Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

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

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret and heartfelt admiration that I rise today to honor a fallen Marine from my district, Lance Corporal Gregory Paul Rund of Littleton. Sadly, Lance Corporal Rund was killed in the line of duty during combat operations on December 11 in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. Lance Corporal Rund was with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division based in Camp Pendleton, California. He was just 21 years old. Greg was a 2002 graduate of Columbine High School in Jefferson County, where he played football and later made the decision to serve his country by joining the Marines. Greg was serving his second tour of duty in Iraq when he was killed. He made an indelible impression on all who knew him, and will be remembered as a dedicated, energetic and warm person who had a great sense of humor. Mr. Speaker, my deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences go out to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Rund. He served his country honorably and with distinction, making the ultimate sacrifice fighting for freedom and democracy in defense of a grateful nation. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude. His dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is opposed to the bill?

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a great amount of admiration for the people who have worked as hard as they have worked on this bill, for the chairman, for the leadership in the House, that has, I know, spent many, many hours in discussions with the other body. I wish that I could stand on this floor tonight and support this bill. I remember during an earlier debate on H.R. 10, the House version of the response to the 9/11 Commission report, I was proud as I have ever been to be a Member of this body and to see the members of my party, especially the Speaker of the House, the whip and the majority leader, come to the floor and speak articulately and very, very forcefully in support of certain provisions of the bill that the other side of the aisle were trying to take out. These provisions dealt specifically with trying to increase our border security. It is intriguing in a way, it is ironic in a way, one thing: We established a 9/11 Commission, it did its work, it talked to us about what we needed to do. We all recognize what happened on that day, on 9/11 2001. When people came into this country from other countries, many of them did so fraudulently, by providing false documentation, by inaccurately filling out their visas, or by coming into the country and after they were here overstaying those visas. They were in violation of our immigration laws. They were able to take advantage of their position because we did not do much, and we still do very little in terms of enforcing those laws. They were also able to take advantage of another thing in this system. They were able to take advantage of the fact that we were handing out driver's licenses to people like prizes in a Cracker Jack box. The 19 hijackers had accumulated a total of 63 driver's licenses, many from Virginia. They used them with great ability to, of course, get onto planes, to make life easy for them while they were here. This is one thing we know that happened that helped create the problem, helped create the event of 9/11. We know that. So we create a bill in response to the 9/11 catastrophe, and it is almost inconceivable that any bill could then come to this floor without a reference to, without an ability, without any desire to actually do something about the actual problem that created 9/11. But that is the case today. To quote the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who also recognized the flaw, the fatal flaw of this bill, and that is the only way I can really describe it, it is a fatal flaw, this is the quote from Chairman Sensenbrenner: ``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can prevent another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration reform are vital components of our national security efforts, so why are they not included in this legislation? The time to address these issues is now, not next month, not next year. Hollow promises of future considerations are just that, hollow promises. Terrorists have exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum system and in the issuance of driver's licenses. ``This bill fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill because my Senate colleagues,'' and I am quoting him here, ``found them to be too controversial. That is unfortunate, because their refusal to consider these security provisions on their merits will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk.'' Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with his observations, and I would ask my colleagues to look carefully at what they are doing here. The fact is that this bill has such a gaping loophole and it has such a huge, huge flaw that it is better not to pass this bill at all than to pass it and create the illusion of security. I do not doubt, as I have said, that there are many good parts of the bill. That is not the issue. But there is something so vital, something so intrinsic to our national security, the issuance of driver's licenses and trying to maintain some degree of control over that process, because we know that a driver's license in this country is, of course, as close to a national I.D. card as we have. But when we refuse to address this because of our concern about the politics, because it is too controversial to talk about, how can we come to this floor, how can anybody come to this floor or in fact stand in front of any television or any constituency and say, we are doing everything possible to defend the people of this country. How can we say this when we know that that is absolutely untrue; when the one thing we should be doing in this bill, we are not. So because it does not have that provision, I certainly would request that my colleagues turn this bill down and ask that it come back in a different form, in a more complete form. Sensenbrenner Statement on 9/11 Bill Washington, DC.--House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) issued the following statement regarding legislation responding to the 9/11 Commission recommendations: ``I am pleased that the chain-of-command issues Chairman Duncan Hunter has raised have been resolved so that our war- fighters will not be put at risk. Unfortunately, even with these improvements, the current bill is woefully incomplete and one I cannot support. ``Americans deserve a complete bill so that we can prevent another 9/11 from occurring. Border security and immigration reform are vital components of our homeland security efforts, so why are they not included in this legislation? The time to address these issues is now, not next month, not next year. Hollow promises of future consideration are just that--hollow promises. ``Terrorists have exploited vulnerabilities in our asylum system and in the issuance of drivers' licenses. This bill fails to include the strong provisions in the House bill because my Senate colleagues found them `too controversial.' That's unfortunate, because their refusal to consider these security provisions on their merits will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk. I said two weeks ago that the Senate was hell-bent on ensuring that illegal aliens can receive drivers' licenses, regardless of the security concerns. This Sept. 10th mentality in a post-Sept. 11th world is unwise and among those I intend to rectify next year.''

