stuff in there we want passed so people won't see it until long after the bill's been passed. that's what comprehensive has come to mean. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. that's absolutely true. because comprehensive is code language for this is really, really bad, what's in this bill. take a look at comprehensive sex education, that's all you need to know. this is really, really bad and it's not going to help anyone. you know we have the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, we'd also like to hear him -- have him weigh in. he's been a marvelous voice also on this issue and has been very thoughtful and has a tremendous amount of background on this issue and has participated in a town hall with me with individuals and brought a great deal of information so i'd like to yield to him as well, mr. brooks from alabama.

mr. brooks: i want to emphasize a few points about america's immigration situation. the first point is this, america has been far and away the most generous nation in world history when it comes to allowing foreigners to come onto our soil, when it comes to allowing foreigners to receive our most cherished right, citizenship. in that veen, i would like to share with you some information from the department of homeland security aufings of imdwration statistic, it covers data from 2011 going backwards. first, with respect to legal status, the numb of people we as a country allow to have permanent legal status in the united states of america, in 2011, was 1,062,000 foreigners in that one year were fwiven legal status who had not previously had legal permanent

resident status. let's go back 50 years to 1963. it was 306,260 that were given legal permanent resident status. i.e., today, we're even more generous than we were a half century ago. today we're giving three times as many legal permanent resident status than we did a half century ago. 40 years ago, 1973, 398,000 foreigners were given legal permanent resident status. still twice today what we're giving than we gave 40 years ago. in 1983, it was up to 550,000, meaning that today roughly twice again as we are giving than we did as recently as 0 years ago. then in 1993, it was 903,000, in 2003, it was 703,000. again today, more generous than any time in american history. that's with respect to legal status permanent residency for

foreigners. a bigger issue is how many petitions for naturalization were filed by foreigners and how many foreigners did americans give naturalization to? i.e., our most cherished right in the united states of america. over the last few years new york 2011, 694,000 foreigners were naturalized in the united states of america. in 2010, 620,000 foreigners were naturalized. in 2009, 744,000 foreigners were naturalized. in 2008, a little over a million were naturalized. in 2007, 660,000 were naturalized. those are huge numbers. probably more so than any nation on earth. not probably, definitely, more so than any nation on earth. and probably more so than all the rest of the world put together. that's how generous america has been with respect to foreigners. to put that into perspective, a

decade ago, 462,000, meaning we're roughly giving 40%, 50% more now than we did a decade ago, naturalization. n 1993, 20 years ago, it was 313,000, meaning today we're giving twice as much naturalization than we gave 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 1983, it was 178,000, meaning today, we are four times more today than we were in 1983 just 30 years ago. but it goes further. and this is important. how many foreigners lawfully come into the united states of america? bear in mind that we as a country, we have a total population of a little over 300 million people. but let's look at what's happened since 2003. e total of all admissions, according to the department of homeland security new york 2003, 180 million foreigners came into the united states of america lawfully. they may be tourists coming and

going. they may be students on student visas coming and going. they may have work permits or work visas, they may be part of trade delegations but 180 million foreigners figured out how to do it the right way, the lawful way. in 2004, 180 million again, in 2005, another 175,000 foreigners came into america the right way in 2006, another 175 million foreigners came into america the right way. in 2007, 171 million foreigners came into america lawfully. n 2008, 175 million in 2009, 162 million. in 2010, 160 million. in 2011, 159 million came into america lawfully. now why do i emphasize these numbers? it's because the number of people whose first act on american soil is to break our laws is min us kuhl compared to

the big picture. compared to those who know how to come into america lawfully, compared to those america welcome into the united states lawfully. so those are numbers i want to emphasize. basically what that tells you is that there are hundreds of millions of foreigners around the world that want to come into our country and we generously and compassionately allow them into the united states of america. while we are -- what we are focusing on today are the lawbreakers. and we have people in this body, people in the united states congress -- congress, people in the white house, who want to give amnesty to lawbreakers. let's bear in mind that there are reasons why we should not be doing that. first and foremost, we can have the choice of whomever we want out of these hundreds of millions that want to come to the yotes of america and immigrate and become citizens of our great land. in that kind of perspective, what we need to be doing, is choosing those who best fit america's needs. in that perspective, let's bear

in mind our financial condition as a country. we have four consecutive trillion dollar deficit the worst deficits in the history of our country. we are now about to rush through the $17 trillion mark in total debt. we are not a country that can afford to stay on this path. we are not a country that can afford to allow into our nation immigrants who are going to be tax consumers rather than tax producers. when you have the pick of hundreds of millions of people around the world, we should be smart and we should have a smart immigration policy that brings in people who are going to be tax producers. not tax consumers. that's going to help us with our deficit situation, tep us with our accumulated debt, and hopefully reduce or minimize the risk of an american tradgity that tragedy being a debit dating insolvency and bankruptcy of our great nation system of in that veen, our

foreign policy, our immigration policy should focus on those who are going to come here and produce more revenue then they're going to consume. i'm for allowing immigration into the united states of america. it's a cherished privilege, it's a historical fact of our country, but that smart immigration means that the people we allow into the united states of america need to bring wealth with them. if that's going to help produce more in tax revenue than they're going to consume. we need to allow people into our country who are going to bring skill sets with them, if it's going to empower them to produce more in tax revenue than they're going to consume. we need to allow them to bring their intellectual capacity that's going to enable them to produce more revenue than they're going to consume. so yes, our immigration policy is broken in part because we have laws that need to be better. yes, our immigration policy is broken in part because a president of the united states who refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books. me personally, i see no need,

