[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 48 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1632-H1666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BARBARA JORDAN IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3231.
{time} 1152
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3231) to replace the Immigration and Naturalization Service with
the Agency for Immigration Affairs, and for other purposes, with Mr.
LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is beyond time to restructure one of the worst-run
agencies in the Federal Government, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. The INS has long been considered the undesirable and unwanted
stepchild of the Justice Department. It carries out neither of its
crucial missions well, enforcing our immigration laws and
[[Page H1633]]
providing services to immigrants playing by the rules.
Today, we must stop being enablers, stop giving more and more money
to an agency as a reward for squandering the money we gave it the year
before. We must practice tough love and abolish the INS.
In its place, we need to create two separate immigration bureaus in
the Justice Department, a Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and a
Bureau of Citizen and Immigration Services. This is what the Barbara
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002 is all about.
I am proud of the work of the Committee on the Judiciary in crafting
this legislation on a cooperative and bipartisan basis.
Barbara Jordan, our distinguished former colleague, chaired the U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform. The Commission came to the conclusion
that the INS suffers from institutional schizophrenia, or mission
overload. It explained that the INS must give equal weight to more
priorities than any one agency can handle. Such a system is set up for
failure, and with such failure, a loss of public confidence.
That is exactly what has happened. The public no longer has faith in
the INS. The public is right, and this bill abolishes this agency.
Some say INS stands for ``ignoring national security.'' It is hard to
argue with that. There are at least 8 million illegal aliens living in
the United States, according to the Census Bureau. Over 300,000
criminal and deportable aliens who have been ordered deported, and
removed by immigration judges, have absconded and the INS does not have
the slightest idea where they are.
Mohammed Atta became a household name after September 11 to everyone
but those in the INS, which approved Atta's visa to attend flight
school long after he had completed it, and 6 months after he hijacked a
plane, flew it into the World Trade Center, and killed thousands of
people of various nationalities.
This bill creates a new Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, headed by
a law enforcement professional and focused singly on crafting and
carrying out policies to enforce our immigration laws and keep
Americans safe from terrorists, criminals, and other aliens who wish to
do us harm. National security will be given the attention it deserves.
Others say INS stands for ``incompetent and negligent service.'' It
would be hard to argue with them, either. The agency had a backlog of
almost 5 million applications and petitions at the end of fiscal year
2001. It takes the INS years to adjudicate a green card application. It
takes years for a naturalization applicant to become a U.S. citizen,
and during this time, lawful immigrants trying to play by the rules
must live in a state of purgatory.
Let me give one example. Green card applicants must have their
fingerprints taken on a card like this. Now, for legitimate law
enforcement reasons, fingerprints are only valid for 15 months.
However, when the INS takes years to process a petition, a prospective
immigrant must take off work multiple times and often go out of the way
to a fingerprinting center, two more cards.
Even apart from the INS' slow-paced processing, very often they lose
the fingerprints. And guess what? The alien has to have his
fingerprints retaken. Here is strike four.
This bill creates a new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, headed by a professional in adjudicating government benefits.
It will have the sole mission of adjudicating and providing benefits to
aliens. The Bureau will bring the attention, the independence, and the
budget to the immigration service issues that have been neglected far
too long.
The bill also creates an Office of the Ombudsman, independent of the
service bureau. Currently, when aliens and their attorneys reach their
wit's end with the INS, they approach their Representatives and
Senators for help. My district caseworkers spend more time dealing with
the INS than with any other Federal agency, including the IRS.
Thankfully, my staff and those of all of the Members can often help
immigrant constituents, but immigrants need an effective advocate
within the bureaucracy so they do not come to their Representatives'
offices in the first place. The Office of the Ombudsman will be that
advocate. It will have the duty of recommending better operating
methods for the Bureau and monitoring its performance.
The Office of the Ombudsman will help infuse accountability into the
immigration bureaucracy.
The two bureaus created by this bill will have their own set of
offices to focus on and carry out their respective missions, including
policy and budget shops. The bill also creates within the Justice
Department an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs to
oversee and to supervise the bureaus and to coordinate the
administration of national immigration policy. This will elevate
immigration issues to the level they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill. It
will result in true immigration reform, better service, better
security, and it is long overdue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the able gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me time. I assure him that I will
try not to take the entire 10 minutes that he has granted to me for
this purpose. But I did think it was important for somebody to come and
make the case against this bill and to try to put in perspective what
we are trying to do.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard throughout the debate on the rule and even
the beginnings of the debate on the bill some claims about what this
bill will do, which I think are gross overstatements and exaggerations.
One of those during the rule debates, somebody came and said that this
bill would do something to keep Mohammed Atta from going to flight
school in this country. I just think that is a gross exaggeration and
the public should not be expecting magic from this bill.
I heard somebody say that this is a Democratic bill. My response to
that is that immigration policy is neither Democratic nor Republican.
We should be trying to do what is in the best interest of the public,
and this should not be about politics. I have heard people say that
this bill will make immigration services and enforcement more
efficient. And I have some very, very serious reservations about that.
In fact, I believe the bill could make matters substantially worse, and
I think we need to spend some time talking about that.
This bill divides administration and enforcement into two separate
bureaus. The INS historically has been all under, and immigration has
been all under, one agency in the Department of Justice. This bill
would divide it into two separate bureaus. What exactly does that mean?
It means, first of all, that you have got to have records, and those
records have to be housed somewhere. Right now they are housed within
the INS. I am not sure where they will get housed in this new two-
headed monster. Right now this agency is perhaps the worst agency in
America, in the Federal Government. It is still using paper records in
an electronic age. But the notion that somehow dividing the agency into
two separate bureaus is going to solve that is beyond me. I just do not
understand that. You have got one inefficient, unproductive INS now. It
seems to me that what you are going to end up with is two inefficient
agencies at the end of the day once this bill is passed.
What does that do to communications? At least within this body we can
stand here on the floor and talk to each other. Imagine if half of our
body was in the Senate and half was on this side, would that, in fact,
improve communications? I do not think so. They say, well this is all
about funding. Well, I have spent some time under separate and unequal.
It seems to me at that point what is happening now even in the existing
INS is that enforcement is getting disproportionate amounts of money.
Administration is not getting enough money, and now you are setting up
a system where that can be formalized; and I guarantee you at the end
of the day enforcement will always get the bulk of the money.
Administration will still be inefficient, and it still will not help
make this a better agency.
[[Page H1634]]
The INS is inefficient. It is probably the most inefficient
government agency in America. But moving it down the hall and making it
a two-headed monster will not make the agency more efficient. It will
make it arguably less efficient. Will the lines at INS be any shorter?
No. It just means you will have to go to a different place to stand in
line. You will be standing in line in some agency in the Justice
Department rather than standing in line in some agency at something
called the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Now, let me tell you, perhaps the biggest problem that I have with
this bill is that at the end of the day everybody who supports it is
going to go home to their congressional districts and tell America that
we did something. We did something. Well, you did something. Maybe that
is what you have done to keep the dissent down because we have not
heard any dissent about this bill. People are frustrated. Yes, they are
frustrated because the INS is inefficient. And you are telling people,
yes, we are going to do something. But what does this bill do? It does
not do anything. All it does is take an inefficient agency and make it
two inefficient agencies. And let me tell you that putting Barbara
Jordan's name on this bill will not make it a good bill. It does not
make it a good bill. You cannot take a bad bill, give it a different
name, and all of the sudden say that you have got a good work product.
That does not work.
Doing something even if it is wrong is not in the public interest.
And we can go home and tell America that we have solved America's
immigration problems. We have created an agency that will solve the
problems with immigration and the problems with Mohammed Atta and all
of the things, at the end of the day this bill does nothing. And we are
doing a disservice to side-step the issue rather than facing it and
dealing with it forthrightly within the agency that currently exists.
I know that the rest of this debate will be about how great this bill
is. But we need to search our souls in this body. Is this about
politics? Is it about being able to go home and tell America that we
have done something substantive to solve the immigration problems in
this country, to solve the inefficiencies in this agency, or have we
just transferred the problem down the hall? I believe that is what this
bill does, and I plan to vote against it for that reason.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
First of all, I want to thank my colleague for his very sobering
interactive examination of this bill. It pains me that we are not on
the same side, but I promise to work with him to make it as effective
as we can. I remind him and all of our colleagues that this is the
administrative part, the process part of the legislation towards INS.
This is not the substantive issues being taken care of. And I cannot
agree with my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt),
more, that dividing an ineffective agency into two does not make it a
whole or well, and putting Ms. Jordan's name on it does not help. Her
name was not snatched up from the rolls of ex-Members. She conducted
the study upon which this bill is built.
If any of us are interested in why this bill was named after our
colleague that formerly served on the Committee on the Judiciary, it is
because she was appointed by the President to make a study.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, everyone in the country knows that the status quo in
the Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot be maintained. We
must change it. We were taking a bold step today consistent with other
studies and other precedents set that will take us down a path in which
reform will really be possible within the purview of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.
I remember just like it was yesterday during the campaign of the year
2000 where then-Governor George Bush of Texas, the candidate for
President, actually proposed that if he should become President he
would move towards placing on his agenda the restructuring of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Soon after the election then,
many members, including the chairman and myself, began the work of
restructuring the INS pursuant to what we felt was a move on the part
of the new President based on, as was indicated, Barbara Jordan's
commission recommendations and lo and behold today we are poised ready
to put into practice what we have been preaching since the President
began his movement towards new formation in the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
The beautiful part to me is, and one of the most attractive features
of the new structure is, that we are going to be providing under this
better service, better service in that portion of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that deals with new immigrants, and the process
by which a new immigrant becomes an American citizen.
For the first time, the first time I repeat, we are elevating the art
of citizenship to a new level to make it known to the people seeking
citizenship that this is an important, vitally important and valuable
step that they are seeing. So by the time they come to take the oath of
citizenship, they are really eager new Americans ready to take their
part in our structure in our society for the betterment of all the
people in our country. Better service is one of the indicators in the
new structure that we are putting into place.
At the same time, we are providing better security because the law
enforcement pillar of this new structure will focus, will concentrate,
will make sure that the workings of that arm of Immigration and
Naturalization Service will be so concentrated that we will see
stronger border efforts at keeping illegals out, better screening of
all of those who enter our country, and controlling of the now illegal
portion of the populace insofar as deportation.
So now we have in front of us a potential new system in which we can
place our full efforts to make it work. And that is why we are taking
the chance, but it is a calculated chance on taking two structures and
having them fold within themselves, extra effort to make immigration
and naturalization work.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), who has worked hard on this matter.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anybody in the
House, or for that matter in the country, who disagrees with the
proposition that this is an agency that is a mess. If we took a poll
probably it would win as the worst Federal agency. It might have some
competition from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but it is probably the
worst Federal agency. The question is what to do about it. I voted
against this bill because I fear that although there is no question
that the authors and proponent have complete sincerity and have worked
hard to fix the problem, I fear that some of the details in this bill
may actually have the effect of making things worse. Some of the things
that concern me, and in this case the details do very much matter, is
the new Associate Attorney General that the bill creates to replace the
current commissioner.
Now, there is broad agreement that the enforcement and so-called
benefits division would benefit from some separation, that there would
be value in having some focus in each of those activities. After that
is where we get the problem. Under the bill, the new Associate Attorney
General actually has a higher position than the current commissioner,
but unfortunately does not have very much authority.
{time} 1215
He does not have line authority over the two new bureaus that would
be created, and I think that is a serious problem when we are looking
to a strong management to fix the problems that are in this agency.
Furthermore, I think there is a problem with the criteria that is
within the bill for the selection of the new bureau chiefs; and I will
just point out one
[[Page H1635]]
concern I have, which is the bureau chief for the new benefits division
is required to be someone with 10 years of Federal benefit processing
experience. That is a recipe to say we have got to have a bureaucrat, a
long-term Federal bureaucrat head up this agency. And I would argue
that the people who are in that role are the problem, they are not the
solution. So I have a concern that we will end up regretting that
provision of this act.
I also have a concern about the structure that will be embedded in
law about the field office. One of the concerns that all of us who have
worked with the Immigration Service have had over the years is the
fiefdoms that exist in field offices throughout the United States. If
someone goes to an office on the West Coast and they go to an office in
the Midwest, they will get a different ruling on what the law is. That
is ridiculous, but that is the way the Immigration Service is currently
organized. It needs to be changed, and passage of this act will prevent
that change from occurring.
The Office of Children's Services I think is a step forward under
current law, but it does not go as far as the bill that has been
introduced by Senator Feinstein in the other body, and myself on this
side, and I hope that we could go further than is encompassed in this
bill.
Finally, I believe that the issue of management really does need to
be addressed in this bill. I had several amendments offered in
committee that were withdrawn to avoid a sequential referral to another
committee, but if we look at the culture that has grown within this
agency, we have got middle managers who have been there for years. They
know they are going to be there after the Commissioner or the Associate
Attorney General, whoever it is, is gone.
We need to clean house in the management ranks. We have in the
manager's amendment a pilot project that will help us do that, but we
also need to give the Commissioner or the Associate Attorney General
real authority to select new management from the private sector without
regard to the attenuated process that we face today. We need to clean
house, and we have not in this bill given the tools necessary to
completely clean house in the management ranks; and I am not talking
about the rank and file, but the management.
Finally, we have an amendment I will discuss when it comes up, but an
amendment to assist with the procurement of technology, because in
addition to management weakness in the agency and in the middle
management ranks, this is an agency that is in the dark ages
technologically.
I was interested in the comments made by the chairman about the
fingerprints. He is absolutely right. It is just crazy that we have
people come in over and over and over again. The reason for that is,
although the technology is available off the shelf, we have got the
creation of microfiche and paper files. We have not implemented
technology that is really necessary to get beyond the current state in
this agency, and frankly I do not think there is the management
capacity to even understand what technology is required in the agency.
I am hopeful that as this process moves forward, we will be able to
address the issues that I have raised today, and I thank the chairman
and the ranking member for their very sincere and diligent efforts to
reform this agency. Although I disagree on some components, I do
recognize that they care a great deal about this, and I honor them for
their work.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who as chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary,
has been a leader in reforming the INS.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and for his comment.
This is a day that I have long waited for as have many others in this
body and, more importantly, around the country, and I am very pleased
and honored to support the Barbara Jordan bill. This has been a long,
long road, but with the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), we have come together and crafted I think an excellent
bill worthy of this Chamber's support. And I deeply appreciate the
time, the effort, the dedication to this cause that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has invested in bringing this legislation
forward. He should be commended by all of us.
This bill differs a little from the reform bill that I had pending
for a few years along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), but it is a good bill. It goes, I
think, 90 percent of the way that we need to go.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House is an essential piece of
legislation. It will bring some accountability to this immigration
system, and reforming and reorganizing the INS has been an issue near
and dear to my heart as well as many others. Having taken on the chore
myself several years ago in the appropriations subcommittee that funds
the INS on which I have served some 19 years, including 6 as chairman,
we have all seen firsthand the harm this agency has caused to our
citizens because of its dysfunction and ineptitude.
We have seen it on the enforcement side where tens of thousands of
illegal aliens storm our borders every year, and we have seen it on the
service side where backlogs and mismanagement have left legitimate
applicants waiting in line for years. I believe there is no greater
privilege that this Nation can bestow on anyone than American
citizenship, but unfortunately too many applicants have been let down
by this system.
Simply put, and I have said it a hundred times, the INS is the worst-
run agency in the United States Government. Its missions are inherently
conflicted. On the one hand, they are to punish those who violate the
law, but on the other hand they are supposed to help people achieve the
rights and privileges that our country affords them. In many cases, we
are talking about the same people. This causes confusion, frustration,
not only among the rank-and-file employees, but the immigrants
themselves.
It may be Congress' ultimate failure in creating such a convoluted
system, but we stand here before the House today, determined to fix it
once and for all.
The answer is not more money. We have poured money on this agency and
agreed to its pleas and justifications. The INS budget has grown over
300 percent in just the last 8 years, from a level of $1.58 billion in
1994 to today's level of $5.5 billion. In fact, the INS account now
consumes over 23 percent of the entire Department of Justice budget.
The answer is not more staffing for border control. We have increased
border patrol agents dramatically, from 3,900 in 1993 to over 10,000
authorized positions today, and despite our generosity, INS over the
years failed to completely hire the full number of agents funded by the
Congress, diverting the money to other things.
Simply put, INS has been unable to effectively control the borders
and has no strategy to remove people who overstay their limited visas.
The only answer to this agency, I have come to conclude, is to simply
abolish it, dismantle, start over, and this bill achieves that by
separating these conflicted missions of the INS.
The new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service and the new
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement will keep to their tasks and focus
solely on their respective specialties, ultimately providing for the
common good of the Nation. And, as has been said, a new Associate
Attorney General will be created, giving immigration affairs the full
credit and importance it deserves within the Justice hierarchy. This
legislation will help secure the homeland and bring sanity to our
immigration system.
The legacy left behind by INS is not a pretty picture: 8 million
illegal aliens, some 40 percent, 2.8 million, being illegal overstays
of certified visas that came here legally; a backlog of 5 million
unadjudicated petitions for immigration benefits.
The citizenship U.S.A. debacle where thousands of individuals with
criminal records were naturalized as citizens because the INS told the
FBI we do not need the background checks, we will just go ahead and
make them citizens.
[[Page H1636]]
The IDENT malfunction. INS spent $68 million on a failed alien
identification system that resulted in the Border Patrol's releasing
serial killer Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, who was on the FBI's 10 most
wanted list, had criminal and State prison records, and had been
deported by the INS three different times. They let him loose.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. This is the way we
need to go. Do away with an agency that cannot handle the mission we
have given to it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus,
who himself has worked in this area, has introduced legislation, worked
with the Judiciary Committee many times.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me the time, and I want to thank both the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for their commitment to drafting a bipartisan bill that
addresses the many needs of our immigration system. Therefore, I rise
in strong support of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform Act.
The chairman and the ranking member are to be commended for working
together and bringing a great bill to the House floor. As we discuss
the issue of INS restructuring today, it is important to distinguish
between the men and women in the field and the bureaucracy at INS
headquarters when we talk about restructuring INS.
INS headquarters has failed the people who work for them more than
anyone else. As a former border patrol agent, INS inspector, and chief
patrol agent, I know about the sense of duty to one's country and the
pride in a job well done that the people who wear the INS uniform are
committed to doing today. It is for the men and women in the field that
we must restructure this agency.
There is no escaping the fact that INS is failing. Even those very
reluctant to restructure the INS just a year ago are now advocating
this same change. The bill we are debating today is the type of change
we need. This change is more dramatic and effective than the White
House plan which has changed again since the events surrounding the
student visa debacle of a month ago.
Late yesterday the White House endorsed this bill with conditions,
expressing concern with some of the components of this bill. From my
perspective, it is time for the White House to get engaged and support
this bill without any restrictions.
I have seen more than five INS restructuring proposals from the
Democratic and Republican administrations since I have been in
Congress, and countless others during my 26 years with INS. They all
failed because cooking the books and changing some of the titles never
really gets the job done. We need to do more than shuffle boxes if we
are going to reform the INS.
Let me just say that I am today not piling on. I have a vested
interest in the INS. I spent more than 26 years with the INS and I want
to see our Immigration Service properly serve our country like I know
that it can. I want to see this conflicted, struggling agency elevated
in stature as it is the Sensenbrenner bill so that it will receive the
kind of attention and support that it deserves. A well-functioning
immigration system is critical to our national security.
I have advocated for restructuring since I first arrived in Congress
a little more than 5 years ago. I introduced two bills and have
cosponsored many other restructuring bills with my colleagues from both
sides of the aisle. I believe that INS needs a legislative remedy, not
the shuffling of boxes that is currently being proposed from within INS
again.
I strongly support restructuring the INS as a first step in the
recovery of our national immigration system. After we restructure and
place competent and experienced people at the head of each bureau, they
must surround themselves with experts and they must listen.
{time} 1230
I believe that the new bureau should follow the FBI model and
surround the head of the bureau with experienced field personnel.
Congress must remain committed to these new bureaus and the new
Associate Attorney General more than ever to ensure the success of our
national immigration system. This bill includes language stressing
equally important roles of the immigration service's bureau and the
enforcement bureau and includes a sense of Congress that both bureaus
must be adequately funded.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, to my former colleagues in INS, I say to you
that this bill expresses a commitment from a grateful Congress to
provide you with the tools and the kind of organizational structure
that will make a meaningful difference in your everyday duties and
work.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, may we find out how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has
14\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of this immigration reform. It is a long
overdue immigration reform. This, however, is the one reform that will
work.
The INS has a well-documented history of being an unworkable
bureaucracy despite the fact that there have been billions of dollars
poured into the agency in the name of reform over the last several
years. On a regular basis, my district offices received more complaints
for help on immigration issues than on health care issues or Social
Security issues combined.
Other congressional offices have found that the complaints about the
INS outnumbered IRS complaints six to one. That is hard to believe.
Everyone expects that we are going to get calls about the IRS, but the
INS? Six to one. Backlogs are the issue, undocumented aliens are the
issue, expired visas are the issue. In fact, everything is the issue.
Still, it seems that the problems our constituents face are not
unique regarding this troubled agency. It is just a troubled agency. In
fact, the problem goes beyond the everyday operations of the INS and,
as we know, has now risen to the level of national security.
The INS currently has a massive backlog. The recent approval of visa
extensions for two of the deceased September 11 hijackers only serves
to highlight the severe nature of this problem.
At the end of fiscal year 2001, the INS had a backlog of 4.9 million
applications. That is 4.9 million people. That is a lot larger than a
number of a dozen congressional districts put together. That is a lot
of people. That is a lot of applications. These numbers represent
families and hardworking individuals who are being torn apart because
of these ridiculous administrative delays.
Numerous commissions, notably the Commission on Immigration Reform,
chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, have reviewed the INS and most
agree the major problem is mission overload. The INS is tasked with
dual missions. It is imperative that we support this INS reform. It
separates the missions, and it will be a real reform.
