[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8978-H8986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 2845, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM
ACT OF 2004
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gutierrez moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House amendment to the bill S. 2845 be
instructed to recede from its amendment to the bill
(particularly sections 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3032,
3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, and 3056 of its amendment) and
concur therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Hostettler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on
H.R. 10 with instructions that the House recede to the Senate and
strike provisions 3005, 3007, 3009 and 3032 from the bill. These
provisions are poison pills that will slow the process of reforming our
Nation's intelligence agencies and do nothing to make us safer.
My motion further instructs House conferees to recede to the Senate
by striking sections 3051 through 3056 from H.R. 10 relating to
driver's licenses, identification cards and accepting the corresponding
driver's licenses provisions from the Senate-passed bill.
Mr. Speaker, instead of making us safer, enactment of these
provisions would impose severe hardship on aliens by subjecting at
least 1 million immigrants to deportation without any administrative
hearing or due process, no review; permit the United States to
outsource torture by sending an individual to a country where he or she
is likely to be tortured; install a number of new barriers to winning
asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from
receiving the protection of asylum in the United States; and prohibit
habeas corpus review.
Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind my colleagues of the very
relevant details. None of these provisions were included in the
recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and they are
extremely divisive. Insistence on these provisions could greatly
complicate the task of conferencing with the Senate and producing a
bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I urge my
colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Speaking on section 3005, it is very problematic, Mr. Speaker. Among
other things, it would bar the use of matricula consular identification
cards, a policy that the Bush administration has opposed. Not only
would this affect undocumented immigrants, it would also affect
Canadians. Section 3005 makes it impossible for Canadians, who
currently do not have a passport to be legally in the United States, to
establish their identity when encountered by Federal employees.
Last month, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly rejected an
attempt to overturn the Department of Treasury regulations that permit
matricula consular identification cards to be used in banking
transactions. The House stripped the provision from the bill by
adopting an amendment to H.R. 5025 that was offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House Committee on Financial Services
chairman. The House adopted the Oxley amendment on September 14 by a
vote of 222 to 177. Clearly, we should not revisit this. It has been
visited not once, but at least on three occasions.
Section 3006. This section greatly expands the use of expedited
removal in the United States. It would be especially harmful for women
and children who are escaping a range of gender-related persecutions
such as rape, sexual slavery, trafficking, honor killings, since
persons scarred by such trauma often require time before they can step
forward to express their claim.
I would like to think that most people in this Chamber would agree
that this would cause untold grief to women and children who will no
longer be able to obtain the relief to which Congress believes they are
entitled, victimizing them once they are raped, victimizing them once
again. This amendment in the Committee of the Whole was carried on the
Smith amendment, and then we unfortunately had to revisit it for
political purposes where it was defeated or it would not even be in my
motion.
Furthermore, this section would reverse several decades of policy
with respect to persons fleeing the tyranny in Cuba, eviscerating
protections that currently are available to Cubans arriving in the
United States. Section 3006 would mean that any Cuban who sets foot on
United States soil would have to be placed in expedited removal. Like
all others, they would be subject to mandatory detention and swift
removal from the United States. This will mean that many Cubans would
be returned to the dictatorship of Fidel Castro without so much as a
hearing.
Section 3007 is nothing short of an assault on asylum. It would make
sweeping changes to asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend
would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. Section 3007 would
create new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent
bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the
United States. This, in turn, would result in bona fide refugees being
returned to their persecutors.
It ignores the fact that asylum applicants, particularly survivors of
torture, rape or forced abortion or sterilization, may not be
comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspector
officer at an airport.
Section 3009 is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If this section
is enacted, the constitutionally compelled remedy of habeas corpus will
be eliminated, and a plainly inadequate
[[Page H8979]]
court of appeals review will be substituted that will leave many
noncitizens without any forum to raise legitimate claims of
governmental error and misconduct. At the same time, the section
creates an extremely high burden for obtaining a stay of deportation,
inviting government to race to deport noncitizens before a Federal
court can rule on the merits of the case.
Section 3032. Supporters of section 3032 falsely contend that it
would prevent the United States from deporting persons to countries
where they are likely to be tortured. However, nothing could be further
from the truth. In fact, under this section, as it was amended in the
Committee of the Whole by the Hostettler amendment, the United States
still could outsource torture by sending individuals to countries where
they are likely to be tortured.
It merely provides that in order to do so the United States
Government would be required to seek what amounts to a note from the
torturing government, that torturing government to promise us that they
will not torture that individual anymore before we send them back.
Who among our colleagues will be willing to stake their lives or the
lives of their loved ones on the promise of the Government of Sudan or
the Government of Syria or the People's Republic of China or North
Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia that they will not torture someone if we
send them back after they try to get asylum here?
Mr. Speaker, our country is far better than this. This provision is
unacceptable. The administration expressed the President's opposition
to permitting the government to outsource torture to foreign
governments in the administration's statement of administration policy
on H.R. 10. The President of the United States is against this
provision. Members should know that a vote against this motion to
instruct would be a vote against the very wishes of the President of
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I, at this point, would like to end my comments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion on H.R.
