Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2330, the Agriculture Appropriations Act, a bill considered on the floor today which makes appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. But more specifically, I rise in strong opposition to the increase provided in the bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and would like to call the House's attention to a problem that one of my constituents has been having with the agency and one that I believe deserves careful consideration by the oversight committees in this chamber. Recently, the FDA gave final approval of my constituent's Pre-Market Application for both total and partial joint implants after an exhaustive and blatantly biased two year review, but not before costing his company over $8 million in legal fees, lost wages and profits. In April 1999, I received a phone call and letter from TMJ Implants, a company located in Golden, Colorado, in my district, which had been having problems with the review of its Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Total and Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis. Up until last year, the company was the premier market supplier of temporomandibular joint prosthesis. Over the last two years, I have taken an active interest and an active role in monitoring the progress of TMJ Implants' application, which was finally approved in February. On numerous occasions, I met with Dr. Bob Christensen, President of TMJ Implants, to find out information about the approval of the Partial and Total Joint, and personally talked to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney and to members of the Agency about the status of the company's applications. I was also, and continue to be, in contact with the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight, which has sole jurisdiction over the FDA and issues relating to abuse and the internal operations of the agency. Specifically, I closely followed this case since my office's first contact with Dr. Christensen and TMJ Implants in early May 1999, after a meeting of the FDA's Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee was held to review the company's PMA and recommended approval of the PMA by a 9-0 vote. From this point onward, the FDA engaged in an obvious pattern of delay and deception and even went as far as to remove TMJ Implants' Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis from the market, which had been available for almost 40 years. This had done nothing more than to cause harm to patients and cost the company millions of dollars. This was done at the same time that the application for TMJ Concepts, a competitor of TMJ Implants, sailed through the process. Several allegations have come to light over the last two years detailing the fact that several Agency employees have worked under the direction of TMJ Concepts' associates. The agency went so far as to reconvene a new Medical Devices Advisory Committee late last year, with a clear majority of its members lacking the required expertise, which denied the company's application. It was not until Mr. Bernard Statland, the new Director of the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) was brought in that the logjam was broken the PMA was quickly approved. As the above demonstrates, several concerns remain about the process that has taken place over the last two years. It is no secret that everyone involved in this case believes that there have been significant questions raised about the process--the sluggish pace of the review of the engineering data for both the total and partial joint and, more importantly, the constant ``moving of the goal posts'' during the review of both PMAs. Over the last two years, my office has received numerous letters from physicians all across the country--from the Mayo Clinic to the University of Maryland--each describing the benefit of the partial joint and the fact that the partial and total joint results in immediate and dramatic decrease in pain, an increase in range of motion and increased function. While I am, of course, pleased that the application has been approved by the FDA after much delay, the circumstances of the last two years calls into question the integrity of the agency and, it is for this reason that I bring it to the House's attention. Dr. Christensen is a true professional and a pioneer in his field and holder of the first patents. His implants are widely accepted as effective and safe throughout the dental and surgery community--indeed, several of my constituents have literally had their lives changed by the procedure. I am convinced that the work of TMJ is and always has been based on solid, scientific principles and the removal of the implants from the market had been erroneous, contrary to the Agency's earlier findings and the statutory standard that should be applied. This was devastating to thousands in the general public and devastating to the financial status of the company. Later this year, the House of Representatives will consider legislation reauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration and I would like to urge the House Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the TMJ Implant case and to conduct a thorough investigation into the FDA's review of the Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis. I would like to take this opportunity to submit into the record two articles from FDAWebview which shed light on the TMJ Implant case.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in, in a way, admiration of the committee for their work on this particular piece of legislation, on this bill. It is truly commendable in a situation where profligate spending in this body is the norm, it is commendable to have a bill coming here that is only 1.5 percent above last year's spending and only 1.7 percent above the President's request. There is no particular program in the bill with which I rise to take issue. I do wish, however, to just briefly discuss a point of concern that I have with the general tenor of our agricultural support payments. It is the fact that welfare, whether it is provided for able- bodied individuals or large corporate farmers, has a corrupting influence on both. The welfare farm subsidies keep land prices high, makes it harder for small farmers to enter into the market. Farm subsidies decrease the incentive for efficiency, which would greatly benefit the agricultural sector. This is a list, by States, I have a list here from CBO of those States that receive a percentage of their net farm income as a result of government payments. It is quite astounding. In 1999, the State of Illinois had 112 percent of its net farm income a government check; Indiana, 93 percent; North Dakota, 93 percent; Iowa, 87 percent; Missouri, 78 percent; Montana, 77. At least 12 States have government checks representing more than 50 percent of their net farm income. This is an unsustainable activity, and I urge the committee to think carefully about it in the future.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2330, the Agriculture Appropriations Act, a bill considered on the floor today which makes appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. But more specifically, I rise in strong opposition to the increase provided in the bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and would like to call the House's attention to a problem that one of my constituents has been having with the agency and one that I believe deserves careful consideration by the oversight committees in this chamber. Recently, the FDA gave final approval of my constituent's Pre-Market Application for both total and partial joint implants after an exhaustive and blatantly biased 2-year review, but not before costing his company over $8 million in legal fees, lost wages, and profits. In April 1999, I received a phone call and letter from TMJ Implants, a company located in Golden Colorado, in my district, which had been having problems with the review of its Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Total and Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis. Up until last year, the company was the premier market supplier of temporomandibular joint prosthesis. Over the last 2 years, I have taken an active interest and an active role in monitoring the progress of TMJ Implants' application, which was finally approved in February. On numerous occasions, I met with Dr. Bob Christensen, president of TMJ Implants, to find out information about the approval of the partial and total joint, and personally talked to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney and to members of the Agency about the status of the company's applications. I was also, and continue to be, in contact with the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight, which has sole jurisdiction over the FDA and issues relating to abuse and the internal operations of the agency. Specifically, I closely followed this case since my office's first contact with Dr. Christensen and TMJ Implants in early May 1999, after a meeting of the FDA's Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee was held to review the company's PMA and recommended approval of the PMA by a 90 vote. From this point onward, the FDA engaged in an obvious pattern of delay and deception and even went as far as to remove TMJ Implants' Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis from the market, which had been available for almost 40 years. This had done nothing more than to cause harm to patients and cost the company millions of dollars. This was done at the same time that the application for TMJ Concepts, a competitor of TMJ Implants, sailed through the process. Several allegations have come to light over the last two years detailing the fact that several Agency employees have worked under the direction of TMJ Concepts' associates. The agency went so far as to reconvene a new Medical Devices Advisory Committee late last year, with a clear majority of its members lacking the required expertise, which denied the company's application. It was not until Mr. Bernard Statland, the new Director of the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) was brought in that the logjam was broken the PMA was quickly approved. As the above demonstrates, several concerns remain about the process that has taken place over the last two years. It is no secret that everyone involved in this case believes that there have been significant question raised about the process--the sluggish pace of the review of the engineering data for both the total and partial joint and, more importantly, the constant ``moving of the goal posts'' during the review of both PMAs. Over the last 2 years, my office has received numerous letters from physicians all across the country--from the Mayo Clinic to the University of Maryland--each describing the benefit of the partial joint and the fact that the partial and total joint results in immediate and dramatic in pain, an increase in range of motion and increased function. While I am, of course, pleased that the application has been approved by the FDA after much delay, the circumstances of the last 2 years calls into question the integrity of the agency and, it is for this reason that I bring it to the House's attention. Dr. Christensen is a true professional and a pioneer in his field and holder of the first patents. His implants are widely accepted as effective and safe throughout the dental and surgery community--indeed, several of my constituents have literally had their lives changed by the procedure. I am convinced that the work of TMJ is and always has been based on solid, scientific principles and the removal of the implants work of TMJ is and always has been on solid, scientific principles and the removal of the implants from the market had been erroneous, contrary to the Agency's earlier findings and the statutory standard that should be applied. This was devastating to thousands in the general public and devastating to the financial status of the company. Later this year, the House of Representatives will consider legislation reauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration and I would like to urge the House Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the TMJ Implant case and to conduct a thorough investigation into the FDA's review of the Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis. I would like to take this opportunity to submit into the Record two articles from FDAWebview which shed light on the TMJ Implant case. [From FDAWebview, Feb. 28, 2001] ``Full Disclosure'' Standard in TMJ Approval Opens New FDA Era Instead of FDA tying itself in knots trying to guarantee no inappropriate patient exposures to implanted devices--and stalling a product in mid-review as a result--yesterday's approval of the TMJ Implants Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis set a new ``full disclosure'' labeling standard that lifts that self-imposed burden from the agency and should expedite other product reviews. TMJ Implants' pre-1976 jaw joint devices was stalled for 20 months in a classification PMA review until new Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) director Bernard Statland broke the logjam. In doing this, he was implementing one stage of a bold new Center policy on innovative public use of clinical device information articulated last year by Center director David Feigal--placing such FDA-held information in the hands of physicians and patients. According to one of the two attorneys who steered the TMJ Implants submission through its FDA ordeal, Mike Cole (Bergeson & Campbell), yesterday's approval is the first he's seen in 25 years of dealing with ODE where the agency stepped back from its ``appropriate use'' worries and left them to physicians and patients to decide, based on full disclosure in labeling of the device's real-world limitations--including the availability of no-device alternative therapies. Under the Fossa-Eminence labeling's Warnings section is a boxed statement headed, ``The medical literature reports,'' with four bulleted statements: That many cases of Internal Derangement resolve after non- surgical treatment, or, in some cases, with no treatment at all. That the complexity of contributing factors in this patient population must be considered in the diagnosis and decision to surgically treat patients. That replacement surgery, therefore, should be utilized only as a last resort after other treatment options are exhausted or determined not to be warranted in the medical judgment of the physician/dentist in consultation with the patient. That the Wilkes classification is a guide in determining the severity of the disease. This classification should not be relied on as a sole criterion for surgical treatment. ``It really is a striking difference in philosophy,'' Cole told FDA Webview. ``It discloses that a lot of patients have responded without surgery . . . It describes situations where the doctor arrives at the diagnosis that surgery may be appropriate, but it doesn't prejudge it. Over the years, there have been all these notable instances of concern about off-label use of products and misuse of products, and part of it comes, I think, from a mentality that we have to be 100% sure that it will be used appropriately. As a result, manufacturers have started submitting applications with more and more restricted indications statements in them because that can get through system.'' Cole and colleague David Rosen (McDermott, Will & Emery) believe the TM) Implants devices had been logjammed at FDA for so long simply because reviewers were afraid the products would be used inappropriately--an FDA syndrome that has effected many other products over the years. ``A lot of times, what it really comes down to is demands for more data, more data, more data,'' Cole explained, ``because the reviewers are not comfortable with the idea that the device ought to be on the market, or available. The way out of that is to keep asking for more information.'' In TMJ Implants' case, he said, review leader Susan Runner ``held what I think was a very honest and sincere concern about the device being used in cases where patients might respond without surgical treatment. Because the studies hadn't been set up to prove exactly what I think we had demonstrated, she had this really deep-seated concern about the product being used, and it just went round and round in circles. We had no apparent instances of misuse of the device, but we were getting nowhere. ``When we had this meeting with Dr. Statland, he got up with a whiteboard and started talkng abut the data, and he said to his people, `You know, we've got a lot of information here; what we need to do is figure out how we're going to present this information to the doctor so that the doctor and the patient understand exactly where surgery fits in this and make sure we discuss the limitations of the data.' For the first time that I've heard this in 25 years dealing with Center, he said: `We'll discuss this information in the labeling and we'll let the doctors and the patients decide whether they want to use the device--we won't decide for them.'' Statland, Cole said, stopped the reviewers' agonizing at the point where reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy had been demonstrated, thus preventing the agency from continuing to stray into attempts to secure an absolute guarantee that the product would not be used improperly. ``In a way it's a kind of subtle point, but in a way it's also a sledgehammer point. When Dr. Statland said `This is what we're going to do,' it was over.''