The AIA will consist of two separate bureaus--the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau for Immigration
Enforcement.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services will work to
improve (1) effectiveness, (2) response time and (3) service to
immigrants.
The Bureau for Immigration Enforcement will solely focus on
immigration security, ensuring it receives the level of attention and
detail that it requires.
Separating the two bureaus will ensure a proper focus and resource
allocation to each mission. It will relieve the problem of having an
agency with conflicting missions.
In addition, the legislation creates an Associate Attorney General
for Immigration. This new position answers directly to the Attorney
General and ensures that immigration policy is given proper attention.
The Associate Attorney General oversees the work of each bureau,
supervises the bureaus directors, coordinates the administration of
national policy and reconciles conflicting policies.
Finally, the legislation addresses many of the problems with
processing applications. First, the bill authorizes funding to process
the entire current backlog. Second, the legislation mandates the
creation of an Internet-based
[[Page H1637]]
application process. Third, the legislation facilitates the sharing of
information across all pertinent agencies.
This legislation is a necessary step in fixing a broken immigration
system. Efforts by prior administrations to make changes to the INS
have failed because they did not separate the conflicting functions of
the current agency.
Congress has increased appropriations to the INS by $4 billion over
the past 10 years with little to show for it as a result.
This legislation mandates the necessary structural changes to reform
our immigration system and protect our borders.
It is imperative to our future--in our country of immigrants that we
support this restructuring.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who has worked on this matter with
us.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time to address the House. I have been a cosponsor on this bill
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) since 1997, when he first
came to Washington, who has much expertise, with all his years with the
Border Patrol and INS, and in dealing with the issue in my own
district.
In Houston, it can take up to 3\1/2\ years to process green card
applications. Immigrants must often wait long hours under extreme
weather conditions before even setting foot inside the INS office. And
for most immigrants, this is not the only time they will go. The
separation of law enforcement from the naturalization process is so
needed. I am glad that my colleague brought my attention to that in
1997 and that it is in the bill we are seeing today.
We must replace the INS and ensure all Americans their government is
competent enough to distinguish between immigrants who are hard working
and those who want to terrorize our citizens. This bill will replace
the INS with an Agency for Immigration Affairs in the Department of
Justice, headed by an Associate Attorney General for immigration
affairs.
The two bureaus under this agency would have different responses, and
that is what we need. And I want to thank the Chair of the Judiciary
and the committee for bringing this bill out.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a member of the committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, when terrorists were positively identified,
the INS could not program its computers to find out if they had any
information on those terrorists. Not only that, but they issued them
visas.
The story of the INS' approval of terrorist visas illustrates that
our immigration process is a total failure. But as is often the case,
the people back in our districts and in our home States, they realize
this before we do.
In fact, I got a letter from Michael Burns from my district in
December. He describes an accident where a car hits his wife's car and
then a car piles into both of those. Both drivers were illegal aliens,
no driver's license and no documentation. When the police officer was
asked what would happen to these people, how would they be kept up
with, would they be deported, would they be held accountable, they were
told there is not an INS representative in Birmingham; that they were
wasting their time; we are wasting our time.
What about a county sheriff who on this last visit home told me that
he stopped 15 illegal aliens in a van. There were drugs in the van,
marijuana. They had no documentation and an expired driver's license.
He called the INS; he was told there is no one to deal with the
problem. There is no one to deal with the problem.
Far more disturbingly, and let me close with this, are the
illustrations of over 100,000 illegal aliens who have been brought
before the courts and charged with crimes, convicted of crimes, and
told to be deported. Are they deported? No. What happens? They receive
a letter. They receive a letter. That is all.
This bill is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referred to
earlier:
Liberty National
Life Insurance Company,
Birmingham, AL, December 17, 2001.
Congressman Spencer Bachus,
Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bachus: On Wednesday, December 12, 2001,
my wife was involved in a traffic accident, while this is
certainly not a Federal issue the events surrounding the
accident I feel need to be brought to your attention. Her car
was struck in the Hoover area by an illegal immigrant who
spoke no English, carried no Alabama state drivers license,
had no insurance, but is employed at a local Mexican
restaurant and has been in Alabama for over two years. The
individual in the third car, who was also an illegal
immigrant, had no driver's license at all and no insurance.
Additionally when my wife asked the Hoover officer at the
accident site what would happen to this individual she was
told ``probably nothing, the State of Alabama does not allow
us to deport them unless there is a crime committed with then
goes through INS''. This came as a shock to both my wife and
myself. When I did some checking I was told there is not even
an INS representative in Birmingham full time. These
individuals are in this country illegally, pay no U.S. taxes
and can hit someone and virtually walk away! While I am
forced to pay a $500.00 deductible on my insurance to be able
to get $2,100 worth of damages repaired. This is shameful. As
a taxpayer, constituent, and loyal financial supporter of the
Republican Party (in excess of $2,800 during the last
election, PAC National and state party contributions), quite
frankly I resent this type of conduct from the Federal Branch
of our government. While I am actively pursuing action
against this illegal alien through the City of Hoover I would
like to know what I can do, and what your stand is as my
congressman on this situation.
Congressman, I know you get many letters that are
considered ``off the wall''. However, as a Vice-President of
Alabama's largest insurance company and as a longtime
resident of your congressional district, I want to assure you
that I do not write this letter lightly, but rather out of
concern over a situation that is apparently getting out of
hand in the City of Hoover. I await your response. The best
to you and your family for the holiday season.
Sincerely,
G. Michael Burns,
Vice President Mass Marketing.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). No one has worked harder on the Committee on
the Judiciary than the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims; and I really want to praise her for her work.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
ranking member very much for yielding me this time and for his
persistence and willingness to be engaged in the ongoing negotiations
that have resulted in the legislation that is on the floor today, and I
thank him for the kindness of his remarks.
There are many people to thank, Mr. Chairman. It is extremely
important, of course, to acknowledge that this is a product of the
Committee on the Judiciary, with 32 votes of the members of the
Committee on the Judiciary on this particular legislation; and so there
is much appreciation to be given the chairman of the full committee and
of the subcommittee, along with the enormous help that we received from
the diligence of our staff. In particular, I would like to acknowledge
Avery Brown and Leon Buck of my staff for the work they did in this
effort.
It seems when we come to the floor of the House on a day like today,
talking about an agency such as the INS, we could become focused on the
importance of the work that is being done, and I believe that this
body, this forum, this House, is a place for vigorous debate. I
acknowledge that we had begun this discussion with vigorous debate on
the opposition to this legislation, and I think it is important that we
have a full debate and that we listen to the concerns.
Let me join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),
and say that I look forward to working with any number of Members to
make sure we concern ourselves with an ongoing process. Even though
this debate is not about the Mideast tragedies, I have always said that
the way to solve the tragedy of the Mideast is ongoing negotiations and
peace negotiations.
In order to fix the INS, after we have abolished the INS, it will
take all of us in an ongoing oversight role to ensure that the work is
done and that we answer the concerns. I have been gratified to have
been able to work with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other
Members, including the chairperson, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes), on this.
We are grounded in the underpinnings of the U.S. Commission
[[Page H1638]]
on Immigration Reform, that our own former colleague, the late Barbara
Jordan, headed. Her name, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
indicated, did not come randomly and is not in any way to undermine,
diminish, or to suggest any irony in her selection. It is to recognize
the work she did early on when we did not confront the horrors of
terrorism and the heinous acts of September 11. Barbara Jordan's
commission sought, in the calmness of the day and the confusion that
abounded even then with the INS, to begin to set the Nation straight.
I think she brought about a balance that we have tried to keep in
this legislation. It is procedural, it is not of substance, but we do
maintain the concept that immigration is in fact a part of a system of
this Nation; that we are a Nation of laws, but we are a Nation of
immigrants; that immigration does not equate to terrorism.
In the crafting of this bill we have tried to stay away from
castigating and denigrating hardworking immigrants who have come to
this country simply to offer themselves, to share in the bounty but to
work hard. Like those immigrants that I am working with in my district,
who happen to be Palestinians, a family of nine, who are in a detention
center now even though one of their children is a United States
citizen. Obviously, they are under the color of the terrible politics
of the world right now, but we are working to ensure that those
immigrants, who owned a store that sold United States flags, can have
the opportunity to access legalization.
This legislation answers the concerns of those who would want to fix
the INS. It abolishes the INS. And, yes, I stand by the words that I
said earlier, this bill is a bill that draws together Americans,
Democrats, Republicans, and others, because this bill is a work of a
compromise of bills that were promoted by Republicans and Democrats in
this House. That is the system in which we work.
This is a bill that has at the top the Associate Attorney General and
divides the INS into two bureaus. But it is not a bureau that is in
conflict or in confusion. It is a bureau, of course, that will work
together. Two consistent bureaus of enforcement and services, one
general counsel that will coordinate the laws that will affect the
running of the INS. There will be vertical coordination, where the
district offices are coordinated with the Washington offices. There
will be more support for the Border Patrol in enforcement. There will
be a children's bureau, so that unaccompanied minors can be protected.
And, hopefully, the amendments that we pass will, in fact, work.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, appropriations, money, will
be guided to this agency. This service-oriented bureau, in particular,
is fee generated, but we are going to discuss and debate an amendment
that I hope my colleagues will accept that will provide for a study
that will determine whether the fees that we are generating out of the
service bureau is enough to make sure that my colleagues who have two
and three and four staff members who are handling immigration in their
district offices will in fact have the resources to get the job done.
Today, we abolish the INS; but we also stand on the premise that we
are a Nation of immigrants and laws. It is extremely important that the
message from the United States Congress in a bipartisan way is to
embrace the founding principles of this country, where all of us came
here to work and seek opportunity but, at the same time, recognize that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, this new agency, must stand
on the underpinnings of law, protecting us against illegal immigration
but allowing those to access legalization.
I believe this is a bill that begins that, Mr. Chairman; and we will
finish the job by working together.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
There is a graphic we have here that some might think is too harsh
when describing a government agency. It shows the INS going into the
wastebasket of history. In reality, Mr. Chairman, it is not harsh
enough. It ought to be going through a shredder on the way to a
wastebasket. For this agency and what it has done, we need to shred it,
gather the shreds, burn them, gather the ashes, and distribute them
among the four corners of the world so this agency, as it is currently
constituted, can never again come together and endanger our security
and be a disgrace to this country as the INS has been.
{time} 1245
Mr. Chairman, in years past, many might have looked at the problems
with the INS, as we have heard chronicled here during this debate, and
deemed them an irritant, a waste of money, a frustration.
However, now we know in the wake of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, made successful in large part by the deficiencies in the
INS, we now know that the problems with INS are more than an irritant,
more than a waste of money, they are a threat to our Nation's security.
We can no longer ignore them.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is doing the right
thing here. He is putting the horse before the cart. We are
restructuring this agency before we tackle all of the substantive
immigration reforms, the visa reforms, and the citizenship reforms that
we must do. If we do not restructure the INS first, any subsequent
substantive changes to INS and to the immigration system or immigration
categories will be doomed to failure. We must restructure first, and
this bill does that.
While H.R. 3231 and its enactment cannot guarantee we will not have a
future successful terrorist attack such as our Nation suffered on
September 11, we can say with certainty that its passage and enactment
into law will give us a measure of confidence and security which we
cannot ever hope to attain without it.
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for this
legislation. I urge its passage, and I commend the administration for
its support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas),
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
for taking us through an original bill that was not adequate. We worked
on a substitute, and now we are able to come together in a bipartisan
fashion that I think acquits the Committee on the Judiciary very well.
I note that the chairman of this committee has been able to accomplish
that on more than one occasion, so I am delighted that we will now
consider some amendments, many of them that we think will improve the
bill.
But I remind my colleagues that we have the other body in which we
will come together in a conference as soon as they finish their work
product, and one of the key issues is going to be the relationship of
the Associate Attorney General to that of the current Immigration and
Naturalization Service Commissioner.
We have met with the Commissioner. He has been before our committee
more than once, and I think that is an important issue where we ought
to work carefully with the Senate, and hope that we can reach harmony.
The bill is a structural bill. It is a process bill. The substance of
how we are going to improve the Immigration and Naturalization Service
really awaits the further work of the committee in this body and that
in the other body; but I am pleased that we can work with the
administration and with our Republican colleagues on dealing with a
matter that it is perfectly clear is long overdue for reform. Today is
a very important first step in that direction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
regarding two provisions in section 11 of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman on a good bill which is
[[Page H1639]]
long overdue. However, it is my understanding there are two provisions
in section 11 that would create an additional requirement for
discretionary appropriations. Specifically, subsection (b)(5) strikes a
current fee collected by the INS to support the cost of processing
certain immigrant applications, and subsection (b)(6) then authorizes
appropriations for these applications. I further understand that this
may require upwards of $1 billion over the next 4 years.
Mr. Chairman, is my understanding of these provisions correct?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding of the
provisions is correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
the current House budget resolution does not assume this additional
requirement on discretionary appropriations. As a result, any funding
for this provision, if provided in fiscal year 2003, will have to come
at the expense of reductions in other important funding priorities,
including those for homeland security and the war on terrorism.
Given the current budget environment and the demands on spending that
we face, will the chairman be amenable to reviewing the need for these
provisions during the conference deliberations on his bill?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I will be
happy to review these provisions during the conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
opportunity to clarify this matter.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary for offering this very important legislation, and I am proud
to be a cosponsor of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and
Accountability Act. This act is designed to address two very serious
problems. The first: incompetent, negligent service that our
constituents, the American citizens, and those who seek to comply with
our immigration laws have faced for many decades with the INS. The INS
had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of
fiscal year 2001. That is totally unacceptable.
In some congressional offices, complaints about the Immigration and
Naturalization Service outnumber IRS complaints by a factor of 6 to 1.
In my office, I am sure that it is several times more than that.
To give Members an example of the nature of this problem and the
bureaucracy involved, because fingerprints that are taken by the INS
for processing applications are only good for 15 months, some
immigrants must have them taken 3 or 4 times while they wait for the
INS to process their paperwork. Some people have to travel, as they do
in my district, great distances to do that, or wait long periods of
time before they have somebody appear in the district when they can
have it done.
Over 300,000 criminal and deportable illegal immigrants were ordered
removed by immigration judges, and have fled; 6,000 of those are from
countries identified as al Qaeda strongholds. This is the one problem
that we have with our current immigration system, it is ignoring our
national security problems.
If the INS officials were ``following their own policies, Atta would
have never been allowed to enter the United States''; that, according
to a 60 Minutes report on March 10 of this year.
We need to pass this legislation to support our President's proposal.
To break the INS into two parts is an idea whose time is long past due,
for better security and better processing for our immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3231, the Barbara
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, and I commend
Chairman Sensenbrenner on his leadership in introducing this
legislation and moving it forward.
America has always been a nation of immigrants, people from varied
backgrounds and distinct cultures who largely share a common desire for
the freedoms and liberties, which are a birthright for native-born
Americans. But with this rich heritage, vigilance is required from the
federal government. We must be cognizant of who is entering the
country, or we do our citizenry a disservice. With an estimated 8
million undocumented illegal immigrants residing in the United States,
it is clear that the INS has failed in this duty.
There is no disagreement that the INS is in dire need of reform and
the events of September 11 make it clear that the need for reform is
more urgent than ever. Six months after the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Immigration and Naturalization Service mailed a letter to
a flight school in Florida, notifying them that two of the hijackers,
including alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta, had been approved for
student visas. It would be a monumental understatement to say that the
INS is woefully ill-equipped to handle immigration in this era of
heightened national security.
In addition to INS' failure to adequately perform its enforcement
responsibilities, INS has been inept in its service functions. My
Congressional District offices, like those of every other Member of
Congress, are inundated with complaints about INS. The INS had a
backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of FY
2001. Lost files, missing fingerprints, and lengthy delays are
complaints that we hear on a daily basis. We owe our own citizens, as
well as documented visitors and immigrants in this country, the
attention and support that they deserve.
Between 1993 and 2002, Congress nearly quadrupled INS' operating
budget. It is evident that piecemeal attempts to reform INS have been
unsuccessful, and throwing more money and resources at INS has not
solved its problems, which stem from competing priorities and missions
within the agency.
It is time to acknowledge the failure of the current structure of the
INS and take a comprehensive approach to reorganizing the agency. By
separating the enforcement and service functions of the INS, H.R. 3231
will provide a clear mission, increase efficiency and ensure that the
borders of America are protected from terrorism and other national
security threats. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for
this important legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, which
will improve enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws and reduce
the overwhelming backlog of applications for aliens wishing to enter
the United States legally. The time has come to do away with the old
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and implement a system that
will work more efficiently.
Anyone wanting proof of this need only look to the March issuance of
student visas to not one, but two of the September 11 hijackers. Six
months after they died in their terrorist acts, the INS issued student
visa approvals to them.
Clearly there is not only a need to restructure the INS, but also to
reform our Nation's immigration policies with respect to foreign
student visas. I submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules which
would have established a 9-month moratorium on the issue of student
visas to allow the INS or the new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services under this legislation, time to fully implement the student
exchange and visitor information system.
My amendment also would have required the names, ages, and other
appropriate information of student visa holders, accompanying spouse,
and children to be included on the student visa documentation.
I believe these reforms are critical if we are serious about
preventing known terrorists from entering the United States. At least
one of the September 11 hijackers was in the U.S. on an expired student
visa. Had the INS fully implemented the tracking system, this terrorist
may have been behind bars, not hijacking a commercial airplane.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my amendment was not made in order and
cannot be considered here today. It was considered nongermane. It is my
hope there will be an opportunity for Members to debate substantive
immigration policy reform in the near future.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform the gentleman
and Members of Congress that
[[Page H1640]]
this issue was addressed in the bill H.R. 3525, which requires the INS
to implement a student visa tracking system. That bill was passed
unanimously on a voice vote by the House of Representatives on December
19. The other body passed this bill with amendments on April 18. We
will be having a vote on concurring with those amendments some time
shortly, and the student visa tracking legislation, together with an
entry-exit system tracking, will be on its way to the President for his
expected signature.
We are going to be across the finish line with this before the
current bill goes before the President.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that
explanation. I was asking for a moratorium to give them an opportunity
to get those things done.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to all of the
members of the committee, to the bipartisan committee staff, to the
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), to the
ranking subcommittee member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) in putting together a bill which has huge bipartisan support.
I also express my thanks to the President and the Attorney General
for recognizing the need for legislative action and restructuring the
Immigration Service so that it can be functional.
I think we all recognize that this bill is not a panacea. The
problems that we have heard about for the last 2.5 hours have taken
years to develop: the 5 million backlog in processing applications for
immigration services; the over 300,000 people who have had their day in
court and have been ordered deported, that the INS has no idea where
they are except that they are still in the United States of America.
So should this bill pass and be signed into law, which I earnestly
hope that it will before this Congress expires, it will take a long
time for us to put our immigration affairs back in order. But this is
the essential first start, because if we do not restructure the INS,
telling them that they are supposed to adjudicate millions more
applications when they are 5 million behind is just going to mean that
new immigrants will be at the bottom of the pile and will have to wait
much longer.
To tell the current INS that they have to do a better job of
enforcing against the Mohammed Attas that may still be in the country,
when they have over 300,000 people already ordered deported and are
still here, is going to complicate this system and have a further
backlog. By restructuring the INS, we are on a good start. I urge
Members to support this legislation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I rise today in support of H.R. 3231, the
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform & Accountability Act.
The magnitude of the INS' problems is extraordinary--at the end of
FY2001, it had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions,
thus forcing aliens trying to play by the rules to wait in limbo for
years. The Census Bureau estimates that at least 8 million undocumented
aliens reside in the U.S. Over 300,000 criminal and deportable aliens
ordered removed by immigration judges have absconded. Much of the INS'
failure stems from the conflict between its enforcement and service
missions. Mr. Chairman, the INS is unable to adequately perform either
of its missions. Rather, the agency appears to move from one crisis to
the next, with no coherent strategy of how to accomplish both missions
successfully.
Reponding to this national security crisis, H.R. 3231 would abolish
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in favor of two new
organizations that concentrate solely on different missions--one that
would administer immigration benefits and one that would enforce
immigration laws. This legislation promotes law and order by increasing
accountability and creating a position for checks and balances between
the two bureaus.
This bipartisan legislation ensures that the new INS bureaus will
each have the proper mission and guidelines to assist those individuals
who are ready to become U.S. citizens while cracking down on illegal
immigrants and enforcing immigration laws and regulations. It will work
to keep the terrorists out, but provide efficient and fair service to
those that play by the rules when it comes to our immigration process.
Additionally, this legislation will help to secure our homeland by
placing a greater focus on immigration policy and making sure everyone
is playing by the rules.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) will
concentrate on improving immigration services and reducing mediation
backlogs for legal immigrants, while the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement (BIE) will deny admission to those that should be kept out
of the U.S. BIE will also apprehend and remove those designated for
deportment along the border and in the interior.
H.R. 3231 will create an Associate Attorney General in the Department
of Justice who will only handle immigration affairs. The Associate
Attorney General will supervise the two bureaus, resolve conflicts
between them and help to hold the two bureaus accountable for their
actions.
The INS has reorganized itself numerous times over the past two
decades. Judging from its caseload and its failure to detect and detain
terrorists, internal reorganization is not working. This bill creates a
clear chain of command and greater accountability.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important
national security legislation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3231 and urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for an
important piece of legislation.
This bill, inspired by the dedication and hard work of the late
former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas, comes before the House at
a crucial moment in our history. During the past several months, we
have been forced to witness the difficult truth that our Nation's
immigrant laws and agencies are in disrepair and in need of major
structural changes. As a free Nation and open society built on the
strength, ingenuity, hard work, and discipline of immigrants from
around the world, this strikes us especially hard. I am pleased that
the bill before us takes important steps toward improving our
Government's management of immigration while preserving the ability of
immigrants to build new lives for themselves and their families in the
United States.
