[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.''
____________________