no need whatsoever to engage in an immigration law debate until we have a white house that's going to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. in the absence of a white house, in the absence of a president, that is going to enforce the laws on the books, new immigration law is meaningless because it has no force and effect as long as we have a president of the united states who instead of being the chief law enforcement officer of this great land, instead of being the chief executive officer of the executive branch, ends up being the person who is in charge of more lawlessness than anybody else in the united states of america because as long as you encourage lawlessness by refusing to enforce the laws, you're giving a wink of the eye admission ed a tacit that it's ok to break our laws. as long as we have a president of the united states that refuses to enforce our las, that refuses, refuses to come forth with a sound immigration policy that he will abide by, then it does no good for us to

have this kind of immigration law debate. but that having all been said, i want to emphasize a few other things. as was pointed out earlier, the senate gang of eight amnesty and open borders bill legalizes or brings in 40 million foreigners over the next decade. if you put the two numbersing to, 11 million who are unlawfully here, who have broken our las, whose first step on american soil was to thumb their nose at law enforcement and america's laws, and we have another 10 million that this senate gang of eight amnesty and open borders bill is going to admittedly bring in the united states of america, think about the impact of that on the economy, think about the impact of 40 million job seekers on the wages of americans who are struggling to survive. there's a study by george vorrhas a harvard university professor, not exactly a

conservative think tank, harvard university, that concludes that this huge influx of illegal immigration -- of legal immigration will have a definite and adverse effect on the wages of americans. for instance, people who have only a high school degree, they are already losing $00 a year. that a lot of people who are wealthy, $00 is not much. but to those struggling to make ends meet, $800 is a lot of money. with respect to the average american, not just the least among us, but the average american, the cost to the average american household is over $1,000 from these immigration policies that are in existence now from a white house who refuses to enforce our immigration laws and refuses to protect american workers from this huge supply of cheap foreign labor that is competing with struggling hardworking american families. minorities are also dramatically hurt.

i would highly encourage everyone look at the report that was come out by the black american leadership alliance, then finally, i want to focus "america the om beautiful." this real ji is about the rule of law. -- this really is about the rule of law. if we have no -- if we don't enforce our laws, we have no law, many of you have heard the first stanza, let's go to the second. amber weaves or of grain, america, america, god shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from see sea to shining sea. oh beautiful for pilgrim feet who stirred impassioned stress, a drum beat for freedom beat,

america, america, confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law. this has been america's heritage for decades, for centuries. the rule of law is paramount. i can't speak for the rest of this house of representatives, i can't speak for the united states senate, i can't speak for the white house. but i can speak for one voice from the alabama fifth congressional district and that voice is this, i will never, never reward and ratify illegal conduct by supporting amnesty for people whose first step on american soil was to violate american law. we can do better than that. we should do better than that. and we must, must respect the rule of law or else we will descend into chaos and anarchy. i yield back. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman, i thank the gentleman from alabama, that

was a tour deforce, i thank you for that. i think the context you gave was wonderful, the fact that we have been extremely generous, because one of the numbers you mentioned that i had heard as well is that the united states of america allows in more foreigners into the united states than all of the countries of the world combined. we are so extremely generous. this year alone, i believe the figure was about a million people we allow into the united states legally. mr. brooks: for citizenship. mrs. bachmann: for citizenship. a remarkable number. then consider the bill that came from the senate would double the figure, for legal immigration. we're having a hard time assimilating the number of people that we have when we have 24 million americans that are unemployed right now. we're still allowing a million people in legally, let alone all the other numbers of people who found legal venues to be able to get in but another

number you mentioned, you talked about the study that came out earlier from harvard. and in that study, which i read at your recommendation, what we're looking at is the average household is looking at a reduction in income in wages, of $1,300 a year. that's an enormous amount of money for the average american household. because just consider when barack obama became president of the united states, the average income for households in the united states was about $55,000 a year. that number has dropped while he's been president. it didn't go up, it's gone down. it's gone from about $55,000 a year down to close to $50,000 a year. and now we know that about $1,300 a year has come in bays of the amount of -- has come in because of the am of penetration of illegal aliens in the united states and that's bringing down wages.

i would add to your comments as well, mr. brooks, that as a member of congress, i can't vote for anything that's going to take away jobs from legal american citizens. that's who we're talking about when we're talking about amnesty, we're talking about taking away jobs from legal american citizens, from the middle class. why in the world would we do that? i yield back to the gentleman and then if he could yield right back. mr. brooks: i encourage all americans to google black american leadership alliance, and they focus specifically on the impact of the senate gain of eight, amnesty and open borders bill on the black community and i'm going to quote. everything i say is a quote but i'm not going to read the whole news release. given the fact that more than 13% of all blacks are unemployed, nearly double that of the national average, it is

our position that each member of congress must consider the disastrous effects that senate bill 744 would have a low-skilled workers of all races while paying particular attention to african-americans. black workers will suffer the greatest harm if this legislation were to be passed. many studies have shown that black americans are disproportionately harmed by mass immigration and amnesty. most policy makers who favor the legalization of nearly 11 million aliens fail to acknowledge that decades of high immigration levels has caused unemployment to rise significantly, most particularly among black americans. they further fail to consider how current plans to add 33 million more legal workers within 10 years will have an enormously disastrous effect on our nation's jobs outlook. the national bureau of economic research recently issued a

report asserting that 40% of the decline in employment rates for low-skilled black men in recent decades was due to immigration. let me repeat that, the national bureau of economic research recently issued a report asserting that 40% of the decline in employment rates for low-skilled black men in recent decades was due to immigration. studies by professors from harvard university found that immigration reduced labor by as much as 8% in other demographic groups by 2% to 4%. research conducted by university of california san diego by a professor, immigration has accounted for 40% of the 18 percentage-point decline in black employment rates and current immigration proposals are sure to substantially raise these numbers. many blacks compete with immigrants particularly illegal immigrants for low-skilled jobs

and there are no enough of these jobs to go around. consider the fact that nearly 51% of african-americans do not have a higher education. in 2011, 24.6% of blacks without a high school diploma were unemployed. concluding, we are firmly convinced that such an expansion of the labor force during one of the most protracted periods of high unemployment in decades will result in suppressed wages for all americans, but the effects on african-americans will be the most devastating. this is the black american leadership council, if you pull up the news release, you can see the black leadership around the country that is saying no, that this is hurting americans and in particular, it is hurting us the most. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman for yielding back.