I am pleased to support H.R. 3231 for several reasons, not the last
of which is its innovative approach to the reorganization of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Beyond reorganizing the
INS into two separate bureaus within the Department of Justice, this
bill will also create several new offices dedicated to improving the
quality of the service provided to immigrants and protecting the rights
of unaccompanied child immigrants. The bill, by placing the two new
bureaus under the direct supervision of a new Associate Attorney
General with experience in managing large and complex organizations,
will also increase the importance placed on our immigration policies
and the accountability of those responsible for enforcing our laws.
With the passage of H.R. 3231, the House will take an important first
step in reforming the way the United States deals with immigration. The
next step, addressing the security of our borders, will hopefully be
taken soon. Together, today's reforms along with upcoming efforts to
strengthen border security will make America safer from those who would
use our country's openness to do us harm. These reforms will also
preserve America's commitment to remain open to immigrants who seeks a
better life and will reaffirm our long tradition of finding strength in
our diversity. This will be a key part of the legacy of the 107th
Congress, and I am pleased to cast my vote as we begin this important
effort.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, the
Barbara Jordan Immigration and Reform Accountability Act. I agree that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a broken agency that
needs to be fixed. That is a point that has been underscored in the
time since September 11 but was clearly a problem long before those
tragic events. The need for reform of the INS has been clear to me
because of the difficulty constituents in my districts have had in
dealing with the INS. My district staff spends approximately 80% of
casework time on cases that have to do with problems with the INS. This
has to change. Although I will vote for this legislation, I do have
some concerns.
We must make the INS a better managed, more efficient, coordinated,
and effective agency. I strongly believe, in order to accomplish those
goals, the agency must be split into the separate bureaus for services
and enforcement. H.R. 3231 allows the separate bureaus to focus on the
distinct missions of providing services and enforcement.
Another core principle to effective reorganization is the
coordination of immigration policy, legal direction, and information
under the authority of a strong executive. Although this legislation
creates a high level position of an Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, this office is not responsible for setting
immigration policy. Policy making is left to the individual bureaus. I
also think offices which should remain at the core of the structure
have been relegated to the service and enforcement bureaus, leading to
duplicity within the overall agency. For example, each bureau
[[Page H1641]]
is to have an Office of Policy and Strategy and each bureau is to have
a Chief Budget Officer. Given this structure, I am not certain that the
Office of the Associate Attorney General will have the authority to
effectively manage and coordinate the functions of these offices and
create a coherent national immigration policy.
Although I am pleased we have made strides toward elevating the
Office of Children's Affairs, I do not think this legislation
adequately addresses the needs of unaccompanied minors. I am
particularly concerned with the conditions under which children will be
detained and held and whether they will have legal representation.
These are children. We must create safeguards to protect them, not
further traumatize them through imprisonment. We must also ensure that
they are appropriately counseled and represented as they navigate our
extremely complicated immigration courts and system. The only thing
this legislation specifies is that the Director of the OCA is
responsible for ``compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually
a state-by-state list of professionals or other entities qualified to
provide guardian and attorney representation services for unaccompanied
alien children.'' How will that benefit an infant or a toddler who can
not speak much less read? I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work
to strengthen this provision and push for language that is reflected in
the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.
I am pleased that there are provisions to create an ombudsman office.
It is essential that immigrants have someone at a high level addressing
concerns and problems they are having with their cases. This office
will also look at systemic problems in the INS structure. Advocates
with whom I work in my district suggested language that would elevate
the level ombudsman and I hope the other body will consider those
suggestions in its deliberations on similar legislation. I believe it
is critical that an ombudsman not be restricted in accomplishing their
job. It may be more effective to remove the office of the Ombudsman
from the entire INS structure, placing it in the Department of Justice.
I am also pleased with provisions that require separate
appropriations for asylum and refugee benefits to be processed. This
will stop the unfair cost shifting that has been occurring where fees
from other INS benefits are being used to adjudicate asylum and refugee
cases. I also understand there will be a study to further investigate
how much services actually cost. I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering that very important amendment to this
bill.
I think it is important that we move to pass legislation to
restructure the INS. We must take steps towards fixing the agency.
While I support this bill, I urge the Senate to work on the concerns I
have raised, and I look forward to seeing a better bill come out of
conference and back to this chamber. I commend all members who have
worked to bring this measure to floor.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that for decades, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been beleaguered with
complaints of mismanagement, ineffective border control and a growing
backlog of immigrant applications and petitions. The events of
September 11th underscored the need for an immigration overhaul. H.R.
3231 is a step in the right direction to improve this institution.
However, unless Congress and the Administration make immigration a
priority and are willing to adequately fund its mission, then this
structural division of INS will not make a difference.
In order for immigration to be successful, the Administration must
support:
The front end of the State Department. From Mexico City to Manila the
consular corps are understaffed and overburdened. As people apply for
entry in the U.S. abroad, we cannot strengthen INS without commensurate
support for the State Dept.
Adequate funding for services and law enforcement measures. Far too
often, INS employees are being asked to do more and more without
sufficient resources. The Federal Government must make it a priority to
provide them with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and
efficiently.
Only when the several agencies involved in immigration--from the
State Dept. to INS--can cooperate and implement a clear, concise, and
consistent mission will immigration control redeem itself from a
history of mismanagement and ineffective border control. I support the
passage of H.R. 3231.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner,
Subcommittee Chairman Gekas and the House Leadership for bringing up
this legislation today to improve and revamp the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), and I am pleased to see that President
Bush is behind the measure.
The United States must do a better job of protecting America's
borders, tracking foreign students and visitors, dealing with illegal
aliens and serving those who are served daily by the INS. Over seven
months have passed since the attacks of September 11, and many of the
loopholes that the terrorists utilized to harm our nation, have not
been addressed.
I am hopeful the President will have the opportunity to sign enhanced
border security legislation regarding student visa reforms, smart card
technology, reform of the visa waiver program, shared databases and
integrated entry-exit data systems. These are good reforms but the
reforms and technology are only as good as the people who administer
the various programs and utilize the technology.
The INS has been a maligned agency that has had major difficulties
implementing visa tracking programs and integrated entry-exit systems.
A recent review by the Department of Justice Inspector General found
that INS officials mismanaged $31 million aimed at automating a visa
tracking system. To this day we are unable to seriously determine who
is in this country at any given time. At the same time it is trying to
address its enforcement procedures, the INS is not properly serving
those who rely on the INS to process their various immigration
documents. The INS has long backlogs of Visa and other petitions. 4.9
million petitions were pending before the INS at the end of September
2001--this is a sevenfold increase since 1993.
The INS on several occasions has attempted to reform itself, but in
the light of the immigration problems associated with the September 11
attacks, internal organizational changes will not work. Long time
supervisors who have resisted change in the past are today not in a
better position to internally reform the INS. While I believe
Commissioner Ziglar is working hard to address the organizational and
morale problems that have plagued the agency, legislation is the only
way to turn the INS in the right direction.
Only legislative restructuring like H.R. 3231 can create two separate
agencies that concentrate on different missions--administering
immigration benefits and enforcing immigration laws. The two new
organizations will have their own budgets and dedicated employees who
will be focused on their own distinct mission. I applaud this
legislation because it will also create a new Ombudsman to monitor and
improve the services side of the agency, create clear chains of
commands at the INS, and eliminate mission overload that is crippling
the agency.
We owe it to the American people to improve our border security,
track who is entering and exiting our country and expedite the process
of timely immigration petitions. H.R. 3231 passed the House Judiciary
Committee with great bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 3231 today.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3231, The
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, important
legislation that makes much-needed reforms to our immigration system.
For years, my immigration caseworker has related to me countless horror
stories about the red tape and inefficiency at the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). That agency has managed to send visa
approval notices to two September 11 hijackers, and at the same time
routinely enormous hurdles in the path of citizens-in-training.
Today's legislation, which will address these many concerns, is the
realization of the hard work and tireless efforts of the late Barbara
Jordan. As chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR),
Barbara Jordan recommended that the Federal immigration system be
fundamentally restructured by, among other things, dismantling the INS.
In 1997, the commission found that the INS suffered from conflicting
priorities and mission overload, and its service and enforcement
missions were incompatible.
More importantly, Barbara Jordan once said that the key to creating a
harmonious society out of so many kinds of people ``is tolerance--the
one value that is indispensable in creating community.'' Here today, we
have the chance to give effect to her recommendations and fundamentally
restructure the INS. Over the past decade, Congress has substantially
increased the budget for the INS--from $1.4 Billion in FY 1992 to $5.6
Billion in FY 2002--in hopes of improving the agency's performance.
However, problems continue to plague the agency, particularly in the
processing of immigration applications, the inability of the agency to
stem the flow of undocumented workers and to track workers, students
and visitors once they arrive in the country.
Many of these problems result from the INS performing dual functions,
holding the responsibility for enforcing immigration laws and
adjudicating applications for non-immigrants and immigrants. Since
1990, when the Commission on Immigration Reform recommended
restructuring the INS, several legislative reform proposals have been
introduced in Congress. One proposal which I co-sponsored, H.R. 3918,
introduced by Representatives Harold Rogers and Silvestre Reyes in the
106th Congress, would have separated the two functions of the INS into
separate agencies. H.R. 3231 builds on that by abolishing the INS and
[[Page H1642]]
replacing it with two separate bureaus--the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The two
bureaus would be under the supervision of an associate attorney
general, who would rank below the attorney general and deputy attorney
general. The measure transfers authority for implementing immigration
law directly to the two bureau directors, and authorizes such sums as
may be necessary to abolish the INS an establish the immigration
service an enforcement bureaus.
Additionally, the measure establishes an Office of Children's
Affairs, which would be responsible for coordinating and implementing
law and policy for unaccompanied alien children who come into the
custody of the Justice Department. Under the measure, the office would
ensure that the interests of unaccompanied children are considered in
the department's care, custody and placement determinations. I am
pleased to note that this provision embodies legislation I am co-
sponsoring, H.R. 1904, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.
This is a long overdue reform. I know in my state of Texas, and in
the city of Houston, the backlog for citizenship applications can last
upwards of 1 year, and adjustment of status--or greencard
applications--have a backlog as long as 3 years or more. I am hopeful
that the funding provided in this bill will address the backlog issue,
which has presented a significant problem for hundreds-of-thousands of
otherwise-eligible immigrants in Texas and across the Nation. Working
with the Administration and my colleagues in the House, I look forward
to enacting thoughtful immigration reforms that maintains the integrity
of the naturalization process, while providing effective safeguards at
our Nation's borders.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me
in support of H.R. 3231, to honor the memory and accomplishments of the
great Barbara Jordan, and to imbue efficiency and structure to our
immigration system.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Barbara Jordan INS Immigration
Reform and Accountability Act, which is supported by the
Administration, provides a long-awaited solution to the problems within
the INS.
At the end of 2001, the INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications
and petitions. With those numbers, no one should be surprised at the
recent mishandling of terrorist visas. In fact, if the INS had been
following their own policies, Mohammed Atta would have never been
allowed even to enter the United States.
For years INS officials have promised reform--but have given us only
talk with no action. This bill will provide that much-needed action.
H.R. 3231 will abolish the INS and replace it with two agencies--one
to handle security and one to handle services. This will not only give
immigration security the attention it deserves, but also will improve
the quality of services provided to immigrants.
No longer will we hear of cases where an immigrant waited in line for
2 days to get a form and was never told that they could obtain it by
simply calling a 1-800 number. No longer will we have student visas
approved six months after the fact for the very terrorists who attacked
our nation. No longer will we have criminal aliens mistakenly or
intentionally released.
We must act before it's too late. Ensuring we have an effective
immigration system is vital to our homeland defense. We must pass this
bill today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.
Therefore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the Ranking Member of the Committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their efforts
in crafting the bipartisan bill before the House today.
Certainly, this Member certainly supports efforts to restructure the
system through which critical immigration functions which are executed
as provided in H.R. 3231. For many years, this Member has argued that
strong immigration policies and well-functioning infrastructure are
necessary to protect U.S. citizens from outbreaks of infectious disease
and from crime, certainly including terrorism. As more information
becomes available about the terrorists who conducted the unspeakable
and horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there is
increasing momentum to revamp the current immigration process.
Despite this Member's support for restructuring, this Member would
like to register his concerns about how immigration resources have been
allocated in the past and how they might be allocated in the future as
restructuring plans are implemented.
Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of the Nebraska and Iowa
congressional delegation, the changing immigration patterns in this
country's heartland often go unexamined by Federal and congressional
authorities. As a result, interior states such as Nebraska do not
receive the resources they need to provide the necessary legal
immigration services and to combat illegal immigration. Therefore, this
Member is concerned that throughout the restructuring process,
immigration resources for both services and enforcement will continue
to be allocated, as some Federal agencies have done, on the basis of
the overall population of a given region and without regard to
geographic circumstances, including the vast regions of some of our
more sparsely settled states. Indeed, this Member requests that the
House apply very careful oversight to any immigration restructuring
measures so that all legal immigrants, regardless of where they live in
the U.S., can access the immigration services they need without having
to travel extraordinary distances. Additionally, this Member request
similar oversight with regard to immigration enforcement resources so
that the tools to enforce immigration policies are available in
interior states, including Nebraska where alien smuggling along
Interstate 80 and other national highways has become far too routine.
Mr. Chairman, this Member also wants to register his very strong
support for the Nebraska Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Currently, the center efficiently and effectively processes over 1.5
million immigration applications and documents each year. In fact, the
center is often called upon to handle special, out-of-region projects
due to its fine record and well-earned reputation for efficiency.
Additionally, due to a well-educated and professional workforce located
in Lincoln, it is able to recruit and retain good employees. (Indeed,
the retention of good employees will be the key to success for the
overall restructuring efforts!) For these reasons, this Member believes
it is critical that, as any immigration restructuring efforts are
implemented, the Nebraska Service Center to remain in Lincoln,
Nebraska.
Again, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3231.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I commend Judiciary Committee Chairman
James Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member John Conyers for their work on
bringing this important bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3231--The Barbara
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002--to the House
floor for consideration.
H.R. 3231 creates a new immigration system. It ensures that terrorist
and illegal immigrants are kept out of our country. For too long our
immigration system has been stuck in the dark ages allowing illegal
immigrants and terrorists to slip silently into our nation. H.R. 3231
recognizes this and requires that Internet-based technologies be
implemented to track immigration applications--technologies that can
alert Americans now, not later when it's already to late, about illegal
and terrorists threats to our liberties and homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, Americans have trusted and been patient with INS for
far too long as they have attempted numerous internal reorganizations--
reorganizations that have obviously not worked. INS's present mission
to both administer immigration benefits and enforce immigration law is
blatantly at odds with each other.
Therefore, today we vote today to abolish the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize
what Americans have already concluded--that American's immigration
system needs a clear chain of command coupled with greater
accountability. America demands an immigration system that secures our
homeland by keeping illegal immigrants and terrorists out, while
offering an efficient process for those legal immigrants coming to
America to start a better life.
H.R. 3231 secures our American principles of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3231, the
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is charged with
enforcing immigration laws, such as deporting criminal or illegal
aliens. It is also charged with processing those who lawfully immigrate
to our country to partake of the American dream. These conflicting
missions under one government agency have resulted in confusion and
inefficiency.
In my home town of Omaha, Nebraska, for example, there is widespread
frustration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
People must wait in long lines for hours on end to be served, and then
wait months or even years for their applications to be processed. Last
year alone, the Nebraska INS received more than fourteen thousand new
immigration applications. At the end of the year it was running a
backlog of almost seven hundred cases. With only three employees
working four days a week, the service problems have not been adequately
resolved.
Border and immigration security is of paramount importance as we
find, arrest, and
[[Page H1643]]
prosecute terrorists in order to protect the American public. On the
other hand, legal immigrants seeking better jobs and family life in
America must be treated with respect. Nationwide problems of law
enforcement are consuming larger and larger portions of the INS budget.
This occurs at the cost of the legal immigrant, who sees less and less
of the INS devoted to service.
When legal immigrants become less important in the eyes of the INS,
they become victims of the process. Law enforcement should not be
funded at the cost of service, and service should not compromise
enforcement of our immigration laws. Dividing these responsibilities by
passing H.R. 3231 is a necessary, common-sense, cost-saving measure. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to improve
homeland defense and protect the American dream.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231.
I am a cosponsor of this bill, which will help us begin to address
chronic and longstanding problems at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. The recent discoveries that the INS processed visa extensions
for two of the dead September 11th hijackers and that INS inspectors
allowed Pakistani seamen to come ashore in Virginia (after which three
of them disappeared) are only two of the latest embarrassments
attributable to INS mismanagement.
I know that efforts to overhaul INS predate my time here in Congress
by several decades. But I'm glad that I'm here to witness the beginning
of this long overdue restructuring. I think we can all agree that an
agency that is expected to wear two distinct hats--one to serve our
immigrant population, and one to watch our borders and enforce
immigration laws--is bound to run into problems. And indeed, the INS
has run into problems wearing both hats simultaneously, especially as
we have asked it to accomplish disparate tasks using the same tools and
the same staff. This bill would change that, and that's why it deserves
support.
H.R. 3231 would effectively abolish the INS as we know it,
establishing separate enforcement and service divisions. But it would
maintain important coordinating functions through a new associate
attorney general for immigration affairs to oversee both bureaus.
I know there are concerns that the coordinating role the bill
establishes won't be strong enough to enable the two bureaus to share
information and work closely together. I also want to ensure that
resource allocation is fair and that the appropriate amount of funding
goes both to adjudication and to enforcement. There are also calls for
the long backlogs at INS to be reduced before any reorganization goes
into effect. There is some merit to these ideas, and I am hopeful that
the version of this bill that emerges from House and Senate
consideration will address them and any other concerns about the bill
that might arise. At the same time, I think it's important we pass this
bill now. We need to send a strong message that the days of the INS as
we know it are over, and that soon there will be changes for the
better--both in how immigrants are served, and in how we enforce
immigration laws that are already on the books.
Mr. Chairman, passage of this bill today is yet another step the
House has taken in the months after September 11th to try to fix a
system that doesn't work as well as it should. Other steps we have
taken include passing H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act, a bill I supported to strengthen U.S. border controls
and to improve our ability to screen and keep track of those who enter
this country. That bill would also allow those who already quality for
immigration because of their family or employer ties to complete the
process in the U.S. Also known as Section 245(i), this provision does
not grant an amnesty, give immigrants the right to work, or protect
them from deportation if they are living in the U.S. illegally. What it
does do is keep families together and encourage those who qualify for
permanent residency to continue filling an economic need and to become
part of a regulated system.
Restructuring the INS--as H.R. 3231 would do--is just one part of
comprehensive immigration reform. Strengthening our border security
mechanisms is another. A third part involves modernizing our
immigration laws to be enforceable as well as responsive to our
country's labor needs. This is where some of the toughest decisions
will lie. The Administration and the Congress need to work together to
find workable and sound answers for some of these broader issues--such
as determining whether our legal immigration levels are sustainable;
figuring out how best to stem illegal immigration, both for security
reasons and to ensure that American workers are not displaced; and
addressing questions about the status of people already in this
country.
The challenge we face is to implement measures that will make our
country more secure without turning away from our tradition as a nation
of immigrants. I support H.R. 3231 because I believe this bill will
begin to take us in this direction.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 3231
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Barbara
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Abolishment of Immigration and Naturalization Service;
establishment of Office of Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs.
Sec. 3. Positions within Office of Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
Sec. 5. Office of the Ombudsman.
Sec. 6. Establishment of Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
Sec. 7. Office of Immigration Statistics within Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Sec. 8. Exercise of authorities.
Sec. 9. Savings provisions.
Sec. 10. Transfer and allocation of appropriations and personnel.
Sec. 11. Authorization of appropriations; prohibition on transfer of
fees; leasing or acquisition of property; sense of
Congress.
Sec. 12. Reports and implementation plans.
Sec. 13. Application of Internet-based technologies.
Sec. 14. Definitions.
Sec. 15. Effective date; transition.
Sec. 16. Conforming amendment.
SEC. 2. ABOLISHMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE; ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS.
(a) Abolishment of INS.--The Immigration and Naturalization
Service of the Department of Justice is abolished.
(b) Establishment of Office of Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Justice an office to be known as the ``Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs''.
(2) Associate attorney general.--The head of the Office
shall be the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs. The Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs--
(A) shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
consent of the Senate; and
(B) shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience in
managing a large and complex organization.
(3) Compensation at level iii of executive schedule.--
Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.''.
(c) Functions.--The Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs shall be responsible for--
(1) overseeing the work of, and supervising, the Director
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement;
(2) coordinating the administration of national immigration
policy, including coordinating the operations of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, and reconciling conflicting policies
of such bureaus; and
(3) allocating and coordinating resources involved in
supporting shared support functions for the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, through the Office of Shared
Services established by section 3.
SEC. 3. POSITIONS WITHIN OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS.
(a) Policy Advisor.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Policy
Advisor for the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs.
(2) Functions.--The Policy Advisor shall be responsible
for--
(A) providing advice to the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs on all matters relating to immigration
and naturalization policy; and
(B) coordinating and reconciling the resolution of policy
issues by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
(b) General Counsel.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of General
Counsel to the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs.
(2) Functions.--The General Counsel shall serve as the
principal legal advisor to the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs. The General Counsel shall be responsible
for--
(A) providing specialized legal advice, opinions,
determinations, regulations, and any other assistance to the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs with
respect to legal matters
[[Page H1644]]
affecting the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement;
(B) representing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services in visa petition appeal proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review and in other legal or
administrative proceedings involving immigration services
issues; and
(C) representing the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement in
all exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, including in
proceedings to adjudicate relief from exclusion, deportation,
or removal, and in other legal or administrative proceedings
involving immigration enforcement issues.
(3) Limitation.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to the
functions transferred under subsection (h) to the extent that
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs does
not delegate such functions to the General Counsel.
(c) Chief Financial Officer.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief
Financial Officer for the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs.
(2) Functions.--The Chief Financial Officer shall be
responsible for--
(A) financial management of the Office of the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement and shall have the authorities and
functions described in section 902 of title 31, United States
Code, in relation to financial activities of such office and
bureaus;
(B) collecting all payments, fines, and other debts for the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Immigration Enforcement; and
(C) coordinating all budget and other financial management
issues with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
(d) Director of Shared Services.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Director of
the Office of Shared Services for the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs.
