[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 48 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1625-H1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3231, BARBARA JORDAN IMMIGRATION 
                 REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 396

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3231) to replace the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service with the Agency for Immigration 
     Affairs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 396 is a structured rule providing for 
considering of H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and 
Accountability Act of 2002. The bill provides for 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
and shall be considered as read.
  It waives all points of order against the bill, as amended and makes 
in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying the resolution.
  H. Res. 396 provides that the amendments printed in the report shall 
be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debateable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  H. Res. 396 waives all points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this rule, 
so that the House can begin its consideration of H.R. 3231, the Barbara 
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. I am a co-sponsor of 
this bill, and I hope that when the House approves this bill, the 
Senate will take prompt action as well, so that before the end of this 
year President Bush can sign into law strong INS reform legislation. If

[[Page H1626]]

so, we will have taken a big step towards enabling the Federal 
Government to effectively manage our Nation's immigration policy for 
the first time in nearly 70 years.
  Since 1933, when immigration enforcement and service were 
consolidated under the management of the INS, it has failed to fulfill 
both of these missions. The INS has not adequately deterred or 
eliminated illegal immigration, and it has ill-served legal immigrants 
applying for residence or work visas. It is only through the drastic, 
structural reforms proposed by H.R. 3231 that we can begin to improve 
both immigration service and enforcement, and thereby serve America's 
citizens and immigrants.
  H.R. 3231 will split the INS into two distinct, but equal, agencies 
so that each may concentrate on a single mission. The Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, BSIC, will facilitate the legal 
immigration process, while the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, BIE, 
will deter and remove illegal immigrants. Furthermore, this bill 
elevates the importance of immigration policy in the executive branch's 
hierarchy by creating an Associate Attorney General within the 
Department of Justice, whose sole responsibility will be immigration 
affairs.
  Every year more than one million people settle in the United States. 
Most come legally after waiting years for visas or work permits and 
following the lengthy red tape trail to legal status. They come for the 
opportunity to live the American dream, to join loved ones, or to seek 
jobs, freedom, prosperity, and security. In turn, we only ask that they 
abide by our laws and respect the principles outlined in the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