the next population most hurt is actually the legal hispanic population in the united states. it's their wages that are suppressed. if you are thinking of a hispanic mother who is working as a hotel maid, if we have legalization, she could be competing with seven other people who are vying for her job as well. that's what we are looking at right now. and i thank you for bringing that research to our attention. what we are looking at is hurting the job prospects of those who are the most vulnerable and that's one thing we have seen from the president's policies. he is hurting the people who are on the economic edge. i'll yield quickly to you if you yield back. mr. brooks: the issue before us is who we are as representatives and senators going to vote for? american workers or foreigners. it's just that simple. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. that is the point and with that,

i hand it over or i yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for pulling this together and for yielding. mr. speaker, listening to the presentation by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks about the rule of law and he concluded by saying by liberty in law. and i look around this chamber and i see a doctor, a lawyer, a doctor of all speaksees, tax lawyer, and a lawyer and a judge, who wanted to legislate, left the bench, ran for congress and got it right, mr. gohmert. that might appear that people who are watching on c-span that this is too hard for some folks who don't fit those categories to understand, but i want to make the point, i'm a ditch digger and i understand this. it's not complicated. all you have to do is understand this is a great country and we have a role to play here, each

one of us, and it's to defend, preserve and protect and refurbish the pillars of american exceptionalism and a pillar of that is the rule of law. you are not going to have liberty without law. the application of the law. and as one of the members of the judiciary committee said to some people who wanted amnesty, as surely as you are crying out for the nonapplication of the law today, you will be crying out for the full application of the law tomorrow in some other venue for some other reason. but some of these points that we need to think about and i want to list them because i think i have the opportunity to pick up at the bottom of this hour, there seems to be a belief in the senate and some of the republicans in the house, mr. speaker, there seems to be a belief, if we do business with the president on immigration, we can write laws that we can enforce.

one of the leaders of the secret gang of eight, now eight minus one, said to us, if you determine that we are not going to legalize the people who are here illegally, then we will never get the border secure. really? that means then that they got to be talking to the president and the president is saying i'm not going to enforce the law unless you legalize these people here and that has to be what is taking place, he isn't going to enforce the law unless we legalize the people here. the gang of eight's bill, over there on that side, it is perpetual and retroactive amnesty. it goes on forever. you can never enforce the rule of law if you exempt people who came into the united states illegally or those who overstayed their visa and here's the exception and that is if they committed a felony and

committed the three misdemeanors that disqualifies then they embarrass the administration and send them back. misdemeanors, everyone gets to stay. anyone who comes after that date, they don't get legalized immediately but what they get is the promise that they will be legalized eventually and anyone who has been deported in the past other than a felony or three misdemeanors, they get an invitation that says reaapply and come back. that is perpetual amnesty and that's one of the things that has got to be blocked. the belief that the president would give his word and keep it is -- it's appalling to me that anyone would accept that statement on its face. we know the president took his oath of office, the constitution

itself and says take care that the laws be faithfully executed and the president executed the law. death penalty to a law that he does president like including immigration law. we don't hear our word is the only thing we have with each other. we give our word, we keep our word. it is the coin of the realm. and yet they are willing to stake the destiny of the realm of the united states of america on the anticipation that the president will give and keep his word and enforce immigration laws when he has proven he won't keep his word on the law that bears his name, obamacare, he said i'm going to change it even though it says it shall be implemented in the first month of 2014. what they're doing is they are betting the future of america on the president's word that he'll enforce laws that he may not like if we send them to his desk. he might sign them any way.

the coin of the realm is our word and it says on our currency, in god we trust. are they ready to place on our currency in obama we trust, because that's what is at stake here. there are a number of topics i would bring up, however, i notice there is a focus of bringing this thing around to a logical conclusion and i believe i will have another opportunity. hopefully we will have another opportunity to take it up in a few minutes. mrs. bachmann: we have a little more time. i'm thankful to talk about this topic. this you isn't just a one-hour topic. there was a colleague who said we need to talk about this for a full day because just from a process point of view from on le who are tuning in c-span, mr. speaker, we think it's very important that we just don't go through this topic glibly because we know this bill wasn't read in the senate.

we were betrayed by our colleagues in the senate on this bill, this border security isn't border security. it's a fake border security bill that came through. we aren't interested in that. the american people aren't interested in that. we need to have a real debate. we don't want to see here in the house of representatives that the people's representatives have a boondoggle put in front of them or a trojan horse put in front of them. we could have a great-sounding bill that we are given and supposed to vote for it? we could pass that bill, maybe talk about it for 10 minutes, maybe not that much, pass this trojan horse, pass it and it could go to a conference committee where a senate bill goes into a conference committee and then that bill all of a sudden gets illegalization

thrown into it and could come back into this chamber and that's what we are told we have to vote for. and a lot of conservatives on this side would say i'm not going to vote for this bill because it has amnesty in it. all the liberals in this chamber could vote for this bill because it as amnesty and enough republicans could vote and pass and go to the president's desk and guess what? it would be republicans who would be responsible for helping the president pass his number one political agenda action item early in his second term before he has even been sworn in for how long? and it's republicans that would help amnesty bill? i think the american people right now are just wringing their hands saying who is going to listen to me. and at least one thing we have been able to demonstrate, we

have mr. king from iowa, dr. fleming from louisiana, the judge over there from texas, mr. brooks from alabama, mr. yoho from florida. we have six people here in this chamber who are going to say no amnesty, no how. what we are going to say is demand border security and demand that this government finally lives up to the promise it has made to the american people because we have got to get back to what representative king talked about and what each of these members talked about, the rule of law, because we think it means something. in fact, we think it's everything. we think without the rule of law, you have nothing. and that's why i'm so grateful, mr. speaker, that we have had this time tonight to be able to be together and talk about this topic and at that point, i think -- how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: a