(2) Functions.--The Director of the Office of Shared
Services shall be responsible for the appropriate allocation
and coordination of resources involved in supporting shared
support functions for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement, including--
(A) facilities management;
(B) information resources management, including computer
databases and information technology;
(C) records and file management; and
(D) forms management.
(e) Office of the Ombudsman.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--There is established in the Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an office
to be known as the ``Office of the Ombudsman''.
(B) Ombudsman.--
(i) In general.--The Office of the Ombudsman shall be under
the supervision and direction of an official to be known as
the ``Ombudsman''. The Ombudsman shall report directly to the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.
(ii) Qualifications.--The Ombudsman shall have a background
in customer service as well as immigration law.
(2) Functions of office.--The Ombudsman shall perform the
functions described in section 5.
(f) Office of Professional Responsibility and Quality
Review.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an office
to be known as the ``Office of Professional Responsibility
and Quality Review''. The head of the Office of Professional
Responsibility and Quality Review shall be the Director of
the Office of Professional Responsibility and Quality Review.
The Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility and
Quality Review shall be responsible for--
(A) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of
misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of
the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
or the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that are not subject
to investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the
Inspector General;
(B) inspecting the operations of the Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and providing assessments
of the quality of the operations of such office and bureaus
as a whole and each of their components; and
(C) providing an analysis of the management of the Office
of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs,
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
(2) Special considerations.--In providing assessments in
accordance with paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a decision
of the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement, or any of their components, consideration shall
be given to--
(A) the accuracy of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law used in rendering the decision;
(B) any fraud or misrepresentation associated with the
decision; and
(C) the efficiency with which the decision was rendered.
(g) Office of Children's Affairs.--
(1) In general.--There is established within the Office of
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an
office to be known as the ``Office of Children's Affairs''.
The head of the Office of Children's Affairs shall be the
Director of the Office of Children's Affairs.
(2) Functions.--
(A) In general.--The Director of the Office of Children's
Affairs shall be responsible for--
(i) coordinating and implementing law and policy for
unaccompanied alien children who come into the custody of the
Department of Justice;
(ii) ensuring that the interests of the child are
considered in decisions and actions relating to the care and
custody of an unaccompanied alien child;
(iii) making placement determinations for all unaccompanied
alien children apprehended by the Attorney General or who
otherwise come into the custody of the Department of Justice;
(iv) implementing the placement determinations made by the
Office;
(v) implementing policies with respect to the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children;
(vi) identifying a sufficient number of qualified
individuals, entities, and facilities to house unaccompanied
alien children;
(vii) overseeing the infrastructure and personnel of
facilities in which unaccompanied alien children reside;
(viii) reuniting unaccompanied alien children with a parent
abroad in appropriate cases;
(ix) compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually
a state-by-state list of professionals or other entities
qualified to provide guardian and attorney representation
services for unaccompanied alien children;
(x) maintaining statistical information and other data on
unaccompanied alien children in the Office's custody and
care, which shall include--
(I) biographical information, such as a child's name,
gender, date of birth, country of birth, and country of
habitual residence;
(II) the date on which the child came into the custody of
the Department of Justice;
(III) information relating to the child's placement,
removal, or release from each facility in which the child has
resided;
(IV) in any case in which the child is placed in detention
or released, an explanation relating to the detention or
release; and
(V) the disposition of any actions in which the child is
the subject;
(xi) collecting and compiling statistical information from
the Office of the Associate Attorney General, Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Bureau of
Enforcement (including Border Patrol and inspections
officers), on the unaccompanied alien children with whom they
come into contact; and
(xii) conducting investigations and inspections of
facilities and other entities in which unaccompanied alien
children reside.
(B) Coordination with other entities; no release on own
recognizance.--In making determinations described in
subparagraph (A)(iii), the Director of the Office of
Children's Affairs--
(i) shall consult with appropriate juvenile justice
professionals, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement to ensure that such determinations
ensure that unaccompanied alien children described in such
subparagraph--
(I) are likely to appear for all hearings or proceedings in
which they are involved;
(II) are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others
who might seek to victimize or otherwise engage them in
criminal, harmful, or exploitive activity; and
(III) are placed in a setting in which they not likely to
pose a danger to themselves or others; and
(ii) shall not release such children upon their own
recognizance.
(C) Transfer of functions.--There are transferred to the
Director of the Office of Children's Affairs functions with
respect to the care of unaccompanied alien children under the
immigration laws of the United States vested by statute in,
or performed by, the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (or any officer, employee, or
component thereof), immediately before the effective date
specified in section 15(a).
(D) Duties with respect to foster care.--In carrying out
the duties described in subparagraph (A)(vii), the Director
of the Office of Children's Affairs shall assess the extent
to which it is cost-effective to use the refugee children
foster care system for the placement of unaccompanied alien
children.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to transfer the responsibility for adjudicating
benefit determinations under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) from the authority of any
official of the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement,
the Executive Office of Immigration Review, or the Department
of State.
(4) Definition.--As used in this subsection--
(A) the term ``placement'' means the placement of an
unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or
an alternative to such a facility; and
(B) the term ``unaccompanied alien child'' means a child
who--
(i) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(ii) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(iii) with respect to whom--
(I) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United
States; or
(II) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is
available to provide care and physical custody.
(h) Transfer of Functions of Office of Immigration
Litigation.--There are transferred
[[Page H1645]]
from the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, to the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs all
functions performed by the Office of Immigration Litigation,
and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to
the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, in support of
such functions, immediately before the effective date
specified in section 15(a). The Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs may, in the Associate Attorney
General's discretion, charge the General Counsel to the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs with such
functions.
(i) Employee Discipline for Willful Deceit.--The Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs may, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, impose disciplinary action,
including termination of employment, pursuant to policies and
procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, on any employee of the Office of the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement who willfully deceives the Congress
or agency leadership on any matter.
(j) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the
effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs or any other
official whose functions are described in this section, any
reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule,
regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of or
pertaining to a component of government from which such
function is transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Office of
the Associate Attorney for Immigration Affairs.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Justice a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services''.
(2) Director.--The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services shall be the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, who--
(A) shall report directly to the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs; and
(B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional
experience in the rendering of adjudications on the provision
of government benefits or services, at least 5 of which shall
have been years of service in a managerial capacity or in a
position affording comparable management experience.
(3) Functions.--The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are transferred to the Director by this section
or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies;
(C) shall advise the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs with respect to any policy or operation
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that
may affect the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, including
potentially conflicting policies or operations;
(D) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman to correct
serious service problems identified by the Ombudsman; and
(E) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response
to any recommendations submitted in the Ombudsman's annual
report to the Congress within 3 months after its submission
to the Congress.
(4) Student visa programs.--The Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall designate an
official to be responsible for administering student visa
programs and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System established under section 641 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1372), and successor programs and systems, until
September 30, 2004. The Director may continue such policy
after September 30, 2004, at the Director's discretion. The
Director shall provide any information collected by the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that is
necessary for the performance of the functions of the Bureau
of Immigration Enforcement.
(b) Transfer of Functions From Commissioner.--There are
transferred from the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services the following functions,
and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to
the Commissioner in support of such functions immediately
before the effective date specified in section 15(a):
(1) Adjudications of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa
petitions.
(2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions.
(3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications.
(4) Adjudications performed at service centers.
(5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service immediately before the effective
date specified in section 15(a).
(c) Office of Policy and Strategy.--There is established in
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services an office
to be known as the ``Office of Policy and Strategy''. The
head of the Office of Policy and Strategy shall be the Chief
of the Office of Policy and Strategy. In consultation with
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel in
field offices, the Chief of the Office of Policy and Strategy
shall be responsible for--
(1) establishing national immigration services policies and
priorities;
(2) performing policy research and analysis on immigration
services issues; and
(3) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of the Office of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement and the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs through the Policy Advisor for the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, as
appropriate.
(d) Legal Advisor.--There may be a position of Legal
Advisor for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(e) Chief Budget Officer for Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.--There shall be a position of Chief
Budget Officer for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services. The Chief Budget Officer shall be responsible for
formulating and executing the budget of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Chief Budget
Officer shall report to the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and shall provide
information to, and coordinate resolution of relevant issues
with, the Chief Financial Officer for the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs.
(f) Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public
Affairs.--There is established in the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services an office to be known as the
``Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public
Affairs''. The head of such office shall be the Chief of the
Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public
Affairs. The Chief shall be responsible for--
(1) providing information relating to immigration services
to the Congress, including information on specific cases
relating to immigration services;
(2) serving as a liaison with other Federal agencies on
immigration services issues; and
(3) responding to inquiries from the media and general
public on immigration services issues.
(g) Office of Citizenship.--There is established in the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services an office to
be known as the ``Office of Citizenship''. The head of such
office shall be the Chief of the Office of Citizenship. The
Chief shall be responsible for promoting instruction and
training on citizenship responsibilities for aliens
interested in becoming naturalized citizens of the United
States, including the development of educational materials.
(h) Sectors.--Headed by sector directors, and located in
appropriate geographic locations, sectors of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be responsible for
directing all aspects of the operations of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services within their assigned
geographic areas of activity. Sector directors shall provide
general guidance and supervision to the field offices of the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within their
sectors.
(i) Field Offices.--Headed by field directors, who may be
assisted by deputy field directors, field offices of the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be
responsible for assisting the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the
Director's functions. Field directors shall be subject to the
general supervision and direction of their respective sector
director, except that field directors outside of the United
States shall be subject to the general supervision and
direction of the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services. All field directors shall remain
accountable to, and receive their authority from, the
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, in order to ensure consistent application and
implementation of policies nationwide.
(j) Service Centers.--Headed by service center directors,
service centers of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services shall be responsible for assisting the Director of
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in
carrying out the Director's functions that can be effectively
carried out at remote locations. Service center directors are
subject to the general supervision and direction of their
respective sector director, except that all service center
directors shall remain accountable to, and receive their
authority from, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, in order to ensure consistent
application and implementation of policies nationwide.
(k) Transfer and Removal.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services may, in the Director's discretion,
transfer or remove any sector director, field director, or
service center director.
(l) Mission.--It shall be the mission of the field offices
and service centers of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services to directly and consistently follow all
instructions and guidelines of the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs in order to ensure
the development of a cohesive and consistent national
immigration policy.
(m) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the
effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Director of
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, any
reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule,
regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of or
pertaining to a component of government from which such
function is transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
SEC. 5. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
(a) Functions.--It shall be the function of the Office of
the Ombudsman established under section 3--
[[Page H1646]]
(1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving
problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services;
(2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers
have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services;
(3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the
administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services to mitigate problems identified under
paragraph (2); and
(4) to identify potential legislative changes that may be
appropriate to mitigate such problems.
(b) Annual Reports.--
(1) Objectives.--Not later than June 30 of each calendar
year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
the Senate on the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman
for the fiscal year beginning in such calendar year. Any such
report shall contain full and substantive analysis, in
addition to statistical information, and--
(A) shall identify the initiatives the Office of the
Ombudsman has taken on improving services and responsiveness
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and
serious problems encountered by individuals and employers,
including a description of the nature of such problems;
(C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been taken and
the result of such action;
(D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to be
completed and the period during which each item has remained
on such inventory;
(E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action has been taken,
the period during which each item has remained on such
inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify
any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services who is responsible for such inaction;
(F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative
and legislative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems encountered by individuals and employers,
including problems created by excessive backlogs in the
adjudication and processing of immigration benefit
petitions and applications; and
(G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman
may deem advisable.
(2) Report to be submitted directly.--Each report required
under this subsection shall be provided directly to the
committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior
review or comment from the Attorney General, Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, any other officer
or employee of the Department of Justice or the Office of
Management and Budget.
(c) Other Responsibilities.--The Ombudsman--
(1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of
local offices of the Ombudsman;
(2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all
officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of
inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;
(3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each
local office of the Ombudsman is published and available to
individuals and employers served by the office; and
(4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious
service problems and to present recommendations for such
administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems encountered by individuals and employers.
(d) Personnel Actions.--
(1) In general.--The Ombudsman shall have the
responsibility and authority--
(A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least
1 such ombudsman for each State; and
(B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including
dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local office
of the Ombudsman.
(2) Consultation.--The Ombudsman may consult with the
appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the
Ombudsman's responsibilities under this subsection.
(e) Responsibilities of Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.--The Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish
procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations
submitted to such director by the Ombudsman within 3 months
after submission to such director.
(f) Operation of Local Offices.--
(1) In general.--Each local ombudsman--
(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;
(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
regarding the daily operation of the local office of such
ombudsman;
(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or
employer seeking the assistance of such local office, notify
such individual or employer that the local offices of the
Ombudsman operate independently of any other component in the
Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs and report directly to the Congress through the
Ombudsman; and
(D) at the local ombudsman's discretion, may determine not
to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services contact with, or information provided by, such
individual or employer.
(2) Maintenance of independent communications.--Each local
office of the Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile,
and other means of electronic communication access, and a
post office address, that is separate from those maintained
by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any
component of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Justice a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement''.
(2) Director.--The head of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement shall be the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, who--
(A) shall report directly to the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs; and
(B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional
experience in law enforcement, at least 5 of which shall have
been years of service in a managerial capacity.
(3) Functions.--The Director of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are transferred to the Director by this section
or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies; and
(C) shall advise the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs with respect to any policy or operation
of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that may affect the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, including
potentially conflicting policies or operations.
(b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred from the
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
the Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement all
functions performed under the following programs, and all
personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the
Commissioner in support of such programs immediately before
the effective date specified in section 15(a):
(1) The Border Patrol program.
(2) The detention and removal program.
(3) The intelligence program.
(4) The investigations program.
(5) The inspections program.
(c) Office of Policy and Strategy.--There is established in
the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement an office to be known
as the ``Office of Policy and Strategy''. The head of the
Office of Policy and Strategy shall be the Chief of the
Office of Policy and Strategy. In consultation with Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement personnel in field offices, the Chief
of the Office of Policy and Strategy shall be responsible
for--
(1) establishing national immigration enforcement policies
and priorities;
(2) performing policy research and analysis on immigration
enforcement issues; and
(3) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of the Office of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs through the Policy
Advisor for the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, as appropriate.
(d) Legal Advisor.--There may be a position of Legal
Advisor for the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
(e) Chief Budget Officer for the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement.--There shall be a position of Chief Budget
Officer for the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The Chief
Budget Officer shall be responsible for formulating and
executing the budget of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement. The Chief Budget Officer shall report to the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and
shall provide information to, and coordinate resolution of
relevant issues with, the Chief Financial Officer for the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.
(f) Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public
Affairs.--There is established in the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement an office to be known as the ``Office of
Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs''. The
head of such office shall be the Chief of the Office of
Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs. The
Chief shall be responsible for--
(1) providing information relating to immigration
enforcement to the Congress, including information on
specific cases relating to immigration enforcement;
(2) serving as a liaison with other Federal agencies on
immigration enforcement issues; and
(3) responding to inquiries from the media and the general
public on immigration enforcement issues.
(g) Sectors.--Headed by sector directors, and located in
appropriate geographic locations, sectors of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement shall be responsible for directing
all aspects of the operations of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement within their assigned geographic areas of
activity. Sector directors shall provide general guidance and
supervision to the field offices of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement within their sectors.
(h) Field Offices.--Headed by field directors, who may be
assisted by deputy field directors, field offices of the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement shall be responsible for
assisting the Director of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement in carrying out the Director's functions. Field
directors shall be subject to the general supervision and
direction of their respective sector director, except that
field directors outside of the United States shall be subject
to the general supervision and direction of the Director of
the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. All field directors
shall remain accountable to, and receive their authority
from, the Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement,
in order to ensure consistent application and implementation
of policies nationwide. There shall be a field office of the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement situated in at least every
location where there is situated a field office of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
[[Page H1647]]
(i) Border Patrol Sectors.--Headed by chief patrol agents,
who may be assisted by deputy chief patrol agents, border
patrol sectors of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement shall
be responsible for the enforcement of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other laws
relating to immigration and naturalization within their
assigned geographic areas of activity, unless any such power
and authority is required to be exercised by higher authority
or has been exclusively delegated to another immigration
official or class of immigration officer. Chief patrol agents
are subject to the general supervision and direction of their
respective sector director, except that they shall remain
accountable to, and receive their authority from, the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, in order
to ensure consistent application and implementation of
policies nationwide.
(j) Transfer and Removal.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Director of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement may, in the Director's discretion, transfer or
remove any sector director, field director, or chief patrol
officer.
(k) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the
effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Director of
the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, any reference in any
other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, or
delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to
a component of government from which such function is
transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement.
SEC. 7. OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS WITHIN BUREAU OF
JUSTICE STATISTICS.
(a) In General.--Part C of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3731 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``office of immigration statistics
``Sec. 305. (a) There is established within the Bureau of
Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice an Office of
Immigration Statistics (in this section referred to as the
`Office'), which shall be headed by a Director who shall be
appointed by the Attorney General and who shall report to the
Director of Justice Statistics.
``(b) The Director of the Office shall be responsible for
the following:
``(1) Maintenance of all immigration statistical
information of the Office of the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Such
statistical information shall include information and
statistics of the type contained in the publication entitled
`Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service' prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (as in effect on the day prior to the effective date
specified in section 15(a) of the Barbara Jordan Immigration
Reform and Accountability Act of 2002).
``(2) Establishment of standards of reliability and
validity for immigration statistics collected by the Office
of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs,
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review.
``(c) The Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review shall provide
statistical information to the Office of Immigration
Statistics from the operational data systems controlled by
the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, respectively, for the purpose
of meeting the responsibilities of the Director.''.
(b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the
Office of Immigration Statistics established under section
305 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, as added by subsection (a), the functions performed by
the Statistics Branch of the Office of Policy and Planning of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service on the day before
the effective date specified in section 15(a).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 302(c) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3732(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (22);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) collect, maintain, compile, analyze, publish, and
disseminate information and statistics about immigration in
the United States, including information and statistics
involving the functions of the Office of the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive Office for
Immigration Review.''.
SEC. 8. EXERCISE OF AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by law, a
Federal official to whom a function is transferred by this
Act may, for purposes of performing the function, exercise
all authorities under any other provision of law that were
available with respect to the performance of that function to
the official responsible for the performance of the function
immediately before the effective date specified in section
15(a).
(b) Preservation of Attorney General's Authority.--
(1) In general.--Any function for which this Act vests
responsibility in an official other than the Attorney
General, or which is transferred by this Act to such an
official, may, notwithstanding any provision of this Act, be
performed by the Attorney General, or the Attorney General's
delegate, in lieu of such official.
(2) References.--In a case in which the Attorney General
performs a function described in paragraph (1), any reference
in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation,
document, or delegation of authority to the official
otherwise responsible for the function is deemed to refer to
the Attorney General.
(c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to preclude or limit in any way the powers,
authorities, or duties of the Secretary of State and special
agents of the Department of State and the Foreign Service
under the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22
U.S.C. 2651 note), the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), or any other Act, to investigate
illegal passport or visa issuance or use.
SEC. 9. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) Legal Documents.--All orders, determinations, rules,
regulations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, agreements,
recognition of labor organizations, certificates, licenses,
and privileges--
(1) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to
become effective by the President, the Attorney General, the
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
their delegates, or any other Government official, or by a
court of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of any
function that is transferred by this Act; and
(2) that are in effect on the effective date of such
transfer (or become effective after such date pursuant to
their terms as in effect on such effective date),
shall continue in effect according to their terms until
modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by the President, any other authorized
official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of
law.
(b) Proceedings.--Sections 4 and 6 and this section shall
not affect any proceedings or any application for any
benefit, service, license, permit, certificate, or financial
assistance pending on the effective date specified in section
15(a) before an office whose functions are transferred by
this Act, but such proceedings and applications shall be
continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings,
appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made
pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted,
and orders issued in any such proceeding shall continue in
effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by
a duly authorized official, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in this section
shall be considered to prohibit the discontinuance or
modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and
conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could
have been discontinued or modified if this section had not
been enacted.
(c) Suits.--This Act shall not affect suits commenced
before the effective date specified in section 15(a), and in
all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and
judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same
effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
(d) Nonabatement of Actions.--No suit, action, or other
proceeding commenced by or against the Department of Justice
or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or by or
against any individual in the official capacity of such
individual as an officer or employee in connection with a
function transferred by this Act, shall abate by reason of
the enactment of this Act.
(e) Continuance of Suits.--If any Government officer in the
official capacity of such officer is party to a suit with
respect to a function of the officer, and under this Act (or
an amendment made by this Act) such function is transferred
to any other officer or office, then such suit shall be
continued with the other officer or the head of such other
office, as applicable, substituted or added as a party.
(f) Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review.--Except
as otherwise provided by this Act, any statutory requirements
relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or
administrative or judicial review that apply to any function
transferred by this Act shall apply to the exercise of such
function by the head of the office, and other officers of the
office, to which such function is transferred by this Act.
SEC. 10. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND
PERSONNEL.
(a) In General.--The personnel of the Department of Justice
employed in connection with the functions transferred by this
Act (and functions that the Attorney General determines are
properly related to the functions of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement and would, if transferred, further
the purposes of the bureau to which the function is
transferred), and the assets, liabilities, contracts,
property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held,
used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Office of
Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division in connection
with the functions transferred by this Act, subject to
section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of
1950, shall be transferred to the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs for allocation to the appropriate
component or bureau. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to
this subsection shall be used only for the purposes for which
the funds were originally authorized and appropriated. The
Attorney General shall have the
[[Page H1648]]
right to adjust or realign transfers of funds and personnel
effected pursuant to this Act for a period of 2 years after
the effective date specified in section 15(a).
(b) Delegation and Assignment.--Except as otherwise
expressly prohibited by law or otherwise provided in this
Act, of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, the person to whom functions are
transferred under this Act may delegate any of the functions
so transferred to such officers and employees of the Office
of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs,
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, respectively, as the
person may designate, and may authorize successive
redelegations of such functions as may be necessary or
appropriate. No delegation of functions under this subsection
or under any other provision of this Act shall relieve the
official to whom a function is transferred under this Act of
responsibility for the administration of the function.