  The majority of immigrants adhere to these conditions, and as a 
Nation essentially founded by immigrants, we welcome them to our 
shores. Immigrants have contributed to our growth as a democratic and 
capitalistic Nation, and we recognize that immigration is a historic 
and vital facet of American life. It is only natural then that we 
should work to facilitate their admittance to the United States. Yet 
for years we have failed in this regard.
  A report by the General Accounting Office in June 2001 indicated 
that, despite significant increases in funding, the backlog for all 
immigration applications had increased four-fold since 1994. In some 
instances, applicants must wait 2 years before the INS can review their 
application and render a decision. As the backlog of cases stood at 4.9 
million applications and petitions at the end of fiscal year 2001, we 
can expect these delays to probably worsen.
  By establishing the BSIC and mandating that its sole responsibility 
be the processing of immigration applications, we can improve applicant 
service and decrease the time required for processing applications. 
Further, the agency will be able to spend more time and resources on 
verifying applications and conducting security and backgrounds checks. 
Thus, the United States will be more able to effectively identify and 
stop individuals who have questionable intentions or background from 
entering the U.S. and threatening our national security.
  While most immigrants reside in the U.S. legally, others enter 
illegally, furtively entering through borders and ports of entry or 
overstaying a legal visa or work permit. This willful disregard of our 
laws should not be overlooked, and we must dedicate resources to 
deterring illegal immigration or finding and deporting those who enter 
nonetheless. This is no longer an issue of immigration, and instead it 
is one firmly rooted in law enforcement and national security.
  The enforcement failures of the INS can be characterized as 
ineffective at best and catastrophic at worst. Every single one of the 
September 11 highjackers was able to enter the United States legally, 
and while three overstayed their visas, the INS did not have the 
capacity to track, find and deport visa violators. In the wake of this 
tragedy, we also discovered that more than 1,000 foreign students could 
not be located for interviews after the tragic attacks. Finally, it is 
worth noting that reports estimate that as many as 400,000 individuals 
who have been ordered deported are still living in the U.S.
  While this information is startling, these are just a few of the 
notable incidents in a long string of enforcement failures by the INS. 
We must restore our ability to adequately detect noncompliance and 
fraud. This goal will be enhanced by the establishment of a single 
agency, focusing on enforcing our immigration laws and removing 
violators. The BIE will be better able to protect our borders and stop 
illegal crossings. Further, as approximately 40 percent of the illegal 
immigrants come to the U.S. on legal and temporary visas, the agency 
will be able to better track and monitor visa over-stayers and provide 
swift removal. While the BIE cannot single-handedly correct all of our 
immigration problems, it can correct many of these problems and provide 
a greater level of security to our Nation and its citizens.
  Since the 1930s, the INS has been charged with implementing national 
immigration policy. Time and time again, the INS has failed the 
American people and the Congress. And it has disappointed our 
immigrants and contributed to the weakening of our national security. 
With each shocking revelation of a new oversight, failure or mistake by 
the INS, we have expressed our shock and bewilderment. With each report 
highlighting the inefficiencies of the agency, as well as the numerous 
deficiencies, we have urged change. Yet today is the day that we will 
actually begin this long overdue process. Today, we consider a bill 
that will truly reform an agency that has become too accustomed to 
inadequacy, inconsistency, and failure.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, for his strong and able leadership in moving this bill 
through his committee promptly and bringing it to the floor today. I 
know that he worked with others on the committee to forge a strong 
bipartisan consensus behind the structural reforms that H.R. 3231 calls 
for, and he deserves the lion's share of credit for bringing us to this 
point in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of the Barbara Jordan 
Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002. Before I launch into 
my remarks, I would like to preface them by asking the question, What 
would Barbara Jordan do? I wish I could give the rule that we will 
presently consider the type of support that I would offer for the 
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. However, the 
Committee on Rules' refusal to allow a number of thoughtful substantive 
amendments to be considered by the House this morning does give me some 
small reason to pause.
  That fact notwithstanding, I want to commend the authors of this 
bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the ranking members, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee). They have produced a bipartisan bill that is sure to 
improve the performance and accountability of the way this Nation 
handles its immigration procedures. I should better say that they hope 
it will do that.
  My next sentence, Mr. Speaker, I am sure will be music to the ears of 
the multitudes who sometimes run up against the brick wall known as the 
INS. This bill abolishes the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
replaces it with two separate bureaus: the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
  Please do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. There were thousands and 
thousands of hard-working INS employees, many of whom I have the 
privilege to represent and my offices, particularly those in Florida, 
interface with on a day to day basis. They are extremely responsive 
with the limited technology that they have and the limited ability to 
try to handle the massive number of changes. So to the hard-working INS 
rank-and-file employees, I

[[Page H1627]]

would ask my colleagues to back off of them a bit and to go after those 
people who really have caused the problem, sometimes some of us 
politicians.
  It is unfortunate, however, that the leadership of the INS over the 
past generations has made it into literally the laughing stock of the 
Federal bureaucracy. While I am convinced you will find no harder 
working employees than the rank and file at the INS, I am equally 
convinced that many of these people are justifiably confused and 
frustrated by management and structural and institutional paralysis at 
their agency.
  The bill we consider today makes a number of changes that I hope will 
help pave the way for a system and structure that the American people 
can be proud of and one that treats visitors to our country fairly, 
keeping in mind the very serious responsibilities of safety and 
security for our citizens. The Barbara Jordan immigration reform bill 
establishes the office of the Associate Attorney General for the 
purpose of immigration affairs. Under the measure, the Associate 
Attorney General would be appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate. The Associate Attorney General will be hired to have a 
minimum of 5 years managing a large and complex organization and will 
be responsible for coordinating the administration of natural 
immigration policy and overseeing and supervising the work of the 
directors of the immigration services and enforcement bureaus and 
reconciling any conflicting policies between the bureaus.
  While the legislation was passed out of the Judiciary Committee by an 
overwhelming majority, I cannot, however, ignore the very cogent 
dissenting views offered by my friends, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and 
others.