10, the legislation that has been considered by the House over the last
several days, and this motion to instruct would strike several
provisions in the legislation that are vitally important to securing
the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, I would offer into the Record a
letter by a group called the 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
The letter was written to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is made up of
a group of families who lost loved ones or were victimized on September
11 as a result of the attacks on our country. No one could speak more
eloquently than they about the need for change to our immigration
policy in that they write:
``We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families
for a Secure America for the provisions in title 3 of H.R. 10, the 9/11
Recommendations Implementation Act,'' and those are the provisions that
this motion to instruct would seek to eliminate.
Reading further, ``These provisions would go a long way toward
closing the loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists, all of whom had
violated our immigration laws in one way or another, to enter and move
freely around our country while they honed their plot to murder our
loved ones.
``We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions that
require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their identity upon
entry with secure, verifiable documents, preclude acceptance by Federal
employees of consular ID cards, insist that DHS, Department of Homeland
Security, expand its use of expedited removal and prevent illegal
aliens from abusing our judicial process to delay deportation and
increase the number of the Border Patrol and ICE, or Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement, agents.
{time} 1600
``All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 9/11
Commission's recommendations and so should be enacted and implemented
as quickly as possible.
``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to
recognize and address the current immigration crisis have taught us
that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals
languish in Congress because our elected leaders are either blinded by
special interests or afraid of being vilified by them. We commend you
and the House Republican leadership for your willingness to address
immigration reform in H.R. 10 while the sponsors of every other so-
called 9/11 bill completely ignored it.
``It is incomprehensible to us that any reasonable person could
believe that immigration reform plays no legitimate role in our
response to the attacks. We are outraged that terrorists and murderers
are able to frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will
be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they have
committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily
prosecutable here in America, their use of the Convention Against
Torture allows them to escape justice.
``We are strongly supportive of section 3031 and section 3032 of H.R.
10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws.
Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last 3 years
that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered 3 years ago by
enacting reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the
same horror. We hope you will honor those promises by supporting the
immigration provisions already in the bill and by opposing any efforts
to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our
families on September 11, 2001.
``Sincerely, the Board of Directors of 9/11 Families For a Secure
America.''
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone who can more eloquently speak to
the importance of maintaining these provisions in the House bill in
H.R. 10, when in other proposals, as the families would say themselves,
that every other so-called 9/11 bill has completely ignored the central
focus of the 9/11 tragedy, which is that individuals from outside our
country came into our country, abused the process, and murdered our
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I read earlier for the Record.
9/11 Families for a
Secure America,
New York, NY, September 28, 2004.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: We are writing to express the
support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for
the provisions in Title III of H.R. 10, the 9/11
Recommendations Implementation Act. These provisions would go
a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19
terrorists--all of whom had violated our immigration laws in
one way or another--to enter and move freely around our
country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones.
We strongly urge the Members of the Judiciary Committee to
retain the immigration provisions included in H.R. 10. We
believe that implementation of Title III would improve
homeland security dramatically and help to ensure that no
other American families have to experience the devastating
grief, the debilitating loss, and the overwhelming rage that
we have known every day for more than three years now.
We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions
that: require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their
identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents;
preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID
cards; insist that DHS expand its use of expedited removal
and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process
to delay deportation; and increase the numbers of Border
Patrol and ICE agents.
All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the
9/11 Commission's recommendations, and so should be enacted
and implemented as quickly as possible. Our efforts over the
past three years to get elected officials to recognize and
address the current immigration crisis have taught us that
even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform
proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders
are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being
vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican
Leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform
in H.R. 10, while the sponsors of every other so-called ``9/
11 bill'' completely ignored it. It is incomprehensible to us
that any reasonable person could believe that immigration
reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the
attacks.
We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to
frustrate efforts to deport
[[Page H8980]]
them by claiming that they will be tortured upon being
returned home. Even worse, when they have committed their
heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily prosecutable
here in America, their use of the Convention Against Torture
allows them to escape justice. We are strongly supportive of
sections 3031 and sections 3032 of H.R. 10, which would end
this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws.
There is, however, one glaring omission in H.R. 10. The 9/
11 Commission specifically recommended enhanced cooperation
with and training of state and local law enforcement officers
on immigration law, yet H.R. 10 includes no mention of this
recommendation. We hope you will bring up the CLEAR Act, H.R.
2671, for a full committee markup as soon as possible in
order to complete the 9/11 Commission's work.
Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the
last three years that they would honor our loved ones who
were murdered three years ago by enacting reforms to ensure
that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope
you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration
provisions already in the bill and by opposing any effort to
protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart
our families on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors,
9/11 Families for a Secure America.
Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age
23, WTC, North Tower, 103rd Floor.