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in his budget request to Congress, President Bush proposed reversing the cost-share ratio for beach replenishment projects from 65 percent Federal share/35 percent local share, to 35 percent Federal/65 percent local. The energy and water appropriations bill includes language to block this proposal. The Tancredo-Blumenauer amendment would strip the bill of this fiscally damaging and environmentally questionable legislative rider. In an interview with the Associated Press yesterday, Office of Management and Budget spokesman Chris Ullman said that the White House continues to believe that the Federal Government should spend less to build beaches. ``Since most of the benefits are to localities and local beachgoers, it seems reasonable that they would pay the majority of the costs of sustaining those beaches.'' The Army Corps of Engineers recently began the world's largest beach replenishment project, to provide 100- foot wide beaches along all 127 miles of New Jersey's coast. This is at an average cost of $60 million per mile. Right now, the Federal Government is obligated to pay the majority of that cost, or 65 percent to be exact. What is worse, most artificial beaches wash away within 1 year of replenishment, leaving taxpayers' money and environmental damage left in their wake, so to speak. We encourage you to support the Bush administration's effort to save tax dollars and cut environmentally questionable spending by removing this legislative rider on beach replenishment cost-sharing. The current Federal policy of subsidizing beach projects, by the way, is a 50-year agreement with towns. That is unsustainable. That means 65 percent of the cost we would be required to fund for 50 years at current levels. The Duke University program for the study of developed shorelines estimated that the cost to pump sand on just four Atlantic coast States, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey, will be more than $4 billion. Many of these beach communities are privately owned and privately renourish their beaches. They pay for the projects through hotel-use taxes and progressive property tax assessments according to how close the property lies to the beach. Many, many of these areas, of course, are some of the most expensive areas, most expensive pieces of property that you can purchase in the United States of America. To suggest that the Federal Government has the responsibility to pay for 65 percent of the cost of pumping sand back on that beach every year is ridiculous. Let me quote from a statement of the administration's position on this that they have just put out: ``The administration appreciates the committee's efforts to address administration funding priorities for the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program. However, the administration is concerned about the increase of over $568 million over the request for Corps programs. We can have a strong water resources program at the funding level proposed in the budget by establishing priorities among projects. The administration is particularly concerned that the bill contains approximately $360 million for about 350 specifically identified projects and activities that were not included in the President's budget. We urge Congress to limit the number of projects and to focus funding on those projects that address the Corps' principal mission areas. ``We are disappointed that the committee has included a provision that would preclude the Corps from carrying out in fiscal year 2002 the administration's proposal to increase local cost-sharing for the renourishment phase of ongoing shore protection projects. This cost- sharing proposal would help ensure that the Federal Government's long- term renourishment obligations do not crowd out other important funding needs. We urge the Congress to reconsider this proposal.'' Mr. Chairman, I recognize that doing anything on this floor especially in this bill that jeopardizes some little tiny part of the Corps of Engineers budget is a highly dangerous thing for a Congressman to do. I recognize there are many, many people here who benefit as a result of the largesse of the committee and whose projects are sacred to them. But this is going too far. Once again, this is not necessary. This is not requested by the administration. To ask the country, to ask the Federal taxpayer to support replenishment of these beaches every year, year in and year out for the next 50 years at these costs is just not acceptable.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that regardless of what happens with this amendment, even if it were to pass, that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), will be able to enjoy a very pleasant retirement on the beaches. The fact is that, of course, we are not talking about anything here that is going to eliminate the beaches of the Nation. It is just crazy to suggest that if we would allow the administration to go back to a 35-65 split, that, all of a sudden, all the beach property in this Nation is gone. Nobody would take care of it. The communities that live alongside of it, the homes that are built alongside of it, it is not their responsibility; it is somehow ours, and if we did not kick in 65 percent, it all disappears. Of course, that is not accurate. It is not what this amendment is intended to do, but it is typical. I know any time we are trying to cut 10 cents out of the budget around here, it is almost the most dire consequence we can possibly think of that we use in response to the request to cut the funds. This is not even a request to cut. We will still spend the money; it is just who is going to be responsible for it. It is not even mandating that we go to the 65-35 split, 65 local. It is saying let us let the administration have the option of managing this. It is not mandating a thing in here. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the issues that have been brought up here, especially by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who suggests that there is no environmental concerns that should come up as a result of this and that anybody that suggests there is an environmental problem is simply off base, of course, he is therefore saying that the following organizations, American Rivers, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund and Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, all of these people do not know what they are talking about when it comes to environmental issues and whether in this particular case especially they are simply off base. Well, I do not certainly consider myself to be an expert in this particular area but I would say that there is some cause for concern with regard to the environmental issues developed by this beach replenishing program. Federally subsidized beach projects mainly benefit wealthy vacation condo owners and tourism. The gentleman from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (Mr. Brown) referred to the fact that 12 million visitors a year enjoy these particular areas. I think that is wonderful. Now, in fact, who is benefiting from those 12 million visitors? It is, of course, the communities that are adjacent to these beaches. Those communities should be responsible for the majority of the cost of replenishing the beaches. That is all we are saying here. We are agreeing with the administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) that I will yield time to him.

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

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering this amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that will increase funding to the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Research Program by $9.9 million with a corresponding offset for the Army of Corps of Engineers' General Investigations Account. That account, by the way, is currently receiving about a $33 million increase above the President's budget request. Recent electricity and gas shortages in California and other western States, along with an expanding recognition of environmental issues, have highlighted the need for clean renewable power. Concentrating solar power technologies offers a near-term opportunity for large-scale and cost-effective production of renewable energy. An addition to these accounts would also allow the concentrated solar power program to continue its core long-term research and development activities that will help advance the next-generation trough and dish technologies. The focus would include identifying and implementing advanced converter options for modular dish systems. In fiscal year 2000, the CSP program began working with the National Renewable Energy Lab's high-efficiency photovoltaic team on the development of a high- efficiency concentrating photovoltaic converter as an alternative to the Stirling engine converter historically supported by the CSP program. A $5 million increase in the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems line item would launch a collaborative effort that integrates advances in computational science and bioinformatics developed by the national labs and universities to develop a biorefinery simulation model that enables virtual testing and prototyping of biorefinery systems and components. The simulation model will provide a useful tool to test new concepts as well as provide a basis for industry to develop future design tools for biorefineries. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment because I think it is, again, a matter of priorities. Certainly there is undeniable need for an investment in alternative energy research. No one denies that. I want to actually thank the committee for their attention to this detail and for restoring the budget, the original budget, for NREL. The fact is that there are these two additional needs, and it is simply a matter of priorities. It seems to me that with taking a part of the budget that has received a $33 million increase above the President's request, taking a part of that, reducing it by only approximately $9 million and putting it into this kind of research, is the correct priority. We will be talking certainly on the floor here about various issues dealing with the Corps of Engineers, the integrity of the programs operated by the Corps of Engineers, and the integrity of the reports that they commission and are commissioned by others to do to determine whether or not a project is necessary. There are significant problems, to say the least, in this particular area. Recently, for example, one of the reports that was done by the Corps of Engineers has been criticized by the Inspector General, not only criticized, but there is an allegation of manipulation of data, so much so that there is a criminal investigation under way with regard to that particular endeavor. This is an area in which we should not be increasing the amount of appropriations; we should be decreasing it, or at least we should be forcing the Corps of Engineers to reform itself in a way that would reflect our concerns about the poor administrative tactics they have employed so far. The fact is that the committee itself added over 12 new studies that the administration did not request. Some of these studies stretch the boundaries of the Corps' jurisdiction. Again, we will be talking as time goes by, I know, Mr. Chairman, about the problems that are endemic to the Corps. Certainly I have a couple of amendments, I know other people do, where there is a great concern out there right now about the Corps of Engineers, about whether or not they have slipped their mooring, whether or not they are able to actually do what we expect of them or whether or not they have become almost a rogue agency. The Congress of the United States takes some responsibility for that; but for that purpose, I would ask for the support of this amendment.

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

Mr. TANCREDO

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

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. ``The First Amendment restricts government's abridgement of free speech. But government hasn't threatened to muzzle Manson. He will not be barred from performing by any government officials. The opposition to his performance here has come from private groups led by Baptist youth minister Jason Janz, and others, employing moral persuasion, as is their right, to discourage and disparage Manson's act. I'm no fan of Manson, or, for that matter, his inspirational namesake Charles Manson. I don't like his music, his lyrics or his message. I've heard and read enough of it, dutifully, to get the point. This from his newest CD `Antichrist Superstar:' I will bury God in my warm spit. I went to God just to see. And I was looking at me. When I'm God everyone dies.'' Very enlightening. ``I find Manson neither thought-provoking nor profound. He offers mostly sophomoric dribble (not that the work of Dion and the Belmonts, from my era, was exactly Shakespeare, but it was good to dance to and at least it wasn't destructive.) To be sure, there's demand for Manson's kind of bilge from troubled, confused, angry, defiant, depressed, macabre, antisocial and sociopathic adolescent and arrested- adolescent audiences. And when you're high on drugs, gibberish can pass for wisdom. ``If it weren't for Manson playing this role, someone else would, and others do. He claims to be an artist, crafting a poetic, philosophical message. More likely, he's just another crass entertainment opportunist capitalizing on a market niche. You might say the same of Alice Cooper, but Cooper has always done his thing with a wink, not to be taken seriously. It was obvious shtick. Heck, Cooper's a Republican, a big baseball fan, and a 4-handicap golfer. Compared to Manson, Alice Cooper is Dr. Laura. In his heyday, Cooper sold the bizarre; Manson spews the depraved. (And I'll throw in my psychological diagnosis of Manson: he's screwed up in the head, too.) ``Is Manson's influence on troubled and impressionable young minds potentially destructive? I imagine it is for some. While for others, listening to Manson may be benign, providing an outlet for emotional venting that might substitute for acts of physical destructiveness. Teen-agers are attracted to Manson as an act of rebellion against conventional society precisely because he appalls their parents. I have no remedy for this. It's one of the tradeoffs we make in a free society. ``It's not a question of whether Manson should be condemned or allowed to perform. Of course, both of these things should happen. Manson debases our values, culture and civil conventions. Jason Janz's criticism of him is wholly appropriate. Someone needs to say that. Our indifference would be more disturbing. To most who attend, Ozzfest will be little more than a fun summer concert featuring a variety of performers. The Manson acolytes there will be in the minority. And while they snigger at the establishment's attack on their idol, it still serves a purpose. They may understand when they grow up.'' Again, that is Mike Rosen in the Rocky Mountain News. Now, this leads to another issue and even a much bigger issue than this particular event in Denver Colorado in last week. This leads us to a debate we were having on the floor of the House here last week. It was a debate on whether or not we should be funding the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. It was fascinating from a number of standpoints. We have done this every year. The debate occurs every single year. Much of the same objections are heard over and over again as to whether or not government funds should be used to support ``art''. Now, what if this had happened in Colorado, everything that I just described, and this particular event had been paid for entirely with tax dollars? Would there not have been a different kind of debate? Would we not have been able to enter into the discussion an argument that, although, certainly, this person, Manson, should be allowed to perform, no one, certainly I would never prohibit him from doing his thing by law. But the question remains is whether or not someone should be forced to pay for it through the taking away of their tax dollars, providing it for this experience. Certainly there would have been an outcry. Certainly people would have said absolutely not. You know, I do not care whether this person does its thing on the stage and spews forth its bilge, I do not care about that. If people want to do it, want to see it, that is their business, and I certainly agree. But making me pay for it through my tax dollars, that is something else entirely. Now, that would have been an interesting debate, and I wonder how it would have come out. I wonder if the City of Denver, I wonder if the mayor of the City of Denver had agreed to something like that, had put tax dollars into it, I wonder whether or not the mayor would not be in political trouble the next election. Would not people in the City say, how could you possibly make me pay for something like this? I think it is horrible. Or even, I do not have an opinion on it, I just have absolutely no desire to fund this particular expression of this particular ``artist''. Well, I think that that would be a legitimate argument. Do my colleagues not, Mr. Speaker? I think that, in fact, that would be a legitimate debate had we paid for that with tax dollars. I think there would have been significant political ramifications and repercussions to such a decision made by the political leaders in Denver. But it did not happen that way. It was totally voluntary. People went, paid their price at the door, and went in; and I say, of course, that is fine. They can do what they want to do. If you ask me whether someone should do it, I would tell you no. It does not matter. I would never stop anyone from either going to see this person or, on the other hand, I would never try to stop this person from actually getting on stage and doing whatever it is it does. So the question, then, comes as to how we can, every single year, take money from Americans, hard-working Americans, many of whom have to make decisions about, you know, if they are going to pay the rent this month or if they are going to pay their gas bill. How can we take money from them to support the, quote, artistic endeavors of others of a similar, well no matter what. No matter if there was absolutely no argument as to the