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the only turf that at least I am interested in protecting here is the turf of the United States of America and the people that live on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller). (Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make two quick points. One is, indeed, most of the people who were here, most of the hijackers were here illegally, not legally, because they fraudulently produced documents to get their visas. The visas were frauds to begin with, making them illegal aliens in this country. Secondly, many of them had overstayed their visas or were doing something here that was not allowed under the visa, making them illegal aliens in this country. So, indeed, they were illegal. Thirdly, there are far more members of 9/11 families who oppose this bill because the provisions we are talking about here are missing; those provisions to secure our borders are missing. Far more oppose this bill in its present form than support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the following is from the final report: ``Secure identification should begin in the United States. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' That is from the report. That is the thing we are ignoring completely in this bill designed to respond to the 9/11 Commission report. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill so it can come back here in a form that could make us all proud, and so we would be able to go back to our constituents and say we have indeed done something to secure this country. This bill does not do that.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2781) to express the sense of Congress regarding the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, to provide assistance for the crisis in Darfur and for comprehensive peace in Sudan, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 2781, as amended, the Senate bill now under consideration.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2781, as amended, imposes some punitive measures listed in the Sudan Peace Act after a 30-day period. The bill also imposes an asset freeze on senior Sudanese officials and calls upon the President to impose a travel ban on senior Sudanese officials, including those responsible for planning and carrying out the genocide in Darfur. To guarantee a wider international response to the genocide in Darfur, S. 2781, as amended, includes instructions for the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to urge the Security Council and member states to pursue accountability for those complicit in the genocide in Darfur and to impose targeted sanctions, including the freezing of assets on senior members of the Government of Sudan, and to cease importing Sudanese oil. The bill also provides humanitarian assistance to Darfur and Eastern Chad, funding to support the African Union mission in Darfur, and assistance in preparing the population for peace. This will give material indication to the Sudanese civilians that they can find meaning and purpose in rebuilding their country after decades of war. Mr. Speaker, we are beyond the point of threatening the Government of Sudan with punitive measures. Time and again certainly I have been on this floor and many other Members have been on this floor expressing our concern over the situation in Sudan and the intransigence of the Sudanese government to operate in good faith and to bring an end to the human tragedy on a scale that is almost unimaginable and for which they are greatly responsible. Time and again our efforts have been rebuffed. Time and again we have been forced to go to the next step in order to get the Sudanese government to respond. Genocide has been and is being committed, we know. We have said it. We now need to show that there are consequences for directing and/or participating in a campaign to destroy human life on such a massive scale. Every evening on the news, every day in the papers of this country we see the picture of this horrible, horrible situation in Sudan and the faces of the people who are suffering. How long can this go on? How long can this go on without this government paying even closer attention than it has? How long can this go on without the world paying closer attention than it has? To the credit of this administration and to this government, we have done more than any other country to try and focus world attention on the problems in Sudan, but we need the world to cooperate. We need the United Nations, we need the Security Council to do far more than they have done. We need the European Union to do more. We have a moral responsibility to respond to genocide. What we do at this juncture has implications for every conflict we will address in the future. Everyone is watching to see how we respond. Secretary Powell and the U.S. administration have taken a courageous stand, as I say, but this is just the beginning. If we fail to act forcefully now, it will be open season for genocide. If we make empty threats, it will have serious consequences for the future of international peace and security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who has been laboring in this vineyard longer than I, longer than most, and who adds an aspect of both compassion and articulation that is desperately needed on this issue.