Monica Gabrielle, North Haven, CT, Wife of Rich Gabrielle,
WTC, South Tower.
Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, Sunnyside,
NY, Father of Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor.
Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart.
Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph.
Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Detective Sergeant, NYPD,
Retired), Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, Bronx,
NY.
Bruce DeCell, Staten Island, NY, Father in law of Mark
Petrocelli, age 29, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor.
Grace Godshalk, Yardley, PA, Mother of William R. Godshalk,
age 35, WTC, South Tower, 89th Floor.
April D. Gallop, Virginia, Pentagon Survivor.
Lynn Faulkner, Ohio, Husband of Wendy Faulkner, South
Tower.
Joan Molinaro, Staten Island, NY, Mother of Firefighter
Carl Molinaro.
Colette Lafuente, Poughkeepsie, NY, Wife of Juan LaFuente,
WTC visitor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how much time do the proponents have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Illinois has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, instead of passing one strong bill to make
our country safer, the House bill has two divergent parts: the first
part is the core bill, which includes a watered-down version of the
intelligence reform provisions in the 9/11 Commission report. The
second part is a campaign bill, which has some useful features, but
also contains partisan controversial provisions, such as expanded
deportation, unlimited detention, unnecessary environmental waivers,
and unchecked databases designed to paint Democrats as weak on
terrorism in the weeks before an election.
Several of these egregious provisions were eliminated on the House
floor, but the re-vote on the Smith amendment persuaded me that the
bill's sponsors were not seeking common ground, but were making 30-
second attack ads. I voted in committee to report the bill in order to
move the process forward, and I will work my heart out in conference to
strengthen the intelligence reform provisions and conform the other
provisions to what the 9/11 Commission recommended.
Let me focus on what strengthening the intelligence provisions means.
Our first priority in the conference report should be to strengthen the
National Intelligence Director, called the NID. I agree with the
statement of administration policy on H.R. 10 that ``H.R. 10 does not
provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the intelligence
community effectively.''
H.R. 10's budget authorities are weaker than S. 2845; and,
stunningly, they are weaker than current statutes and executive orders
which allow for the transfer and reprogramming of funds by the Director
of Central Intelligence. Under H.R. 10, money is simply passed through
the NID to the various intelligence agencies. Unless the NID has the
power to manage and control the budgets of these agencies, he or she
will not be able to integrate our intelligence capabilities
effectively.
Moreover, the President is not the NID's only customer. We must
ensure that the NID addresses the needs of the Departments of Defense,
State, Homeland Security, and the war fighters when budgets are built
and executed. Our efforts must not lead to the dismemberment of the
National Foreign Intelligence Program, the NFIP, or we will end up with
less integration than we presently have.
To be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, neither bill, let me underscore
this, neither bill includes the budgets for tactical intelligence. And
no one is recommending that they be included. To repeat: no one has
recommended that the budgets of our tactical intelligence agencies be
included in the structure we are building under this legislation.
The NID also needs greater personnel management authorities. S. 2845
provides this authority, but H.R. 10 does not. The leaders of the
intelligence community must believe they work for the NID in addition
to their Department Secretaries. Consultation on appointments, which is
what H.R. 10 includes, is insufficient. The NID must at least have the
power to concur in key appointments. To enable the NID to create a
joint culture, he or she must also be able to transfer people to
centers and other multidisciplinary teams.
Congress solved the problem of a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff 20 years ago by mandating joint assignments for promotion and
creating a joint career track. The same must be done for the NID. After
all, the NID is our attempt to create Goldwater-Nichols jointness for
the intelligence community, just as we have done for the military.
Third, the director of the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism
Center, must have significant stature. Presidential appointment and
Senate confirmation of the NCTC director is critical to give that post
the stature and accountability that it requires. The President and the
Senate overwhelmingly support this.
Fourth, the conference report should include the provision of S. 2845
to create a trusted information-sharing network so government agencies
can connect the dots about the terrorists. Simply declaring the need,
as H.R. 10 does, is woefully insufficient.
And finally, it is imperative to develop mechanisms to ensure that
actions of the NID and NCTC do not encroach upon our civil liberties.
We must create an independent privacy and civil liberties board, which
was supported on a bipartisan basis in the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and then stripped in the Committee on Rules,
recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in S. 2845. These
intelligence provisions began here in the House with H.R. 4104, but
they stalled here because our leadership pursued a partisan path and
because the President's endorsement of S. 2845 was not followed up with
constructive effort in the House.
We know how to do this right, Mr. Speaker, and we must. We can never
replace the loved ones we lost on September 11, but we can honor them
and the bravery of those who came to their rescue by uniting in this
conference in the next several weeks to enact real reform. I pledge to
do my part.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip of the House.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me this time. I also want to thank all my colleagues, many of
whom voted for this bill just moments ago on both sides of the aisle,
for the work they put into this, to the time they have spent on this,
to the important discussion of how we secure our borders more
carefully, how we maintain our security in a greater way, and how we
look at intelligence-gathering and -sharing differently than we needed
two generations ago, in the late 1940s, when this was done the last
time. This makes our work very important as we move forward.