couple of minutes. mrs. bachmann: we are going to go full tilt. let me yield to mr. yoho. he has something on his mind. mr. yoho: thank you. you were talking about the rule of law and heard it over and over again and the biggest thing is they are going to hold us accountable and will hold us accountable and only way we can do that is by holding the president accountable. we must hold the president accountable and demand he enforces the laws on the books and if not, explain to us and the american people why he chooses not to enforce the laws on the book. if he is the chief executive officer of this country and chooses not to do that, what would you do that if you had an executive of your business not enforcing and running the company the way you are supposed to? we know what would happen. i would like to end with this, there were three presidents in the 1900's that handled immigration differently.

they did what was best for americans. they sent people home. the presidents did, because they were looking out for the american citizens. and i have to admire a president that would look out for the american citizen and i always like to refer back to president roosevelt in 1907 when he gave a speech on ellis island, realizing and acknowledging that we are a country with a lot of immigrants in here and he said we welcome all immigrants. ter all, we are a country of immigrants. . . but what we expect, there's room for one flag, the american flag, there's room for but one language, english. you need to assimilate and become americans in our culture and we'll respect your culture. i agree with that so much and i am so proud to have a president who would stand up and do what's best for this country and i think we need to make

english the national language. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to be recognized here on the floor of the house of representatives. hopefully we can carry on some of this dialogue mrs. bachmann has led over the last hour. i want to make a point, that point would be, we are a nation of immigrants, yes, we are. we're certainly the nation that has the most vitality that comes from immigrants. it's up with of those things, it's embodied in the statue of liberty. when you talk about ellis island and look out across ellis island and the statue of liberty, the image embodied within her is american exceptionalism, you see them all, freedom of speech, religion, press, rule of law. property rights you face a jury

of your peers but don't have oface them twice. states' rights. the list go osen -- goes on and on. it is a judeo christian culture and society that founded this society. if you take any of that away, anything i just said, the shining city on the hill crumbles. but you see the statue of liberty, people who love liberty all over the world see that statue and they come here because they real rise they can be the best they can be if they come to america. that's why we have in america so much vigor and vitality. not just the american exceptionalism but the vie gor that comes with people who have dreams system of they see the statue and think, now i've got a dream to come there, if i can freely seek and worship and preserve the rule of law, i can operate in a free enterprise society, you put that all together it's a natural filler that gos across the world.

it isn't because we screened all of them here, we screened a lot of them at ellis island, about 2% didn't make the grade even after they were screened in the old country. they went through the filter and about 2% got sent back to the old country. but we got the dreamers. it was almost all dreamers who got on the ship to come here. every a cross section of civilization from germany to norway to ireland, any country, anywhere in the world, we got the vifwor of every civilization, some of the best and most energy that came from any civilization to america. when you couple that, think of a giant petri dish with all those rights there and the pill lars of exceptionalism i listed and put the best possible people in that environment, doesn't mean they're the smartest or the richest or the best educated, but they're the d doers that take that

combination of brains, ambition, education, instinct and know how and that's what built this great shining city on the hill this america that we are. we cannot let this be torn dun. we cannot let them chisel away with their work process -- word processor jackhammers or other jackhammers and undermine us. one of the people that understands that very well, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his words. i'd like to build a little bit upon what you were saying and that is that everyone in this room speaking this evening, opposes amnesty. we've already said that each and every one of us opposed amnesty. but we all celebrate immigration. we come from immigrants. we're a neag of immigrants. my forefathers going all the way back to the 1700's were

immigrants from scotland. they farmed the land and all the way up until my dad left the farm to go to world war ii, they were all farmers. and i'm very proud of that fact. i'm very proud that other people want to come to this country and i celebrate that and i want to encourage them to come as long as they come lawfully. we have a place, we have a place for my grant workers, for guest workers to come, we need them, they will do jobs that many americans won't do and it benefits them, advantages their families back home when they send that money back, it's a great working relationship, but it must be done legally. then we have the high end stem workers, those who come here with either -- either with high degrees or learn high degrees here, bring with them often time theirs capital, start businesses, start companies and we want to attract those and keep those, we don't want them take back our innovations to

other countries and competing with us. we just simply ask that they come here legally. we, of course, as members of congress, we have a responsibility to make sure that we do what's in the best interest of the citizens who are here, whether they were born here or naturalized here. but i want to shift just slightly and that is this -- we touched upon this one of the biggest fears we have about the senate amnesty bill and there's no question about it, it's amnesty by any metric. we can't trust the president. we can't trust him. whatever we pass into law, we know he's going to cherry pick. how do we know that? well, look. defense of marriage act. he refused to defend that to the courts. appointees to the nlrb, he did that when, of course, the senate was actually not in session. against the constitution to do that. obamacare. he's picking and choosing the

parts of the law that he wants to implement. so i think we can create a long list here tonight of the fact that this president is doing something i have never seen a president do before. in a tripartite government with its checks and balances, we have lost the balances. we have a president that picks and chooses the laws that we want -- he wants to obey and enforce. we have a head of the department of justice who does actly the same even to the point that congress has held him in contempt and so with any lack of any better term, that makes him a ruler. he's not a president, he's a ruler. if he can just pass whatever laws that are going to be passed and then pick and choose the laws he's going to enforce and obey, we no longer have the checks and balances that go along with the presidency. so with that, i'd be happy to yield back.