value, quote, value of the art. It is still absolutely wrong for any of us here to make that sort of elitist decision for all members of society, that we would take away their money and give it to a particular kind of art or a particular kind of artist. How can we justify that? I guess, to a certain extent, I am going to have to actually talk about what we have been funding over these years. I almost hate to say it, but I wish we could put up here one of these signs that say ``be careful, the following may not be suitable for viewing by young people'' or whatever, because it is certainly some of the nastiest sort of thing. I will try to avoid being too incredibly graphic, but I guess it is pretty hard to suggest that this is not appropriate for us to discuss here since we paid for it, since we took money from Americans, from hard-working citizens and paid for this stuff that I am going to tell my colleagues about. Let us start with 1998, the National Endowment for the Arts was criticized for funding this New York theater which staged the play ``Corpus Christi'', a blasphemous play depicting Jesus having sexual relations with his apostles. By the way, a great deal of what has happened here, a great deal of what the NEA chooses support has a decidedly homo-erotic, anti- Christian, and certainly not just anti-Christian, but a hatred of Christianity, and the most bizarre kind of sexual connotation, not just connotation, but aspects that you can imagine. That really a lot of this stuff that they choose to do. Okay. One would have thought that the NEA might refrain from funding the Manhattan Theater Club ever again given the theater's decision to present ``Corpus Christi''. Not so. The very next year, the theater was awarded another grant of $37,000. This year, the theater received, not one, but two separate grants, each for $50,000. In 1996 and 1997, the NEA received sharp rebukes for funding this group, the Women Make Movies, that is what it is called, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. At the time, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) noted that the NEA gave over more than $100,000 over a 3-year period to Women Make Movies, that is the name of this organization, which distributed numerous pornographic films such as ``Sex Fish'', ``Watermelon Woman'', and ``Blood Sisters''. These films included depictions of explicit lesbian pornography, oral sex, and sadomasochism. In 1997, the American Family Association distributed to most Members of Congress clips of some of these and other pornographic films distributed by Women Make Movies. Criticism of the NEA for funding a group that distributes pornographic works was dismissed by the agency which continue to fund Women Make Movies as late as 1999, giving two grants, one for $12,000, one for $30,000. The Women Makes Movies continues to distribute hard core pornography. Then there is the Wooly Mammoth Theater Company, a Washington, D.C. theater, a frequent recipient of NEA money, generated controversy in the past for NEA when it staged Tim Miller's one-man performance titled ``My Queer Body''. This play describes what it is like to have sex with another man, climbs into the lap of a spectator. I do not even want to read this. Shrugging off the controversy this year, the NEA gave the theater $28,000. Wooly Mammoth's 2000 season, this was last year actually, will include the production ``Preaching to the Perverted'', written and performed by Holly Hughes, who herself has been the cause of controversy. Hughes sued the U.S. Government for refusing to fund her indecent work and lost. The Supreme Court ruling was that NEA was not obliged to fund pornography. Despite this Court's ruling, the NEA is still choosing to pay for Holly Hughes' offensive work through its support of Wooly Mammoth. In the Wooly Mammoth's Internet catalog. ``Preaching to the Perverted'' is described as follows: ``If you loved the solo extravagances of Tim Miller'', the fellow I just mentioned, ``you won't want to miss this unique and irreverent evening of legal and sexual politics.'' Then there is the Whitney Museum of American Art. It has been a regular recipient of NEA funds for over the years and several times provided fodder for the critics. This in recent years included a work by Joel-Peter Witkin titled ``Maquette for Crucifix'', a naked Jesus surrounded by sadomasochistic obscene imagery and many grotesque portrayals of corpses and body parts. Another Whitney exhibit was a film by Suzie Silver titled ``A Spy''. It depicts Jesus Christ as woman standing naked with breasts exposed. Again, this is hard it even go through, it is certainly hard to describe. But we paid for it. We appropriated money in this House. We took money from citizens in this country and paid for this. So it is only right that we should be forced to have to hear what we paid for as grotesque as it is. It is hard for me to read it. I am sure it is hard for many people to hear it. I do not like having to do it. But, in fact, you paid for it, America. You might as well understand what you bought. Incredibly, Whitney also included ``Piss Christ'', Andres Serrano's photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine, the very same work which began the NEA controversy in 1989, as well as a film by porn star Annie Sprinkle entitled ``The Sluts and Goddesses Video Workshop or How to be a Sex Goddess in 101 Easy Steps'', on and on and on. Walker Art Center, a performance at this Minneapolis theater and NEA recipient outraged Senator Byrd even, Democrat from West Virginia, and many other Members of Congress. To make a statement about AIDS, artist Ron Athey, who was HIV positive pierced his body with needles, cut designs into the back of another man, blotted the man's blood with paper towels and set the towels over the audience on a clothes line. Then NEA chair Jane Alexander defended the performance, and the Walker Arts Center has continued to receive NEA funds for several years. This year's take, this was a couple years ago, this year's take for the avant-garde center is $70,000. The NEA was criticized in 1997 for funding the Museum of Contemporary Art in New York because of the work of Carollee Schneeman, an artist credited with inspiring Miss Sprinkle whose pornographic funding have caused a lot of problems for the NEA also. I hesitate to even go into what that one was about. Franklin Furnace, New York. This New York theater frequently receives NEA funds. The theater's performance often promotes homosexuality and blast traditional morality. Its year 2000 grant, $10,000. The Theater for New York City, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights brought this New York's theater to national attention recently because of its anti-Catholic bigotry. The theater staged the play ``The Pope and the Witch'', depicting the Pope called John Paul, II, as a heroin-addicted paranoid advocating birth control and the legalization of drugs. The theater received a grant in 1997. The Americans paid for this, $30,000 in 1997 and $12,000 in the year 2000. Really, I have just pages and pages of this kind of thing. I will enter them into the Record, but I will not go on with that in description here audibly tonight. It is just too revolting even for me to deal with. But my point is this, that all of this I consider to be absolute garbage. That is my opinion. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to see it. I cannot certainly imagine wanting to participate in it. I certainly cannot believe that anyone would have the audacity to suggest that we have to take money from people who have the same feeling as I do about this and give it to these performers in order for there to be a good art thriving in America. It is ridiculous. It is idiotic. We have had an interesting discussion, as I say, over the whole issue as it came through the Congress of the United States, and there are many aspects of this that I think need to be discussed. Now, by the way, I suppose I should mention, that those of us who were opposed to funding for National Endowment for the Arts failed in our attempt to reduce the funding of $150 million. But it is not just this kind of pornographic trash that it funds with which I take exception. I believe it is absolutely wrong for us to be making a decision in this body as to what is appropriate, what is good art or what is good television programming or radio. I refer now, of course, to National Public Radio, National Public Television, which we again take money from everyone in America and we fund. Now, I happen to listen to National Public Radio. I enjoy many, many of its programs. My point is, however, the idea that my taste in either television or radio is something that should be the standard for the Nation. Because I happen to enjoy National Public Radio I will tax everyone in this country to help support it. Is that not somewhat bizarre? Let me read from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia August 18, 1787. This is incredibly amazing and profound in a way because, as we see, the Founding Fathers dealt with all the problems that we confront every single day and they really had an insight that bears reflecting upon. 1787, August 18. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina rose to urge that Congress be authorized to ``establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences.'' Modest proposal; right? He suggested that the Congress of the United States be authorized to establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and of science. Now, remember, seminaries had a different connotation in this particular time period. We are not talking about necessarily religious institutions. In this case he was talking about intellectual pursuits, educational institutions solely. His proposal was immediately voted down. In the words of one delegate, the only legitimate role for government in promoting culture and the arts was ``the granting of patents, i.e. protecting the rights of authors and artists to make money from their creations.'' That, he said, was the only legitimate role for government in promoting culture and the arts. The framers treasured books and music, but they treasured limited government far more. A federally approved artist was as unthinkable to them as a federally approved church or newspaper. This is why the Constitution does not so much as have a hint at subsidizing artists or cultural organizations. It is why Americans have always been skeptical about the entanglement of art and State. And it is why so many artists have snorted at the notion that art depends upon the patronage of a Washington elite. And that is a very good way of portraying what happens here. It is incredibly elitist for us to say we know in this body, the 435 Members of the House, the 100 Members of the Senate and the President of the United States, we know, at least a majority of us know, what is the best kind of art for the American citizens to observe or participate in. Incredibly elitist. Incredibly elitist for us to suggest that the particular television programming that we believe to be uplifting or stimulating or whatever is appropriate enough to tax everybody to support. What gives us this incredible attitude? It is the fact, of course, that we make many decisions here all the time that tend to make us all feel, I suppose, pretty omnipotent and omniscient, because we know everything and we have power over everything and, naturally, we should be able to determine what is good art; what is good television; right? The argument for television especially is the one that confounds me. Every year people come into my office and talk about the need to support, publicly support, public television. We need to take tax dollars away from people and do that. And I always suggest to them that maybe, maybe 20 years ago they could have made an argument for some sort of alternative television programming, because there were only three major broadcasting systems and relatively little choice, I suppose, among those three different broadcasting systems. They could have perhaps made the point, well, there is just a need for a different kind of television programming and no one is going to produce it, so, therefore, let us go ahead and take tax dollars away from people and provide it. They could have made that point. I would not have agreed with them, but it would have been a much more logical position to take than coming in here today, today, to this House, in this year of 2001, and saying there is not enough diversity on television; we need to take money from everybody in America to fund my brand of television because it is better, it is better for people, it is more intellectual, more highbrow, it is good for people to have this available to them, when there is, what, 150, or heaven knows how many actual stations there are out there with cable television. I certainly have lost count myself. All I know is there is no one, I believe, no one that can argue that there is not diversity in programming on television today. And yet our particular brand, our particular idea of what good television is is what we say in this body everyone is going to pay for. Again, it seems a bit peculiar to me. I actually did a program in Colorado on public television, a sort of talking head show. I used to do it every Friday, and I enjoyed it. And every year they had a period of time that the station would devote to fund-raising, and all the participants and everybody that wanted to, I suppose, could come on for an hour or two and stand up in front of people and ask for money, ask for support for the station. I called it a beg-a-thon. And I would do it. Every single year I would go on and say, if you want to support this, if you think that we in fact are doing something good enough in terms of television that you believe it should be continued, then I encourage you to get out your checkbook and send this station money. And I am more than willing to do that. I did that, as I say, every single year, because that is exactly the way ``public television'' should be funded, by donations. They then would come to me, the same station would come to me as a Member of Congress and say, how could you not then vote for funding for our station when you were on it? And I would always say, look, if the program I was on was not worth it, if we could not get people to watch that program and we could get them to contribute, then of course it was not good programming and I probably should have been kicked off and you should have found somebody else. But the idea that I would come here to the Congress and vote for money to make sure that that particular station stayed on the air is crazy, any more than I would vote for money for any other particular station to stay on the air. Again, it is certainly not because I am particularly opposed to the kind of programming they have. It is maybe fine. Some of it is fine, some of it is lousy from my point of view. But that does not matter. It is just my opinion. But it is absolutely wrong for me to come to this body and vote to force everyone in this country to support my brand of programming. Dr. Robert Samuelson said some time ago that the funding of cultural agencies by the Federal Government is highbrow pork barrel, and I certainly agree. We are taking from the poor to subsidize the rich. It is the reverse Robin Hood theory here. In fact, most of the programming on these stations, even a lot of the ``art'' of the NEA has absolutely no appeal whatsoever to the bulk of America, the majority of Americans, certainly Americans of low income. They are not really interested by and large in that kind of entertainment. Again, if they are, that is fine. They can make their own decisions about it, but it is incredible to me that we can do this; that we can take money from them and provide support for materials and for programming that is only really enjoyed, I say only, but primarily enjoyed by a different group of people, and most of the time people more well off. There is also the issue of the corruption of the artists and scholars that we fund. It is I think absolutely true, no one I think who has been around here for any length of time disagrees with the fact that government funding of anything involves government control. That insight of course is part of our folk wisdom. He who pays the piper calls the tune, as they say. And it is quite true. We never give out a dollar here in this body without also saying how it should be spent. Those are the strings we attach to it. And when we do that for the ``arts,'' it has a corrupting influence on it. Artists and want-to-be artists begin to gravitate toward what they think the government is going to fund and find themselves sort of chasing the government dollar. The influence of government funding of the arts is a negative one and a corrupting one. The politicization of whatever the Federal cultural agencies touch was driven home by Richard Goldstein, a supporter of the National Endowment for the Humanities himself. But he pointed out that ``the NEH has a ripple effect on university hiring and tenure, and on the kinds of research undertaken by scholars seeking support. Its chairman shapes the bounds of that support. In a broad sense he sets standards that affect the tenor of textbooks and the content of curriculum. Though no chairman of the NEH can single- handedly direct the course of American education, he can nurture the nascent trends and take advantage of informal opportunities to signal department heads and deans. He can `persuade' with the cudgel of Federal funding out of sight but hardly out of mind.'' Then, finally, every time we debate this issue we are confronted by people who will say that we must do this, we must in fact provide money for the arts community, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, because of the effect that the arts have on our spirit, the soul, the uplifting nature of the arts; that to provide public funding for this is a good because of the way it in fact changes the culture, and they would suggest, for the positive. Well, what if, Mr. Speaker, I came before the body and suggested that there was another kind of experience that does exactly that; that provides a tremendous amount of benefit to the Nation; that does amazing things for the soul, uplifting in nature; that it can change a person's attitude about life; that it can motivate you to do great things, all these things I have heard on the floor as to the reason why we have to fund the arts? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is another argument I could make using exactly the same logic. What if I were to come before the body and say, I know something that we should be doing that does all of the things I have just said, is an incredible influence on our lives, that provides an outlet for emotional needs of millions of people, and it is called religion and I am going to ask this body to appropriate $150 million this year for religion. Now, the first thing that someone would say is we cannot do this because there is this wall of separation that exists in the minds of many, but nowhere in the Constitution, by the way, that separates church and State. But the real reason why we cannot do it and the reason I would never suggest it because the minute we decide to fund religion in this body, we will then begin to decide whose religion, what brand of religion. What about this particular denomination? Why should they not be funded as opposed to that denomination? Someone somewhere would have to make a decision. So we would establish an Endowment for Religion, and we would appoint some people to it. We would say we will give them the money because Congress does not want to get into the battle about which religion to fund. We will give $150 million to the National Endowment for Religion, and they will make the decision because they are the experts. They know what is best. If they give it all to the Baptists, that is fine. If they split it up with the Jews, the Catholics, the Presbyterians, whatever, it is their decision to make. It is their $150 million. They will make the decision. How many Members in this body would agree with such a thing? No one. I suggest that we would not get very many votes for such a proposal. And rightly so. It is not our place because the minute that we start doing that, we are automatically discriminating if we pick one over another, which must be done. There is absolutely no difference, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, in the funding of the arts and the funding of religion. Each one of those things has its particular brand. It appeals to certain individuals and not others. Somebody has to make a decision about which one of these things gets funded, and then we will come to the House and hold up a list of things that has been funded by that organization and some people will be outraged by it, as I imagine there were some tonight as I was reading through the list of things that we have funded that the government has paid for. Some people will listen and say that is great stuff. I wish a billion dollars was put into it. What happens is there is discrimination in this because every time somebody gets one, every one artist gets funded, some artist does not, and that means somebody is making a decision about which is better. I suggest that is an impossible decision to make for everyone. It is absolutely appropriate for me to do it for myself; it is not appropriate for me to do it for all of my constituents. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy that rears its head here, certainly daily, but on this particular occasion when we debate the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting and all of the rest, this hypocrisy is overwhelming. It is so stark. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we are undeniably in the middle of a culture war. We have heard that term many times. It is a war of competing ideas and world views. On one side we have people who believe in living by a set of divinely moral absolutes; or the very least, they believe that following such a moral code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability. On the other side, we have people who insist that morality is a moral decision and any attempt to enforce it is viewed as oppression. That war is a real one which is carried out every single day in the halls of our schools, around the watercooler of our businesses, in the newspapers of the Nation, on television. In every form of communication, the culture war is ongoing. There is a battle for the soul, for the mind, for the actual personality, if you will, of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is pretty much accepted as being true. We know that there are these competing sets of values out there trying to grab us and get us on their side, whatever that might be. Now, I happen to believe completely that there is such a thing as good art, good music. I believe that it can be all of the things that people say. I believe we can be inspired by it. We can be motivated by art to do wonderful things. But I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is such a thing as good art, good music, good literature, then there is such a thing as bad art, bad music and bad literature. And it has the opposite effect of the good art. I believe that is true. That is my personal observation, my personal belief. I choose not to impose that belief on anyone by law, but I will make the case when I am allowed here on the House floor, allowed to debate this issue in any public forum, I will talk about the fact that I believe we are in the midst of a culture war and there are competing sides in that war that are actually grappling for the soul of the Nation. I will try my best to defend what I believe to be the good side as opposed to the bad side, but that is my decision to make. And it rests on my ability to convince my friends or relatives, as well as it does with any one of us here as to who is right and who is wrong. Even as a Member of the Congress of the United States, it is not in my authority to force anyone out there to agree with it by the power that is vested in me as a Member of this House to vote for a tax to enforce my particular view of who should be helped in those culture wars. We have to do it through the power of persuasion. This place, Mr. Speaker, is the place in which the battle occurs oftentimes, maybe even daily. Because this is the place in which we have determined that a great debate should go on about the nature of our society, about the kind of people we are. It is the place of ideas. It is certainly the free marketplace of ideas. And we are allowed to come before the body as I have tonight to express our opinions. I hope that we have to a certain extent, anyway, even a small extent tonight, made a case for allowing that debate to occur without the influence of the power of government to tax and help one side in it as opposed to another. Let us simply talk about it here, but, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there again is no more hypocritical thing that we do here in the Congress of the United States than to take money away from people in support of a particular brand of art or music and then argue about whether or not that should happen with regard to religion.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, but that was not the original intent, that was not the original purpose I asked for this time period to address the House. A short time ago, Mr. Speaker, in Colorado, there was a rock star, ``an artist'' of some sort, and I put the term ``artist'' in quotation marks, by the name of Marilyn Manson. I admit I do not have any of this person's, I was going to say gentleman, but I am really not positive what he or she or it is, I am just saying, I do not have their particular records in my cabinet. I had read something about this person's particular ``artistic'' accomplishments. I had a call one day, this was about 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago, I guess, from a gentleman in Colorado who was concerned about the fact that this person Mr. Manson, Mrs. Manson, Ms. Manson, whatever, was coming in, and he was concerned. Because in the past, this particular rock idol had offered to come in and do some sort of concert for the people who were responsible for the deaths of the children at Columbine High School. Hear me, Marilyn Manson would come in to do a concert for the people who killed them. There was concern about this kind of individual coming in to Colorado again and spewing his filth. So this person called our office here. The gentleman that called, I believe, was Jason Janz. Mr. Janz said, look, we are trying to organize some sort of boycott. We think that people should just avoid going to hear this particular performer. He said, can we use your name in our, ad or whatever they were going to do, and I cannot remember now whether it was as a person who would support our efforts or not. I said to Mr. Janz, well, yes, you can. I can certainly understand why you would be concerned. I do not think people should go myself; whether they do or not is, of course, their own decision to make. Anyway, Mr. Janz used my name in some sort of advertising or publication, I do not know what it was, saying that these people have also suggested that people should not go to this particular concert. We had a storm of reaction to that. There was a lot of protests, a lot of people called our office here and in Colorado, in Littleton and said, how dare you? How dare you, a Member of Congress, try to sensor this particular performer? I was, in a way, shocked, because, of course, censorship is a term that can be defined. It is defined in the dictionary. It is pretty clear what censorship is. It means someone preventing someone from expressing themselves. Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain to the people who called my office that, in fact, I really was not trying to sensor this particular ``artist''; that I really could not care less what he or she or it did. It was just that when I was asked whether people should participate in this kind of garbage, I would say, no, they should not. That is my opinion. Their point of view was that I should be censored; that I should not be allowed to say such a thing; that I should not be allowed to criticize this particular performer or anybody else, I suppose, that they felt was a particularly important personage in the entertainment world. This whole thing was a fascinating sort of phenomenon, because eventually Manson came to Colorado. It was just last week or so, did his or her thing. I am sure there was a large crowd and everything was, you know, just pretty fine. I do not know if people enjoyed it or not. I do not know, and I truly do not care. But the debate surrounding this whole event was characterized, I think, perfectly in an article that was in the Rocky Mountain News last week. I am going to read it here. It is relatively short. It was written by a friend of mine, his name is Mike Rosen. He does a daily radio show in Colorado and writes a weekly column for the Rocky Mountain News. And it goes as follows: ``Greet Manson with due scorn,'' that is the title. It says ``personally, I think the rank demagoguery of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is far more dangerous to the well-being of our republic than the sordid rantings of shock rocker Marilyn Manson. But the thing I'd do is silence either of them. If you're going to allow free speech, you must take the risk that someone might listen. While incitement-to-riot, slander, and yelling `fire' in a crowded theater are not tolerated in our society, the expression of ideas that are merely offensive is. If we voted on who could speak and who couldn't, Billy Graham would probably win and Marilyn Mason probably would lose. But we don't put it to a vote because this isn't a democracy. Our constitutional republic protects the rights of individuals, even unpopular ones. Actually, Manson's June 21 Denver appearance at Ozzfest is not really a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts government's abridgement of free speech. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TANCREDO. There is a basic problem and there is something below even all of that, which we must identify and talk about from time to time, and that is the fact that America's population is growing at a rapid rate. That population growth is a result, not just of the birth rate of the people who have lived in the United States for some period of time, it is the result that over 50 percent of that population growth in the last decade is a result of immigration into the United States, both legal and illegal. California is a prime example of the problem. It has an enormous population. It has enormous growth in the population primarily as a result of immigration. The United States Congress has a responsibility. It is to establish immigration standards, immigration quotas. We are the only body that can do that. No State can do it. California cannot determine how many people it will let in. It has to deal with however many people come in, and in dealing with it, it has to build more power plants, whether they like it or not. It has to encourage conservation, and it has to, in fact, tap the natural resources available to it. We will be doing that throughout this Nation as a result of the dramatic increase in population brought about primarily by immigration both legal and illegal. No one likes to talk about this. It is an issue that oftentimes evokes a lot of emotion on both sides of the issue. There are people who would suggest that even to bring it up is an indication of some sort of ulterior motive that is akin to and always likened to racism. I have said here on the floor many times, I will repeat it tonight. It is not where we come from, it is the number of people who come. In fact, we must deal with it. We may not like having to deal with it, but we may not like the debate that will ensue as a result of any change in our immigration policy, but it must be done. It is for the good of the country, and it has absolutely nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, anyway, with racial-related issues. It is a matter of quality of life. It is a matter of energy resources that we have been talking about here. As I sat here and prepared my remarks, I listened to others speak. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) talked for an hour about the energy crisis. Although, he is absolutely correct in all of the things he said in terms of why we are here, I must admit to the gentleman that the one thing that he left out, which I think is extremely important, is the fact that the reason we have this crisis and the reason it will grow throughout the United States is because of the number of people we have in the country and the number of people coming in. A little over, I will repeat, a little over 50 percent of the growth of this Nation in the last decade was a result of immigration, legal and illegal; 50 percent of the cars on the road; 50 percent of the houses that are popping up in neighborhoods all over the country and what was at one time a pristine landscape; 50 percent of the problem you have getting in to national parks, any of the other kinds of issues come about as a result of population pressures are, in fact, a direct result of this immigration issue. Mr. Speaker, I cannot come before the House tonight without bringing that particular issue to the attention of the Speaker and to those who may be listening. Limit Government Funding Relating To Art

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I want to talk about a couple of subjects. First of all, I cannot help but reflect upon some of the prior speakers and what they have talked about, especially in terms of our energy crisis. I will only spend a couple of minutes on that, because I addressed it a couple of times in the past also. It is undeniably true we have an energy crisis in the United States. It is undeniably true that gas prices are rising, that blackouts, rolling brownouts, all kinds of things are occurring throughout the United States, but especially in California and on the West Coast. We spend a great deal of time in this body debating as to exactly why that has occurred, and, in fact, there are a number of reasons, of course. They deal mostly with supply problems. We just do not have enough energy. We do not produce enough. America's Population Growing At A Rapid Rate Due to Immigration, Legal or Illegal

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for yielding me the time. The debate on this reminds me of what happens every single time we look at Colorado. I imagine this happens with several other States too when we look at a reduction in budgets for any entity, especially schools. Every time somebody would talk about a potential budget cut for the schools, everybody would stand up and say, if you do this, we will not be able to buy chalk; if you do this, we will not be able to provide transportation to the kids. They would use every imaginable sort of hot button issue they could think of knowing full well that would never actually come to that point; but they know that people would say, oh, well, of course, if you cannot buy chalk, we cannot do this. When we talk about all the things that would happen if we pass this .3 percent budget cut and our colleagues suggest that the hospitals have to give money back, all the veterans issues that our colleagues bring up would have to end up being cut. Remember, of course, that we are not talking about mandatory spending. The mandatory spending that the gentleman refers to, especially in veterans, has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment, talking about discretionary spending. We cannot possibly stand here and say here are all the things that are going to happen and use the biggest hot buttons issues we can think of to suggest that a .3 percent cut would, in fact, make those things happen. We know that that would not, in fact, occur. We are looking at a Congress that should continue to fund our Nation's priorities, I understand. But what we are doing tonight in a budget, any budget, is establishing priorities. What we are simply asking our colleagues to do this evening is to think about priorities. Do you believe that the agencies of this government can do with a .3 percent budget cut? In the meantime, do you think that that money or a good portion of it should better and could better be used by FEMA to address the problems that we all agree are national emergencies? It seems to me so clear. It seems to me almost incomprehensible that we could suggest that somehow this government which has grown so well, 24 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years, I mean, what family budget has grown like that?