The work of the conferees will be challenging. We have given them a
strong product with a strong vote. I think this motion to reinstruct in
several areas just simply reaches too far. I spoke earlier today about
the importance of what do we do, what do we do with people who come to
this country
[[Page H8981]]
and have criminal backgrounds from another country.
These are not people we think are criminals or might have been
criminals. These are people who we know are criminals or we know are
terrorists. These people may come from countries that are not very
great countries. What we did today was change the bill so that we would
not be forced to send them back to that country, if in fact we can
figure out how to detain them in an appropriate way here.
I gave the example this morning of a person, and this is an absolute
case of someone who, in Jordan, was convicted of conspiring to bomb an
American school. That person came to America. He then sought sanctuary
on the basis that he should not be sent back to Jordan because they use
punishments we would find inappropriate. And we all agree on that. But
under our current law, the only thing to do was to let him then go to
an American community to live.
Well, an American community is full of American schools. So here we
have someone who is guilty of conspiring to kill American kids in a
school in Jordan, and our only current remedy appears to be, according
to the courts, to send him to a community in America to live, which is
full of schools that have American kids.
This motion to instruct says we should eliminate that language and go
back to the current environment, where the only choice is for that
person to go into the American community. In this case, that was a
terrorist, Mr. Speaker. In other cases we know of someone who was a
murderer, or a pedophile, or a rapist. We need better ways to deal with
people who abuse the open arms that America has traditionally had.
That is just one area of many that this motion to instruct
specifically addresses. So if in fact you vote for this motion, you are
voting to maintain the status quo. And I think my friends would almost
all agree the status quo, in that instance, as I described it, is not
an acceptable alternative for us to have.
We are searching for alternatives here that work better. I hope we
let this process go on. I hope we let our conferees work on this hard
job in the best way they can. I hope we defeat this motion to instruct.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time and for
his leadership.
I am delighted the majority whip was just on the floor, because I
really want to make the point that when we look at the questions of
immigration, and I think a lot of these points on the motion to
instruct the gentleman has offered refer to immigration issues, but
they also refer to issues of asylum and refugees. When we sit with our
constituents and we explain what America has stood for over the years,
its principles based upon not only immigration but the questions of
allowing people to come and seek refuge and allowing people to seek
asylum in the course of running away from persecution and torture and
the devastation of a despotic government, you find commonality.
That is, I think, what we are trying to do with the motion to
instruct as the conferees move forward. We are trying to find the kind
of commonality that, frankly, the White House has asked us to find, and
I might be very straightforward and say the families of the 9/11
victims have asked us to state and to find. We know that immigration
concerns raise their ugly head all the time. H.R. 10 is, frankly, not
the vehicle to engage in that discussion without the proper hearings
and understanding what would work best.
I just want to refer again to the administration's position on H.R.
10. It clearly says that the administration strongly opposes the
overbroad expansion of expedited removal authorities. The
administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification
standards that are proposed by the bill and believes they are unrelated
to security concerns.
{time} 1615
This is the same administration that signed into law the Department
of Homeland Security and has as its head Secretary Tommy Ridge. The
President goes on to say, signed by my good friend Alberto Gonzalez,
the counsel to the President as relates to the issue of torture.
Unfortunately, the two Smith amendments did not succeed. And so I think
it is important for the conferees to hear again what the President said
and the President said in this letter by way of his counsel, ``The
President did not propose and does not support this provision and a
provision that would permit the deportation of certain foreign
nationals to countries where they are likely to be tortured.''
Some would say that that has been corrected. It has not. Because what
the Hostettler language says, with all due respect to my good friend,
is that we will ask the countries not to torture this individual, but
it is to be asked by the Secretary of State when, in fact, that is not
a true protection because we know that we have asked many things, and
we have received none.
I frankly believe that we are losing the focus that the 9/11 families
would offer to us. As I look at the language in the 9/11 Commission
report on the immigration and law enforcement issues, they have
indicated that this is an important concept and that we should begin
looking at securing identification in the United States. But the
fundamental question that was asked by the families on H.R. 10 to be
adopted by this commission, by a bipartisan commission, Chairman Kean
and Vice Chairman Hamilton, was to fix the intelligence system to give
us one director of intelligence with budgetary authority.
I would only say that some of the provisions that the gentleman is
asking us to consider striking or a motion to instruct in order for
intelligent decisions to be made really go to the full understanding of
the American public, their compassion, their sensitivity, their belief
in the Statue of Liberty's principles of people coming over. This is
not to say that we do not deport terrorists. It is not to say that we
do not detain them. It simply suggests that we should not water down
the protections that we have that undermine the values of this
particular Nation as well as the legal principles that we have of
judicial review and as well as the protections we have had for those
seeking asylum and those who are seeking to be a refugee.