mr. king: reclaiming my time, hanking the gentleman. thank you, mr. speaker. i personally like the president. i will refrain from those kind of comments though i continue to disagree with him on his approach to this. i wanted to make a comment in response to discussion here by the gentleman from florida mr. yoho, dr. yoho and dr. fleming. yes, we're a nature of immigrants. i have continually heard that testimony before the immigration subcommittee for over a decade now. one day i had this thought that was a little bit off the wall, i asked this question -- can you name me a nation, had the panel of experts in front of me, name me a nation that's not a nation of immigrants. and the witness said -- oh, name me a people that's not a nation of immigrants. a nation that's not a nation of immigrants she said the incas

and the aztecs. they're not immigrants. who according to throonpolingses came across the bering sea about 12,000 years ago, would you like to try again? i've asked that question a number of times and i've been research, to do some but i can't find any. some would say japan, but even they, there are two glichese japanese, some think their roots go back to the polynesian islands an their appearance differs from the north to the south, i don't know that, but they do. if japan is a nation of immigrant, they did come at one time, we're all nations of immigrants. the history of the world has been about the migration of human population. and that doesn't mean that nations shouldn't exist or shouldn't have borders.

look back over the last couple hundred years and name for me an institution more successful than the nation state. the nation states emerged from the city states which emerged from the castles in the feudal era where they had to build a castle and get inside the mote to defend themselves from the marauding hoards that traveling the -- traveled the countrysides to rape and pillage. the castles became the city states, city states joined together and became nation states and the nation states defended themselves against other nation states. nations have borders. you can't be a nation if you don't have a border. the globalists argue against a nation state. they believe they should be able to buy, sell, trade, and move human population wherever it suits their economy. the nation state a successful institution. nothing wrong with a border, you must have it. and it's biblical as well. when st. paul gave his famous

sermon on mars hill in acts 17, he said, and god made all nations on earth and he cited when and where each nation would be. well, this is the united states of america a very blessed nation, a nation that was formed with this religious concept driven also of a -- by a lot of other forces about manifest destiny this country was fored and shaped from the atlanta exto the pacific ocean from sea to shining sea, in the blink of a historical eye. huh did that happen? how did it happen that we have all these rights that come from god? not accidental. we are an extraordinary nation for a lot of exceptional reasons and we've talk about those exceptional reasons but nations should be proud of the nations they are. no nation could be more proud than the yeats of america. we are the unchallenged greatest nation in the world. and we rest in -- we risk a decline if some of the people in this congress don't come back around to embrace the pillars of american

exceptionalism. so i asked myself, what sit, what it is -- is it that people on my side of the aisle, also across the country, what's in the gang of eight's bill that's good for america and americans? who benefits when you look across the country. first i thought, nobody. then i degree deeper, i'm going to be challenged if i say nobody in america is benefited from this. so i produced a complete list. i think this is the complete list of the americans that are benefited by the gang of eight's bill. fers the elitists. the elitists being those people who want to hire cheap labor to take care of dwardens and lawns and clean their houses and toilets that people say americans won't do or don't want to do, so they want to hire cheap labor, maybe paint the gate in their gated community and oil the hinges for them and then lock the gates. elitists benefit from cheap labor. the next group of poem that benefit are democrat power brokers. not the blue collars.

not in the short-term the unions. not the workers. but democrat power brokers who have a long-term strategy which isn't very far down the line to capitalize politically on the massive votes that they would bring in if the gang of eight bill is passed. you don't have to ask democrats what they think, it's very, very clear, they're political beneficiaries if they're power brokers, they want this done. elitests and power brokers, and third, employers of illegals, whatever their party. they want to hire cheap labor. if you legalize them the cost of labor will go up. they want a continual supply of cheap illegal labor coming in. this doesn't stop the flow of illegal immigration. it lets those who want to legalize -- legalize themselves get right with the law and gives amnesty to illegal employers, can't go back on them after the gang of eight's bill might become law. that's the three gruchese people who benefit from the gang of eight's bill.

elitists, gang of eight power breakers, and go to any of those groups of people and ask them, do you want those folks to go back to where they are legal? just challenge them. and i would tell you the elitests don't, they want their cheap labor to clean their toilets and cut their grass and take care of their gardens, their flower gardens for them. democrat power brokers surely don't. they understand this, they have political power anyway, legal or illegal, because the census counts the people, not the citizens, for purposes of apportionment and reapportionment. what that means is there are nine to 11 congressional seats in america that would change hands politically if we counted citizens instead of people because some of these districts are way overloaded with illegal populations, they're counted. i didn't see how many votes it took -- i'll tell you it takes e 120,000 votes to get

re-elected and there are seats it only takes 40,000 to win because there are a lot of illegals in the district that are counted. they have representation in this congress. so who doesn't want them to go home? just ask, do the elitists want them to go back to their home country? no. -- no. democratic power brokers? no. employers of illegals? certainly not. they get a continual supply of illegal labor. then those folks who come in afterwards, they'll be legalized too. that's the three groups. otherwise, there isn't anybody in america that's the beneficiary of this that i can come up with. the rest of meshes are disadvantaged by this idea. if you have two jobs and three people that are qualify -- qualified to do that work, then you've got somebody who can get that work done. if there are only two people that meet the qualifications they name their price. multiply that to the millions and see what happens with the no-skill and low-skilled

workers, you get double digit unemployment. why bring in more no and low-skilled people, especially those illiterate in their own language, to do more of this work when you've got an overload there anyway and the supply and demand piece tells us. those that are unemployed and those underemployed, i think that number adds, too. i know that stuart varney said there are 88 million not in the work force and now the number goes to 92 million. add the raw unemployment number to that. we end up with more than 100 million americans of working age who are not in the work force. what kind of a nation would you have to be to decide that even though you have double-digit unemployment in the low and no-skilled jobs that you would find more people that will bring in millions more, to add them to

