome them into our midst. And so, again, Mr. Speaker, we are not having a debate about who it is that makes the best Americans. We are not having a debate about taking down the Statute of Liberty as many would want you to believe. We are having a debate about, after 9/11, can we ignore our borders? And we are having a debate about whether or not there is a right way and a wrong way to come to America. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the most important debates that is going to take place in this body, in this institution this year. And so much is riding on it. Because I believe, as do so many of my constituents, that the number one threat to our Nation, and the number one threat to our families is terrorism. And essential to winning the war on terror is controlling our borders. And, with that, I will yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is so right. Again, we have Iraqis who have been apprehended trying to infiltrate our southern border. We know there are contacts between al Qaeda and human smugglers in Mexico. We know what was once a trickle of illegal entry is now a flood of illegal entry. What was once mainly low-income, poor Mexicans is almost a United Nations of illegal entry coming from all parts of the globe and planet. We ignore border control at our own peril. Why, Mr. Speaker, would Senators Reid and Kennedy essentially say we are not willing to help you secure the border unless you grant amnesty to millions and millions of those who have come here illegal? And, oh, by the way, we want to present them with different welfare benefits and we want to give them Social Security. And, oh, by the way, we are not going to allow you to secure the United States border unless you go consult with foreign nations first. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand this. The American people don't understand this. Again, we must know that we are having a national debate about two and only two issues: Do we have the will to control our borders? And is there a right way and a wrong way to come to America? Mr. Speaker, I decry those who are trying to turn this into some kind of a debate about ethnicity and who makes the best Americans. Some of the best Americans I know were not born in America. And the reason they make some of the best Americans is because they have known something besides freedom and opportunity, and because of that, many times they treasure our birthright even more than those of us who were born in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, this is not about taking the Statue of Liberty down; this is about protecting the Statue of Liberty. If we want to open wide the door of legal immigration, we have to shut down the door to illegal immigration. When we do, we will help secure our southern border, our northern border, and we will make the homeland more secure.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentlewoman alluded to our border sheriffs, those on the front lines who are trying to stem this war against drugs and terrorists, who could infiltrate our southern border, because they are very knowledgeable about what is happening on both our southern and northern borders. We were discussing differences between the House-passed bill which was supported by almost everyone on the Republican side of the aisle, versus the Senate bill, the Reid-Kennedy bill which most Republicans opposed. We talked about how the Reid-Kennedy bill grants amnesty to those who have broken our laws and how the Reid-Kennedy bill provides Social Security benefits and in-State college tuition to those who have entered this country illegally and broken our laws; and we talked about how the Reid-Kennedy bill will force us to consult with a foreign nation before we take steps to secure our southern border. But another aspect of the Reid-Kennedy bill that we did not discuss is what it does to our local border sheriffs. And under that bill, under that piece of legislation, local police departments and sheriffs could not, I repeat, could not, Mr. Speaker, apprehend those who are in this country illegally unless they were found to be arrested for some other crime. In other words, merely being in the country illegally, the Senate bill would strip them of any power to apprehend, arrest and turn those individuals over for deportation. Again, it is completely opposite of our House-passed bill that is trying to empower those on the front lines, to give them more resources and give them additional training to help and become partners with the Federal Government, with the Department of Homeland Security, with Border Patrol in trying to apprehend these people. We know in many ways the flood of illegal entrants has changed over the years. Again, I know that many people who come here are not bad people, and I am not attempting to vilify them. I am the father of two small children, a 4-year-old and a 2\1/2\-year-old. And I know if I was born poor in Latin America and I couldn't feed my children, I don't know what you would do to stop me from crossing this border. But because I have compassion for somebody does not mean that I want to hand them a check drawn upon the Federal taxpayer. Because I have compassion for someone does not mean I want to say, okay, we are going to let you cut in line and here are your U.S. citizen papers. No, Mr. Speaker, we have to secure the border. After 9/11, knowing the intentions of al Qaeda, we have got to secure our borders, regardless of the fact that many of these people are not bad people, and we understand what they are trying to do. But we have got to come up with a system, enough carrots and sticks, to where our Border Patrol are looking for tens of people trying to cross the border illegally instead of thousands of people trying to cross the border illegally every evening. Unless we put the enforcement provisions in the House bill in place, this simply will not happen. Again, I know there are contentious issues. There are contentious issues about children who are U.S. citizens whose parents may be illegal here. There are suggestions for a guest worker program; and I, for one, am very open to a guest worker program. But everybody says, let's stop the bleeding, let's control the border. Can't we at least agree on that? And let's seal our border to illegal entry, and then we can start dealing with the other facets of immigration, the other facets of a guest worker program, which I believe is part of our solution and not part of our problem. But it is all for naught unless we secure the border first.