The expedited procedures, Mr. Speaker, are not procedures that
provide any security. I will say this as I close. All of these
provisions are subject to mistake, a mistake that can cost someone
their liberty, can cost someone their possible life, and certainly
mistaken identity is rampant as we try to fix this security system. I
need not speak about Yusuf Islam, Cat Stevens, who came to this country
just a few months ago and met with White House officials on the faith-
based initiative. Lo and behold, he was deplaned in Maine, his daughter
sent on, he was sent back because of a mistake.
I would ask my colleagues to look seriously at this motion to
instruct. It will not undermine the conferees. It will give them
guidance for what may be a consensus position on H.R. 10 for all of us
to vote on.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to talk specifically about one of the sections that are being
considered for removal as a result of the motion to instruct, section
3005, which addresses the importance of verifiable documentation for
aliens and their identification.
First of all, we need to understand what the section does not do. It
does not prevent aliens from presenting other foreign documents to open
bank accounts in this country. And it does not prevent aliens from
presenting other documents in addition to the documents listed. Thus,
an alien could also present a driver's license so long as the alien
presents a designated document.
What the section does do, however, it requires aliens to present
secure documents. It prevents the aliens from using consular
identification cards, as we have heard about earlier, issued by foreign
agents to aliens present in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that those foreign agents in the
United States issue them only to their nationals, but we will learn
later that that is in fact not the case, and that they will issue them
for purposes of getting into
[[Page H8982]]
the secure sections of airports or onto Federal facilities. Those
documents should be secure, and they should be safe from fraud.
The FBI has told our Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security,
and Claims that the most commonly issued of those documents is the
Mexican matricula consular. The matricula consular has been accepted in
this country for over 100 years, documentation that would allow a
Mexican citizen while legally present in the United States to have
contact information with their government, namely, a consular office in
the United States. That has happened for, as I said, a long time in
this country.
But the concern that we have is the newly issued Mexican matricula
consular is not reliable. It is vulnerable to forgery and, most
significantly, poses a terrorist threat. We had then Assistant Director
of the FBI's Office of Intelligence Steve McCraw testify before our
committee. He concluded that domestic acceptance of the matricula cards
in the United States poses a law enforcement and national security
risk. He stated that the criminal threat stems from the fact that the
matriculas can be a perfect breeder document for establishing a false
identity which can facilitate a wide range of crimes, including money
laundering. He told of individuals who were arrested with multiple
matriculas, each with the same photo but different names, and some of
whom had matching driver's licenses to go with the identities proposed
on the matricula cards. He concluded that the terrorist threat posed by
these cards is the ``most worrisome'' to the FBI.
He went on to say, ``The ability of foreign nationals to use foreign
cards to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United
States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the
United States without triggering name-based watch lists, those watch
lists that we think are going to save us from the next round of 9/11
attacks. But these kind of cards will actually keep individuals from
being cross-referenced on these lists. These lists are disseminated to
local police officers.'' Nor is the danger posed by those documents
only as breeder documents. For other documentation, notwithstanding
their vulnerability to fraud and abuse, consular ID cards can be
presented to board an airliner. We know of cases like that.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it is suggested that these cards,
especially the matricula consular, they are the most prevalent of the
consular ID cards, but quite honestly, there are several foreign
governments who are witnessing, observing the success of the issuance
and acceptance of these consular identification cards by Mexico, the
matricula consular, and they seek to follow them in issuing their own.
They are supposed to go to individuals who are nationals of these
particular respective foreign governments. But we know that these cards
have been issued to non-Mexican nationals in the United States,
including at least one Iranian.
Mr. Speaker, at the U.S. Air Force Academy, during a particular set
of arrests, employees with matricula cards were found to be employees
of the Air Force Academy, but they were not Mexican nationals. They
were Guatemalans. The Mexican government had either issued a matricula
consular to a non-national or these cards had been so easily created by
fraudulent means that they were able to obtain cards very similar to
the real cards.
It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that these insecure documents not be
accepted for identification purposes to enter secure areas, such as
boarding an airplane. That is why we cannot strip out any of the
provisions in title III and especially section 3005.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I heard the distinguished
gentleman reading and listing a litany of speculative uses of the
matricula card that he is speaking of. Let me just say that one of the
things that he also said is that the card has been used for 100 years,
and there has been no evidence over the 100 years of that kind of use.
But we are not in disagreement over the underlying principle that we
can ultimately provide ways of securing and standardizing any card. I
have spoken to law enforcement officers in my own community that have
not seen any abuse of the use of such cards, and I think the opposition
of the White House for these extraneous immigration provisions is just
that. We have seen no evidence, we have had no hearings and we have no
standards that can be set by adding these provisions on without more
study.
I would just simply ask my colleagues to support the motion to
instruct.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me, first of all, read from the 9/11 Commission because I think
it is pertinent at this point. In section 3051 through 3056, in
paragraph 3, it says, ``Far from calling for sweeping anti-immigration
legislation, the commission understood that we should reach out to
immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing
so that is valuable in every way, including intelligence-gathering.