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, who has been enormously helpful in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Thomas. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, November 18, 2004. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing concerning S. 2781, the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over revenue matters, including any legislation relating to imports. There are two provisions within the bill that may relate to imports and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Section 4(b)(8) expresses the Sense of Congress that ``the Government of the United States should not normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to, and takes demonstrable steps to implement, peace agreements for all areas of Sudan.'' Section 6(a) requires the President to impose certain sanctions outlined in the Sudan Peace Act (P.L. 107- 245), including the requirement to ``take all necessary and appropriate steps, including through multilateral efforts, to deny the Government of Sudan access to oil revenues,'' which could be interpreted to direct the President to impose an import ban on oil. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forego action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to S. 2781, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New Jersey referenced a trip that we took to the Sudan, he and I, now over 5 years ago, 5\1/2\ years ago. It was certainly as a result of that trip that I have committed as much of my time and energy to this issue, and it is a result of the gentleman from New Jersey's leadership in this area that I stay connected to it. Let me just tell you one thing that happened on that trip that I remember to this day and will remember it for the rest of my life. We were in a little town called Yai. As we walked through the town, a group of children surrounded us so that it was almost impossible to move. They kept yelling something. They were pointing up. They kept saying something, and of course I could not understand. We were trying to move by. I asked somebody, what are they saying? And the interpreter said they are fearful of bombs because, of course, the town had been bombed just prior to our getting there. The Antanov bombers had come by, and they were saying that they thought that because we were from the United States, because we were Congressmen, that they would not be hit by these bombs if they stayed close to us. And, of course, I could not promise that that could not happen. But I still remember their eyes, the eyes of these children looking up to us, looking for safety around us. And I will never forget that as long as I live. I will take that picture to my grave. And I committed myself at that time to do everything I could possibly do as a Member of Congress and as a human being, as a person with a soul, to do everything I could possibly do to provide them the shelter that they were looking for, them and all of the other children in Sudan and all of the other people that have suffered so mightily in this war-torn, ravaged country. There are places all over the world I know that have experienced horrible events, and it happens daily. We come here ourselves and we say what can we do individually. We have to carve out something that we are going to focus on and spend time and energy on until it is accomplished or we are taken away, one way or the other, from this place. So as I say, it has been certainly a pleasure to work with as many wonderful people as we have over the time. Father Dan, my colleague remembers, that we met there, who I always refer to as the individual in Sudan that anybody would go to if they want to know what was really happening, and he himself has saved thousands of people, thousands. We went to a church the last day we were there. Thousands of people came, and they had themselves experienced the most horrible things. Almost 7,000 died on the way to this refugee camp that Father Dan had set up for them. And yet they came singing the praises of Jesus Christ and their thankfulness to be saved. I mean, it was the most incredible experience in my life, really. It was amazing. So I must say that the gentleman's kind words to me are certainly appreciated, but they are undeserved especially in terms of what he has done and others, my colleagues here. We are pulled to this not for any political reason whatsoever. There are no votes. I mean, it is one of the few kinds of things we do on this floor that has absolutely no political advantage to anybody. We are pulled to this because we are human beings with souls and our souls are what tell us we must do, what we are doing here today. So I thank the gentleman. I want to thank Molly Miller on my staff, who has spent so many countless hours and sleepless nights both probably in the office and also in her home worrying and thinking about this and trying to help us get to the floor tonight. Molly has been wonderful. I just wish that this were the end of it. I wish that once we pass this, we could all walk away and think it is done, we have accomplished it, there is peace in Sudan. It is not the case. We know that is not the case. But it is what we are required to do today. And if there is more required to do tomorrow, I commit myself and I know my colleagues to the same. I commit myself to that task for as long as it takes.