                              {time}  1045

  They argue that the bill, as it currently stands, will not 
substantially reform the agency. The bill simply reconfigures the INS 
by splitting authority over the two essential elements of INS, 
immigration and enforcement, into two bureaucracies instead of one. 
While their view is shared by some of us, I am hoping the amendments to 
be offered later today will perfect some of the shortcomings that 
currently exist.
  Additionally, although the title of the bill suggests that we are 
reforming both immigration structure and policies, it fails to address 
many substantive issues that many Members, myself included, would have 
liked to have seen more fully explored. For example, the amendment I 
intended to offer, which was not given a waiver and not made in order, 
would have added some substantive meat to the legislation, adjusting 
the immigration status of eligible Haitian aliens by granting them 
permanent resident status in the United States, those that are here 
since 1995.
  The amendment would have been a critical first step in rectifying 
grievous inequities in current INS policy. They grant one type of 
treatment for refugees from certain countries and a different, second-
class, if not third-class type of treatment to migrants from other 
countries.
  No later than yesterday, the Miami Herald and the Sun Sentinel in 
Fort Lauderdale editorialized that this policy is discriminatory. It 
needs to stop. And we offered an amendment that would stop it, and of 
course, it was ruled as not germane. I do not know what could be any 
more germane, and I do not know where a waiver obtains in the Committee 
on Rules, but I rather suspect that we did not want to offer this 
measure so as how not to impinge on this so-called reform that we are 
headed down the road to.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot as a democratic Nation continue to condone an 
immigration policy that favors immigrants from some nations while 
discriminating against those from others. I have always believed that 
legal immigration is one of the sources of America's greatness, as our 
country has prided itself on its diversity, its strength through that 
diversity.
  We are a Nation of immigrants, and those who enter our borders 
legally should be afforded equal opportunity to excel and prosper, and 
there is evidence that that has been the case in this great country. 
They should enjoy the benefits that those of us born here take for 
granted.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do support the base bill on the floor today 
and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) have done an outstanding job, and 
I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I only wish that the Committee on 
Rules had permitted a few more amendments to make in order those things 
that would make this bill a lot more meaningful.
  I do end by saying what I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, and that 
is, we have named this bill the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and 
Accountability Act of 2002. Like many people in this room, I knew 
Barbara Jordan, and I ask the question, what would Barbara Jordan do?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this 
debate with my friend from Miami and my friend from Georgia.
  I just want to go through a few charts today because I believe that 
what is driving this debate is maybe negligence, maybe incompetence, 
maybe a combination of things at INS that has certainly caused it to 
fall very, very, very short of its mission and even to the extent of 
endangering national security. Some have even suggested that INS 
actually stands for ignoring national security. Why would they do this?
  Here is a question that was asked to the former Deputy Attorney 
General George Terwilliger, and this comes from a March 10, 2002, 
quote. ``Do you think the INS has a handle on who it lets in and who is 
here and whether they have left?'' His answer, as a very informed 
person, ``No. No, they do not have a handle on it.''
  Another statistic from the House Committee on the Judiciary, the 
Census Bureau estimates that at least 8 million undocumented illegal 
immigrants reside in the United States of America. I want to give my 
colleagues a picture of 8 million. The State of Georgia, Georgia has 
8.1 million people. So what we are saying is a State the size of 
Georgia would have a total population of undocumented illegal 
immigrants. That is outrageous, atrocious, and unacceptable.
  Are they ignoring national security? In March 2002, the INS mailed a 
letter to a Florida flight school informing them that Mohammed Atta and 
another hijacker had been approved for student visas. Of course, Mr. 
Atta was not around to receive his visa at that time because, as my 
colleagues recall, he had driven a plane into the World Trade Center in 
September. Ignoring national security; if the INS officials were 
following their own policies, Mohammed Atta would never have been 
allowed to enter the United States of America in the first place if 
they just followed their own policies.
  Are they ignoring national security? There are over 300,000 criminal 
and deportable illegal immigrants ordered removed by immigration judges 
that have fled; 6,000 of those are from countries identified as al 
Qaeda strongholds; 300,000 criminals that have been ordered to leave. I 
would say, yes, it does appear that national security has been ignored.
  Is it incompetence? The INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications 
and petitions at the end of fiscal year 2001. Now, it has already been 
said the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), that in his office and in 
many congressional offices around the country they get more INS 
complaints than they get IRS complaints. And I see it in Savannah, 
Georgia.
  People come in all the time and they cannot get their visas approved, 
they cannot get other things stamped and taken care of. We, I believe, 
have a very good, local, competent office, and I agree with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), there are lots of very, very 
good employees who do an excellent job, but I think structurally the 
deck is stacked against them. Their hands are tied to do what they 
really want to do, what they know they should do, and what they can do.
  Last year, the Justice Department handled over 4,200 allegations of 
misconduct against INS personnel. It is