Congress needs to pass meaningful reforms proposed by the 9/11
Commission and not insist,'' and I hope the gentleman from Indiana read
the 9/11 report; it says ``not insist on a divisive anti-immigrant
agenda that the commission rejected and has nothing to do with
preventing another attack.''
Not one of those individuals that committed the heinous act on 9/11
had a matricula consular. As a matter of fact, they were issued by the
government of the United States of America, and they either entered
this country illegally through borders, not south of here but through
the Canadian border, and through other means, legally and illegally,
into this country. So let us stop trying to confuse one thing with the
other.
Anyone listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think that the
government of Mexico issues a matricula consular, and all of a sudden
you skip and jump and you are in the United States of America, and you
get a Social Security card, you get all of the benefits of being here,
and you have got a passport, and you are free. If an INS agent, and I
would like the gentleman from Indiana to answer that, if an INS agent
stops someone with a matricula consular and says, I want identification
from you, prove you are legally here in the United States of America,
and gives them a matricula consular, answer the question, will that
person not or will that person be deported? He knows that person will
be immediately deported from the United States of America because we do
not recognize that as a legal means of staying in the United States. It
is not a passport. It is not a visa. It does not entitle that person to
legally be in the United States of America, and the gentleman from
Indiana knows that. He is too smart. He knows too much about this issue
to be fuzzy or wary on this issue. You cannot stay in this country with
a matricula consular.
What does it allow us to do? It allows an immigrant to open up a bank
account so they can send money back, hopefully in a good way, back to
their loved ones in their countries. That is what it allows them to do.
It allows them to take their American citizen children and enroll them
in school. It allows them to communicate.
Anybody listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think the Los
Angeles Police Department have lost their minds, the New York Police
Department have lost their minds, the Chicago Police Department have
lost their minds. They like the matricula consular, as do hundreds of
police departments across this country, because it ensures the safety
and allows them to gather intelligence and information and allows
people to cooperate with them. That is safety on our streets and
intelligence-gathering. Let me just say, because this matricula
consular, anybody thinks you get one, and it is magic. I go to a job, I
say: Here, I have got my matricula consular, give me a job. You know,
you cannot get a job with a matricula consular.
Lastly, let me say this. He skips over one important part. You have
got to be in the United States of America to have a matricula consular,
so you must have evaded something. Why do you want a matricula consular
if you are already legally in the United States of America? To open up
a banking account. That is the purpose. Let me just
[[Page H8983]]
say that people, hundreds, and the gentleman knows this, hundreds of
people die crossing the border between Mexico and the United States.
They drown in the Rio Grande, or they die in the desert. The terrorists
know, come through Canada. If we put 90 percent of our resources, that
is why they are not going to come through. They are going to find other
means. We should look for every possible way to stop them, but this is
not going to stop them.
As the commission says in their own report, don't use a divisive,
anti-immigrant agenda the commission rejected and has nothing to do
with preventing. This is the 9/11 Commission report. We should not do
that, because it has nothing to do with preventing.
Lastly, you want to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. You
and I will both agree and sign on a piece of paper, and we will have
the Justice Department notarize it. There are 10 million undocumented
workers in the United States of America. This Congress has not shown
the political will nor has it put forward the requisite resources to
deport them, nor will it ever.
{time} 1630
This country needs and thrives on their work, and we all know it. So
if we really want to deal with the immigration problem, then let us get
an immigration bill, at least start with what the President, George
Bush, said on January 7. Let us begin a national debate and an honest
discussion of the undocumented workers that live in this country and
let us integrate them so that the FBI, the CIA, our police departments
have their fingerprints where they work, where they bank. And then,
after we have eliminated those 10 million, because we know who they are
and where they work and where they bank and where their children go to
school and where they live, then we can reduce the number of people
down to maybe the real terrorists that hide among them.
Let us do that honestly. But let us not use another anti-immigrant
attack within a bill, H.R. 10, which does such a disservice to the
families of the lost ones of 9/11.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I can just speak briefly about the gentleman's comments with
regard to an individual who is in this country that presents only a
matricula consular card for identification, according to former
intelligence director for the FBI, Steve McCraw, his testimony before
our subcommittee said that really the only people that need to use a
matricula consular exclusively for identification purposes are illegal
aliens, simply because those that are in the country, that are present
in the country legally, have other forms of secured documentation such
as a passport or a visa or the like.
But the gentleman suggested in his comments that if a person supplies
exclusively a matricula consular card to a law enforcement agent that
they will be immediately deported. Mr. Speaker, they will not be
immediately deported if the gentleman's other provisions in this motion
to instruct are taken out, and that is portion 3006, which calls for
expedited removal.