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine recently sent me an essay that his granddaughter drafted for her college English composition course on the issue of illegal immigration. I was thoroughly impressed upon reading the article, written by a Ms. Karen Berg--so much so that I have decided to insert it into the Congressional Record so that other members might be able to review it. I would encourage them all to do so, Mr. Speaker, as it appears to me that this 19-year-old woman has a better grasp of this issue than many people--including opinion leaders on the subject--that I have met. Illegal Immigration--Friend or Foe? America, since its inception, has been viewed as a land of opportunity for those driven to find freedom from tyrannical rule, as well as those seeking to expand their wealth and influence. Today, little has changed with these motivations but much has changed in regard to the population, infrastructure, and perception regarding the management of U.S. borders. This is a new era, where immigration control needs to be orchestrated more effectively than at any other time in America's history due to diminishing resources, threats of terrorism, and the socio-economic imbalance that can result from unregulated influx. In regard to the later, it is believed that the immense and continuing immigration from Mexico is the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's national identity. Therefore, the question arises; what are the true economic, social, and resultant political impacts of immigration, and in particular the unique issues and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic immigration. When Vicente Fox was elected Mexican President, he ended the Institutional Revolutionary Party's, or PRI's, seventy- one year monopoly on executive power, thereby elevating hope for economic development (Wall 3). Fox promised Mexicans an employment boost, as well as the eventual opening of the U.S.-Mexican border. However, if employment opportunities increased, then the need for migration would decrease (Wall 3). In 1994, the United States, Canada, and Mexico implemented NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA promised hundreds of thousands of new high-wage jobs, an increase in living standards, improved environmental conditions in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and transformation of Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports (The Mexican Economy, Agriculture and Environment 1). Mexicans were promised that NAFTA would increase trade and investment inflows which would in return create better jobs, raise wages, and lift millions out of poverty (The Mexican Economy, Agriculture and Environment 2). Although NAFTA did stimulate trade, economic growth did not materialize. Fox had promised a 7 percent per year economic growth, but two and a half years after his inauguration, growth averaged less than 1 percent (Faux 2). From there, NAFTA concentrated economic growth along Mexico's northern border by opening factories called maquiladoras, which processed and assembled goods for the booming U.S. consumer market, thereby doubling Mexican employment (Faux 3). But after the U.S. economy slowed down in 2000, employment in maquiladoras decreased (Faux 3). Since then, hope that NAFTA would enable Mexican prosperity had vanished. Therefore, Mexican workers who could not support themselves in Mexico turned to the United States for greater opportunities. Currently, Fox is trying to convince U.S. President, George W. Bush, to ``liberalize migration, create guest-worker programs, and provide migrants with civil rights and social benefits'' in order to encourage Mexican immigration to the U.S. (Faux 4). Debate over Mexican illegal immigration to the United States consists of two opposing sides. Supporters of illegal immigration believe it is not fair to prohibit immigrants from entering the United States, since the U.S. was founded by immigrants. Second, illegal immigrants take the low-paying jobs other Americans are not willing to take. They help the American economy because the amount of skilled and unskilled workers created by high levels of immigration contributes to the nation's prosperity (Masci 1). Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, states, ``As we are creating an ever more complex, sophisticated, accelerating economy, the necessity to have the ability to bring in . . . people from abroad to keep it functioning in the most effective manner increasingly strikes me as [sound] policy'' (Masci 1). Greenspan reasons that immigrant's work ethic and motivation make them the cornerstones of America's economic prosperity. Finally, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor to employers, thereby lowering the cost of goods and services. Opponents of Mexican illegal immigration believe that even though the United States was founded by immigrants, immigration of the past is not the same as it is today. First, Mexican immigrants are not here legally. Second, most Mexicans do not take the dangerous journey across the border to become American citizens, but