(c) Authorities of Attorney General.--The Attorney General
(or a delegate of the Attorney General), at such time or
times as the Attorney General (or the delegate) shall
provide, may make such determinations as may be necessary
with regard to the functions transferred by this Act, and may
make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel,
assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations,
allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from,
available to, or to be made available in connection with such
functions, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act. The Attorney General shall provide for such further
measures and dispositions as may be necessary to effectuate
the purposes of this Act.
(d) Databases.--The Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs shall ensure that the databases of the
Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs and those of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement are integrated with the databases of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review in such a way as to
permit--
(1) the electronic docketing of each case by date of
service upon the alien of the notice to appear in the case of
a removal proceeding (or an order to show cause in the case
of a deportation proceeding, or a notice to alien in the case
of an exclusion proceeding); and
(2) the tracking of the status of any alien throughout the
alien's contact with United States immigration authorities,
without regard to whether the entity with jurisdiction over
the alien is the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, or the
Executive Office for Immigration Review.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROHIBITION ON
TRANSFER OF FEES; LEASING OR ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Transition.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to effect the abolition of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the establishment of
the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and their
components, and the transfers of functions required to be
made under this Act (and the amendments made by this Act),
and to carry out any other duty related to the reorganization
of the immigration and naturalization functions that is made
necessary by this Act (or any such amendment).
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated under
paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
(3) Transition account.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established in the general
fund of the Treasury of the United States a separate account,
which shall be known as the ``Immigration Reorganization
Transition Account'' (in this paragraph referred to as the
``Account'').
(B) Use of account.--There shall be deposited into the
Account all amounts appropriated under paragraph (1).
(C) Advanced availability of funds.--To the extent provided
in appropriations Acts, funds in the Account shall be
available for expenditure before the effective date specified
in section 15(a).
(b) Separation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--There shall be established separate
accounts in the Treasury of the United States for
appropriated funds and other deposits available for the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Immigration Enforcement.
(2) Separate budgets.--To ensure that the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement are funded to the extent necessary to
fully carry out their respective functions, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall separate the budget
requests for each such entity.
(3) Fees.--Fees imposed for a particular service,
application, or benefit shall be deposited into the account
established under paragraph (1) that is for the bureau with
jurisdiction over the function to which the fee relates.
(4) Fees not transferable.--No fee may be transferred
between the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement for purposes not
authorized by section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1356).
(5) Establishment of fees for adjudication and
naturalization services.--Section 286(m) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by striking
``services, including the costs of similar services provided
without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants.''
and inserting ``services.''.
(6) Authorization of appropriations for refugee and asylum
adjudications.--There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
sections 207 through 209 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157-1159). All funds appropriated under this
paragraph shall be deposited into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account established under section 286(m)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m))
and shall remain available until expended.
(c) Leasing or Acquisition of Property.--Notwithstanding
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), the Attorney General is authorized
to expend, from the appropriation provided for the
administration and enforcement of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), such amounts as may
be necessary for the leasing or acquisition of property in
the fulfillment of establishing the Office of the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement under this Act.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the missions of the Office of the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement are equally important and, accordingly, they each
should be adequately funded; and
(2) the functions of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs described in section 3, the immigration
adjudication and service functions referred to in section 4,
and the immigration enforcement functions referred to in
section 6 should not operate at levels below that in
existence prior to the enactment of this Act.
(e) Elimination of Limitation on Expenditures for Backlog
Reduction.--Section 204(b) of the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (4).
SEC. 12. REPORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
(a) Division of Funds.--The Attorney General, not later
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
of the Senate a report on the proposed division and transfer
of funds, including unexpended funds, appropriations, and
fees, among the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement.
(b) Division of Personnel.--The Attorney General, not later
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
of the Senate a report on the proposed division of personnel
among the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement.
(c) Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6
months thereafter until the termination of fiscal year 2005,
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
of the Senate an implementation plan to carry out this Act.
(2) Contents.--The implementation plan should include
details concerning the separation of the Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, including the following:
(A) Organizational structure, including the field
structure.
(B) Chain of command.
(C) Procedures for interaction among such office and
bureaus.
(D) Procedures for the Director of Shared Services to
perform all shared support functions, including authorizing
the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Director of the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement to approve training curricula and to acquire such
supplies and equipment as may be necessary to perform the
daily operations of that director's bureau.
(E) Procedures to establish separate accounts and financial
management systems for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement, and to implement all provisions of section
11(b).
(F) Fraud detection and investigation.
(G) The processing and handling of removal proceedings,
including expedited removal and applications for relief from
removal.
(H) Recommendations for conforming amendments to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(I) Establishment of a transition team.
(J) Ways to phase in the costs of separating the
administrative support systems of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in order to provide for separate
administrative support systems for the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement in instances where separate systems are more
efficient or effective.
(d) Report on Improving Immigration Services.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall
submit to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations
of the United
[[Page H1649]]
States House of Representatives and of the Senate a report
containing a plan for how the Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services will complete
efficiently, fairly, and within a reasonable time, the
adjudications described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of
section 4(b).
(2) Contents.--For each type of adjudication to be
undertaken by the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the report shall include the following:
(A) Any potential savings of resources that may be
implemented without affecting the quality of the
adjudication.
(B) The goal for processing time with respect to the
application.
(C) Any statutory modifications with respect to the
adjudication that the Attorney General considers advisable.
(3) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State,
the Secretary of Labor, the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, and the Director of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review to determine how to streamline
and improve the process for applying for and making
adjudications described in section 4(b) and related
processes.
(e) Report on Improving Enforcement Function.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary
of the United States House of Representatives and of the
Senate a report with a plan detailing how the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, after the transfer of functions
performed under the programs described in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of section 6(b), will enforce comprehensively,
effectively, and fairly all the enforcement provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.) relating to such programs.
(2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State,
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the
Commissioner of Social Security, the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs, the Director of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the heads of
State and local law enforcement agencies to determine how to
most effectively conduct enforcement operations.
(f) Report on Shared Services.--The Attorney General, not
later than 3 years after the effective date specified in
section 15(a), shall submit to the Committees on the
Judiciary and Appropriations of the United States House of
Representatives and of the Senate a report on whether the
Director of Shared Services is properly serving the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement. The report should address whether it
would be more efficient to transfer one or more of the
functions described in section 3 to the Director of the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services or the
Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and shall
include an estimate of the cost of any such transfer that the
Attorney General recommends. The report should also address
whether it would be more efficient to transfer one or more of
the functions described in sections 4 and 6 to the Office of
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, and
shall include an estimate of the cost of any such transfer
that the Attorney General recommends.
(g) Comptroller General Studies and Reports.--
(1) Status reports on transition.--Not later than 18 months
after the effective date specified in section 15(a), and
every 6 months thereafter, until full implementation of this
Act has been completed, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and
on the Judiciary of the United States House of
Representatives and the Senate a report containing the
following:
(A) A determination of whether the transfers of functions
made by sections 4 and 6 have been completed, and if a
transfer of functions has not taken place, identifying the
reasons why the transfer has not taken place.
(B) If the transfers of functions made by sections 4 and 6
have been completed, an identification of any issues that
have arisen due to the completed transfers.
(C) An identification of any issues that may arise due to
any future transfer of functions.
(2) Report on management.--Not later than 4 years after the
effective date specified in section 15(a), the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations and on the Judiciary of the United States
House of Representatives and the Senate a report, following a
study, containing the following:
(A) Determinations of whether the transfer of functions
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement, and the transfer of functions from
the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Office of
Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division to the Office of
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, under
this Act have improved, with respect to each function
transferred, the following:
(i) Operations.
(ii) Management, including accountability and
communication.
(iii) Financial administration.
(iv) Recordkeeping, including information management and
technology.
(B) A statement of the reasons for the determinations under
subparagraph (A).
(C) Any recommendations for further improvements to the
Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
(h) Report on Interior Checkpoints.--Not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report on
whether all permanent interior checkpoints operated by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service ought to be closed,
and the funds that otherwise would be expended for the
operation of such checkpoints ought to be reallocated for
protecting and maintaining the integrity of the borders of
the United States and increasing enforcement at other points
of entry into the United States.
(i) Report on Responding to Fluctuating Needs.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report on
changes in law, including changes in authorizations of
appropriations and in appropriations, that are needed to
permit the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and, after
the effective date specified in section 15(a), the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, to ensure a prompt and
timely response to emergent, unforeseen, or impending changes
in the number of applications for immigration benefits, and
otherwise to ensure the accommodation of changing immigration
service needs.
SEC. 13. APPLICATION OF INTERNET-BASED TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Establishment of Tracking System.--The Attorney
General, not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in consultation with the Technology
Advisory Committee established under subsection (c), shall
establish an Internet-based system, that will permit a
person, employer, immigrant, or nonimmigrant who has filings
with the Attorney General for any benefit under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.), access to online information about the processing
status of the filing involved.
(b) Feasibility Study for Online Filing and Improved
Processing.--
(1) Online filing.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Technology Advisory Committee established under
subsection (c), shall conduct a feasibility study on the
online filing of the filings described in subsection (a). The
study shall include a review of computerization and
technology of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
relating to the immigration services and processing of
filings related to immigrant services. The study shall also
include an estimate of the timeframe and cost and shall
consider other factors in implementing such a filing system,
including the feasibility of fee payment online.
(2) Report.--A report on the study under this subsection
shall be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives and the Senate not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Technology Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish,
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, an advisory committee (in this section referred to
as the ``Technology Advisory Committee'') to assist the
Attorney General in--
(A) establishing the tracking system under subsection (a);
and
(B) conducting the study under subsection (b).
The Technology Advisory Committee shall be established after
consultation with the Committees on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives and the Senate.
(2) Composition.--The Technology Advisory Committee shall
be composed of representatives from high technology companies
capable of establishing and implementing the system in an
expeditious manner, and representatives of persons who may
use the tracking system described in subsection (a) and the
online filing system described in subsection (b)(1).
SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``function'' includes any duty, obligation,
power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, activity,
or program.
(2) The term ``office'' includes any office,
administration, agency, bureau, institute, council, unit,
organizational entity, or component thereof.
SEC. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION.
(a) In General.--The abolishment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the establishment of the Office of
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, the transfers of functions
specified under this Act, and the amendments made by this
Act, shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act. The Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of
Immigration Enforcement shall be appointed not later than
such effective date. To the extent that functions to be
transferred to such persons under this Act continue to be
performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division
during fiscal year 2003, the Attorney General shall provide
for an appropriate accounting of funds and an appropriate
transfer of funds appropriated to such entities to the
appropriate component of the Office of the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement.
(b) Transition Period for Certain Bureau Functions.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), during the 18-month period
after the transfer of functions under this Act takes effect,
the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs is
authorized to perform the functions described in subsections
(c), (d), and (f) of each of sections
[[Page H1650]]
4 and 6 for both the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
SEC. 16. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking the following:
``Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization,
Department of Justice.''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 107-
419. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
{time} 1300
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 107-419.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 2, after the item relating to section 10, insert the
following (and redesignate succeeding items accordingly):
``Sec. 11. Voluntary separation incentive payments.
``Sec. 12. Authority to conduct a demonstration project relating to
disciplinary action.
Page 15, line 15, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 17, line 9, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 18, line 1, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
(5) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective
date specified in section 18(a), the Director of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall design and
implement a managerial rotation program under which employees
of such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility and classified, in accordance with
chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or
above, shall, as a condition on further promotion--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one field office and one service
center of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective
date specified in section 17(a), the Attorney General shall
submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of such
program.
Page 21, line 4, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 21, line 13, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 25, line 20, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 32, after line 20, insert the following:
(4) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective
date specified in section 17(a), the Director of the Bureau
of Immigration Enforcement shall design and implement a
managerial rotation program under which employees of such
bureau holding positions involving supervisory or managerial
responsibility and classified, in accordance with chapter 51
of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or above, shall,
as a condition on further promotion--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one field office and one border
patrol sector of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective
date specified in section 17(a), the Attorney General shall
submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of such
program.
Page 33, line 3, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 37, line 3, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 38, line 14, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 39, line 16, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 40, line 18, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 42, line 16, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 43, line 6, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 45, line 7, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 47, after line 9, insert the following:
SEC. 11. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who--
(A) has completed at least 3 years of current continuous
service with 1 or more covered entities; and
(B) is serving under an appointment without time
limitation;
but does not include any person under subparagraphs (A)-(G)
of section 663(a)(2) of Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597
note);
(2) the term ``covered entity'' means--
(A) the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
(B) the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Civil
Division;
(C) the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs;
(D) the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement; and
(E) the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
(3) the term ``transfer date'' means the date on which the
transfer of functions specified under this Act takes effect.
(b) Strategic Restructuring Plan.--Before obligating any
resources for voluntary separation incentive payments under
this section, the Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a strategic restructuring
plan, which shall include--
(1) an organizational chart depicting the covered entities
after their restructuring pursuant to this Act;
(2) a summary description of how the authority under this
section will be used to help carry out that restructuring;
and
(3) the information specified in section 663(b)(2) of
Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note).
As used in the preceding sentence, the ``appropriate
committees of Congress'' are the Committees on
Appropriations, Government Reform, and the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives, and the Committees on
Appropriations, Governmental Affairs, and the Judiciary of
the Senate.
(c) Authority.--The Attorney General may, to the extent
necessary to help carry out the strategic restructuring plan
described in subsection (b), make voluntary separation
incentive payments to employees. Any such payment--
(1) shall be paid to the employee, in a lump sum, after the
employee has separated from service;
(2) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of basic pay of the employee;
(3) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) the amount the employee would be entitled to receive
under section 5595(c) of title 5, United States Code; or
(B) an amount not to exceed $25,000, as determined by the
Attorney General;
(4) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying
employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or
resignation) before the end of--
(A) the 3-month period beginning on the date on which such
payment is offered or made available to such employee; or
(B) the 3-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs first;
(5) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit; and
(6) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be
entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code,
based on any other separation.
(d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement
Fund.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any payments which it is
otherwise required to make, the Department of Justice shall,
for each fiscal year with respect to which it makes any
voluntary separation incentive payments under this section,
remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in
the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund the amount required
under paragraph (2).
(2) Amount required.--The amount required under this
paragraph shall, for any fiscal year, be the amount under
subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is greater.
(A) First method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to the minimum amount
necessary to offset the additional costs to the retirement
systems under title 5, United States Code (payable out of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund) resulting from
the voluntary separation of the employees described in
paragraph (3), as determined under regulations of the Office
of Personnel Management.
(B) Second method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to 45 percent of the sum
total of the final basic pay of the employees described in
paragraph (3).
(3) Computations to be based on separations occurring in
the fiscal year involved.--The employees described in this
paragraph are those employees who receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this section based on
their separating from service during the fiscal year with
respect to which the payment under this subsection relates.
(4) Final basic pay defined.--In this subsection, the term
``final basic pay'' means, with respect to an employee, the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(e) Effect of Subsequent Employment with the Government.--
An individual who receives a voluntary separation incentive
payment under this section and who, within
[[Page H1651]]
5 years after the date of the separation on which the payment
is based, accepts any compensated employment with the
Government or works for any agency of the Government through
a personal services contract, shall be required to pay, prior
to the individual's first day of employment, the entire
amount of the incentive payment. Such payment shall be made
to the covered entity from which the individual separated or,
if made on or after the transfer date, to the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs (for transfer to the
appropriate component of the Department of Justice, if
necessary).
(f) Effect on Employment Levels.--
(1) Intended effect.--Voluntary separations under this
section are not intended to necessarily reduce the total
number of full-time equivalent positions in any covered
entity.
(2) Use of voluntary separations.--A covered entity may
redeploy or use the full-time equivalent positions vacated by
voluntary separations under this section to make other
positions available to more critical locations or more
critical occupations.
SEC. 12. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General may, during a period
ending not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, conduct a demonstration project for the purpose
of determining whether one or more changes in the policies or
procedures relating to methods for disciplining employees
would result in improved personnel management.
(b) Scope.--The demonstration project--
(1) may not cover any employees apart from those employed
in or under a covered entity; and
(2) shall not be limited by any provision of chapter 43,
75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Procedures.--Under the demonstration project--
(1) the use of alternative means of dispute resolution (as
defined in section 571 of title 5, United States Code) shall
be encouraged, whenever appropriate; and
(2) each covered entity shall be required to provide for
the expeditious, fair, and independent review of any action
to which section 4303 or subchapter II of chapter 75 of such
title 5 would otherwise apply (except an action described in
section 7512(5) thereof).
(d) Actions Involving Discrimination.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, if, in the case of any
matter described in section 7702(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United
States Code, there is no judicially reviewable action under
the demonstration project within 120 days after the filing of
an appeal or other formal request for review (referred to in
subsection (c)(2)), an employee shall be entitled to file a
civil action to the same extent and in the same manner as
provided in section 7702(e)(1) of such title 5 (in the matter
following subparagraph (C) thereof).
(e) Certain Employees.--Employees shall not be included
within any project under this section if such employees are--
(1) neither managers nor supervisors; and
(2) within a unit with respect to which a labor
organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter
71 of title 5, United States Code.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an aggrieved employee
within a unit (referred to in paragraph (2)) may elect to
participate in a complaint procedure developed under the
demonstration project in lieu of any negotiated grievance
procedure and any statutory procedure (as such term is used
in section 7121 of such title 5).
(f) Reports.--The General Accounting Office shall prepare
and submit to the Committees on Government Reform and the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committees
on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate
periodic reports on any demonstration project conducted under
this section, such reports to be submitted after the second
and fourth years of its operation. Upon request, the Attorney
General shall furnish such information as the General
Accounting Office may require to carry out this subsection.
(g) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Attorney General'' means the Attorney
General or his designee; and
(2) the term ``covered entity'' has the meaning given such
term in section 11(a)(2).
Page 47, line 10, strike ``11'' and insert ``13''.
Page 48, line 21, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 51, strike lines 16 through 20.
Page 51, line 21, strike ``12'' and insert ``14''.
Page 53, line 24, strike ``11(b)'' and insert ``13(b)''.
Page 57, line 1, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 57, line 23, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 58, line 18, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 60, line 15, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
Page 60, line 20, strike ``13'' and insert ``15''.
Page 62, line 22, strike ``14'' and insert ``16''.
Page 63, line 7, strike ``15'' and insert ``17''.
Page 64, line 13, strike ``16'' and insert ``18''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment which has been worked out on a
bipartisan basis by the Committees on the Judiciary and Government
Reform will give the Attorney General and the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs personnel flexibility tools needed to
ensure that the restructuring of the INS will be a success.
First, it requires the directors of the two immigration bureaus to
design and implement managerial rotation programs so that their
managers will have experience in all the major functions of their
respective bureaus and will have worked out in the field. I want to
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for crafting this
important provision.
Second, this amendment permits the Attorney General to offer buyouts
to INS employees. That is essential to reshaping the agency.
Third, and most importantly, the amendment authorizes a 5-year
demonstration project relating to disciplinary actions. It permits the
AG to change policies and procedures regarding methods of disciplining
employees in order to improve the quality of INS management. This would
ensure discipline for both employee malfeasance and nonfeasance.
The demonstration project must encourage the use of alternative means
of dispute resolution, where appropriate, and require expeditious, fair
and independent review of disciplinary actions. The amendment provides
needed flexibility for managing the new immigration components.
I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform for its work,
support and patience in drafting this amendment. I want to thank three
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) who worked particularly hard to
ensure that the Justice Department would have the personnel flexibility
to make restructuring a success. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. During
the committee markup there were several issues that were contentious at
the time. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers agreed to
work with other Judiciary Committee members and members of the
Committee on Government Reform to reach bipartisan agreement. They were
successful in reaching an accord on most of these issues.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I suspect that what the gentlewoman was
determining here was the amendment having to do with representation of
children?
Ms. BALDWIN. No.
Mr. GEKAS. No? Then I am in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I
will try to regain the podium later.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 107-419.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Baldwin
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H1652]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Baldwin:
Page 11, line 14, insert before the semicolon at the end
the following: ``, including developing a plan to be
submitted to the Congress on how to ensure that qualified and
independent legal counsel is timely appointed to represent
the interests of each such child, consistent with the law
regarding appointment of counsel that is in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is simple. It would require the Office of Children's
Affairs within the newly created Agency of Immigration Affairs to
develop a plan on how to provide unaccompanied alien children with
independent legal counsel.
Think back to when you were 8 years old. For many, our biggest
concern might have been Friday's spelling bee. Now imagine that you
were forced against your will to go to another country, alone, without
knowing why, without knowing for how long, and often without knowing
the language. You would definitely have a lot more to worry about.
Remarkably, this happens to nearly 5,000 children every year in the
United States. These unaccompanied alien children are brought to
America from other countries for various reasons.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I believe
she has a very constructive amendment dealing with what is a major
problem. We are happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I now find myself in the right spot, in the
right place, on the right issue at the podium.
Ms. BALDWIN. Welcome.
Mr. GEKAS. I want to substantiate my support for the amendment and to
urge that everyone consider the question of unaccompanied young
children and the provision of legal assistance in their quest to remain
in the United States. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the
gentlewoman to complete her remarks, so I will not take up a lot of the
time, but I do want to congratulate the gentlewoman for an excellent
amendment. Working, of course, as I do with the Congressional
Children's Caucus, we are always seeing the diminished rights of
children many times when they are unequal in our systems and
particularly the court systems. And so coming from a border State like
Texas, I can assure you that in the detention centers we find large
numbers of unaccompanied children. Also being familiar with Haitian
children in the parts of the land in which they come, particularly the
State of Florida, we have seen many tragic incidences of citizen
Haitian children with parents who are then forced to be sent back and
with no independent representation. It happens to many, many
immigrants.