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today being Flag Day, millions of Americans around the country are honoring the Nation through honoring the flag. Naturally, our thoughts turn to a number of subjects on a day like today. I just returned from a particularly stirring presentation that was held over in the Cannon Caucus Building for veterans, at which time I was able to give a little bit of a presentation. It was a very powerful event, beautiful music, and a lot of great speeches about the country, about the Nation, about where we are as a Nation and about where we hope to go. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a couple of things that I believe to be the most significant threats this Nation faces; one is an external threat, and that threat is the People's Republic of China. I characterize that nation as a threat, because of the actions taken by the Chinese, not just in the recent past, by the forcing down of one of our planes, but I suggest that China is a threat to the United States and can be identified as such as a result of analyzing China's history and its most recent actions together. China is a nation with a very long history of aggressive behavior; that behavior is often activated by grievances, both actual grievances and perceived and contrived. It is motivated by a sort of raging nationalism that finds expression in expanding its borders in xenophobia. I believe that the best way to successfully deal with China is to understand these realities and to fashion a foreign policy accordingly. Later on, I will discuss what I believe to be the other most significant threat to the United States and that is internally. It is not a foreign threat, it is an internal threat, and that is massive uncontrolled immigration into this country, both legal and illegal. I recognize that both of these subjects are quite controversial. Both of these subjects always engender a lot of emotion and a lot of discussion. The latter, the issue of immigration, does not get much attention on this floor, because there is a fear, a natural fear, on the part of a lot of people, a lot of my colleagues to address this, for fear that they will be characterized or mischaracterized, as the case may be, as a result of their opposition or concern about massive immigration into this Nation. It is, nonetheless, the second topic I will deal with. First, I want to stay with the topic of the People's Republic of China. Another important understanding for Americans with regard to China, something we must come to grips with is the fact that China believes itself to be our number one enemy. They look at us as their enemy. There is absolutely nothing we can do by way of appeasement that will ever change this reality. Here in the United States, as in most democracies, there is a basic unwillingness to confront the harsh realities of nature. We want to attribute always the hostile actions of others to benign intent. History, of course, has proven that this particular course of action is always dangerous and sometimes disastrous. From a historical perspective, China provides an unparalleled view of a nation in the constant grip of absolutism. Indeed, this tradition goes back to the very founding of the Chinese state by the Chang dynasty in 1766 B.C. The governmental structure at that time was sophisticated, and an autocrat ruled it. When addressing his subjects, he referred to himself as I, the single one man. For literally thousands of years, the Chinese people have been treated as disposable resources of the state. The recent discovery of the famed Terra Cotta Warriors in China's ancient Capitol of Xian have survived far longer than the bones of the thousands of construction workers who were buried alive to hide the location of the tomb from grave robbers. I find this to be a more interesting aspect of Chinese and a more revealing aspect of Chinese culture than the craftsmanship of the artists involved. China's long history is an unbroken international internalization of the concept of externally expanding power as a guiding principle of foreign policy. A China scholar by the name of Steven Moser states that this desire for hegemony is still deeply embedded in China's national dream work, intrinsic to its national identity and implicated in what it believes to be its natural destiny. Mr. Moser divides China's quest for hegemony in three parts, basic hegemony, he says, the recovery of Taiwan, and the assertion of undisputed control over the South China Sea. Regional hegemony is the extension of the Chinese empire to maximum extent of its old, what they call their old Celestial Empire. Finally, global hegemony, this is a worldwide contest with the United States to replace the current Pax Americana with a Pax Sinoca. Certainly many observers disagree with Mr. Moser's characterization of modern day China. They would argue that time have changed and that new realities have forced a cultural and political metamorphosis in the PRC. They go on to contend that the United States should fashion a foreign policy to accommodate this change. This, of course, is one of the arguments that was made during the recent debate here in this Congress over PNTR, or permanent normal trade relationships, with China. The other very powerful argument that was made for PNTR, and about which I will say more later, when something like this, we do not really care about America's national security interests. There is money to be made by buying cheap in China and selling dear in the rest of the world. Well, let us test the theory of the modern day Chamberlains that rely on the accommodating rather than confronting China. China, of course, is already acquired, through more peaceful mechanisms, Hong Kong and Macau; but they are now preparing for Taiwan to follow suit, peacefully or otherwise. China is aggressively assembling the military capabilities to protect its war power beyond its present internationally recognized borders. Six days ago, China masked amphibious vehicles and landing craft on an island near Taiwan as part of a large-scale military exercise. These exercises are expected to be one of the largest shore-based war games held by the Chinese military in recent history. China's capability to deliver the nuclear weapons to targets which include Los Angeles and many other cities in the United States has been perfected by the application of advanced technology that has been both purchased and stolen from the United States. China has embarked upon the construction of three missile bases along the coast to threaten Taiwan. My colleagues may recall that they fired several missiles toward Taiwan just not too long ago. Mr. Speaker, a little over 1 year ago, China exploded a neutron bomb; that event went relatively unpublicized in the Western press. Included in the plans for this basic hegemony of the region is the occupation of the Spratly and Paracel Island group. No fewer than 11 naval bases have been constructed in this area in the very recent past. By the way, these are very important sites strategically, as they control the sea lanes connecting the Strait of Malaca and the Taiwan Strait. From there you can easily strengthen the Philippines and Brunei and Thailand. In recent history, China began its quest to regain the Celestial Empire, that was an area stretching from the Russian Far East to Lake Bakal and most of southern Asia, by sending troops into Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. They are using nonmilitary assets to project Chinese influence around the region by exporting human beings. There are now over 60 million Chinese expatriates in surrounding countries operating businesses that generate almost $700 billion a year, which is, by the way, almost equal to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Communist Chinese. Chinese now outnumbers Russians. Chinese now outnumber Russians in Siberia. In 1995, the Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev warned the Chinese were in the process of making a peaceful conquest of the Russian Far East. Russians are fearful of this mass immigration, but the Chinese love it. The outflow relieves unemployment. It facilitates trade and, more importantly, it strengthens the historical claims to the land. By the way, all this sounds unfortunately very familiar to some of the things that are happening in our own country and, again, about which I will speak more in the future. There is a significant increase in activity of a variety of sorts in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan and Mongolia and Korea. Eventually, the Chinese believe they will be in direct confrontation with the United States. Their military and political leaders have stated this on several occasions. We, however, would rather whistle past the graveyard, which by the way may well be the one that we would all rest in if China had their way. Now many people disagree. Again they will say that the era of monolithic communism is dead and the era of democratic capitalism has replaced it. Well, philosophical communism is indeed a rotting corpse, but totalitarian communism is alive and well in the PRC. In fact, throughout the world, political oppression can and does coexist quite comfortably with various iterations of capitalism. One can make the case that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; but the opposite case that economic freedom leads inevitably to political liberty is much weaker. In fact, let us look closely at China over the last 20 years of economic reforms. Today, remember, after the last 20 years of economic reforms where democratic capitalism was supposed to have been making inroads in China, after 20 years of this, every major dissident in China has been jailed or they have been exiled. According to the State Department nation report this year, thousands of unregistered religious institutions have been either closed or destroyed. Hundreds of Falun Gong have been imprisoned. Thousands more have been sentenced to, quote, reeducation camps or locked up in mental hospitals. On April 23, the Chinese arrested a 79-year-old bishop and seven other Catholic clergymen in anticipation of problems arising out of the celebration of Easter. Two days ago, they arrested 35 Christians for worshipping outside their official church. They were sentenced to labor camps. Speaking of labor camps, the number in China now stands around 1,100. These are places of human misery on a scale equivalent to anything seen in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet gulag. In fact, they have become an integral part of the Chinese economy through the sale of products made by slave labor. By the way, much of this can be found in almost every store in America. As we all know, China is the source the Pentagon went to to purchase the berets, the black berets that they were going to provide our military with. A particularly lucrative industry has grown up around the harvesting and sale of human organs in China. Prisoners in these labor camps are categorized according to blood types and other pertinent information. When orders come in from around the world for certain body parts, the appropriate prisoners are slaughtered. Their organs are packed and sent off to the highest bidder. In 1996, the Chinese Government admitted that 20,000 kidneys had been harvested from prisoners. By the way, in most cases, they took them two at a time. All this is going on while American culture supposedly makes inroads into every part of the world and while the Internet provides a window to the world to all who can afford the hardware or get access to it. All this is going on subsequent to all the political strategies designed to bring China into the community of nations. It goes on after we pass PNTR. It will continue to go on until the United States and the rest of the world draw the proverbial line in the sand and make it clear that Chinese plans for basic regional and global hegemony are unattainable. China may eventually be forced to accept the world as it is and accept that role as a peaceful participant in the March toward democratic capitalism. But it will not happen as a result of a policy of appeasement. I worry, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that this Congress will be asked once again to approve normal trade relations with China because, although we passed over, certainly, my objection and that of many of our colleagues here, we did pass last year PNTR. China has not, in fact, joined the WTO, the World Trade Organization. As a result of the fact that they have not yet joined the WTO, they have not achieved PNTR with the United States. So we will every year now until they are in the WTO, the President will still have to request normal trade relations with China. I fear that it will be extended to them. Mr. Speaker, I will never forget what we went through here on this floor and in this body on the debate over that particular issue. I personally have never ever been lobbied more heavily, more pressure applied to try to get me to vote for normal trade relations with China. Nothing that I ever dealt with here on the floor, not issues of abortion, not issues of gun-related laws, nothing matched the pressure that we faced from the corporate lobby in this Nation, the corporate lobby that puts profits above patriotism. That is the only way we can describe what they were doing here. I will not call them American corporations because, Mr. Speaker, they had absolutely no allegiance to this country. They were much more concerned with that market they believed that existed in China. Really, what they wanted to do was import very cheap Chinese products and sell them in lucrative markets. The idea that we were going to have a two-way trade was what they would constantly refer to. But, Mr. Speaker, that will never happen. First of all, there is no market there. Although there are certainly a billion and a half people, they cannot buy our products. They do not have the money, number one. Number two, the Chinese Government will never allow massive trade with the United States. They only allow it going the other way, to the extent that we now sell to them only 2 percent of our exports, but we buy 40 percent of theirs. Our trade imbalance with them last year was $86 billion. This is what we called trade. It is not trade. It is an imbalance that is detrimental to the United States and to American workers. Not only that, it is detrimental to the security of the United States, because when we make China stronger economically, we in fact provide them with the means to build the armaments to threaten us eventually. Taiwan today, the United States tomorrow. I believe this to be true, Mr. Speaker. I believe that China is our most significant and most serious threat externally. Now, let me get to the internal threat to the Nation. Since 1970, more than 40 million foreign citizens and their descendents have been added to the local communities of the United States. Last month, the New York Times reported the Nation's population grew by more in the 1990s than in any other decade in United States history. For the first time since the 19th century, the population of all 50 States increased, with 80 percent of the American counties experiencing growth. Demographic change on such a massive scale inevitably has created winners and losers here in America. It is time, in fact way past time, that we asked ourselves what is the level of immigration that is best for America; in fact, what is even the level of immigration that can help the rest of the world. It is difficult to discuss this, because everyone here, certainly on this floor, all of us, all of my colleagues, everybody that we know as friends and relatives who are immigrants to this Nation and relatively recent. My family came here in the late 1800s. So it is not immigrants in and of themselves with which we find fault. Certainly I do not. I understand entirely the desire for all of these people to come to the United States. I do not blame them. If I were in their situation, I am sure I would be trying to do exactly the same thing. But we must ask each other, Mr. Speaker, we must as those of us who have been elected and the Nation's future put in our hands for at least this period of time, we must ask ourselves if massive immigration on the scale that we have been witnessing it over the last couple of decades is in fact the best thing for America from this point on. Mr. Speaker, in the heyday of immigration into this Nation, in the late 1800s, in the early 1900s when my grandparents came here, the height of immigration, we call that the Golden Era, in fact we never had more than a couple hundred thousand immigrants a year during that period of time. This year, and for every year for the last decade or more, we have had at least 1 million immigrants a year over that period of time. We have had about another 250,000 a year who come here every year under refugee status. Now, I am going to try to explain what has happened here by the use of this chart. As my colleagues can see, in 1970, the population of the United States was 203 million. By the year 2000, the population had gone up to 281 million. How much of this population increase can be attributed to immigration, and how much can be attributed to what we would call the natural, the birth rate of the people here that we refer to as the baby boomers and the people who are indigenous to the United States prior to this time? The green area of this chart indicates what the growth in this country would have been, what the population of this Nation would have been in the year 2000, the 2000 census, had it not been for immigration. As my colleagues can see, it would have been about 243 million people. It is actually 281 million people. By the way, this is a very low count because it does not really capture the number of especially illegal immigrants who are here in the country, and there are millions and millions of them. But one can see, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about here, in that we have had almost the exact same growth rate from the baby boomer generation, we call the baby boom echo, because we are having an increased birth rate in the United States, and it will continue to increase until about the year 2020. It then levels off, and it actually starts downward. That is what we would call the natural birth rate here in the United States taking out immigration. But the fact is that immigrants and their descendants amount to almost exactly as much growth in the last 10 years as the entire baby boom echo, bringing this up to 281 million. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when this land could absorb this kind of population growth. But I suggest to my colleagues that every single day on the floor of this House, when Members of the Democratic Party get up and talk about their problems, the problems in California especially, the problems with energy consumption in the United States generally, they always blame it on the producers, the price gouging electric producers, power producers. Even we, Mr. Speaker, on the other side trying to explain supply and demand to those people who have a desire to not listen miss the important point that this particular thing plays in the debate over natural resources in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues that what we are seeing in California today we are going to see happen throughout the United States as a result of massive population increases, increases in population that force a demand on resources. It is a natural function. We are actually in many States below where we were several years ago in per capita use of resources, per capita use of energy resources specifically. We have been able to conserve enough. We have been able to improve products. We have been able to do a number of things that actually have reduced per capita usage. But it does not matter when the number of people in this country keeps climbing so dramatically. I want to tell my colleagues how dramatic it is going to be with this other chart here. I just returned recently, I had an opportunity to speak in Los Angeles. As most people know, Los Angeles is a city that is inundated with immigration. The numbers of people are growing dramatically. I have to tell my colleagues that, for the most part, it has affected the quality of life in that city. A lot of people I talk to actually use the phrase we have escaped from Los Angeles. They had moved to all the areas in the suburbs outside. Many, many more people I know living in my own community in my district came from California, and they came because they said it is a quality of life issue. It is absolutely true that the quality of life has been eroding both in Los Angeles and other areas where massive numbers of people are congregated. We find that as a result, of course, tremendous demands are placed on resources. We recognize that what was just yesterday a beautiful pasture is today sprouting houses. We recognize that where we took a walk with our dog and with our family maybe just a few months ago is now some sort of industrial park development. A road is coming through in an area that was a pleasant pasture land a short time ago. In Colorado, we are forced with enormous expenditures for infrastructural development all to meet what, population growth. Population growth. A lot of people think to themselves, well, gosh, is it the case that we are having such an enormous growth of population just internally in this country? Because I know most people are quite concerned. I mean, the two-child family, a lot of people recognize that that is what is, maybe, the optimum number, and they try very much to achieve just that goal. Well, it is not that birth rate that we are concerned about. It is not the natural birth rate in the country that will propel us into this dire strait that is the expansion of the Los Angeles all over the United States of America. Nothing against the people who live there in Los Angeles. Many people I am sure love it. But I will tell my colleagues that it is a megalopolis by anybody's definition, and it faces some of the most difficult situations of any city in the United States as a result of that. That is what I am referring to when I talk about the fact that we are expanding. That is exactly what cities are going to be looking like all over the United States in a relatively short time because this chart shows what is going to happen. This is the dramatic evidence of population and what will happen if we continue to have immigration at this particular level. This does not presume to define what will happen to the population because of legal immigration. Remember, this is just what is going to happen by the year 2100 to the population of the United States of America if we allow immigration to continue at the numbers that we have today. Again, I have to reiterate, it does not count the fact that we are doubling our immigration rate every year with illegal immigrants. About 1 million illegals come in every year. About 2 to 3 million we gain. Nobody is really sure, of course, we cannot really count them all that easily, but the best prediction we have of this is that 2 to 3 million a year are net gains. So, in fact, this doubles. This doubles if present trends continue, 571 million at 2100. Then where will our cities be? Then how much will gas prices be? How difficult will it be for us to deliver natural gas from one place to another? How much will it cost to do that? What will the smog be like in these cities? What will be the quality of life for Americans in the year 2100 if we allow immigration to continue at this level? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is nothing any of us here would like to think of. We cannot describe it as a pleasant place to be under these circumstances. That is why I characterize this as a threat, almost equal with the threat posed to the United States externally by aggressor nations. This is happening, and we are doing it. We have the ability to control this, Mr. Speaker. This is something we can handle because in fact we have the power in this body to control immigration, at least to try to bring it under control. Certainly there will always be people coming across our borders illegally, but we have to at least try to preserve the integrity of the border. We must at least try to reduce immigration. Can we handle 50,000 a year? Yes. Can we handle 100,000 a year? Yes. Can we handle 150,000 a year? Okay. Give me 200,000 a year, but not a million a year legally and twice that many illegally. We cannot handle it. It is the numbers. It is not where they come from. I do not care where they are coming from, whether it is Mexico or Guatemala or China or Cuba or Haiti. I do not care. The place of origin is not important; it is the numbers. It is the numbers. This is not a racial issue. It is the numbers. I am somewhat discouraged because it is so difficult to get this subject dealt with openly, even, as I say, here in this body. People are afraid to discuss it. People choose to avoid it. As I was walking over here with the staff person carrying these charts, we were walking through the tunnel area coming over and an another Member of the House walked by and he said, oh, you are going to do a Special Order? I said, yes. He said, what about? I said, immigration. I am trying to talk about immigration control. He said, oh, brother, good luck. He said good luck because he knows that this is not a popular subject. It is very difficult to get my colleagues to really want to focus on it, but I think it is an enormously important thing for us to do. We control immigration. No State does. No State has the ability to establish numbers for the people coming in. They cannot control their own borders. That is uniquely the territory of the United States, the Federal Government. It is our responsibility. It is a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, that I think we have abdicated. We have done so for a lot of reasons. We have abdicated this responsibility, to a certain extent, and have allowed this massive immigration because there are political implications to this. And, yes, I will say it, political parties and specific individuals within political parties want to manipulate and use immigration as a political tool. We all recall that in the last administration, the President, then- President Clinton, forced the INS to go through this hurry-up process to bring all these people in and give them citizenship. Well, why, I wonder? Why did he force them to ratchet up the time frame involved, shorten the time frame involved and ratchet up their energy to get all these people registered, get them all in here in the United States, get them to be citizens, get them registered? Because, of course, they turn into Democrat votes. Let us be serious about this. We all recognize the politics of this issue. I know it is another one of those things nobody likes to say, but it is the truth. And as a result of the fact that these populations are, and I will say it, manipulated, and I believe they are manipulated by political parties and by politicians, we are going to find it difficult to actually bring the numbers down. Now, that is one thing that has done it. The other thing, of course, has been business. Businesses in the United States are very, very content to continue to hire people, immigrants coming in here legally and illegally. Why? Because they will work for less. It is not nuclear science here we are talking about. If I can hire somebody for a lot less than I would have to pay someone who is a citizen of the United States, I am tempted to do it. They are not supposed to. There are supposed to be laws against it. But everyone knows that they are regularly ignored. We all know the INS does absolutely nothing to actually enforce those laws. Once in a while, a little tiny feint here or there, a raid here or there to pretend they care. But in reality this is not an area where INS pays any attention. I hear this from my community and from people all the time, from employers who say, Tancredo, I wish you would get off this thing, this immigration issue. I hire a lot of people who I know are here illegally, but I have to do it anyway. They will admit it. And certainly they will admit to hiring illegal immigrants because they can pay them less. Well, is that in the immigrant's best interest? I mentioned earlier there are two interests here: What can America do for our own people, and what can we do for the rest of the world? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that people coming here and working for low wages are continually exploited. They are exploited by business. They are even exploited by the labor unions. And they are exploited by the people who bring them here, the ``coyotes'' they are called, people who pack them into vans and on the back of trucks, or packed in with other kinds of products in order to get them across the border, sometimes dead. We have had, in the last months in Colorado, several cases where people were found dead. Perhaps their car was in an accident. A van was in an accident not too long ago, and 13 people were killed in the van, and several others hurt, in a small van. They were all smashed in there. They are coming across the borders in greater numbers. They are risking life and limb to get here. And I do not blame them for doing it. I do not blame the immigrants. I blame our government for not being willing to deal with this issue. It is extremely difficult for us to bring issues like this forward, but I will continue to do it as long as I have the opportunity to do so. There is a June 11 special issue of ``Time'' magazine entitled ``The Border is Vanishing.'' It says: ``The Border is Vanishing Before Our Eyes Creating a New World for All of Us. Welcome to Amexico,'' their world is called. A world, of course, in which English is not spoken, a world in which the numbers, the population numbers, are affecting the quality of life in the way I have described and is described in this ``Time'' magazine article. This is something with which we must deal, even if it is difficult to think about it. We have to do so. It is our responsibility as people who have taken an oath to defend this Nation against all enemies, external and internal. And I am not saying that immigrants are internal enemies. I am saying that immigration is a threat, huge massive immigration on the scale with which we have now observed it lo these many years is a threat to this Nation. And this is the best example I can provide to prove that. This is where we will be, Mr. Speaker. This is not a place I think most of us would find appropriate or most of us would want our children to be living in. We want to bequeath them something else, both the children of people who have been here for a long time and I believe the children of recent immigrants. I think many recent immigrants, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, agree with us on this issue, agree with us that a cap has got to be put on it. It is the old thing about, I'm here, now you can shut the door. But they recognize the impact that massive immigration, legal and illegal, has. It is not just people who have been here for a long period of time. So I do really hope that we will take serious account of these two issues, the issue of the threats posed to the United States, again externally by the People's Republic of China, and internally by massive uncontrolled immigration of this nature.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank the committee chairman for bringing this bill forward. I thank the leadership for allowing this bill to come forward. I also want to thank the thousands and thousands of people that have communicated with Members of this body from all across this land in support of this piece of legislation. It is amazing to me, as the gentlewoman just said a minute ago, how things have changed in such a short period of time; how hard it was a few years ago, and I know how hard it must have been for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) years before that, because of course he was involved with this before any of us were. But I know how hard it was just a short 2\1/2\ years ago to get anybody to pay the slightest bit of attention to the issues in Sudan. It is undeniably true what many of my colleagues have said, that the problems there are incredibly difficult problems to deal with; very intricate, very interwoven, and many-many-facetted. It is not a simple solution by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I believe in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, that if we were to pass this bill today, which I certainly hope we do, that peace will break out tomorrow in Sudan. What this bill is is simply another arrow in the quiver; our accumulation of power, if you will, resources, leverages, whatever we want to call it, to bring to bear in this country to force peace to occur. That is really what we have to do. Many colleagues have come to me, not just colleagues here on the floor but certainly people in my own district, and asked the question, why now? What is the deal? What is the issue with Sudan? Why are we concerned about Sudan? Frankly, I do not have an awful lot of constituents who have Sudan on the top of their plate, so I do get questions about this. I first of all try to explain the effect of going over there and the effect that trip had on me. When the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and Senator Brownback and I landed in a little town called Yei and walked through this village, we had literally hundreds of people surrounding us and trying to get closer and closer to us because they thought, they hoped, they prayed, that if they stayed close enough to us, close to these American Congressmen who were there, that somehow perhaps the bombs would not fall on them, that the Antonovs would not come and bomb them at the time. Of course, the look in their eyes, this look of desperation, of course that affected me, absolutely. I am a human being. My heart went out to them. I said then at that time to myself and to them, ``I will do everything I can. I will do what I can.'' This bill is I guess the end result. It will not be the end result, but it is a result of that promise I made. But beyond that, Mr. Chairman, when people ask, why Sudan, why now, I only refer them to the comment made to General Colin Powell. Secretary Powell, when I did ask him in the Committee on International Relations what the administration was prepared to do to bring peace to this troubled land, he responded that he did not have a plan at his disposal, since he had only been in his position a relatively short time. He said, and I quote, I believe there to be no greater human tragedy being played out on the face of the Earth. What more do we need to answer the question, why Sudan? Why now? The greatest human tragedy being played out on the face of the Earth. There are many issues with which we can become involved in Sudan in a more technical way than even this bill lays out. I hope and I pray that, in fact, we can encourage the leadership in both the north and the south to earnestly begin discussions leading to peace, because I fear in my heart of hearts that the people, I know the people of Sudan both north and south want peace. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the leadership in the north or the south want peace, because, in fact, you know, a war that has gone on this long establishes the status quo and in it people begin to achieve positions of power. It is difficult to conceive a world in which war is not going on and, therefore, the power they wield is not able to be wielded. So we must be fearful of this reticence on the part of both the north and the south to move toward peace. We must force that. We must force that movement, and we can do so with this bill and with the appointment of a special envoy, which I believe is in the offering. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this piece of legislation as just one more step in the road to peace, so we can all answer our constituents and others when they say to us, why Sudan, why now. Just tell me if not now, when? How many more dead before you act?