rather to help provide for their families in Mexico. Also unlike former immigrants, Mexican illegal immigrants are able to remain in contact with their home localities because of the close proximity of the two countries (Huntington 2). Opponents of illegal immigration also believe the United States doesn't need a million illegal immigrants each year to ensure a strong economy. The majority of illegal immigrants are not well educated entrepreneurs, but rather, ``poorly educated people who take low-skilled jobs for little money,'' says Dan Stein, executive director for the Federation for American Immigrant Reform (Masci 1). Illegal immigration opponents also reject the argument that illegal immigrants are willing to do the jobs that most Americans wouldn't do. In parts of the country where there are small amounts of immigrants, low wage jobs are filled by native born residents (Masci 1). After analyzing the history, causes, and contrasting sides of illegal immigration, one might wonder if Mexican illegal immigration hurts the United States. The conclusion made, from extensive research in specific areas, is Mexican illegal immigration is a detriment to the United States. But, the reasons why illegal immigration hurts the United States still need to be addressed. First, many discussions of immigration fails to take into account the attitude towards immigration in the sending countries. For example, the Mexican media and political elite portray the United States negatively, and therefore dissention between the two countries in regards to immigration is amplified. Second, manipulation of American politics might occur through Mexican immigrants that become influential in American government. Third, if the United States continues to allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of government provided benefits in states like California, there is a possibility the entire country will have similar economic misfortunes in the future. Finally, since Mexican illegal immigrants have monopolized specific areas of employment, Americans have difficulty pursuing and acquiring those jobs--especially with the prospect of guest- worker programs which would intensify their monopoly. In Mexico, the media and political elite pay close attention to illegal immigration to the United States, and have created a one-sided, unfavorable portrayal of the United States. The United States' attempts to control their borders are presented as ``racist, xenophobic, and anti Mexican'' (Wall 1). Mexican citizens even blame the U.S. for the deaths of illegal aliens who die crossing the border, and Mexican politicians have called the U.S. border a ``slaughterhouse, or modern Nazi zone'' (Wall 1). In Mexico, all political parties support immigration to the United States, amnesty, and government benefits for Mexicans in the United States, regardless of migratory status (Wall 2). Common slogans Mexicans use to justify illegal immigration are: ``Mexican illegal aliens are not criminals, they only do the work the gringos won't do,'' and ``they are obliged to cross the border'' (Wall 2). Because the Mexican media and political elite portray illegal immigration to the United States in this manner, dissension between the two countries is amplified. Throughout history, Mexican-Americans had always been viewed as an embarrassment. They were a sign of Mexico's economic failure, or ``exiles who had thrown in the towel'' (Castaneda 2). The last president of the PRI, Ernesto Zedillo, declared that, ``we will not tolerate foreign forces dictating laws to Mexicans,'' referring to Mexican immigrants in the United States (Wall 3). However, towards the end of the PRI's reign, Mexican-Americans became a sign of opportunity--an opportunity for the Mexican government to gain influence in the United States over migration policy, and therefore keep the gates open for continued immigration (Wall 3). After Vicente Fox was elected, he stressed a greater importance associated with Mexican immigration to the United States. His intentions are not only to govern Mexicans resident in the United States, but also American citizens of Mexican ancestry (Wall 3). In essence, Fox intends to manipulate American politics through Mexican immigrants that become influential in the American government. Thereby, naturalized American citizens' political power could possibly be diluted, resulting in more favorable immigration and trade regulations for Mexico. The state of California is already on its way to bankruptcy, and the inability to control illegal immigration is doing more than ``some damage'' to the state's weakening budget (Coleman 1). More than half of the Mexican undocumented workers do not have taxes withheld from their wages, and are able to take advantage of expensive taxpayer- supported government benefits (Izumi 1). The result of this has escalated economic troubles in California creating a ``welfare and healthcare state'' benefiting non-Californians (Coleman 1). According to the Auditor General, Mexican illegal immigration costs California taxpayers $3 billion annually (Izumi 2). This cost estimate includes benefits like education, health-care, social services, and criminal justice. If the United States allows this situation to propagate to other states, the