If the gentleman is saying that he wants those people immediately
deported that only supply a matricula consular card for identification,
I would accept, under unanimous consent, to have section 3006 stripped
out of his motion to instruct. I do not think that is going to happen
because the gentleman does wish to remove expedited removal provision
from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I would like to step back for a moment and just talk briefly about
the situation we find ourselves in. In the months after 9/11, in fact,
in the days after 9/11, we instantly heard certain names of terrorists,
Osama bin Laden, obviously, and a few others. And I think we were
misled into believing that somehow these were the only problems that we
had, that these individuals were the extent of our terrorist problem.
What we have learned in the months since then and what we have
learned through the 9/11 Commission's work and its predecessor, the
Joint Committee of Inquiry here in Congress, is that any terrorist
operation is built upon a network. It is not one individual or even a
couple of individuals, but there is a whole network of individuals who
each plays a specific role, has a specific job, whether it be identity
documents or scoping out buildings or providing training or providing
intelligence or recruiting or whatever it may be.
What we have learned, I think, in these months since the tragic days
of September 11 is that if we are going to be successful in protecting
this Nation, we cannot focus solely on the trigger man or the guy who
plants the bomb or the guy who drives that rigged truck, because we can
remove those individuals and more may pop up.
Instead, we have to go over every link in the chain. We have to go
after those who provide material support, who provide the shadows in
which terrorists hide, who scope out the building and provide the
intelligence and the diagrams, who provide the transportation, who
provide the forged documents, who put the trigger men in place to do
their terrible deeds.
The 9/11 Commission was very clear in saying that its report was not
legislation. It understood that its report would need to go through the
legislative process, and it has. And I believe the legislation that
this body produced, H.R. 10, not only carries the spirit and concepts
of the 9/11 report, but based upon the experience that we have all had
and all that we have learned, I think it adds a lot to it.
It is only the House version of this bill that goes after every part
in that network. It is only the House version of the bill and, in
particular, the provisions that came out of the Committee on the
Judiciary that are aimed at breaking each of the links in making sure
that we go after the recruiters of terrorists, those who provide the
military training, those who recruit and, as well, the ranks of
terrorist organizations.
We have to go after them as surely as we go after those who have
placed that bomb. If we do not, we cannot win.
And I think we also recognize that by the very nature of terrorist
operations, we cannot wait until after the terrible act has occurred.
We have to disrupt it. We have to prevent it. We have to break that
chain. We have to disrupt that network. We have to find those who give
material support to terrorism, whether it be the military training or
the logistics. We have to remove them. Unless we remove those
individuals, we cannot succeed.
So the question I think we have before us today with this motion to
instruct is whether or not we are going to take a very narrow approach,
which is what some would suggest, and I would argue the Senate bill
would do, which is incomplete, which does not get after every link in
the chain, which does not really go after the network, which does not
have the material support provisions in it; or whether or not we are
going to be serious, whether or not we are going to take that
comprehensive approach that I can, as a young father, be proud of
because I know that it makes this country a safer place for my kids to
grow up in.
Make no mistake, when this legislation is signed by the President,
there will be some time that passes before we are able to take up some
of the new steps that the other side would have us remove. The clock is
ticking. We have heard a number of terrorism experts refer to this as a
race against time. I agree, it is. We have to get this right. We have
to be bold. We have to go after that network. We have to go after every
link in the chain. We have to remove them. We have to prevent them from
coming into place.
We have to send a signal to those who would recruit terrorists. We
have to send a signal to those who would become recruits. They are our
enemy just as surely as the man or the woman that pulls the trigger.
That is the experience, I think, that this world has had in the sad
months since September 11.
I urge my colleagues to avoid the motion to instruct because it falls
short. It does not do the job. It does not go after the network. It
will not break the links in the chain.
[[Page H8984]]
I have said it before. I think, as we all look back on the years
leading up to 9/11, I think we have to agree that a storm was gathering
in the terrorist world and too many of our leaders, and this is not a
partisan comment, too many of our leaders looked the other way. The
question is now whether, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, whether
or not our successors will look back at this Congress and say either
they did the right thing, they took a bold comprehensive approach, or,
let us hope not, they looked the other way and they fell short.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman for the
excellent work he has done this session as we have looked at
immigration issues and have worked hard to be certain that we address
the things that are of great concern to the American people and to our
constituents.
And it is of concern that we have this motion to instruct to strip
apart H.R. 10. And, of course, our opponents of H.R. 10 and our
colleagues across the aisle are using impassioned talk to generate
emotion on this issue, but what we have contained in H.R. 10 and in the
provisions that they are wanting to lift out of that bill, wanting to
move away, are just good, solid, common-sense legislation.
I disagree with my colleague across the aisle. He was talking about
law enforcement officials and asking if they had lost their minds. I do
not think they have. The ones in my district definitely have not.
They are very concerned about this, and I have been working with them
since my days in the Tennessee Senate, working to address the driver's
license issue and how that affects the American people. And they would
choose to remove that from H.R. 10, and it is important.