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, many pundits, and many of my colleagues, will undoubtedly continue to discuss the energy crisis that the Nation faces, and specifically in California they will be proposing solutions that will range from increased supply to reduced demand and price caps. Mr. Speaker, when will we get the courage to attack the root of this problem or even discuss the root of this problem? The problem in California and many places around this Nation is a massive population increase caused by massive immigration, both legal and illegal. It is the numbers, Mr. Speaker. That is what drives everything. That is what drives the demand for all the resources we are now running out of, and it is something we must come to grips with as a Nation. The numbers, Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, that is the reason we are going to be facing these kinds of dilemmas over and over and over again, starting in California; but believe me, that is just the beginning. It is the numbers. We have to do something about reducing massive immigration into this country.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, once more, I rise to the podium to discuss an issue I think is of significant importance to the United States. I believe, as a matter of fact, it is perhaps the most significant public policy issue with which this body could or should be dealing. It is the issue of immigration reform. Each evening at the end of business in this House, ladies and gentlemen from both sides of the aisle approach the mike to talk about particular issues of interest and concern to themselves. And each evening for the last several, Members, especially from the California delegation, have come to the microphone to talk about the problems that they face in that State as a result of a lack of sufficient energy resources. And each evening, they rail against the President's policies, the energy plan that he has put forward, the first such plan ever put forward by any administration, and suggest that the problems we face in this Nation with regard to energy are those that can be dealt with more by conservation than by production. But all of the debate, Mr. Speaker, about energy problems, whether they concentrate on the issue of production as a solution or the possibility of conservation as a solution, miss the underlying problem. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the rolling blackouts we see in California and now some places beyond the borders of California, the skyrocketing costs of fuel oil, the fact that as we approach summer people are concerned about whether they are going to be able to keep their homes cool and in the wintertime whether they are going to be able to keep their homes warm because of the cost of energy. All of these things really are a result of a phenomenon I refer to as the numbers. It is numbers. It is the number of people in this country demanding the various resources that are available to them, but at varying costs. Every year, Mr. Speaker, we allow legally into this country 1 million people under an immigrant status. Each year, we allow in another quarter of a million people under what is called refugee status. And each year, we have about 2 million to 3 million, the estimates vary widely of course, naturally, 2 million to 3 million illegal people coming across the borders and staying. We have far more coming across the borders, something like 800,000 a day, coming across the border; but I am saying that just those that we net out every year amounts to 2 million or 3 million. I have a chart, Mr. Speaker, actually two charts, if I could ask a page to set them up, that show the growth of the population of this Nation over the last 20 years or so. We just had the census and the headlines across the Nation scream out, population growth extraordinary, more than we have anticipated, more than could have been anticipated, more than was expected. And we sometimes wonder how this could have happened; how it could happen that the numbers of people could actually grow so rapidly. This, Mr. Speaker, is a chart that describes what has happened from 1970 when the population was about 203 million and the growth in population identified here in green that could be attributable to what we would call the native-born population, or specifically, the baby boomers. As we can see, the population growth was increasing, has increased, just the natural population growth, since 1970; and there has been a lot of concern about that. However, the population would, in fact, level off, the population growth that is identified by this Baby Boomer Echo, as is shown here in green, that would level off in about 2020, and we would actually begin a decrease in population growth. That does not mean a decrease in population, just that the trend line is going down, were it not for the fact that we have an immigrant population that has actually doubled the size of growth in the United States, the rate of growth. So we would be right now at 243 million people in the United States, had it not been for immigration over the past 30 years. We are at 281 million people in the United States as a result of it; we have actually doubled the growth rate. Now, this is intriguing, the numbers are interesting, and we can discuss what the implications are; but the fact is, we will be in a relatively short time, at a point where our resources will be stretched to the limit. We are not able to actually accommodate the population growth of this Nation with the resource allocation and with the problem of environmental protections that we perhaps rightly, perhaps blindly place on the actual development of our natural resources. For whatever reason, we cannot produce enough to supply the demand of the population we have in the United States in terms of energy. So when people from California rail against whatever political party is in power, either at the State or at the national level, and suggest that that is the problem, that we would all have lots and lots of fuel oil, gasoline, energy supplies if it only were not for some particular problem with the political philosophy of one party or the other. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that both political parties refuse to deal with the real problems we face in America today brought on by this enormous growth in population, and that specifically, that growth in population, that part of it that is brought on by immigration. For many years, Mr. Speaker, we have had, of course, immigration in the United States of America. It is a country of immigrants. We all came here as a result of someone's decision at some point in time to leave their country and to come to the United States. I am quite sympathetic with all those people, who still today are hardworking, God-fearing, law-abiding in every other way except they will come across the border illegally. For the most part, these people are people who have all of the intentions, all of the desires to become part of the American dream, to obtain a part of the American dream, that our grandparents had. I certainly do not blame them for coming. I do not blame them for trying to come across the border legally, or sometimes illegally. I would not doubt for a moment that if I were living in some of their circumstances, I would be trying to do exactly the same thing. So it is not the immigrant, the individual immigrant, that I am concerned about here or that I am in any way trying to degrade. It is our own policy, it is the policy of this Nation with regard to immigration. It is the head-in-the-sand policy, we should call it, with regard to immigration that I am concerned about. It is a refusal on the part of the Nation to deal with the fact of the numbers. It is the numbers. It is not where people are coming from, it is how many people are coming here that has an impact on the quality of life in the United States. We are witnessing it in California on sort of a major scale, but every one of us, I believe, throughout our districts can observe the effects of immigration, and I would suggest to the Members, the negative effects of it, depending on who we are in the process. If one is an employer desirous of obtaining the cheapest labor possible, desirous of paying people even below minimum wage, desirous of having people who would never think about perhaps filing a claim or something like that, then they are on the other side of this issue. They are happy about massive immigration, public or private, because they can take advantage of it. They take advantage of those people coming in asking for help, needing a job, doing anything for a job and fearful of causing a problem in any way, because, of course, they may find the INS at their door. However, the possibility of that is quite remote. We actually deport only 1 percent of the illegals that enter the country every year, 1 percent. So as I say, they should not really be too concerned. But if they make waves, then they might end up being identified by the INS. Maybe somebody would place a call. Why? Because they have had the audacity to ask for a minimum wage job, or that their benefits be increased, but they are here illegally. We take advantage of them. They are manipulated. They are exploited by greed. So if they are on that side of the equation, I can understand full well, Mr. Speaker, that those people would not be too excited about the possibility of reducing the levels of immigrants into this country to something that we can handle, something that can allow immigrants to actually prosper themselves, and allow the United States to prosper itself. It could be mutually beneficial. We need to reduce immigration dramatically, but as I say, it is just not a Californian who has a concern about this. Every single one of us sees something happening in his or her district that is a result of immigration. In Colorado, I see it all the time. We see the demand for more and more highways, the demand for more and more schools. We keep wondering, where are these people coming from? How is it that this demand is growing so dramatically? It is a result, of course, of massive immigration, both legal and illegal. We will begin to see much more of its effects as time goes by if we do not do something about it. Mr. Speaker, I showed the Members a chart a little bit ago that identified this part of the growth of this Nation from 1970 to 2000. We see again that 243 million would have been the population of the Nation had we in fact not had immigration in the last 30 years, but with immigration, we have more. Remember, we are just talking here about legal immigrants. We do not know how many illegal immigrants. We assume 10 to 15 million people here in the country are here illegally. But our country at the end of 2000 was at 281 million people, so that part was the result of immigration, as I say, doubling the actual growth rate normally. I ask Members to look what happens, look what happens if this growth rate is allowed to continue at the present level of 1 million legal immigrants in here. This does not reflect illegal immigration, which of course is about double, at least double legal immigration. This just looks at what would happen, what is going to happen. This is not hypothetical, this is not a maybe thing; this is a direct, an absolutely defensible explanation, a visible explanation, of what is going to happen in this country within the rest of this century, even in the next 30 years, if we continue to have immigration levels at the present level. We will be, at 2050, at 404 million, and we will be at 571 million people in the country at 2100. Think about that when we are looking at where we are way down here. Think about the taxes that we have to pay in order to support the infrastructural demands of a population increase of this nature. Think about the number of schools that have to be built to support this. Think about the number of highways. Think about the number of hospitals. Think about the social service demands. This population actually uses social services to a greater extent than the indigenous population. Think about this, just this. If nothing else will impress the Members, think about the quality of life at this level, at 571 million people in this country. Think about that little green belt that is not too far from our houses today. Think about the fact that maybe today we can get in the car and within an hour or so we can be out in the more pristine areas enjoying the beauty of nature. Think about the ability of going to the Yellowstone National Park or Rocky Mountain National Park in my State, but think about having to make reservations to do that 4 or 5 years in advance to get into a national park. This is what is coming, I assure the Members, and it will not be in the next 100 years, that will be in the next few years. We are already planning on how to try to deal with the massive numbers of people coming into the park systems of the United States without destroying them, destroying the ecology. There is only one way to do it, of course, and that is to parcel it out. So today when we can get in our car and in fact drive freely across the United States, we can go into areas where it is hard to see another person, and that is sometimes what we all would desire, that kind of great quiet and solitude, think about it, Mr. Speaker, when the country is at this level of population, it will not be a place where solitude will easily be found. It will not be a place where one could enjoy the beauty of nature by simply getting in our vehicles or taking a stroll for a while, getting out of town, away from it all. It will be much more difficult to get away from it all because it will all have come here. It will all be here because of massive immigration, both legal and illegal. Again, I want to reestablish something here. When we look at this incredible chart and we look at what is going to happen to the population of the United States because of the red part here, please remember this, this is not talking about illegal immigrants who stay here, this is just from legal immigration at the present level. Can anybody understand the implication of this? Does anybody want to deal with it? Do Members think we have rolling blackouts now in California, rolling brownouts? Well, we are going to have a much more significant problem then when the population reaches these levels, and it will be, of course, much higher because illegal immigration rates are far greater than the legal. Yes, then we will come here to the floor of the House and we will talk about maybe having to do something about immigration. We cannot sustain it at these levels, we will say. Maybe we will say that. I do not know. But why not say it today, Mr. Speaker? Why are we so afraid of bringing this issue to the attention of our colleagues here and to the attention of the general public? There are a couple of reasons, but primarily they deal with fear, fear of being called a racist, fear of being called xenophobic, and a variety of other terms that certainly I have thrown at me every time I do this speech on the floor of the House. The phones start ringing in our office. People from all over the country express their displeasure with what I say. Mr. Speaker, I will suffer the slings and arrows of those folks who feel so outraged by what I am saying here just to get people to begin to pay attention to the issue. I want to read a part of a letter that is dated March 19, 1924. The letter is addressed to the Congress of the United States, and it reads as follows: ``Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces, and in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength.'' It goes on: ``One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength, `broad backs,' at the lowest possible wage, and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.'' Remember, this is 1924. It goes on: ``The other hostile force is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen, regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country.'' This was Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the American Federation of Labor, the AFL, and himself, by the way, an immigrant. He is right, Mr. Speaker, it has not changed. It has not changed, I assure the Members, in the last 76 years. It is still those hostile forces we meet when we bring an issue like this to the floor. It is still the employer who threatens me, threatens other Members of this body with a lack of support if we do not understand that they need to bring in illegal and legal immigrants so they can have these jobs that ``no American will take.'' Yes, I am sure there are many jobs out there that no American will take for the wages that are paid at that level. Yes, I am sure that is true. As long as they can continue to get by with paying those low wages to those people, of course they are going to be coming here demanding that we do nothing about the massive immigration that is flooding the United States, that is coming across the borders; and I should say, by the way, also to the detriment of the immigrant. The other thing, of course, is that there is a political side to this. There are a lot of people here who want to have massive immigration because they believe it accrues to their political advantage. We saw this, Mr. Speaker, we will recall, when President Clinton demanded that the INS go through a hurry-up procedure in order to make citizens out