And so let me say that this is an important addition to the
children's bureau. I would like to join you as I am on the amendment in
asking our colleagues to support it.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear of the support from
my fellow members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.
I wanted to just explain briefly further that when the INS or the
Justice Department takes unaccompanied alien children into custody, our
legal system treats them unlike any citizen and unlike any adult
noncitizen. They are provided legal counsel who are charged not only
with deporting them as mandated by law but also with representing their
best interests, which is also mandated by law. It has become
increasingly clear that these dueling responsibilities cannot coexist
effectively.
The stories are alarming. Unaccompanied alien children are sometimes
being left alone to fill out complex legal forms that determine their
future, not only here in America but also their future lives in
general. Almost one-third of the children will be forced to eat, sleep
and live next to juvenile offenders in restrictive juvenile detention
centers. Some will languish in these detention centers for years
because they lack adequate legal counsel. Some will be moved to other
detention centers without being told why and unable to notify relatives
in their home countries where they are going.
During this debate, we have heard a lot about why the INS has been
unable to do its job in the way that the American people expect and
deserve. I am pleased that today we are spending at least this brief
time talking about the children who are affected by the shortcomings of
the INS. These conflicts of interest and dueling responsibilities not
only frustrate the overall mission of the INS but cause
disproportionate harm to these unaccompanied alien children.
This amendment begins to address the serious issue of unaccompanied
alien children receiving legal counsel that is rife with conflicts of
interest. I would point out that this amendment states that any plan
developed by the new Office of Children's Affairs will be brought back
before Congress for careful examination. It is essential that Congress
be able to give suggestions and ask questions about how we can best
protect these children's interests.
In closing, I would like to make this point very clearly: Most of the
unaccompanied alien children are here for reasons beyond their control.
In reforming and restructuring the INS, we hope to more effectively
separate those people who want to tear our country down, from those who
want to build it up. By passing this amendment, we have a great chance
of making these children want to do the latter.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment to
claim that time?
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is then recognized for the balance of
her time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do want to include in the
Record for the gentlewoman's amendment and for the gentlewoman's
information that we are seeing over the last couple of weeks and months
carriers of heroin, children being used by this terrible tragedy. I do
want to note for the record a 12-year-old being forced to swallow 87
condoms full of heroin and travel to the United States. He was taken
into custody and faces charges. In that instance, obviously that child
needs counsel, whatever your opinion is about heroin; and there are
many cases like that, so this is so very crucial to have.
This amendment is simple but very important. It would compel the
Office of Children's Affairs within the newly created Agency of
Immigration Affairs to develop a plan that would provide unaccompanied
alien children with independent legal counsel.
In the year 2000, the INS took approximately 4,700 alien children who
lacked a family member or close friend here in the United States into
custody. Many unaccompanied children are smuggled into our country and
forced into prostitution or labor. Many are simply used as a tool for
others to enter our country and are left behind.
While current laws were once written to protect the child's best
interest, it has become increasingly clear that the law's intent and
purpose has become as blurry and as confused as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's intent and purpose.
While some of these unaccompanied children are deported or reunited
with family members, many of them are placed in detention centers for
long periods of time without receiving adequate counsel to help them
navigate the legal process. An 18 month old infant was placed in her
swing chair in Miami to defend herself. A lawyer present in the
courtroom saw this ludicrous situation and offered to take the case
free of charge. A 12 year old was forced to swallow 87 condoms full of
heroin and travel to the United States. He was taken into custody and
now faces a lot of charges. Here's a copy of the article.
Everyday kids 10 years old and younger are forced to fill out complex
legal forms that determine their future life here in the United
[[Page H1653]]
States and life in general. The forms are not even written in their
native language. Many of the kids are forced to reside in detention
centers for long periods of time and are transferred to other detention
centers without being told why.
Almost one-third of the unaccompanied alien children will be shackled
and periodically strip-searched before being sent to detention centers
where they will eat, sleep, and live beside juveniles who may have
committed serious crimes. They can end up staying in these detention
centers from anywhere between 1 month to 2 years before receiving their
asylum hearing. Many will be transferred several times to other states
and other detention centers without being provided legal advice, let
alone be told in their native language where and why they are being
moved.
During debate on this amendment in Committee, some Members raised
concern about the cost of providing counsel for unaccompanied alien
children. While this may be a concern, this amendment would simply give
the Agency for Immigration Affairs the responsibility of developing a
plan on how to do this. Very little cost would be incurred by
developing such a plan.
Furthermore, this amendment would require the Office of Children's
Affairs and the Agency of Immigration Affairs to report back to this
Congress so Members can learn more about the plan, raise questions, and
offer suggestions or criticism. This amendment would simply start the
process of addressing a serious problem about how we can give
unaccompanied alien children a fair chance in our courtrooms and in our
country.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the language that was added at the last minute,
``consistent with current law'' should not close the door on the
government coming up with a serious constructive plan for providing
legal counsel for unaccompanied minor children. This simply must be
done.
Officials: Boy Swallows 87 Heroin Condoms
New York (AP).--A 12-year-old boy from Nigeria swallowed 87
condoms filled with heroin, flew to New York and became sick
before meeting whoever had promised him $1,900 to act as a
contraband courier, authorities said.
The boy's father is imprisoned in the United States for
recruiting drug mules to smuggle heroin into Georgia.
The boy, identified as Prince Nnaedozie Umegbolu, was
listed in stable condition at New York Hospital Medical
Center of Queens. Officials said 85 of the 87 condoms had
left his system as of Thursday evening.
The boy has been charged with juvenile delinquency drug
possession of a controlled dangerous substance, said Steve
Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, which runs area airports. His case will be
handled in family Court.
Airport detectives said it is not uncommon to find adults
acting as drug mules, but it is rare for a child.
The boy arrived alone at John F. Kennedy International
Airport at 10:30 p.m. Wednesday on a British Airways flight
from London, Coleman said. He hailed a cab and went to a
Brooklyn address, but no one was there, Coleman said. He then
went to LaGuardia Airport before becoming ill.
Authorities did not know for whom Umegbolu was carrying the
heroin.
Umegbolu, an American citizen, had been living with his
grandparents for the past two years in Abuja, Nigeria,
Coleman said. His mother, Alissa Walden, lives in Norcross,
Georgia. There was no telephone listing for her, and she
could not immediately be contacted for comment.
The boy's father, Chukwunwieke Umegbolu, is imprisoned in
Petersburg, Virginia, according to court records. The elder
Umegbolu was convicted in 1995 for his role in a drug ring
that imported at least $33 million in heroin into Georgia
over a decade.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amendment.
Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the
Federal Government jurisdiction to establish uniform naturalization
laws. We have been given constitutional authority to establish these
laws, and it is our responsibility to make adequate provisions for
children who find themselves in conflict with our laws through no fault
of their own. This amendment requires the Office of Children's Affairs
to report to Congress on a plan that would aid unaccompanied children
in the naturalization process.
While Congress has a responsibility to protect the citizens of the
United States from enemy threats, I do not believe an unaccompanied
child under the age of 10, for example, has the intention of
undermining our way of life, even though the circumstances of his or
her arrival may conflict with our laws. Some of these unaccompanied
children find themselves in America through smuggling rings for slave
labor or prostitution. The perpetrators are the adults who abandon them
and break our laws, not the children themselves.
For that reason, I strongly support finding a means of handling these
situations when they sadly arise. This amendment does not overburden
the government with additional cost, though it does require the
development of a plan by the Office of Children's Affairs created by
the underlying bill for dealing with such eventualities. This is the
least we can do for the most vulnerable of exploited immigrant
populations. Currently, the INS holds approximately 4,700 unaccompanied
alien children in custody every year. Many of these children have valid
claims to refugee and asylum status; but without adequate legal
counsel, they are not afforded the opportunity to make such claims.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, just how many of these unaccompanied children
have been shuffled through the process and have not gotten the
procedural consideration they are due in this great country. Planning
for these cases and the interests of the children should be one of the
foremost priorities to be dealt with by the new Office of Children's
Affairs. It is for this reason that I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the effort that is
being made to make sure that children are represented and that their
best interests are brought to the forefront. I would note that there is
ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment because it would freeze the
current law that prohibits the appointment of counsel. However, since
this is a plan that is subject to further review when it comes back to
the Congress, I would note that the Congress will have an opportunity
to actually deal with the appointment of counsel for children as to
their dependency status at least when that comes back. I think and I am
hopeful that we will actually do that once this plan is put into place.
First, the 5-year-old is a child before they are an immigrant. We
ought to treat the child as any other child would be treated in a
dependency case, with advocacy of their best interests. I very much
appreciate the effort that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin)
has put into this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 107-419.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 59, after line 22, insert the following:
(3) Report on fees.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report
examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to
carry out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me acknowledge that one of the crucial points of change in this
legislation is the establishing of a bureau of services and a bureau of
enforcement, one of the major concerns in this legislation and as well
in the fault of the INS.
[[Page H1654]]
{time} 1315
Might I just take a moment, because I believe when we talk about
abolishing an agency, we make a global statement about all of those who
are working there or have worked there. Let me get on record by
acknowledging the many hard-working constituents that I have that work
for the INS and around the Nation. Allow me to acknowledge the many
effective and faithful district directors and center directors who have
worked diligently with our respective staffs to ensure that some of the
snafus that do occur can get corrected. But at the same time, allow me
to acknowledge incidences of lost fingerprints and lost paperwork,
incidences where people in the business community are seeking to
generate opportunities for those who come to be productive in this
country and generate business, are sometimes in a very complicated and
conflicted position of not being able to pursue on behalf of their
client the process of accessing legalization. Part of that, even though
we know that there has been an attempt to increase the funding of the
INS, has been the money stream.
In this bill, we rely upon the fee structure for funding the
services. I want to say to all of the advocates and providers of
services before the INS, the counsel that represent the particular
clients trying to seek legalization, and those who work in that process
to give fair hearing to those who try to proceed in the process. Allow
me to suggest that we can make it better if we can follow the money
trail.
This study will give us the insight as to whether the fees generated
by the particular services that are granted by the INS are enough or
effectively utilized to ensure that we do not have the problems that we
are facing today.
Later on today, we will have additional amendments on statistics; we
will have additional amendments.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a constructive
amendment because it can give us some very good data on how reliant the
service end of the INS is on fees that it collects from immigrants. I
would hope that the committee would speedily adopt this amendment so
that we can go on with the consideration of this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of
the committee for his support of this.
To complete my explanation, let me say that this amendment will help
us in the structure of the fee process that we have, being able to
monitor whether or not that is sufficient money.
Again, this goes to the point that rather than having a cosmetic
approach to this legislation, we are truly changing the infrastructure.
We are acknowledging that fees are utilized to fund the service
section, but we are also acknowledging by this amendment that we are
carefully monitoring whether or not those will be sufficient funds and
whether or not an authorization of a money stream will be necessary,
which will then be a request to the Committee on Appropriations in
their wisdom to make the right decision.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
thank the chairman for his support.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment answers the fear that the Bureau of
Immigration Services could wind up as a ``starved'' bureau. I am
concerned that the division of the INS into separate and independent
agencies could mean that the enforcement bureau will get all of the
appropriated funds, and that the Service bureau will be forced to
survive with only funds derived from fees. This could result in an even
greater backlog in immigration benefit adjudication than currently
exists.
This is a worthwhile amendment as it mandates that the GAO conduct a
study to ensure that the Bureau of Immigration Services is not left
standing on its own solely relying on fees. I urge passage of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the gentlewoman is invited to consume her time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House report 107-419.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard:
Page 38, line 16, insert the following before the period:
``, including region-by-region statistics on the aggregate
number of applications and petitions filed by an alien (or
filed on behalf of an alien) and denied by such offices and
bureaus, and the reasons for such denials, disaggregated by
category of denial and application or petition type''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for all of their hard work
on this INS restructuring bill. I also want to thank them for support
of my amendment, which simply requires the newly created Office of
Immigration Statistics to maintain records on denials of applications
and petitions and the reasons for those denials.
This information will help Members of Congress and other interested
parties better understand the causes of the vast differences and denial
rates for applications and petitions throughout the country.
For example, in the first quarter of 1999, the denial rates for INS
districts ranged from 7 percent in Portland, Maine to 67 percent in
Miami, Florida.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the
amendment. I think she has a very constructive amendment in giving both
the INS and the Congress statistics relative to denials.
What we want to see in this restructured INS is a uniform application
of the law, which means that if one applies at one INS office or
restructured INS office, one should not get a different result if one
applies at another office with the same set of facts and the same
background. I think there is a great deal of suspicion that there is
different strokes for different folks, depending upon what office one
goes to or, even within an office, what immigration inspector ends up
doing the adjudication. Having these statistics I think will help both
the restructured agency in having uniform application of the law, as
well as giving the Congress the data that is necessary to determine
whether any further changes in the law are necessary.
So I am pleased to support the amendment, and I hope that it is
speedily adopted.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the
committee, for his words and also for his support of this amendment. I
too believe that this is good policy that will help instill confidence
in the system by giving credibility to this important agency, not only
in the eyes of Congress but, more importantly, to the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman from California, and I applaud her for her leadership on
this legislation.
I will simply ask that we realize what the gentlewoman is answering,
because she creates the newly-created Office of Immigration Statistics
to maintain statistics on denials of application petitions and the
reasons for
[[Page H1655]]
these denials. One of the issues that we always hear is the frustration
of those who are trying to access legalization. This will be a clear
instruction for us to guide the INS, to answer the question of
consistency. It will also be helpful to the new general counsel who
will be able to note whether or not we have consistent policies
vertically up and down the line of authority.
So I thank the gentlewoman, and I support her amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to
H.R. 3231. During the House Judiciary Committee mark-up we added the
new Office of Immigration Statistics, which will be headed by a
Director who is appointed by the Attorney General and reports to the
Director of Justice statistics. The Director will maintain all
immigration statistical information to the Associate Attorney General
of Immigration Affairs. The Director will establish standards of
reliability and validity for immigration statistics collected by the
Office of the Associate Attorney General.
Ms. Roybal-Allard's amendment brings some needed clarity to this
language.
The amendment states that the newly created Office of Immigration
Statistics must maintain statistics on denials of applications and
petitions, and the reasons for those denials. It is too often Mr.
Chairman that many members from many districts do not know why the
applications that their constituents are toiling long days and nights
working on have been denied. The amendment is needed to help Members of
Congress and other interested parties gain a better understanding of
the vast differences in denial rates for applications and petitions
throughout the country.
The Roybal-Allard amendment is the step in the direction of
accountability, it is a step in the direction for fairness, it is a
step in the direction for accuracy, and most importantly it is a step
in the direction for accuracy. Let's pass the Roybal-Allard amendment.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas
for her comments, and I want to acknowledge her outstanding work on
this bill and in the area of immigration in general.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. If no Member rises in opposition to the amendment, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 5 printed
in House report 107-419.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
(5) Pilot initiatives for backlog elimination.--The
Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is authorized to implement innovative pilot
initiatives to eliminate any remaining backlog in the
processing of immigration benefit applications, and to
prevent any backlog in the processing of such applications
from recurring, in accordance with section 204(a) of the
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of
2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)). Such initiatives may include
measures such as increasing personnel, transferring personnel
to focus on areas with the largest potential for backlog, and
streamlining paperwork.
Page 51, strike lines 16 through 20 and insert the
following:
(e) Backlog Elimination.--Section 204(a) of the Immigration
Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8
U.S.C. 1573(a)) is amended by striking ``October 17, 2000;''
and inserting ``the effective date specified in section 15(a)
of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability
Act of 2002;''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I would like to commend and
congratulate the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration for all of their hard
work on the bill we have before us today, which takes the long overdue
step of restructuring the INS.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3231 holds tremendous potential to improve an
agency that has long been a source of frustration for Congress,
consumers, and agency employees alike.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is also a
very constructive amendment. Before we figure out how to deal with new
immigrants, we have to figure out what to do with the 5 million case
backlog we already have, and I think having innovative pilot programs,
shuffling paperwork, seeing what works and seeing what does not but,
more importantly, getting us automated and having a lot of the
paperwork being changed from paper to electronic paper is going to mean
that these adjudications take place in a timely manner and we will not
have to have people getting fingerprinted 4 times before they can get a
green card.
So I would hope that this amendment would be speedily adopted.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman.
The bill before us takes bold action regarding the structure of the
INS. We should also seize this opportunity to take bold action with
regard to the application backlog as well, and that is what my
amendment proposes to do.
Specifically, my amendment will enable the Associate Attorney General
for Immigration Affairs to explore new and innovative ways of
addressing the backlog by authorizing the director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services to implement pilot programs in
areas with large backlogs to efficiently and effectively dispense with
pending applications and prevent the backlog of future applications. It
will encourage initiatives such as increasing or transferring personnel
to areas with ongoing backlog problems, streamlining regulations and
paperwork, and providing incentives for efficient and high-quality
work.
This amendment recognizes that there is not a one-size-fits-all
approach to eliminating existing backlog and, therefore, encourages
flexibility at the local level by enabling district offices to utilize
new strategies to deal with all problems.
Finally, the amendment establishes the goal of eliminating the
current backlog not later than one year after the enactment of the act.
My amendment will allow the new Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs to think and pursue new solutions to old problems.
It will enable the newly-formed Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services to get to a point where all immigration applications are
processed quickly and expeditiously, and it represents an important
step in the process of turning immigration into a policy and process of
which we can all, Congress, consumers and agency employees alike, be
proud.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment? If
not, the gentlewoman is invited to exhaust her time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentlelady from New York's amendment. This amendment requires that the
INS eliminate its enormous immigration application processing backlogs
and requires that all backlogs be eliminated within one year. It also
requires that the INS prevent any backlog efficiencies where problems
are known to exist. The INS has been notorious in the past for being
long overdue in issuing backlog reports for Congress to access. This
has resulted in an INS backlog of 4.9 million immigration applications.
Efforts in the past to reduce the backlog were unsuccessful. The
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000
authorized appropriations to reduce backlogs but the appropriate
expenditures were predicated on the INS submitting a backlog report to
Congress. 4.9 million applications later, we're still waiting.
As it stands, H.R. 3231 doesn't go far enough. It would eliminate the
wait for a backlog report before using funds to start reducing the
backlogs but it would not place a requirement on the INS to eliminate
the backlog right away. And that's what we need if we are serious about
this problem. 4.9 million people and their futures and maybe those of
their families are behind those unprocessed immigration applications.
Many are hanging in ``status limbo'' waiting for a decision on which
way to go or
[[Page H1656]]
what to do next. And if there are security concerns, we would not know
because these applications are not reviewed or examined.
This is a good amendment, a practical amendment and a much needed
amendment for the reformed and restructured INS and for the people
trying come in and make good in America.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed
in House report 107-419.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Issa
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Issa:
Page 45, after line 7, insert the following (and
redesignate provisions accordingly):
(b) Additional Personnel Matters.--
(1) Positions in excepted service.--All positions in the
Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement are positions in
the excepted service, as defined by section 2103 of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) Eliminating restrictions on certain disciplinary and
other adverse actions taken against employees.--Section
7511(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement,'' after ``the Federal Bureau of
Investigation,''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The INS has an essential role in ensuring the national security of
the United States and is failing in that role. Reforming the INS
without addressing the personnel reform issue is simply an error.
This amendment extends greater management authority to deal with
problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service and a
greater expectation.
The type of personnel flexibility is exactly what Commissioner
Ziegler has asked for when testifying before Congress earlier this
year. I believe this amendment is offered for true INS reform.
I do not ask for much in the way of reform; I only ask for the same
standard, the same standard as today we expect from the FBI, the CIA,
and other agencies.
In fact, nearly 20 percent of all agencies have the same rules I am
asking for here today, and disproportionately, these rules are used in
those organizations in which public trust and safety is most vital.
{time} 1330
Without this amendment, I do not believe true reform can take place,
because we would not be addressing the entire organization from the
structure of the organization to the personnel within.
Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, we in fact would not have the
ability to terminate people, even if once again the gross failures that
led to the unfortunate loss of life in the tragedy in the Twin Towers
in New York occurred. We need the authority to get rid of, not promote
or transfer, people who in fact cannot or will not do their job.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3231, ``The
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.'' This
amendment requires that all employees at the new Office of the
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs and the two new
bureaus be excepted service (Bureau of Citizenship and the Immigration
Service, and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement) employees. Simply
stated, this bill will extend greater management authority to deal with
problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service we have
a right to expect.
This amendment is the type of personnel reform Commissioner Ziglar
asked for when he testified before Congress this year. I believe this
amendment will offer ``true'' INS reform, by making every INS employee
a part of the excepted service, thereby assuring accountability from
top of the agency to the lowest level employee.
Earlier today, I spoke of Mohammed Atta and his multiple entries into
the United States prior to his attack on our nation and INS's role. The
employees that were responsible for his entry were not dismissed and
still remain within the INS.
With regards to Mohammed Atta, the INS:
Failed to act to cancel Atta's training visa after Atta abandoned the
application by leaving the country;
Failed to recognize that Atta had abandoned his application even when
his departure was established by his attempt to reenter the United
States on January 10, 2001;
Disregarded Atta's apparent intent to continue his flight training
without a proper visa in January and admitted him as a visitor; and
Ignored evidence that Atta first entered the United States intending
to commence flight training immediately without the proper visa.
If this amendment is adopted, we will no longer protect incompetence
that allowed Mohammed Atta into the United States. This amendment is a
vote for greater accountability of the INS and for national security.
Let's not forget that there are 3,000 dead . . . and no one is held
accountable.
I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, obviously we have worked together on the Committee on
the Judiciary, and we respect the diversity of opinion and thought that
would generate various efforts to improve this agency.
But I am forced to raise strong opposition to the Issa amendment
because, by making it simple for managers to hire employees and
summarily dismiss them outside of the civil service process, the Issa
amendment would circumvent many of the positive reforms agreed to in
this legislation.
The amendment is strongly opposed by the American Federation of
Government Employees and the AFL-CIO. Excepting INS employees from the
civil service would return the agency back to the ages when we again
address the questions of cronyism and patronage, which ran rampant.