entire country will likely have similar economic misfortunes as California. Evidence of this is already beginning to show. Harvard Professor George Borjas claims illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $133 billion annually just in wage depression and job loss (Wooldridge 1). Mexican illegal immigrants have monopolized jobs that don't require skilled labor--through acceptance of low wages and ethnic camaraderie--preventing unemployed Americans from pursuing and acquiring those jobs. Even though U.S. employers hire illegal immigrants for reduced wages, the average American wage still exceeds the average Mexican wage by a factor of ten--thereby creating an incentive for Mexicans to find jobs in the U.S. (``Wages and Poverty'' 1). Also, communities of legal immigrants create immigration networks for illegal immigrants so they can conveniently enter the United States, and find jobs and housing easily (``Illegal Immigration'' 1). These combined factors result in a situation where job competition prevents Americans from obtaining jobs that don't require skilled labor. However, this monopoly could be intensified if the Bush administration follows through with the implementation of guest-worker programs. Under these programs, illegal immigrants would be granted a three-year renewable permit allowing them legal rights to work in the United States (Eccleston 2). Guest-worker programs were proposed in response to Vicente Fox's request for legalizing Mexican immigrants in the United States, and the assumed shortage of unskilled workers--especially in agriculture (Briggs 2). However, Mark Krikorian of The Washington Post, believes guest-worker programs cause severe social and economic problems for the U.S., as well as pose a threat to America's agricultural competitiveness. ``By artificially inflating the supply of labor, the government's interference in the labor market keeps wages low, resulting in slowed mechanization, and stagnating productivity in fruit and vegetable production'' (1). Two reasons why guest-worker programs intensify the monopoly illegal immigrants have on low paying-employment opportunities are: they increase the amount of illegal immigrants to the United States because many of the participants elect to stay in the U.S., and more illegal immigrants are encouraged to come in the hope that amnesty programs will be enacted again in the future (Briggs 2). Throughout time, legal and illegal immigrants have crossed America's border in search of opportunity. Recently, however, Mexican illegal immigrants are migrating to the United States in increasingly larger numbers in order to take advantage of the opportunities America has to offer. The economic, social, and political results of illegal immigration--in particular, the unique issues and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic immigration--are detrimental to the United States.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret and heartfelt admiration that I rise today honor a fallen Marine from my district, Staff Sergeant Theodore ``Sam'' Holder II of Littleton. Sadly, Staff Sergeant Holder was killed in the line of duty during combat operations on Veterans Day in the AI Anbar Province of Iraq. Staff Sergeant Holder was an Infantry Unit Leader with Company A, 1st Light Armored Recon, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, California. His unit was fighting terrorists in Fallujah. He was just 27 years old. ``Sam'' was a graduate of Green Mountain High School in Lakewood, and served his country for 8 years with distinction including tours protecting American diplomats and interests abroad at our Embassies. He also guarded Secretary of State Colin Powell at one time, and met both President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His friends described him as ``a special person,'' and ``the ultimate Marine.'' He was an accomplished soldier whose awards include the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon, the Marine Security Guard Ribbon and the National Service Defense Medal. Mr. Speaker, my deepest sympathies go out to the family of Staff Sergeant Holder. He served his country honorably and with distinction in the War on Terror, making the ultimate sacrifice fighting for freedom and democracy in defense of a grateful Nation. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude. His dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the Menendez amendment claims to be comprehensive in its approach toward border security. Let me read directly from the commission report: ``It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. Government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security is still not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe that it must be made one.'' Yet the Menendez amendment is eerily silent on this issue. How can we possibly suggest that there is any way that we can think of their amendment as comprehensive in terms of border security and security of this Nation when it does not address this fundamental idea that was placed in the 9/11 Commission report? The only way you can think about this is that it is pandering for votes in light of the fact that we should actually be thinking about national security, not thinking about votes.