of hundreds of thousands of people who were here as immigrants, in order to get them registered to vote, in order for them to become good Democrats and vote for Mr. Clinton. There was such a rush to do that that literally thousands, I read somewhere it was 69,000 that sticks in my mind, people who were given this citizenship in this rushed-up fashion who were in fact felons. They had committed felonies here and they had committed felonies in their country of origin. We gave them citizenship status because the Clinton administration wanted a massive number of people here because they believed that they would in turn become good, solid Democrat votes. Mr. Speaker, I do not care whether they come here and vote Democrat or Republican or do not vote at all. The fact is, the issue of numbers is what we have to deal with today, the numbers. Because of immigration, the United States is currently growing at a rate faster than China. Because of immigration, within the lifetime of an American child our population will double. There is an organization called Project U.S.A., from which I am taking much of the following information, and I suggest that anyone who wants to get any kind of information that we have talked about here tonight go to our Website, www.house.gov/tancredo. From that, we have links to any of these other sites. That is www.house.gov/tancredo. Then one can go to the other sites here, Project U.S.A. and many others. Go to our site on immigration reform first. A writer by the name of Brenda Walker talks about the social contract, talks about what happens again in terms of what the impacts are of massive immigration into the country. She says experts increasingly agree that Third World poverty is largely the result of generations of citizens' passivity and the failure to build governments based on democratic values. Democracy cannot survive in cultures where women have no rights, where there is little respect for the rule of law, where there is tolerance for bigotry, petty thievery, bribery, corruption, nepotism, ethnic hostility and where citizens fail to build the political coalitions and the citizen movements to effect real change. She says, when we reward those who run from the problems in their own native land in order to save their own skin, then we undermine the citizen activism and the loyalty to one another that is absolutely necessary if Third World people are going to unite and solve their own problems. It is not kindness on our part when we allow our corporations to employ their most educated and their most talented citizens. Where would South Africa be if Nelson Mandela had decided to cut and run for America? Encouraging massive migration to the United States will not solve the problems in poorer countries. We can be much more effective through foreign aid and by teaching people how to build democratic societies for themselves. Teaching people how to fish is the path to true compassion and human dignity. Consider this, no one can fail to notice the connection between poverty and rapid population growth. No one can fail to see the connection between population growth and the degradation of the global environment. For our sake and for the sake of the world, we must work for a U.S. immigration moratorium. Certainly appropriate words. Today, Mr. Speaker, my wife brought me a copy of the most recent issue of Time Magazine. It is a Time Special Issue, it says, identified by the June 11 date. It says, ``Welcome to Amexica,'' A-M-E-X-I-C-A. The subtitle is ``The border is vanishing before our eyes, creating a new world for all of us.'' I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker, with that headline. The border is vanishing. A new world is being created. What does this world look like? Well, it will look very much like the border that presently exists between the United States and Mexico, the border region referred to in this particular Time Magazine article. This is from Time Magazine: ``To enforce immigration policies over which they have no control, border counties lay out $108 million a year in law enforcement and medical expenses associated with illegal crossings, money most of these poor counties cannot afford. Yes, there is a shortage of truck drivers, but there is also a shortage of judges to hear all the drug and smuggling cases. Arizona ambulance companies face bankruptcy because of all the unreimbursed costs of rescuing illegals from the desert. Schools everywhere here are poor, overcrowded and growing. ``Good health care has always been scarce here, but the border boom makes it worse. A third of all U.S. tuberculosis cases are concentrated in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. In the El Paso hospitals, 50 percent of the patients are on some kind of public assistance, mainly Medicaid.'' `` `Border towns have the double burden of disease,' says Russell Bennett, chief of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission,'' those diseases of emerging nations like diarrhea as well as first world diseases like stress and diabetes. The cost of immigration, I mean, the world is definitely changing, Mr. Speaker. There are no two ways about it. But I would not suggest it is changing especially on these border communities for the better, and it is because of numbers. It is not because, again, of where people come from. It is because of the numbers of people that are coming here. Again, I repeat, 31 percent of all tuberculosis cases are found in the four border States. Colorado, by the way, is not too far behind in those statistics. We are told that other countries are doing something to try to stem the flow of migrants to the United States. Well, let me suggest to my colleagues that that is almost a hollow promise. Although Vicente Fox and others often speak of attempting to do something to reduce the flow of immigrants to the United States, the reality is that they are encouraging it. The reason why they are encouraging this out-migration from their countries is because they cannot deal with it. They refuse to deal with it. Remember the petty larceny, the incredible amount of problems they have in trying to actually run their own government, the massive amount of corruption in the government itself and in the policing? All of this, of course, does not bode well for us, for those of us who hope that Mexico will be able to turn this around, to provide an economic arena in which their own people can thrive, in which they can achieve their own economic dreams. This is what we hope for all citizens all over the world. But I suggest that it is counterproductive for the United States to accept so many legal and illegal people into our country based upon some bizarre rationale that we are actually helping them and we are helping the countries from which they come. We are doing neither. We are doing ourselves an injustice and we are doing an injustice to the nations from which these people come because we are allowing these countries to avoid dealing with the harsh reality of life; and that is, one better change one's system, one better become a more free enterprise, capitalistic system, understanding the benefits of a democratic republic based upon capitalism. That is the first thing one has to do. One has to work to root out corruption in one's own government. One has to make sure that the police are honest, that the civil service at every level are not on the take. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in most of these Third World countries, that is just exactly what the case is. Most of these is incredibly corrupt and, as a result, of course they cannot provide governmental services as a result of socialistic economies. They cannot provide their own people with the quality of life that they deserve. So what happens? They look for someplace to go, and that place to go is the United States of America. We can handle it. We can handle maybe 100,000 a year. We can handle maybe 150,000 a year. We can handle maybe 200,000 a year. But we cannot handle millions and millions of people a year. It does not help us, and it does not help them. Vicente Fox ``dreams of a day when the border will open and his countrymen will no longer flee to survive. As Fox told Ernesto Ruffo, his top aide on the region, `Put holes in the border.' '' That is his attempt to stop illegal immigrants from entering the United States. Put holes in the border. What does Mr. Fox mean by that? Believe me, it would be difficult to find where one could put the hole, because there is essentially an open border. There is hardly anything that prevents the flow of illegals into this country from his country. Not only is Mr. Fox not attempting to stop it, but he and his government are abetting it. They are actually, as hard as this is to believe, Mr. Speaker, even in light of what Mr. Fox is telling the rest of the world, they are, in turn, handing out kits to illegals preparing to cross the border into the United States, kits that are designed to help them make their trip easier, kits that include water and condoms and Band-aids and maps and food supplies for a day or so. They are being handed out by agencies of the Mexican Government. At the same time, they tell us that they are trying to help reduce the flow of immigrants into the United States. This is simply untrue, Mr. Speaker. There is the corruption. This article in Time Magazine goes on to talk about the corruption and how it affects the immigration policies. It says, ``Police and Customs people pay for their government jobs so they can get in on the mordida, the payoff system. Midwives in Brownsville have sold thousands of birth certificates to be used as proof of U.S. citizenship. The Arellano Felix brothers, Tijuana drug kingpins known for torturing, carving up and roasting their rivals, are paying $4 million a month in bribes in Baja, California alone, just as the cost of doing business.'' Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about corrupt officials both in Mexico and in the United States. $4 million a month in bribes in Baja, California alone. ``The $4 million reward for their capture is one of the highest the U.S. has ever offered, and is something of a bad joke under the circumstances. There hasn't been a single nibble in four years. What good is the money if you're dead?'' The article goes on. ``The border patrol has a mission impossible. No matter how many surveillance cameras and motion detectors it installs, still the immigrants come.'' It goes on to describe the plight of those who cross the border and do so in the heat of the day without proper care, without proper nutrition, without the ability to escape the burning rays of the sun. Many, many die in the process. Those who do not come that way often employ the services of what are called coyotes. A coyote is a person who is employed to get one from Mexico to the United States doing so illegally. One has to pay them. It averages between 500 to sometimes several thousand dollars, depending upon the circumstances, to get one across the border. What happens, these people get shoved into vans, into the backs of trucks, get compacted, if you will, into any vehicle that is coming across the border. Many of them die. This has happened several times in the last few months in my own State of Colorado. I think we are up to now 9 or 11 people who have died in this process being transported here by coyotes. Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not blame them for trying. I understand their desire. It was the same as the desire of my grandparents and perhaps my colleagues to come to the United States and seek a better life. One of the things that we accomplished with that generation was, to a large extent, the ability to separate oneself from the culture and from the country from which one came. This is important. This is one reason why we do have the problem with massive migration, both legal and illegal from Mexico, because the border is of course adjacent to the United States, and it is harder. When my grandparents came here from Italy in the late part of the 1800s, they came essentially to escape an old world, came to seek the benefits of the new world, to enter into what they believe was a place of streets of gold. They wanted to become upwardly mobile, and they did that. One of the ways they did it was by abandoning their native language. I know a lot of people suggest that should not happen. I, for one, wish I could still speak Italian. I wish my grandparents had taught my parents and they had taught me, but they did not. One reason they did not was because they understood the need to learn English if they wanted to be upwardly mobile in this country. Massive immigration from countries that do not speak English puts pressure on the school systems. It puts pressure on jobs. The ability of someone to be upwardly mobile is severely hampered by their either unwillingness or inability to learn the English language. Bilingual education now being taught in so many schools with the exception of California, which by proposition threw it out, and soon it will happen in Arizona if it has not already occurred. I may be mistaken there. I think Arizona has already passed their initiative to do the same thing, and I hope Colorado is next in line to eliminate bilingual education. But this is an example of the problem of massive immigration and this dual-language nation we are beginning to develop. Not only is there a problem with people being able to actually become upwardly mobile if they do not speak English, can they really get to the next level in their job, can they afford to leave that particular field, maybe low skilled, low pay job, and move into something better if they cannot speak English? The answer is no. So why do we keep so many people in another language? Because it has become a political issue. I go back to what I said earlier about the reasons why we have massive immigration, one of them being political. And bilingual education has become a very political issue. It is used here in the House of this Congress to encourage either certain ethnic groups to support one party or another, or as an issue of attack on another party, those of us who believe that bilingual education is not the best thing for the children in that system. If we really and truly care about the child, Mr. Speaker, and I have been a teacher, my wife just completed 27 years as a teacher in the Jefferson County Public Schools, we sent our children to public schools, but if we really and truly care about children, then we will do several things for them: one, we will allow them to have the choice of any school they want to go to by giving them tax credits; and, secondly, we will make sure that they are not forced to participate in bilingual classes that are taught in a language other than English. If we really care about children, that is where we should be. We should be providing immersion classes for these kids so they can learn English quickly and move on and get in line for part of the American Dream. But massive immigration retards that pressure to achieve English proficiency. But the fact remains that these are all problems that develop as a result of this massive immigration and problems that we must begin to deal with. I say over and over again that it is an issue whose time has come. We must talk about it. Do we want this to be the future? Is this what we expect our children and grandchildren will have to deal with in terms of the quality of their lives? We can achieve a better future, Mr. Speaker, by controlling our own borders. It is uniquely in the power of the people of this House and in this other body to do that. States cannot do it. States have absolutely no control over the borders. They look to us. And we look away all too often, and we have done so time and time again on this issue of immigration because we fear either the political or social ramifications to us. It is hard to go into that cocktail party where somebody may say, oh, gee, that is that guy or that lady that wants to reduce immigration. People might shy away from you, thinking that you are a racist, that you have some evil motive, that there is something bad in your heart, and they want to get away from you. Mr. Speaker, I assure you, at least from my own perspective and from the bottom of my heart, it is not the type of people that come here, it is not the color of people that are coming here, it is not their ethnicity, it is, in fact, the numbers that makes it difficult to deal with. The numbers make it harder for us all to accomplish our goals, whether it is to reduce the problems faced by California, and which will be faced by States throughout the Nation soon in terms of energy and lack thereof, to the various other kinds of cultural issues and political issues that we face as a result of massive immigration of these kinds of numbers. So once again I ask the Speaker to be aware of the need for change, to encourage others, others of my colleagues, to begin to study this issue and become acquainted with it. It is an important one for every one of us no matter what district we represent. It will become more important as the time goes on, and there will be a point in time when we will be confronted by this issue in a way that perhaps we have no way of avoiding it. We have to deal with it, Mr. Speaker. Now is better than later. Now is better than later.

Mr. TANCREDO

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