[[Page H1628]]

time for a change. We can do that. This legislation today is a very 
significant first step to clean up a long overdue process. When the 
government is no longer responsive and no longer efficient, no longer 
doing what it is meant to do, it is time for Congress to step in and 
change, and that is what we are doing here today.
  Support this rule and support the legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill 
that this rule offers for consideration, the Barbara Jordan Immigration 
Reform and Accountability Act. I appreciate the work of the Committee 
on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules to bring a bill to the 
floor, but I think this effort falls seriously short of the real reform 
that is needed.
  Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us today simply 
rearranges the boxes on the existing organization chart of the INS. It 
separates two divergent functions within the INS, immigration service 
and benefits. But it does not do much more than already exists. Instead 
of having the two functions joined at the top by the INS Commissioner 
who reports to the Attorney General, they are joined at the top by an 
Associate Attorney General who reports to the Attorney General.
  My colleagues may be interested in knowing that on November 4 of last 
year, the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner announced that 
under their own reorganization plan, ``clear and separate chains of 
command for the agency's service function and enforcement function are 
created.'' So, this bill would add nothing to what has already been 
done administratively.
  The bill also purports to give each function its own budget and its 
own dedicated employees. As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State and Judiciary that has responsibility for the INS and 
Department of Justice budget, I can tell my colleagues that for some 
time now we have already separated the budget of the service and the 
enforcement functions of the INS. So nothing new is accomplished here, 
either.
  It is no surprise that the Department of Justice is now supporting 
this bill because it does not impose any changes on them. The only 
difference that I can see is that we will change the INS Commissioner's 
title to Associate Attorney General. The same people at the INS will be 
doing the same things they are doing today and the same things they 
were doing prior to September 11.
  What would have been different if this proposed bill had been law 
prior to September 11?
  The same people will be patrolling our borders and reporting to the 
same sector chiefs. The same people will be issuing visas and 
adjudicating immigration claims.
  But to implement the supposed reform is going to cost the American 
taxpayers an additional $1.1 billion. Why? Because it would eliminate 
$1 billion of revenues that immigrants pay now through fees that are 
used for border enforcement or drug interdiction. We would have to 
replace it with general revenue funds.
  Mr. Speaker, the irony today is that there is a proposal for real INS 
reform. It was submitted to Congress 5 years ago. It was the 
recommendation of the commission chaired by the late Congresswoman 
Barbara Jordan. I would have liked to offer the commission's 
recommendation as an amendment, but this rule does not permit that.
  The commission's proposal has been vetted and studied for years, 5 
years by the commission and at least 5-years that it has been before 
Congress. These recommendations, my amendment, would fundamentally 
restructure INS by recognizing three core immigration functions and 
rationalizing them into three specific departments with expertise in 
these areas.
  Let me read just a couple of excerpts from a letter written by Robert 
Hill and Bruce Morrison, a Republican and Democrat, who cochaired the 
Jordan Commission Working Group on Structural Reform of the INS:
  ``Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108,'' that 
was the bill I have introduced that now I propose to offer as an 
amendment. ``Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108 
than under the Judiciary Committee bill. Under the committee bill, 
administration of immigration benefits would continue to be split 
between Justice, Labor, and State, as under current law. All the 
fragmentation found by the commission would continue. Your bill 
addresses this problem with its consolidation of benefits adjudication 
in the State Department . . .''
  Quoting further, ``Immigration law enforcement belongs in the Justice 
Department . . . The Justice Department is the wrong place for 
adjudicating immigration benefits.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would place in the Record at this point the rest of 
this letter.