the unemployment roles and add illegal immigrants to the rolls. this is a miscalculation on the part of the people who are advocating for this. they have not done the math or don't care or fit within those categories or those who are influenced by their opinions. i want to go to the gentlelady from minnesota and then the gentleman from texas. mrs. bachmann: i'll just be brief. it seems like you have the power brokers in this country act like this is such a difficult issue to solve that this is a big perplexing issue with immigration. the fact is that immigration policy worked beautifully for hundreds of years in this country and as recently as 1950 when my in-laws imgrated to the united states from switzerland, it was simple, you had to show you were physically fit and

didn't have a disease that other people in america could pick up. you had a little bit of money in your pocket, you didn't have to be wealthy, but had to show you had little bit of money on you and you had to have a sponsor, someone here in the united states who would vouch and say if anything happens to that person, i'm the one who will be responsible, i'm the one who will answer. and the person coming in had to verify that they would not become a burden on the taxpayers of america, because they knew when they came in, they had to come in as a net plus for the country. they couldn't take more out than what they were bringing in. that was the agreement. and the other part of the agreement is whoever came into the country had to swear under oath they would learn to speak the english language, as mr. yoho indicated, and they would learn the constitution of the

united states and a little bit of the american history. they had to know that. my in-laws took that seriously. they were farmers in wisconsin. they were a net plus to this country, proud americans. they fed thousands of people with the work they have done in wisconsin, but they kept their end of the bargain. america kept its end of the bargain to my in-laws but they kept their bargain also. dr. fleming said, when at the quoted milton friedman, you can't have an open border and a welfare state because in 1950, there was no modern welfare state. that is our problem. well, we have to deal with our current reality, don't we? and the current reality is that we have a gigantic welfare state. knowing that, we cannot bring people into this country who will not add to the economy.

why would we import into the country people who are going to consume more revenue than what they bring in? when there's $17 trillion in debt. this adds up. that's why this is not very difficult to figure out. it's actually fairly simple. all we have to do is abide by the policies that we embraced in 1950 and you've got a solution. you've got a solution to the problem. i yold back. mr. king: some of the institutions out here that advocate for open borders will argue that no matter who comes into this country if they do an hour's worth of work they have contributed to the g.d.p. and a net asset and how would a tax attorney respond to such a statement in mrs. bachmann: who is benefiting? the studies have confirmed it is the illegal immigrant who is the recipient of that money.

it isn't going to the taxpayers. what we do know from a tax point of view is that illegal immigrants on average pay somewhere about $10,000 in taxes, but they receive over $30,000 in taxpayer-subsidized revenue benefits. therefore, they are a net negative to the american treasury of $20,000 a year. now, why in any universe would you import people into the united states that cost us on average not just $20,000 one ime, $20,000 every year. as a matter of fact, robert rector has said in his work the average illegal immigrant cost the united states treasury over the course of their lifetime about a million dollars. why would we do that? why would we do that? because we are robbing from our children. that's why it does president make sense. we are hurting the middle class

who are here legally. mr. king: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. we are finally going to get border security, we're told -- i can think of at least a couple of times when this president has said if the congress doesn't change the law, i will -- he said if they don't act by changing the law, then i'll act and we have seen him do that, when he didn't like the law on immigration, he changed the law just by his own decree. we have seen with regard to even obamacare, his signature bill from his first administration, it's not going well.

he wouldn't come ask congress, it's not going well, so let's change the law, so he just gave, so as i speak, so shall it be, which is not reminiscent of normal presidential conduct. it's important that a president enforce the law, advocate for changes in the law, but under no circumstances is the president supposed to change the law to fit his own desires. i mean, you advocate, but the checks and balances, which are the real genius behind the constitution that do create gridlock, that create tensions between the different branches are what keeps this place from becoming a monarchy. and this president, when he says, if congress doesn't act to change the law, then i will take care of it. well, we have seen that with gun control. he didn't like the fact that congress was not changing the

law when we were demanding that he enforce the laws that are there. all of these killers that have just been a plague on society, they violated plenty of laws, but this administration -- it may be the worst in enforcing the gun laws and certainly this administration has really been wanting in the area of enforcing the gun laws and instead they come around and say we want new gun laws. well, that's not the way to do it, and i know there are republicans who say, look, look, it's important we get this off the table. let's just get it off the table. so let's pass something and will get off the table and get onto the other things. well, i already mentioned, i think the thing to do, the house isn't going to take up an immigration bill until the executive branch, homeland security secures the border.

woodrow wilson and i'm not a fan of his historically, but in 1916 when americans were threatened by rage across the board and americans killed, that president secured the border. he secured the border and didn't go running around demanding that a new immigration bill be passed and we give amnesty to people. but there was a great article that "national review" had today from fred bower and he said any argument that says the g.o.p. should support a measure to remove immigration as a political issue should be treated with immediate suspicion. millions would be left as illegal immigrants under the senate plan and most other illegal immigration plants plans and millions more would arrive over the next 10 years. many provisions of the senate bill from the long wait to the

status of guest workers provide opportunities for the left to demagog. any changes to u.s. immigration law changes the future composition of the body politic. immigration is a national policy question has not been, quote, off the table, unquote, since 1789. don't expect the latest link of congressional sausage to change that. this isn't going to be off the table and the way we should deal with it responsibly is hold the administration accountable. you enforce the law and then we'll get an immigration bill done very quickly, i know we will. all of my colleagues know there are parts of the immigration law that need to be fixed, but until the border is secured, not closed, but secured, we're wasting our time talking about a comprehensive immigration bill even good bills that people

have had, we shouldn't be talking about them, the administration secure the border and then work these things out very quickly. it's like a huge flood in your basement. you run down and start with a mop while the water is still pouring in, you are making a mistake. you first stop the flood and then clean up the problems after that. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time and i thank the gentleman from texas. i just think of congressman phil gingrey, who once on this floor, at least once who said when he is working the emergency room and a patient comes in and blood is pouring off, you just don't get the mop and bucket and mop up the floor, you stop the pleading first, you stop the bleeding at the border. how hard is it to secure this border? not that hard. with the resources that we have, we are spending today, 2,000