This is not to say that we do not want an improved employee, a
professional employee, and an opportunity for the administration to be
able to put their positive handprint on the new changes that will come
about.
Not too long ago, the only way to get a government job was if you
knew someone in the government or someone owed you a favor. As a
result, key policy and administrative decisions will be based on how it
has affected your patron, rather than on whether it was good policy.
The civil service program was carefully crafted to eliminate this
egregious behavior.
At the same time, I think if we look at the manager's amendment, we
will find that we have implemented processes in there to ensure, again,
the assessment of an employee's performance and to improve that
performance.
A couple of weeks ago, we had a hearing on the most ironic and, I
would say, major debacle that backed up on the tragedy of September 11.
That was the hearing on Mohammed Atta, deceased, and another one of the
terrorists who received what we call late student visas.
If we look at this legislation, we will know that by the amendment of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), we now have a student
tracking office, and therefore, to cite the heinousness of the act of
September 11, and then build it upon the idea of needing this
particular amendment is not accurate.
So I am rising to oppose this amendment, and would ask my colleagues
to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Issa amendment. By
making it simple for managers to hire employees and summarily dismiss
them outside of the civil service process, the Issa amendment would
circumvent many of the positive reforms agreed to in this legislation.
The amendment is strongly opposed by the American Federation of
Government Employees and the AFL-CIO.
Excepting INS employees from the civil service would return the
agency back to the
[[Page H1657]]
ages when cronyism and patronage ran rampant. Not too long ago, the
only way to get a government job was if you knew someone in the
government or someone owed you a favor. As a result, key policy and
administrative decisions would be based on how it affected your patron
rather than on whether it was good policy. The civil service program
was carefully crafted to eliminate this egregious behavior. The INS has
been able to hire thousands of employees year after year and there has
been no showing that the civil service program is ineffective. Yet, the
Issa amendment would once again allow people to be hired based on who
they know rather than whether they are qualified.
The Issa amendment also eliminates most of the procedures that
protect employees from summarily being fired. All protections in
collective bargaining agreements are superseded and the notice and
hearing procedures in the civil service laws are also overruled. Among
other things, this would allow whistleblowers to be fired on the mere
allegation of wrongdoing. Moreover, persons could be fired because of
their political affiliation. Employee attrition at the agency is
already at an unprecedented level due to low morale and the stripping
of these basic labor protections certainly will not help the matter
any.
This amendment guts labor law and civil service protections that
remain critical to the successful restructuring of this agency. Without
these protections, the delicate compromise reached on this bipartisan
legislation will be jeopardized. I urge you to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2002.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, I strongly urge you to oppose an
amendment that will be offered by Representative Darrell Issa
(R-CA) to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and
Accountability Act of 2002. In our view, this amendment will
fundamentally jeopardize basic employee rights, limit the
ability of Congress to gain access to critical information
about agency activities and dramatically increase an already
severe attrition rate within the I&NS. The following is a
description of the amendment and the problems we believe it
would create:
Paragragh (1)--(Making all I&NS positions excepted service:
This proposal would give the agency the authority to
circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes.
Essentially it would be a throw-back to the era of federal
hiring based on patronage and cronyism--which the civil
service system was created to prevent. The amendment, which
would at a minimum facilitate and possibly even encourage
such abuse, is particularly problematic when applied to a
beleaguered agency such as the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. While it is likely the intention of this amendment
would be to give the agency the ability to seek outside
professionals to provide expertise in specific areas not
currently available within the agency, its sweeping nature,
which would include the total elimination of the Senior
Executive Service Corps, could well lead to widespread abuse
and worsen the problems at the I&NS.
Paragraph (2)--Eliminating restrictions on certain
disciplinary and other adverse actions taken against
employees:
The effect of this section of the Issa Amendment would be
to eliminate existing procedural protections for all I&NS
employees for any offense ostensibly committed by any
employee. This includes collective bargaining protections
pertaining to disciplinary actions. The basic right of I&NS
employees to due process protection and independent review
and appeal would be eliminated. The due process system
currently in place has served both the agency and its
employees well for many years, and serves as a check and
balance against arbitrary and capricious actions. The popular
misconception that it is difficult or impossible to fire
Federal employees is convincingly refuted by a recent study
released by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Further, the
provision would strongly discourage employee
``whistleblowers'' from providing essential information to
Congress and even the news media for fear of losing their
jobs.
As an example, the two Detroit Border Patrol agents who
recently expressed their views to Congress and the news media
on the lack of enhanced security on the northern border would
very likely have never told their stories had the Issa
amendment been in effect. Even under current law, the agency
viewed these honest expressions of the current situation as a
fundamental violation of I&NS policy and proposed to suspend
and demote the agents. However, at least under current
circumstances, the agents would be able to avail themselves
of basic procedural protections, including a post-action
hearing and appeal process. Under the Issa amendment, no such
protections would exist. Ultimately this would have a
chilling effect on Congress' ability to gather critical
information in making policy decisions as they relate to the
agency.
Finally, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Issa
Amendment will exacerbate an already critical attrition
problem within the agency. According to I&NS statistics, the
FY 2002 loss rate for Border Patrol agents is 14% and will
potentially rise to 20% by the end of the year. For
Immigration Inspectors, the FY 2002 rate is 10.1% and is
predicted to go as high as 15%. Based on reliable anecdotal
information, over half of all current Border Patrol agents
have applied for air marshal positions. It is a little known
fact that the agency is losing agents faster than it can hire
them--despite all the efforts and funding directed toward
expanding the workforce. Such attrition rates are
unsustainable in any agency, much less the I&NS. Taking away
the basic due process protections available to similarly
situated employees (like Customs Service employees) would
turn I&NS into an employer of last resort, leaving them to
recruit from a less desirable pool of potential employees.
In the interest of protecting employee rights and the
effectiveness of the newly restructured I&NS, we urge you to
vote no on the Issa Amendment.
Sincerely,
Beth Moten,
Legislative Director.
____
National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Camps, CA, April 25, 2002.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Conyers: The National Border Patrol
Council, representing over 9,000 Border Patrol employees,
strongly opposes an amendment to be offered by Representative
Darrell Issa to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and
Accountability Act of 2002. In addition to making all
employees in the newly-created agency exempt from civil
service hiring and promotion procedures, it would eliminate
the procedural protections in disciplinary actions that are
currently provided to them under law and collective
bargaining agreements.
Exempting employees from civil service hiring and promotion
procedures would not enhance the ability of the agency to
recruit or promote skilled employees, but would actually
hinder such efforts by facilitating actions based on
favoritism rather than merit.
Eliminating the procedural protections currently afforded
to employees in disciplinary actions would subject them to
arbitrary and capricious disciplinary actions, and would have
a chilling effect on protected activities, including
whistleblower disclosures to Congress and the media.
These detrimental provisions would further demoralize
employees and exacerbate an attrition rate that is already
unacceptably high. For these reasons, your opposition to this
amendment is encouraged.
Sincerely,
T.J. Bonner,
President.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control
the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment, which already has been adopted
by the committee, was drafted with bipartisan cooperation by the
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Government Reform.
This amendment authorizes the Attorney General to create a
demonstration project to test a new employee discipline model. The
demonstration project will provide the Attorney General with much
flexibility in crafting the most appropriate, effective, and fair
method in disciplining a wide range of employees handling immigration
functions.
The demonstration project that has already been approved by the
committee focuses on problem managers and emphasizes alternative
methods of dispute resolution. It calls for an expeditious, fair, and
independent review of disciplinary actions, and it protects the settled
expectations of collective bargaining agreements while permitting union
members to opt out of the project.
We should give the Attorney General the chance to utilize the
demonstration project. If it becomes apparent that the project is not
working as expected, and that placing immigration-related employees in
the excepted service would be beneficial, I would be the first to
support legislation doing so, but now is not the time to do it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is absolutely correct in
emphasizing the importance of having employees of the FBI, the CIA, and
the excepted service. However, these agencies
[[Page H1658]]
are different types of organizations than the INS. The Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services created by this bill will be
staffed mostly with clerks and adjudicators. The hiring and discipline
rules followed by the competitive service might be most appropriate for
these employees.
In any event, the question of placing all immigration employees in
the excepted service merits extensive investigation before it is done.
A change as radical as this, by placing them in the excepted service,
should be carefully considered.
Before introducing this bill, I did extensive investigation and
oversight in practically every part of the country where the
Immigration Service has a lot of business, including in San Diego, I
might add. And some of the most useful information that we have heard
today and during the consideration of this bill came from the unionized
employees that I insisted upon meeting with, apart from management, to
find out what was really going on. If they did not have the protection
of the civil service laws, we would not have much of this information.
I have never had employees of the FBI or the CIA or other agencies in
the excepted service be as frank and honest with me during the time
that I have served in Congress as I have tried to learn how these
agencies work.
So keeping them out of the excepted service I think is important, at
least in terms of having candor on the part of the employees. That is
something that the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Issa)
would take away. I would not have found out about all the problems in
San Diego if the employees that met with me were afraid that they would
be fired by their district director because they were meeting face to
face with me and I came out with information in public on how bad
things were.
Finally, I would like to point out that the adoption of this
amendment would threaten the incredible bipartisan support that is
enjoyed by this bill. I may not, in the end, necessarily agree with
those bills' supporters, who could not accept under any circumstances
placing immigration employees in the excepted service, but I do not
want an ancillary issue like this, where the time is not right for
making a decision, and the fact that the Congress does not have all of
the data to be able to deal with this in an intelligent way and a fair
way and with a full deck of cards, to erode support for this important
bill.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and
join with the other members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Government Reform in doing so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for the depth of his review on this matter and his
concern, and the information he has gathered.
However, I rise in support of this amendment to give personnel
flexibility to the new immigration bureaus offered by the gentleman
from California.
Restructuring the INS, which we have come to call the ``ignoring
national security,'' as opposed to whatever that actually stands for,
is important; and changing the organizational structure is terrifically
important. The bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) today does a great deal to move that forward.
The issue here is in part a matter of organization. If we can get a
chart up here on the budget, Members will see that over the last 10
years, if we had 1992 here, we would see that the budget of the INS has
increased almost fivefold over 10 years; and at the same time, we have
had almost the exact same increase in the number of petitions that are
backlogged, from about 1 million to about 5 million.
Something more fundamental has to happen with this agency, I believe.
The way to make that happen is to restore the responsibility of people
who are working in the INS.
I have worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) and many others to include language in the manager's
amendment that will provide greater removal authority and personnel
flexibility to the new head of the agency for supervisors and managers.
The Issa amendment will go farther in making those changes, and making
those in charge of immigration and our national security as accountable
as the average employee at every American company.
I urge my colleagues to support the Issa amendment and give the
manager, the people who are going to run it, and the President and his
designees, the authority to remove people who are obstructionist and
who get in the way of the changes that we need as Americans to see in
that agency.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I ask unanimous consent
that he may be entitled to yield part of that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for yielding time to me,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have not been surprised by many amendments before,
but here is an amendment that proposes to set aside the civil service
laws as applied to hiring people at INS, and to set aside civil service
law as it applies to their discharge.
In other words, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) wants to go
back to the bad old days. What does he have in mind, patronage, or
what? And why would we come up with such a narrow eviscerating of civil
service law? Nobody has attacked civil service law on either side of
the aisle, in my memory, and now it is being done here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Led by President Bush, there has been new appreciation for civil
servants, Mr. Chairman. This is a brazen attack on merit hiring and
promotion. When I came to chair the EEOC, I found the same thing;
everybody blamed the employees. It turned out what they needed was a
new management system.
That is what we need here. Let us deal first with the management of
the agency. We will know if the agency is well managed if it can hire
and keep good employees.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, all of us are frustrated at the agency, and maybe some
people are even tempted by this sort of ``blow it up'' amendment. But I
think it would be unwise.
I respect the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the efforts he
has put in, but I think we have our pilot project in the manager's
amendment that deals with the management, and that is the problem. It
is not the rank and file, it is the management that is the problem.
I commend the chairman for including that in his manager's amendment.
I just wish that the other amendment to contract with management had
been made in order.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 1
minute each on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
would like to have some time to be able to yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
The CHAIRMAN. Is it 2 minutes on each side that we are asking?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
[[Page H1659]]
The CHAIRMAN. Each side's time has been enlarged by 2 minutes. The
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 2 minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) now has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
{time} 1345
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think the
intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) here is designed
to give maximum flexibility to INS management, and I applaud that; but
I think he is going about it the wrong way.
First of all, the problem is in management at this point over in INS,
and this amendment as I read it virtually wipes out the SES because of
the safeguard that it takes away. If you are trying to recruit and
retain the best in Federal employees, why are you going to take away
the right to independent review, the right of appeal, and make them
basically employees at will? No one is going to leave a job in the
private sector or move laterally from another agency if they are going
to be subject to those restrictions.
If we have a problem, let us look at the overall civil service system
in that context instead of putting pieces into different agencies. It
is going to become unmanageable in my judgment. So I urge my colleagues
to vote against this particular amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 45
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would join in the remarks made by the chairman, my
friend from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I am sure the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella).
The fact of the matter is that this will undermine two very important
things. First of all, I strongly believe that employees ought to have
the right to organize and to have a voice to which they can address
management.
Secondly, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is absolutely
correct. The other provisions of the Issa amendments will in fact in my
opinion substantially undermine the opportunity to recruit the kind of
people you need to affect what has really been the problem and that is
management. Not labor, but management, in this agency. And, therefore,
I would hope that we would defeat and reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This
amendment continues Republican attempts to erode the rights of Federal
employees.
In his first major legislative action after taking office, President
Bush repealed a regulation designed to protect millions of American
workers from ergonomic injuries.
On January 7th of this year the President issued an executive order
denying union representation for 1,000 employees at the Department of
Justice.
The President cited national security concerns for this order, even
though some of those employees have been part of a union for over 20
years and others covered by that order hold clerical and administrative
positions.
This administration is also considering what rights Federal baggage
screeners will have.
Let there be no doubt, if the administration denies these employees
the right to join a labor union and collectively bargain, it will do so
for purely political reasons that have little or nothing to do with
national security.
Today, we consider an amendment that will eliminate existing
procedural protections for all INS employees for any offense allegedly
committed by an employee. There simply is no justification for denying
them this basic democratic freedom.
INS employees would no longer have the basic right of due process
protection and the process of independent review and appeal would be
eliminated.
This amendment would strongly discourage employee ``whistleblowers''
from providing essential information to Congress and even the Congress
for fear of losing their jobs.
The large majority of INS employees are hard working federal
employees that we should be proud of because they are on the front
lines protecting our homeland. Let's not punish the masses for the
mistakes of a few.
Protect the rights of federal employees and vote ``no'' on the Issa
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I really appreciate it.
I want to abbreviate a statement to say that actually this Issa
amendment would really eliminate all employee protections in
disciplinary cases, and it would worsen an already severe attrition
problem. And it would effectively deny Congress critical information on
a wide range of immigration issues because current employee protections
would be removed. Consequently, employee whistle blowers would be
discouraged from disclosing information for fear of losing their jobs.
In addition, allowing all positions within the new agency to be
considered ``excepted service'' positions would lead to a kind of
political patronage and cronyism the civil service system was created
to prevent. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I rise today to urge a no'' vote on Congressman Issa's amendment.
This amendment has several provisions that are problematic.
While this amendment purports to give the newly created Agency for
Immigration Affairs more flexibility in its hiring process, it actually
would eliminate all employees protections in disciplinary cases and
worsen an already severe attrition problem within the ranks of the INS.
According to INS statistics, the FY 2002 loss rate for Border patrol
agents is 14% and could rise to 20 percent by the end of the year.
The Issa amendment would also effectively deny Congress critical
information on a wide range of immigration issues because current
employee protections would be removed. Consequently, employee
`whistleblowers' would be discouraged from disclosing information for
fear of losing their jobs.
In addition, allowing all positions within the new agency to be
considered `excepted service' positions would lead to the kind of
political patronage and cronyism the civil service was created to
prevent.
The problems at the INS are not the result of inadequate disciplinary
procedures or an inability to procure outside expertise but this
amendment sends that message and so I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, all I want to say to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), is that I wish he had more
management experience.
The CHAIRMAN. The time in opposition to the amendment has expired.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) has 8 minutes remaining in
support of the amendment.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding me time.
I rise in support of this measure and congratulate the Members who
are involved in it.
Mr. Chairman, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3231, I would like to
congratulate Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Gekas for brining this vital
matter to the floor and setting us on a course to finally provide a
meaningful reform of our nation's immigration system.
For too long, Mr. Chairman, we have watched as Immigration and
Naturalization Service officials have vowed their commitment to reform
in testimony, but provided little evidence that they are either willing
or capable to see this through in practice. Congress demanded in 1986
that illegal immigration be stopped, and yet we now have as many as 8
million people living in our country who entered without following our
immigration laws, and who now have no legal status. At the same time,
the INS has chronically run backlogs of a year or more in processing
the requests of legal immigrants to become citizens or simply renew
their permanent resident documents.
In California, we have dealt with the dysfunction of this agency for
decades. Most California congressional offices must devote a full-time
staff member just to deal with immigration issues--and much of their
time is spent fighting with the INS bureaucracy over a blunder made by
INS officials themselves. Thousands of INS employees are hard working
and dedicated to service, but the system in which they operate is
designed for failure. Our experience has convinced most California
members that the top priority of this agency is not providing service
to legal immigrants or deporting illegals. The top priority is self-
protection of those within the INS, which has led to gross
inefficiency, a nearly total lack of accountability, and promotion of
supervisors who are not respected by employees and who often display a
disdain for those who they are charged to serve.
[[Page H1660]]
We joined the nation in anger and disgust when all of these traits
were revealed to the public with the issuance of visas to the September
11 terrorists six months after they had taken thousands of American
lives. But we were not terribly surprised, I am sorry to say. It was
not the first time we had seen this agency fail in its responsibility,
but I sincerely hope it will prove to be the weight that tips the
scales in favor of reform.
This legislation places a spotlight of accountability on both the
enforcement and immigration services branches of the new agency. It
should open the doors to those within the agency who display the
leadership qualities to provide true reform, and weed out those who
will not or cannot move the agency forward. Its passage will show the
INS--and the nation--that Congress will insist on that reform. The
Congress--and the nation--will no longer be satisfied with half-
measures and band-aid fixes.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will improve things over in our
Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe we are doing the
right thing by splitting this agency up. However, we cannot deceive
ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong over there and that we
can only point to a few people and say that they are the problem.
We need to give those in management position and others the
flexibility to deal with personnel, like they have at the CIA, like
they have at the FBI, like they have at other agencies. We have big
problems there that simply saying ``business as usual'' will not solve.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is there any evidence that the rights which
would be undermined by this amendment were, in fact, impediments to
management in effecting corrections of the problems that you correctly
observe exist?
Mr. FLAKE. We cannot know. We simply do not know. We do not know who
is here, who is there, how many are here illegally. There is so much we
do not know at the INS.
Mr. HOYER. I am talking about the employees' organizational rights
and protections that would be, in our opinion, undermined by the Issa
amendment. Is there any evidence that they contributed in any way to
the problems?
Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, all we are seeking to do here is give
them the flexibility that is enjoyed by other agencies. We believe that
is needed. I commend the gentleman for doing this.
I was pleased to support the manager's amendment. There are other
things wrong at the INS. One of which is that little fiefdoms have been
created over the years and managers have served sometimes in one
position for 20 years. Whereas, in other agencies like the FBI, like
the armed services, they are forced to move around to know what other
parts of the agencies do. And that way little fiefdoms are not created
as easily. I am pleased that that language was included in the
manager's amendments, but we need to do much more. That is why I
support my colleague from California (Mr. Issa) with this important
amendment.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chairman, while they are bringing up the appropriate face of this
amendment, I think it is important to answer the criticisms made by my
colleagues, most of them fellow Committee on the Judiciary members. I
agree with the chairman that this bill is an improvement, a
considerable improvement in the characteristics of the INS. But it does
not go far enough at all unless it addresses the question of whether
managers can be fired.
I, myself, was a manager for 20 years in business. And I served at
will. You serve at will as a manager because your ineptness pays a dear
price for many, many more people. At the present time, the people who
allowed Mohammed Atta to come to this country wrongly, once, twice,
three times have not been fired. The people who, in fact, failed to
protect us have not been made accountable. They may have been moved,
transferred or even promoted. That is not accountability. And when we
talk about patronage, and I respect my colleagues' defense of the
status quo of jobs for life that often exist within the Federal
service, I might remind them that the FBI does not enjoy that and the
FBI is not a patronage organization. The CIA does not enjoy that, and
no one would say it was patronage. The United States Army, the United
States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the Coast Guard does not
enjoy the job protection that they presently have at the dysfunctional
INS.
I ask my colleagues one more time to ask should this man having gone
into flight training against the regulations, continued flight training
and learned how to fly a 757 into the World Trade Center, should he in
fact have been admitted once, twice, and yet a third time. I have no
doubt that there has been plenty of discussion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind.
I just want to remind the gentleman, it is his amendment, but it not
only affects managers, it affects every employee in the INS, everyone.
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, this amendment was made simple and
understandable so in fact to be brought to the House floor. I asked
that this kind of amendment be incorporated in the management
amendment, but it was a deal breaker. It was a deal breaker because
people did not want to go far enough in INS reform. It is very easy for
this body to come back and trim around the edges as quickly as they
would like and define those people who should be granted the ability to
make this mistake and not be held accountable and not be fired. That
would be the right of this body and the right of the other body and the
right of the President.
I am here today saying that we must today end the possibility that
the people who allowed this to happen because of their negligence or
because of an absence of their willingness to look at the INS agent's
own notes that said that Atta had admitted that for 5 of the 6 months
he was a visitor he was unlawfully getting flight training; and if they
had called, they would have found out that he was only learning to fly,
not to take off and land.