                                                   April 18, 2002.
     Hon. Jim Kolbe,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Kolbe: As former members of the U.S. 
     Commission on Immigration Reform (the ``Jordan Commission''), 
     we are writing to express our views on the INS Reorganization 
     Act of 2002 (H.R. 4108), which you introduced on April 9, 
     2002. We understand that your bill encompasses the Jordan 
     Commission's recommendations for comprehensive restructuring 
     of responsibility for immigration functions within the 
     government. We also understand that you may seek to offer 
     your bill as a substitute for the well-intentioned, but more 
     limited reforms contained in H.R. 3231 reported by the House 
     Judiciary Committee.
       In this context, we offer some suggestions on why the more 
     complete separation of agency responsibilities reflected by 
     your bill received support from the Commission. We continue 
     to believe that this more fundamental reform is far 
     preferable.
       From 1992 to 1997, we served together as members of the 
     Jordan Commission and co-chaired its working group on 
     management reform, which developed the recommendations on 
     restructuring reported to Congress on September 30, 1997. We 
     come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Bob Hill 
     served as an appointee of President Reagan in the White 
     House, the State Department and the Justice Department. Bruce 
     Morrison was a Democratic Member of Congress and served in 
     the Clinton Administration. We have both had extensive 
     experience representing clients in immigration matters. On 
     this issue, our experience leads us to consensus, much as it 
     did for the diverse membership of the Commission.
       The Jordan Commission reached its recommendation for 
     restructuring after years of extensive investigation. We held 
     more than 40 public hearings, consultations and round-table 
     discussions with government officials and outside experts, as 
     well as recent immigrants and refugees themselves. In every 
     forum there was serious, ongoing discussion of the problems 
     confronting the government agencies responsible 
     for administering the immigration system as well as those 
     confronting the individuals, employers, and practitioners 
     subjected to it. Based on this input, we set criteria for 
     evaluating competing restructuring proposals. These 
     included: (1) consolidation and streamlining of government 
     operations; (2) unambiguous allocation of responsibility 
     and accountability for core functions; (3) effective 
     separation of law enforcement and benefits adjudication; 
     (4) maximum utilization of existing strengths and 
     elimination of weaknesses or redundancies; and (5) 
     enhancement of policy formulation, implementation and 
     coordination.
       Immigration law enforcement belongs in the Justice 
     Department. Everyone agrees that the enforcement of our 
     immigration laws--at the border and within the country--
     should be handled by a separate bureau within the Justice 
     Department. We all seek to have this enforcement carried out 
     with the kind of professional standards and effectiveness we 
     have long associated with the Criminal Division, the U.S. 
     Attorneys, and the FBI. INS enforcement activities, while 
     given high priority within the agency, have never had the 
     status within Justice that comes to other law enforcement 
     functions. This should change.
       The Justice Department is the wrong place for adjudicating 
     immigration benefits. The main distinction between the 
     Committee bill and yours is the placement of the second major 
     INS function--adjudication of benefit applications. The 
     Commission considered and rejected the idea of keeping this 
     function in the Justice Department. Although initially 
     Justice was viewed by most members as the presumptive choice, 
     they were ultimately persuaded otherwise. The reasons were 
     the fundamental objection to locating the enforcement and 
     benefits functions in one agency, and that the Justice 
     Department did not have the capacity to take on the State 
     Department's international visa functions. Some argued that 
     the two functions are complementary and must be coordinated 
     by a single government official. But we saw that as little 
     different from the INS structure that has so clearly failed. 
     Instead we concluded that the very qualities of approach and 
     status that make Justice the

[[Page H1629]]