mile border. it's right at 2,000 miles. and we are spending over $6.5 million a mile on the southern border each and every year. i look at that and say what is the economics of this. this is one of the advantages of being a ditch digger because i figure these things out. we are building interstate highways through corn fields, uilding a right-of-way and shouldering and the painting, all of that gets done for $4 million a mile and spending $6.5 million a mile to protect a barren bezz earth. it has a concrete pilon. $6.5 million-plus million a mile. what if we could build interstate for $4 million and

spending $6.5 million to interdict people who are trying to come in. we could build a fence and wall and secure the border and do it with the resources that we have. we just have to want to. it has to be about the rule of law and has to be about secure the border first. let it be the border state governors and legislators. then let's have the balance of this conversation, not until, not unless, like your teenager coming to you saying dad, i know i need the keys to the car. i will be back tomorrow. is he going to keep his word? e hasn't fired up the lawn mower. do the job first and then come back to us and talk to us but let's not destroy this rule of law, this essential pillar of american exceptionalism. whatever it takes, we must block

amnesty. thank you, mr. speaker. preserve and protect the rule of law. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i would move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands a

>> the president of the naacp and greenpeace talk about the progressive agenda. later, former cia director james wellesley on security. congress is back from its july 4 recess. our next washington journal, we will talk with a new york congressman about whether or not the house and senate will be able to work out an immigration bill. roger wicker joins us to talk about the senate republican's agenda. later, a look at u.s. trade policy. washington journal is each morning at 7 a.m. eastern -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. on monday nights, we're continuing continuing our focus on first ladies.

tonight, we talk about "hidden power." settlement -- presidential marriages. this is just under one hour. [applause]>> thank you. good morning. wonderfulfor that introduction. you make me feel 100 years old. i am not. you --hear you say all all those things, and makes you -- it makesivileged you feel very privileged. i've have had a relatively short life. i'm happy to be here with you this morning. it is a privilege to be a guest at the miller center, following

in the shoes of some of the most revered historians and statesmen and presidents. campus, inis fabled the backyard of our greatest presidents. for anybody was a student of the president, it is a dream come true. thank you for that great introduction. anant to talk you about aspect of the american presidency that i believe has been neglected by historians, that is my good fortune. new to digsomething up. that is presidential marriages. they impact the presidency. it is not a sidebar to the main story.

sidebar to the main events of the american presidency. but, actually as a subject that is at the core of the presidency. power," has aen new chapter on the current occupants of the white house. a small plug, i hope you'll forgive it. "hidden power." is about the american presidency. it was transformed by the tragic events of september 11. the president who began in office, just nine short months of ae, in the style corporate ceo trying to shrink government and keeping prosperity going, suddenly became the commander of chief --

the commander-in-chief of a nation at war. you have to go back to best find her equal. crisis,e of national the country has expectations of the couple in the white house. after 9/11, laura bush was the reassuring embodiment of traditional values. some had seen that in danger. the values of homes, school, and faith. she played him for all of us. i suspect she is always play that role in her marriage. studying with a ready hand to hold. she performed with great skill and grace. and cap. tact.

that, in laura bush, they had a strong political asset. this is recent proof of that statement. what an unexpected asset that mrs. bush had become. receiving the first barrage of criticism against the sluggishation's response to explicit threat of terrorism prior to september 11. laura bush was summoned to charges.o those she emerged from a low-key trip to reply to her husband's critics. sadsaid that, i think it is that people would play upon the victims families emotions in this way. effect, thatg, in those who question her husband's

policies were exploiting the nation's grief. that was pretty tough, worthy of dick cheney. she delivered it in an style.tening and even exception. this is the new laura bush. she played a political role, reminiscent of her controversial predecessor. she was transformed by history. the nation has different expectations, as i've already said. distort memories of saving george washington's portrait from the british fire. or eleanor roosevelt, bringing hitler's bonds and staying in buckingham palace during the

blitz on london. she became fdr's eyes, ears, and likes. -- legs. recall jackie katie refusing, during the cuban missile crisis, to be evacuated to a secret underground shelter. during the following year, of she had a brief with dignity. lady bird johnson test vigil with lbj when the body count kept mounting. she persuaded her husband that it was time to let go of the presidency and not seek thatction in 1968 in

famous speech that she was instrumental in crafting. of course, we did not know that at the time. these are powerful memories. marriage matters. in your house or in the white house. reasons, we of treated this as something of a secondary issue to the presidency. in fact, the relationship between the president and his spouse has had political impact from abigail adams to laura bush. how the couple in the white house relates affects the presidency. we do not have any understanding of a given president without understanding the score relationship -- this core relationship.

studied the goodwin roosevelt during the second world war. and a sourceneer of inspiration for my book, hidden power. historians tend to be male, with all due respect. they have ignored this important subject. i hope that i will persuade you this morning that marriage has consequences and presidential marriages have consequences for the nation. have an impact our lives. presidential marriages are of a different order. i call my book "hidden power" because the full extent of the office of the president has been shrouded.

both presidential couples and we the public -- we, the public, conspired to keep it secret. we are made nervous. they, the president of couples, do not want us to know the extent that they share it. i think it's time to lift the veil and get real. let me say that they are not who we think we -- who we think they are. they are too good at raising their own tracks and putting out an image of themselves. was, byroosevelt, who all accounts, a transformative against who all the others are judged, she was part administration.