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Again, I recall that there are at least a couple of other provisions of the legislation produced by the Senate that should be of interest to all of us as we look at two really different approaches to meeting the challenge of border security. Now, under our legislation, we would actually construct literal walls on certain portions of the border, which we know will be helpful. It doesn't solve the problem, but it is at least helpful in a multi- faceted strategy to deal with illegal entry into the Nation, While in the Senate bill, in the Senate bill they would require us to consult with Mexico before we constructed a wall on U.S. territory. Mr. Speaker, is that not effectively yielding sovereignty to a foreign nation? Now, again, I respect Mexico. I have traveled extensively in Mexico. I have participated in U.S. interparliamentary council with legislators from south of the border. But to say that we must consult with a foreign nation before we take steps to secure our own borders and to secure the homeland? Mr. Speaker, that is just simply ridiculous. It is just simply ridiculous.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his leadership in this area. I have the honor and privilege of representing the Fifth District of Texas here on the floor of the United States House. There are a lot of great communities, small communities, in east Texas that I represent, places like Canton, and Forney, and Athens. And part of the bedrock of these communities is their local financial institution, their small community bank or their credit union. Over the last decade, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the number of small community banks drop by almost a full third. By almost a full third. And the major reason that we have seen this incredible drop in the number of our community banks is because of the high cost of Federal regulation. The number one item that community bankers cite in the cost of regulation is the regulation associated with the Bank Secrecy Act. Now, nobody in the House will deny that clearly the number one priority of this institution is to fight and win the war on terror, and there is a very important role that the BSA, the Bank Secrecy Act, regime plays in that. But, Mr. Speaker, there has to be in the language of the statute itself a high degree of usefulness to law enforcement for all of these reports that are turned in. Sooner or later, there has to be a balance. There has to be a rule of reason. So what we see on the one hand with our local financial institutions is that every new Federal regulation somewhere at the margin is raising the cost of credit. That means some family is going to struggle in trying to send a child to college. It means some family is going to struggle and maybe they are not able to borrow the money and make a downpayment on that first home. Maybe some family that wants to live the American Dream and finally amass enough capital to start their own business, they can't do it. They can't do it because of the imposition of a Bank Secrecy Act that many of us believe, and apparently by a count of 415-2, is duplicative. So, again, we have to ask ourselves, at what cost does this information come? For example, we received testimony from just one community banker. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Mr. Bradley Rock of the Bank of Smithtown, New York, be entered into the Record.

Mr. HENSARLING. Quoting from his testimony, Mr. Speaker, ``In my bank during the past year, we filed 2,766 cash transaction reports, and we do not have any public companies as customers. In fact, most of these CTRs were filed for ordinary transactions by an ice cream parlor, a clam bar, a restaurant and a high-volume Amoco dealer, all of whom have done business with us for many, many years. My tellers spent more than 460 hours in the branches preparing the CTR forms, and one person in our main office spent more than 1,000 hours checking the forms for accuracy, checking them against computer printouts, and filing the forms with the appropriate government office. Having watched this process for years, and being thoroughly familiar with the businesses that are the subject of these filings, I can tell you with firm assurance that all of this time and paper did absolutely nothing to advance our collective efforts to thwart money laundering and terrorism.'' That is just one small community banker in America. We know they are spread throughout the Nation. In fact, it was over a decade ago, Mr. Speaker, that the GAO concluded that unnecessary reporting was taking place. I am sorry to say that, 10 years later, it still is taking place. So many of these banks are filing these cash transaction reports defensively, and yet we know that we still have the know-your-customer regime that is in place. The suspicious activity reports are still in place, and these are better enforcement tools for law enforcement than the CTRs. In addition, by passing this particular piece of legislation, the information doesn't disappear. It is still available for law enforcement. The cash transaction data will continue to reside in bank account records and be available to law enforcement when they need it, when they are following up a lead. We have heard from law enforcement itself that, in many cases, what we see is that they are searching for a needle in a haystack. The excessive CTR reports are putting more hay on the haystack. As former FinCEN Director William Fox stated, quote, we believe this language, really talking about the legislation at hand, addresses many of the issues with our current exemption regime that were causing it not to have its intended effect. In many respects, Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to be able, by passing this legislation, to really help in two different areas. Number one, make sure law enforcement has the right amount of information in the proper form that they need to do their job, but, at the same time, to make sure that we don't drive any more of our community banks out of business, the lifeblood, at least in my district, of our rural communities that are out there creating the jobs necessary to sustain those rural communities. So the House has really spoken on this matter once before in a very resounding fashion, in a very resounding bipartisan fashion. I certainly want to thank Ranking Member Frank for his leadership in this area as well. But we need a rule of reason. It is a question of balance. Particularly when we have our know-your-customer routine, when the suspicious activity report requirements are still in place, the CTR process as presently envisioned is not working, and that is why it is so necessary that we pass the legislation brought to us by the chairman and the gentleman from Alabama; and I commend him for his work.