     right home for immigration enforcement make it the wrong 
     place for benefits adjudication. In fact, the general rule in 
     the federal government is for serious violations of law 
     regarding federal benefits and programs to be handled by law 
     enforcement agencies, not the agency administering the 
     benefit.
       The State Department is the best place to locate the 
     benefits function. The need to take benefits administration 
     out of Justice was an easier choice for the Commission than 
     the choice of a new location. But closer examination pointed 
     strongly to State. That Department has the greatest 
     institutional capacity and presence, as well as professional 
     capabilities to undertake the work of establishing and 
     administering a consolidated worldwide adjudication system. 
     It issues more than half a million immigrant visas and more 
     than seven million nonimmigrant visas each year to 
     applicants around the world. It issues millions of 
     passports to American citizens through its existing 
     passport offices in fifteen U.S. cities. It determines 
     citizenship claims of foreign residents and registers the 
     births of U.S. citizens overseas. And, at the National 
     Visa Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, it annually 
     processes three-quarters of a million immigrant cases and 
     the annual diversity visa ``lottery.''
       Placing immigration benefit administration at the State 
     Department would strengthen both the function and the 
     Department. Many advocates favor a separate agency or 
     department to oversee a consolidated immigration function. 
     The Commission rejected that idea both as impractical and as 
     continuing the role conflicts between extending benefits and 
     pursing lawbreakers. But one concern of those advocates--the 
     need for a leading voice on immigration policy--is answered 
     by the State Department. Migration issues are international 
     in character and they require understanding and cooperation 
     among many nations. State can and should play the key role in 
     the broad questions of migration policy, as it now does in 
     refugee matters. As one of the four most powerful cabinet 
     departments in the government, its influence at the White 
     House can elevate immigration policy issues on any 
     Administration's policy agenda. And the strong interests of 
     U.S. families and companies in immigration policy will give 
     the State Department an involvement with domestic 
     constituents that can only help its policy and political 
     strength.
       Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108 
     than under the Judiciary Committee bill. Under the Committee 
     bill, administration of immigration benefits would continue 
     to be split between Justice, Labor, and State, as under 
     current law. All the fragmentation found by the Commission 
     would continue. Your bill addresses this problem with its 
     consolidation of benefits adjudication in the State 
     Department. When respondents in proceedings before the 
     Justice Department have benefit claims, they will be as well 
     protected by seeking State Department processing, as they 
     will be going to another office at Justice.
       In over four years since the Commission's final report to 
     Congress, we have both observed the continuing deterioration 
     of a system collapsing under its own weight. We have also had 
     time to reflect upon the proposals we made for revitalizing 
     that system. Those proposals are not perfect, but we remain 
     persuaded that they provide the best option for effective 
     reform available particularly in the wake of September 11. 
     For that reason, we are both pleased to support your bill, 
     H.R. 4108 and offer our assistance in anyway you believe will 
     be of help in your efforts to enact it into law.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce A. Morrison,
       Morrison Public Affairs Group.
     Robert Charles Hill,
       Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn.

  Mr. KOLBE. Southern Arizona, which I represent, knows firsthand that 
the INS has failed to fulfill its duties. The people of Arizona have to 
deal with the consequences, such as treating injured illegal 
immigrants, environmental degradation, and the strain on law 
enforcement.
  I simply cannot go back to my State, to the people of southern 
Arizona and say that we have reformed the INS with this bill because, 
sadly, it just does not do it. It is an illusion of reform.
  We need to go back to committee. We need to consider real reform for 
the INS. Unfortunately, this bill just does not do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) a member and a very diligent and 
effective member of the Committee on Rules for his leadership.
  We have a period of time to engage in general debate and comment on a 
number of amendments that have been allowed for in this bill. So I rise 
today to discuss this bill in the overall context of the ability of the 
House of Representatives to be a problem solver and to ensure that the 
bill is reflective of the intensity of hard work that has gone on 
throughout the days and months and years that the light has been shone 
on the INS.
  This bill is a bill that has brought about one of the most effective 
series of conversations and negotiations between the chairman, ranking 
member, subcommittee chairman, and ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1100