their marriage was dysfunctional. i wonder was callous during fdr's final years. eleanor was callous during fdr's final years. jackie and jack were on their way to a solid unit -- union. it makes his assassination poignant and tragic. jackie was a much more serious and thoughtful public figure than the stylish ornaments that we often the picture as. nancy reagan was much more than .ealthy and high-fashion she nibbled her husband to function at maximum capacity. when his mental powers slept,

she brought him -- slept -- comfort.he brought him she was a woman of greater political skill that her husband. she never forgot a slight. she endowed george bush with his greatest political asset. barbara raised those kids. he was an assateague father. absentee father. thesee most part, marriages have played a constructive role. it has been only wives. i'm here to tell you that,

before the end of our tenure here, we will see first gentleman. it shall be interesting to see how he deals with these problems. needs a strong partner other than the american president. sheltered and conclude as he is. is.ocooned as he bringpresidents have spouses that are willing to speak hard truths. those presidents have a distinct advantage. had pat nixon and able to cut through her husband's paranoia in -- paranoia, watergate could have been avoided. that nixon had given up. they were living separate lives, as you will see.

my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying. is there a man or woman alive who does not need advice from the person who knows him or her best western mark i think we know the answer to that. lady bird, with the combination of passion and great, got through to lbj and studied him ied him.ed him -- stead everybody else has let me down, johnson once said. he was a deeply self pitying man. we categorize the spouses as shrews or victims. of the 12 couples that i write about, one spouse, the second mrs. woodrow wilson, ran the

country while her husband was incapacitated by a stroke. to spouses saying their husbands residencies. 2 spouses saying -- saved husband's presidency. the others made substantial contributions to the presidency. the white house alters every marriage. in daily they are contact and usually dependent -- mutually dependent. in the white house, the only two people that you have are each other. the nation feels the impact.

but, not right away, doubt, the president's performance is affected. no management indicator impact on the office than the clintons. the story of the clinton presidency is the story of their marriage. there is a correlation between nton'sintons -- bill cli enormous debt to his wife and their attempt to forge a co- presidency. it is hard to imagine a clinton presidency surviving had hillary not whether the humiliation of her husband's shop -- saga. years -- fourre

years already. how different george bush would have looked if he was accompanied by -- bill clinton would have looked if he was accompanied by buddy, the dog. taking on the administration's biggest portfolio, health care reform, a huge miscalculation. to give theeady first lady or first gentleman and independent operational role . necessary for the partner. it cannot be external. it took a while to figure that out. once clinton did, she became a more effective first lady.

by the way, i would roosevelt -- eleanor roosevelt went through a similar learning curve. eleanor roosevelt, the sanctity thator, was pilloried for and was forced to give up the job. a similaragain had mistake. she, too, as hillary, was forced role inze that her roosevelt's presidency was as the unofficial moral center of the administration. in the white house, the

president and first lady are equal for the first time he does the first lady is as prestigious and as revered a title as the president. we have as many stories of the first lady as we do of the president. like it or not, the president has to accept his wife's stature. jackie kennedy -- jack kennedy was a macho man. he was startled by the impact of wife, she was -- 31. suddenly wanted to be jackie. they started dressing like jackie.

everybody started learning french. john glenn was able bureau -- folk hero. waterne started taking up skiing some, to the apparel. peril.r john kennedy had a steep learning curve. do a big feature him and asked to speak to jackie. president kennedy was dismissive of that. by the time he reached the famous state visit to paris, he frenchced himself to the

as the man who accompanied jacqueline kennedy to paris. there were moments of high tension. we are living in one now. katie took a real beating during the cuban missile crisis. threw -- weeped through his backseat surgery -- back surgery. president johnson relied more on the road during the vietnam war. wereulately, as the crushing results for a great society. the stress he was living other

-- under is crushing. he had a history of heart troubles and did not live long after his presidency. in lifeo interest outside the arena, as he called it. he had no interest in anything other than politics. bird, who herself, has lived to become one of our most ladies and revered first has a clear role in history. johnson's legacy is still clouded in controversy. the empowerment that the presidency confirms on both members of the couple often shares the dynamic between these

themes and, almost all of arlen married -- are long married. -- found her voice and platform and thrive in the white house. she became the true sayer. she talked about things that no other first lady had touched with a 10 foot pole. she talked about marijuana use. she talked about abortion. she talked about breast cancer. a taboo subject. later, she talked about drug addiction. she grasped, she was a very intuitive woman, she grasped that after the awkward spectacle the nationn

hungered for was authenticity from the white house. authenticity is what we got from 's. four's -- ford the republic survived. if the mark of the great president is one who grasps the issues of the day, the mark of a great first lady is one who grasps the ephemeral essence of her time. pat nixon missed her moment and betty ford grasped hers. a spouse can only do so much for a president. rosalynn carter, another example

of a first lady who is a more astute politician that her husband. she could not sing the president, whose own vice president had the coldest nose of any politician that she ever met. bush has sharper political instincts than george bush. man whod not think a had lost touch with the country. bush lacked the skills that the job required. the freedom that accompanied eleanor and franklin or bets and live in raising her arms white house is -- his and is over.e houses privacy.term loss of

fdr admonished the press corps of -- not to take pictures of him being lifted out of the car. that is inconceivable -- that kind of respectful obedience of wishes.ident's was able to except contortionists torches from arabia and the president of ireland. -- gets from the president of arabia and the president of ireland. believe that this current white house has benefited from the clintons missteps.

it was the most controlled and most disciplined. my colleagues tell me is the most difficult to penetrate white house in many years. some of our most admired couples simply could not survive under the hot lights of all news all the time. this new level of scrutiny safeguards the country from much more than an overactive presidential libido. up thatles a cover- allows an incapacitated woodrow wilson to cling to power. it was a edith was a woman who fearlessly grasped the helm of the state and did a very poor job, no

surprise. did not really serve her husband's legacy thereby. she thought the white house would be good therapy, a good incentive for her husband's recovery. things,ident is many but it should not be a nursing home. ,hen we elect a man president and so far, only men, we have to acknowledge that we are infatuated into people. they cannot do it alone. if one of the to does not have their heart into it, it does not happen. it is too expensive, too humiliating for anything but 1000% commitment on the part of two people. what are the qualities that work well in these roles? loving each other helps, but it is not enough. the essential art