Mr. Chairman, I am from San Diego County; and I have met with the
Border Patrol agents. I have met with them in Texas. I have met with
them in California. And I will tell you something, they are quick to
tell you the problems, they are quick to tell you the problems, but so
is the FBI. And the FBI has helped me in understanding why we need this
reform. The Border Patrol has helped me, and they have not helped me
because they have exemption from whistle blowing. They have helped me
because they care a great deal about getting the kind of management
reform they need so they can be proud of the jobs they do. I would
certainly ask my Members to think twice about saying this is an
imperfect amendment when, in fact, only with this amendment will
management have the ability to terminate the people who should have
been there to protect us and were not.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the Issa amendment offered to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and
Accountability Act. The amendment would: (1) eviscerate existing civil
service laws that protect against hiring on the basis of patronage and
cronyism; and (2) eliminate all employment procedural protections in
disciplinary proceedings, including those in collective bargaining
agreements. Among other things, this would allow whistleblowers to be
fired as a result of their actions.
This amendment compromises basic federal employee rights, limits the
ability of Congress to gain access to critical information about agency
activities, and dramatically increase the already severe attrition rate
within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). By making it
simple for managers to hire employees and summarily dismiss them
outside of the civil service process, the INS would have the authority
to circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes. It would
bring us back to a federal hiring system based on patronage and
cronyism, which the civil service system was created to prevent. While
the intent of this amendment may be to provide the agency the ability
to seek outside professionals to provide expertise in specific areas
[[Page H1661]]
not currently available within the agency, the consequence of this
amendment could eliminate the Senior Executive Service Corps and
exacerbate problems within the INS.
The other provision of this amendment, eliminating restrictions on
certain disciplinary and other adverse actions taken against employees,
would do away with the due process protection and independent review
and appeal that has served INS and its employees well for many years.
Mr. Chairman, INS workers deserve basic rights and freedoms as
federal employees such as the freedom to ``blow the whistle'' on
practices that do not serve the best intersts of the INS and of our
nation. Adopting the Issa amendment jeopardizes the basic employee
rights and privileges guaranteed by the civil service system, and it
further hampers the ability of the INS to attract and retain dedicated
and loyal employees to do the work associated with one of our country's
most important responsibilities: immigration. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Congressman
Issa's amendment to H.R. 3231.
Mr. Issa's amendment would remove existing civil service laws that
are currently in place to protect against hiring on the basis of
patronage and cronyism and eliminate all procedural protections in
disciplinary proceeding, including those in collective bargaining
agreements. This proposal would give the agency the authority to
circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes. It would also
eliminate existing procedural protections for all INS employees for any
offense ostensibly committed by an employee including collective
bargaining protections pertaining to disciplinary actions.
After the events of September 11th, it became evident that there was
a need to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
in order to improve our national security. I commend my colleagues for
their leadership in bringing this bill on the floor today after months
of investigation and hearings on this matter. I support the INS reform
but not at the expense of protecting employee rights. Mr. Issa's
amendment does this.
Why would we strip INS employees from safeguards against unfair
hiring and firing practices? As it stands today, the system that INS
currently has in place for dealing with labor related issues is failing
their employees. Since I have been a member of Congress I have received
several personnel related complaints from INS employees in or from my
district. Many others have been handled through their union. The Issa
amendment would further exasperate these issues by leaving INS rank and
file employees with no recourse against possible unfair practices by
management.
The purpose of the Barbara Jordan Reform Bill is to restructure the
INS. It is the system that failed us and not the employees. This
amendment undermines the intent of the Barbara Jordan Reform Bill.
Let's not use this bill as an opportunity to punish the INS
employees. We must continue to protect and value the employees of this
and every other agency or business. Despite reservations about the
current administrations policies with regard to justice and civil
rights, I do support the base bill for its efforts to create a more
efficient Service. I congratulate my colleagues on their efforts.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Issa amendment.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 107-419.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Lofgren
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
Page 62, after line 21, insert the following:
SEC. 13A. PROCUREMENTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE
PERFORMANCE OR EFFICIENCY.
(a) In General.--The authorities provided in this section
apply to any procurement of information technology products
or services, including the management of information
technology improvement programs, necessary to improve the
performance or efficiency of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Office of the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement. Such procurements of information technology
products or services may include those necessary to improve
the ability of the entities referred to in the preceding
sentence to share information with other public agencies and
law enforcement authorities authorized to receive such
information.
(b) Simplified Procedures for the Procurement of
Information Technology.--
(1) Deeming products and services as commercial items.--Any
product or service procured by the Attorney General as
described in subsection (a) may be deemed to be a commercial
item (as defined in section 4(12) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 403)) for purposes of sections 31
and 34 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41
U.S.C. 427, 430) and section 303(g) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(g)).
(2) Inapplicability of limitation on use of simplified
acquisition procedures.--
(A) In general.--The $5,000,000 limitation provided in
section 31(a)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 427(a)(2)), and section 303(g)(1)(B) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(B)) shall not apply to purchases of products
or services deemed to be a commercial item under paragraph
(1).
(B) Guidance.--The Attorney General and the Administrator
of Federal Procurement Policy shall jointly issue guidance
and procedures for the use of simplified acquisition
procedures for a purchase of products or services in excess
of $5,000,000 under the authority of this section.
(c) Streamlined Procedures for the Procurement of
Information Technology.--The Attorney General shall, when
appropriate, use streamlined acquisition authorities and
procedures authorized by law for a procurement described in
subsection (a), including authorities and procedures that are
provided under the following provisions of law:
(1) Federal property and administrative services act of
1949.--In title III of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949:
(A) Paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) of subsection (c) of
section 303 (41 U.S.C. 253), relating to use of procedures
other than competitive procedures under certain circumstances
(subject to subsection (e) of such section).
(B) Section 303J (41 U.S.C. 253j), relating to orders under
task and delivery order contracts.
(2) Office of federal procurement policy act.--Paragraphs
(1)(B), (1)(D), and (2) of section 18(c) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416(c)), relating
to inapplicability of a requirement for procurement notice.
(d) Nondiscrimination Against Small-Business Concerns.--
This section shall be applied in a manner that does not
discriminate against small-business concerns (within the
meaning of such term as used in the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632 et seq.)) or any type of small-business concern.
(e) Period of Authority.--The authorities provided in this
section shall apply with respect to any procurement of
information technology products or services described in
subsection (a) during fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
(f) Review and Report by Comptroller General.--Not later
than 180 days after the end of fiscal year 2004, the
Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on
Government Reform and the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Governmental Affairs
and the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the use of the
authorities provided in this section. The report shall
contain the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which products and
services acquired using authorities provided under this
section contributed to the capacity of the entities referred
to in subsection (a) to carry out their missions.
(2) Any recommendations of the Comptroller General taking
into account the assessment performed under paragraph (1).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide the time
evenly with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed
to control such time.
I would note that this amendment has been offered with the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon) as well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee), gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H1662]]
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide for simplified procedures
for acquisition of information-technology solutions to help reform the
INS. The simplified acquisition procedures were initially created in
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and augmented under
the Klinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
These procedures will speed up the procurement process to allow
agencies to acquire goods and services they need in a more efficient
manner. There are shorter waiting periods after the notices are issued,
more flexibility in how requests for proposals are put together, fewer
potential bidders have to be notified. It is important to note that
competition is still required and bids must be solicited from at least
three bidders.
Under current law, agencies may use simplified acquisition procedures
to acquire goods and services worth up to 100,000 and to acquire
commercial items up to 5 million. This amendment further adds to the
flexibility for the acquisition of technology as well as the management
of technology.
It is important to note that within the amendment there is a
nondiscrimination provision against small businesses so that we can
continue to have small business play a vigorous and vital role in the
provision of IT and there is also protection in the Truth and
Negotiating Act which would continue to apply, as well as the Federal
Cost Accounting Standards Act that would continue to protect taxpayers.
The immigration service is an agency that is in the dark ages
technologically. I am of the belief that until we allow and actually
insist and give the tools to management to bring technology, they will
never get ahead of their problem. Mr. Ziegler, the current
commissioner, told the House Committee on the Judiciary in March that,
``The INS is big on information but small on technology.''
I would say that is an understatement. Recently, at home in Silicon
Valley, there was a convention of IT professionals meeting from the
government, the Federal Government primarily, meeting with CEOs and
technology wizards in Silicon Valley, and I would like to read what the
INS CIO George Bollinger said relative to his role at the INS. ``I am
to high tech what Danny DeVito is to the NBA.''
That is the quote of the guy who is in charge of information
technology at the INS describing his ability to manage IT.
This amendment would allow management to be brought in. I think if we
failed to do this, and its proposal is for a 2-year time period only,
INS only, we are going to continue to fall further and further behind.
This is an agency that is still creating paper files, an agency that is
putting material on microfiche. There are over 100 databases that
cannot communicate with each other.
{time} 1400
There is no ability within the agency to even devise an enterprise
architecture program, something that the new Commissioner has actually
freely admitted. When I asked the last Congress for the technology
plan, I was told that they hope someday to update their DOS system. I
kid my colleagues not.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I oppose this amendment. The INS has had a difficulty for a long time
in developing and fielding information systems to support its programs
operation, but this is not the reason to deviate from the rules that
this Congress has put in place to govern full and open competition in
the government procurement process.
Given the difficulties the INS has had in effectively managing and
using information technology in the past, the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs should be required to follow all
pertinent procurement requirements until such time as he has shown the
capability to manage the plan and ongoing information technology
investments effectively.
Only in this way can we ensure that the hundreds of millions of
dollars that will be spent on IT by the new INS and its successors will
be spent wisely. That is why we have procurement regulations. They are
designed to ensure that the government, and thus the taxpayers, get the
best possible product, while the taxpayer is charged the lowest
possible price. They are designed to avoid the potential for contracts
being steered to friends or relatives.
We do not need sole-source bidding, and this is what the Lofgren
amendment opens the door for, but open and fair competition in the
awarding of contracts.
Mr. Chairman, Members should know that the administration strongly
opposes this amendment because of the detrimental impact on policies
and procedures on procurement. I am also informed that both the
Republican and Democratic leadership of the Committee on Government
Reform, that has got principal jurisdiction over this topic, have got
significant concerns about the Lofgren amendment.
I will be happy to continue working on this issue before conference
on this bill with the drafters of the amendment, the Committee on
Government Reform, and the administration, but I would urge Members to
oppose the amendment at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time.
Everyone knows my respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren), but I hope that she will have a better answer than I do for
the minority contractors in my district and hers, who are catching it
right now with procurement rules, tossing them out. I just want to find
out what we tell them if her amendment prevails.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, this is yet another example of when a
manager's deal is done, some things get left out. And this is a very
worthwhile part of the reform, this is just as bipartisan.
My colleague from California, my colleague from Utah, in fact, are
often opposed on bills, but not this time. Why? Because we want a
streamlined organization. We want to empower this organization to do
what it needs to do and do it efficiently. That has been the complaint
for more than 30 years.
INS failure is bipartisan. Administration after administration have
failed to do what we seek to do here today, and I strongly support the
Lofgren-Cannon amendment because it is bipartisan. It will lead to
efficiencies. It is about making this organization do a better job for
all of us.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 4 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this amendment to speed up the adoption of new
information technology by the restructured agency. I offer this
amendment together with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren)
and other Members of this body, including the gentleman from California
(Mr. Berman), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green). I believe this amendment has broad support, and I would
urge the Members to watch who votes for it as we come to a vote, if
that happens.
The INS is one of the worst Federal agencies in adopting information
technology necessary to do its job more efficiently and at a lower
cost. The current INS and the new immigration bureaus have a core
function of managing information about people. In that task, they are
way behind. The INS has computers incapable of performing basic tasks,
information systems that do not talk to each other, and still do things
and is still doing things like putting together important documents on
microfilm and boxing them up for storage rather than making them
available to line officers via computer.
[[Page H1663]]
The technology is already critical and will get worse if we do not do
something, provide some temporary flexibility to the Attorney General
to buy technology solutions while this agency restructures itself.
Under the simplified acquisition procedures in this amendment, there
are shorter waiting periods after notices are issued, more flexibility
in how requests for proposals are put together. Fewer potential bidders
have to be notified. The competition is still required. Bids must be
solicited from at least three bidders.
It is also important to note that although this amendment will speed
it up, that is, information technology acquisitions, there are still a
number of important safeguards that protect the agency and the
taxpayers. Two of the most important laws that still apply are the
Truth in Negotiating Act.
TINA requires contractors to provide cost and pricing data to the
Federal Government and certify their accuracy. False certifications
result in downward adjustments. Such procurements are not exempt from
Federal cost accounting standards that help prevent contractors from
inflating their costs.
I understand some Members of the Committee on Government Reform do
not like this amendment, and I am a member of that committee myself. We
worked with the majority staff and OMB to try to address their
concerns. And in an ideal world, we could have hearings and studies and
recommendations in that committee about government procurement policy
generally to address these problems. But I urge my colleagues not to
care more about jurisdictional turf battles than making this
immigration agency work and giving it the technology to do so. This
authority is what the INS has indicated before the Committee on the
Judiciary that they need to get a handle on these problems.
This is an opportunity to provide some temporary flexibility to get
the right technology in place at that restructured immigration agency.
It is a chance to solve some huge problems. So if my colleagues like
the status quo, if they think the current technology situation at INS
is great, then they should vote against this amendment. But the
American people want results, and this Congress also wants results.
We want an agency with the technology in place to prevent dead
terrorists from getting visa documents 6 months after they have
attacked us and died. We should want technology in place to reduce
backlogs for legal immigrants and track the whereabouts of aliens who
are in this country. The way to do that is to ease the restrictions and
red tape on procuring the right technology to solve these problems.
I urge my colleagues to support the Cannon-Lofgren amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for
yielding me the time, and I just want to say I support his amendment. I
would also like to take this opportunity to say I support the Issa
amendment, which would make excepted employees of INS employees and
give them, I think, more accountability in a very, very serious and
very critical position.
I thank the gentleman for letting me add that endorsement of the Issa
amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just point out that it has been wonderful working with the
Chairman on this issue. We have, in fact, included some great
provisions in the manager's amendment that allows for more flexibility
in firing. They do not go quite as far as the Issa amendment, I will
point out, but this is a different issue.
This is an important issue, and this issue relates to how and when
and how quickly we get technology into the INS.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time.
It is a pleasure to join in a bipartisan opposition to this Lofgren-
Cannon amendment. The INS does not need a blank check from this
Congress. If my colleagues look at the record of the INS, it has shown
a total inability to successfully implement information technology
advancements.
The Inspector General at the Department of Justice said that the INS
``made huge investments in automation technology and information
systems that have yielded questionable results,'' and continues ``to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars'' on information technology
initiatives ``without being able to explain how the money was spent or
what was accomplished.''
This amendment would waive the requirement for full and open
competition on information technology products and services for the INS
through 2004. The INS would be able to purchase a multimillion-dollar
computer technology improvement without any requirement for competitive
bids or review under existing law.
There are six exceptions already in law that would allow them to
avoid the requirement of open competition if they saw fit to do so;
things like a national security requirement; maybe there is only one
responsible bidder. The law provides for unusual and compelling
circumstances that would do harm to the government as an exception.
And, finally, if the head of the INS determines that it is in the
public interest to avoid competition, all they have to do is notify
Congress 30 days before they award the contract to give us the
opportunity to express our concern.
This amendment is totally unnecessary. We have streamlined many of
our procurement practices over the last decade, and we are now reading
news reports that tell us we may have streamlined them too much. In one
recent story, Charles Tiefter, the University of Baltimore professor
who spent a decade here working as a House lawyer, said, ``Scandals are
coming,'' referring to the procurement practices of the Federal
Government.
Now is not the time to give a blank check to the INS, and I hope my
colleagues will join us in bipartisan opposition to this amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has the right to close.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin for yielding me the time, and I join him and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in a bipartisan effort to uphold the laws
of our country in terms of procurement which were put in place for
better government oversight, to save taxpayers' dollars, and to be sure
that there is full and open competition for the billions of dollars
that this government spends in contracts.
One of my dear friends and colleagues mentioned earlier in debate
that we were going to get past the redtape. I would hardly call
competitive bidding and allowing people to compete for the right to
provide services at the best price redtape. I would call that, saving
taxpayers' dollars, good government and what should be done in this
Congress.
I tell my colleagues that the fact that the INS is one of the worst-
managed systems, and it has been called by their own IG, an information
system that has a top management challenge. The fact that it is poorly
managed is more of a reason that we should have these safeguards that
the gentleman before me mentioned. There are exemptions that they can
take if they so need, but for billion-dollar, multimillion-dollar
contracts, I would say regular order, competitive bidding, and let us
follow the laws of this country.
The procurement laws were put in place not only to have good
oversight and good management and to protect taxpayers' dollars but
also to allow small companies and small businesses a door into
government, the ability to compete for work.
Why should we slam the door in their face? We are just talking about
saving taxpayers' dollars and getting the best form of government there
to serve the people. And we must ensure that there is an opportunity
for companies to fairly compete by allowing the INS to get around
existing procurement laws.
[[Page H1664]]
This amendment prohibits full and open competition on information
technology purchases, and I urge a no vote in a bipartisan effort.
I must conclude by commending the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) on her excellent work. In this body we usually agree, but on
this one I come down on the side of the taxpayers. Full and open
competition. Vote no.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time.
I have figured this out now. This has been confusing me, why this is
a high-tech boondoggle. That is what this is. Waive the rules so the
high-tech people can run wild.
The gentleman from Utah is exempt from this. They do not have many
high-tech people or many minorities.
{time} 1415
So he does not know that much about minority procurement rules, but
the rest of my colleagues here do. Tell me what I tell the African
American people, business persons, that have been trying to get in the
door for 20 years?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the gentleman that Utah is
really one of the high-tech havens on earth; and interestingly, many of
our minorities are running our high-tech companies. Let me also make
two points in particular. One, they are willing to compete; and, two,
this is a very narrow exemption. A very, very narrow exemption.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am so relieved, I
cannot tell the gentleman how much better I feel now that he has told
me.
Mr. CANNON. The gentleman should come to Utah to see this.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I will conclude.
I think there is some misunderstandings among some of the speakers
because the amendment before us does not repeal procurement law; it
merely applies the procurement efficiency laws, the Clinger-Cohen Act,
to the INS, and changes the limits for a 2-year time period so that we
can get some technology into this agency.
Right now, Silicon Valley companies and high-tech companies across
the country are willing to come in and do assessments for what the
agency needs. And actually, what they are saying is have everyone come
in, not a sole source, come in and help this agency find out what it
needs. We lack an enterprise architecture, and under current law we
cannot do that.
If we do not streamline and allow for existing streamlined procedures
to be put in place on a 2-year time frame for this agency, we are going
to continue to hear what we have for the last 10 years. In 2 years'
time we will have some technology. We still have 236 PCs, we still have
an agency that is creating paper files. If we do not apply the existing
law that allows for streamlining acquisitions to this agency, we are
going to end up continuing to waste taxpayers' dollars; we are going to
continue to have Americans put at risk because databases cannot
communicate with each other.
I have seen the picture of Mohammed Atta too many times today. The
reason why they were admitted is because the inspector at the gate did
not know what the other hand of the INS was doing. And unless we have
technology deployed in this agency, that deplorable condition will
continue to be true.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is whether the INS should go into more sole-
source procurement for information-technology issues. Competitive
bidding keeps the cost down to the taxpayers, and it means that various
vendors compete against one another on who can provide the best product
for the lowest possible cost for what the government needs.
I would remind all Members, but particularly those on the Republican
side of the aisle, that the administration has a great deal of concern
about this amendment, particularly the OMB. I do not think that as we
restructure that agency we should throw out all of the procurement
rules relative to computer and information-technology procurement.
The time may come when the new Associate Attorney General for
immigration affairs may find this necessary, but let us wait until we
restructure the agency and the person who is going to be the overseer
of the entire operation makes a determination of whether competitive
bidding works or we should make a particular exception.
This amendment puts the cart before the horse. I would urge a ``no''
vote to keep the cart after the horse.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the
amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and amendment No. 7
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Issa
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 272, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 114]
AYES--145
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kirk
Kolbe
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Riley
Rogers (MI)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
[[Page H1665]]
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--272
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Baldacci
Blagojevich
Cooksey
Harman
Hinojosa
Holt
Hulshof
Jones (NC)
Leach
Matsui
Rangel
Rodriguez
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Tanner
Traficant
Waxman
{time} 1446
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. SAWYER, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mrs.
McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. REHBERG, BACHUS, BROWN of South Carolina, COLLINS, GOODLATTE,
FRELINGHUYSEN, EVERETT, FOSSELLA, Mrs. CUBIN and Mrs. NORTHUP changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule
XVIII, the Chair announces he will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time
period for which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the
remaining amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Lofgren
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105,
noes 312, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
AYES--105
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Berman
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Cannon
Cantor
Coble
Combest
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeMint
Dooley
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Eshoo
Farr
Flake
Frank
Ganske
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Honda
Horn
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
Linder
Lofgren
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller, Dan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Nussle
Olver
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pickering
Pombo
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sununu
Thornberry
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--312
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
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
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
[[Page H1666]]
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Baldacci
Blagojevich
Cooksey
Dunn
Hinojosa
Holt
Hulshof
Jones (NC)
Leach
Murtha
Rangel
Rodriguez
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Tanner
Traficant
Waxman
{time} 1455
Mr. KERNS and Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HARMAN and Messrs. ADERHOLT, BERMAN and GOODLATTE changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). There being no further
amendments in order, the question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3231) to replace the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the
Agency for Immigration Affairs, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 396, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405,
noes 9, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
AYES--405
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
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
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
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
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
Sanchez
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
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
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
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
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--9
Abercrombie
Clayton
Honda
Kolbe
Lofgren
Mink
Pomeroy
Sanders
Watt (NC)
NOT VOTING--21
Baldacci
Blagojevich
Cooksey
Davis, Tom
Hinojosa
Holt
Hulshof
John
Jones (NC)
Lantos
Meeks (NY)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Rangel
Rodriguez
Sandlin
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Tanner
Traficant
Waxman
{time} 1513
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:
A bill to replace the Immigration and Naturalization
Service with the Office of the Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement, and for other purposes.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall
116. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye,'' in favor of
passage.
____________________