  It has been an effective process. This bill is a bill that takes into 
consideration both positions of Democrats and Republicans.
  In April of 2001, I filed H.R. 1562, a bill called the Immigration 
Restructuring and Accountability Act of 2001. In that bill it included 
an Office of Children's Affairs. The INS was designed to have two 
entities, a service entity and an enforcement entity, and that was to 
be headed by an associate Attorney General. If we look at the bill 
before us, we find that that exact same structure is in 3231. So the 
good news about this rule and legislation is that H.R. 1562 was in 
large part adopted by H.R. 3231.
  So I believe that the message today should be that those of us who 
realize that service is the responsibility of this Congress and this 
Nation and an obligation to our country to protect the citizens or 
those within its boundaries, that the work we do today with 
restructuring the INS by abolishing the INS and creating this new 
agency is to answer those two concerns and to be able to service those 
who legitimately are attempting to access legalization. And we do it in 
a bipartisan manner by merging the provisions of H.R. 1562 and H.R. 
3231.
  This rule includes an opportunity to improve the bill. It has in it 
an amendment authored by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), 
in which I have joined, to ask the question and provide the opportunity 
for unaccompanied minors to be able to have counsel. It asks the 
question on an amendment that I have offered about the money stream, 
and that is a question that Members ask: Will we effectively be able to 
reform this agency, rebuild this agency, with enough funding? So I 
immediately ask the question, and hope my colleagues will vote for it, 
for a study to determine whether the fee-based funding of the service 
part of our legislation will be sufficient.
  In addition, this bill provides for an opportunity to discuss several 
amendments that will talk about proficiency, as the manager's amendment 
includes. We are particularly proud of the Office of Children's 
Affairs, which points to the fact that children come unaccompanied, but 
children are especially important and dear and, therefore, they need 
particularly special attention.
  I would have hoped that the rule could have included a number of 
other amendments. I am always of the inclination that it is important 
to have a vigorous debate and discussion on legislation that comes to 
the floor of the House. So I would say to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) that I know very well what Congresswoman Barbara Jordan 
would have wanted, and that is an opportunity for fairness for the 
Haitians. And I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that 
we are still going to commit ourselves to working on that legislation.
  But, in fact, as we debate this, I hope that it will be well-known 
that this bill is a bill of compromise and a bill of collaboration. 
This is a Democratic bill with, of course, the collaboration and work 
of the leadership of this House working together to make this a good 
bill for the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule governing H.R. 3231 on the 
floor today. This is a good rule not because it is a structured rule, 
but because it allows amendments that are germane, that improve the 
bill in a careful and constructive manner. I want to thank both my full 
committee chairman and my full committee ranking member, and the 
subcommittee chairman, George Gekas, on the hard work that we put in to 
finally crafting a compromise in order to reach agreement on H.R. 3231. 
The bill that you have before you today is bipartisan legislation to 
comprehensively overhaul the beleaguered Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, INS. On April 10, 2002, the

[[Page H1630]]

legislation overwhelmingly passed the Judiciary Committee with a vote 
of 32 to 2.
  In the 106th Congress and in the 107th Congress I have introduced 
H.R. 1562, the Immigration Restructuring and Accountability Act of 
2001. I have been a champion for years when it comes to restructuring 
the INS. I have been arguing for years that while we need to separate 
out the services and enforcement function of the INS, we still need to 
have a strong leader at the top, and we do in this bill. We need to 
have a Office of Children's Affairs, and we do in this bill. We need to 
have a general counsel that will be housed in the Associate Attorney 
General's office. We do in this bill. We need to have more 
accountability that would require field offices and service centers of 
the two proposed immigration bureaus to directly and consistently 
follow all directives and guidelines from the bureau directors. Due to 
an amendment that we adopted in committee that I offered, we now have 
that in this bill. The need for overhauling the INS is undeniable. 
Americans regularly hear of the agency's latest blunder and observe an 
agency stumbling from one crisis to the next, with no coherent strategy 
of how to accomplish its missions.
  We need to have an Office of Immigration Statistics that keeps 
adequate records of both service and enforcement statistics, and we do 
in this bill. I hope that Members come to the floor and support the 
Roybal-Allard amendment which adds clarity to this language.
  Our legislation builds on the Commission's conclusions by abolishing 
the INS and creating two separate bureaus in the Justice Department to 
handle the dual immigration functions--one led by a law enforcement 
professional to enforce our immigration laws and one led by an expert 
in benefits adjudication to provide immigration benefits to legal 
aliens.
  A new Associate Attorney General who handles only immigration affairs 
supervisors and resolves conflicts between the two bureaus, thereby 
raising these issues to the level and attention that they deserve 
within the Department of Justice.

  There will also be an Office of Children Affairs established in the 
Associate Attorney General's office raising the concern and importance 
of children's issues in the immigration system. This is very important 
to me as we have a mechanism in place that deals with the proper 
placement of unaccompanied minor alien children who come into custody 
of the Department of Justice. We need to ensure that the interests of 
the child are considered in decisions and actions relating to their 
care and custody, and that every effort is made to reunite these 
children with family members in the United States or abroad.
  More importantly, I am cosponsoring an amendment with Congresswoman 
Tammy Baldwin that would require the Director of the Children's Affairs 
office to develop a plan that would ensure that unaccompanied minor 
children have legal representation. This is a topic that is dear to my 
heart. There have been too many instances where children have 
immigrated to the United States and have been without guardians and 
without hope. They have been mistreated and misplaced. It is only 
fitting that the Congress see if somehow this new director can look 
into providing them with proper legal representation.
  Services under INS have been abysmal and continue to deteriorate. I 
also am a cosponsor with Congresswoman Lofgren of an amendment that 
would allow the Attorney General to enter into contracts with private 
sector firms to develop and implement an overall technology solution to 
the INS current problems. I hope this amendment is made in order.
  Lastly, I have an amendment that requires the GAO to conduct a study 
to examine whether the Bureau of Immigration Services can survive as an 
agency without specific language that authorizes appropriations and 
solely has this bureau relying on fees. This is a worthwhile amendment.
  I urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we need restructuring 
of the INS is to keep the Mohammed Attas out of the United States. 
Reports state that Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian citizen, piloted the 
first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center.
  Let us take a look at the INS record of Atta. On June 3, 2000, Atta 
was admitted to the United States solely for the purpose of being a 
visitor, a tourist. On July 6, just a month later, after being 
admitted, he started his flight training in Venice, Florida. INS 
regulations prohibit him from doing that flight training. That is a 
student status. It is not, I repeat, is not a tourist status event.
  On August 29, 2000, after he had begun training, the flight school, 
pursuant to INS regulations, applied for a student visa for Atta from 
the INS. On September 19, 2000, Atta changed his status from 
nonimmigrant visitor to nonimmigrant student. By this time, he was 
already flying. In December 2000, before an approval of this 
application to be a student pilot arrived, he departed the country for 
travel to Madrid. We can only imagine what he went there for.
  Should Atta have been admitted? Let us look at the facts. First, 
there was evidence before the inspector that Atta obtained a visa by 
fraud by concealing from the State Department when he applied for the 
visitor's visa abroad that he actually was coming to the U.S. for 
flight training. The inspector's notes on January 10 show that Atta 
admitted that he had been in flight training for 5 to 6 months, almost 
the entire period authorized for his previous stay, to enter and 
immediately undertake the business of learning to fly, and now we know 
learning to kill.
  There is also evidence from the inspector's notes that Atta admitted 
he was returning to attend flight school. The commissioner himself 
testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary that Atta's 
unapproved application for training visa was abandoned upon his 
departure from the United States. According to INS regulations, if the 
inspector thought that Atta was coming to the United States to go to 
flight school, he should have sent him back to get a proper approval.
  Nevertheless, Atta was admitted on January 10, 2001, as a visitor. 
Six months later, even after Atta had left the United States a second 
time, Atta's flight training visa application was approved. This 
application was approved 11 months after it was filed, despite the fact 
that he had departed the United States on two occasions.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious. This man should not have 
been admitted once, not twice, and certainly not three times. Does this 
mean we have a need for immigration reform? You bet.
  I plan on supporting this reform. I plan on offering additional 
amendments, because we can never, never again tolerate the ineptness in 
the INS that allowed this man to come here, not once, not twice, but a 
third time, and to train and kill Americans on September 11.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution and on the question of the Chair's approval 
of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 384, 
nays 36, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 111]

                               YEAS--384

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin

[[Page H1631]]


     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--36

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Carson (IN)
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Sanchez
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baldacci
     Blagojevich
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Leach
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Sanders
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Traficant

                              {time}  1133

  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, ABERCROMBIE, and CONYERS, and Mrs. MEEK of 
Florida, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BENTSEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote, followed by a 
5-minute vote on adoption of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 388, 
noes 34, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               AYES--388

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H1632]]



                                NOES--34

     Condit
     Costello
     Deutsch
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Olver
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Stenholm
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baldacci
     Blagojevich
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Leach
     Portman
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Traficant
     Weller

                              {time}  1143

  Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________