We have got to be certain, as we look at our Nation's security, that
we take very careful steps not to reward individuals who are going to
choose to break the law to get here. We have to have great respect for
the rule of law and be certain that we continue to have policies that
require and reward those that respect the law.
Section 3052 that they are wanting to pull out does address the
driver's license situation, having legal documents for driver's
licenses. It is not a mandate. It does not set up a national database,
and this section has been worked on very carefully. The gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) out of the Committee on Government Reform, and
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who was secretary of
state, have worked diligently on this issue to be certain that we know
that the people who are getting a driver's license, a valid government
I.D., are here in this country lawfully, that they have an official
passport to be here lawfully. And it gives guidance to our States so
that States can continue to have reciprocity for the use of those
driver's licenses.
The provisions that are contained in 3052 are good, solid, common-
sense provisions. It is something that our States, every single State
in this great Nation, will know that they can depend on, that other
citizens will know that they can depend on, that the individuals that
work the TSA, that are looking at driver's licenses, that are allowing
people to get on planes, they will know that this is a valid document
and that the person who holds that document in their hand is who they
say they are and that they are here and having presence in this country
legally.
I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct. I
would encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 10, the provisions that
have been worked on, the provisions we have worked on with our State
legislators so that we help them, help them to have the assurance that
the documentation that is before them is real, it is valid; and so that
the immigrant community knows that we are honoring those that choose to
obey our laws, to work hard and to come here seeking hope, opportunity,
and freedom.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
First of all, I will insert into the Record, since obviously the
majority has not read it, a statement of administration policy dated
October 7, 2004, from the White House, George Bush's White House. In
it, it says on page 2, paragraph 3: ``The administration strongly
opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal . . . The
administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification
standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security
concerns.''
{time} 1645
This is the President of the United States of America, the leader of
your party that you went to New York and nominated, who is going to
debate Senator John Kerry tonight.
So if you are right, Senator John Kerry could say tonight to
President Bush, You have standards that are less secure because you
believe that people should be expedited and should not be expedited.
You believe they should not be, that the matricula consular somehow
allows illegal criminals, murderers, rapists and others to roam around
our country; that you oppose their quick and immediate deportation;
that you are giving harbor to terrorists in the United States of
America.
If we are to believe what the Republican majority has just said, and
President Bush has contradicted your position in his letter of official
policy, then somebody is wrong and somebody is right here. But I do not
think your colleague, the President of the United States, is weak on
national defense. I do not think the Republican majority is saying to
the President of the United States that he thinks it is a good idea to
have murderers and rapists and other criminal elements freely being
able to roam the United States of America. Yet, indeed, if you are
right, that is what the President supports, because we have his
official document of the administration policy, and he says remove this
kind of language from the document, that we support it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Illinois with
regard to his support of the President. It looks like Illinois this
year may be in fact in play, the electoral college.
But I do want to remind the gentleman that we do have three branches
of government, and we have all been sent here to represent our various
constituencies with regard to these very important issues of national
security.
Going back to the letter that I have submitted for the Record from
the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I know that the gentleman is
very impassioned about his support for immigration, and I very much
appreciate it. We are a Nation of immigrants. But I think it is
important for us to refocus on what actually took place on 9/11 and
what the American people are asking us to do.
The 9/11 Families for a Secure America said, ``Our efforts over the
past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and to address the
current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable
and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress.'' They
do not languish in the House of Representatives, after we defeat this
motion to instruct ``because our elected leaders are either blinded by
special interests or afraid of being vilified by them.''
Mr. Speaker, if 9/11 repeats itself, and I have said this to our
neighbors to the north in Canada who have had representatives from
their government, from their legislative bodies, come and speak to us
about issues important to immigration, issues important to both of our
countries, if the tragedy of 9/11 repeats itself in this country, then
my colleague from Illinois and others from Canada and Mexico will long
for, will yearn for, the good-old-days when we considered what will
then be considered minimalist reforms to our immigration policy.
To not require that anyone receive relief under the Convention
Against Torture, the gentleman talks about expedited removal and the
concern that he has with regard for that. Our amendment changed the
underlying bill to allow for Convention Against Torture and asylum
claims to go ahead unimpeded by the new provision that calls for
expedited removal. So we will not be sending individuals who have a
very reasonable fear of being tortured
[[Page H8985]]
and abused in their home countries if they are returned. Those that
really do have a reason to fear for their safety in another country and
for their abuse there will be able to obtain relief in this country.
But for those that abuse the immigration process, as the 19 did who
perpetrated 9/11, we must maintain these immigration provisions in the
bill so that we deal with that very important problem and we do not
allow 9/11 to repeat itself and do not come to a point in the future
where the American people require us to do much more difficult things,
make much more difficult decisions, and cause us to greatly restrict
the influx of immigrants into our country.
In the words of families affected most directly by 9/11, these are
reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals. They should not
be stripped out. I beg my colleagues not to vote for the motion to
instruct, but in fact vote against the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say the following. In the same letter from
the George Bush administration, it states: ``The administration has
concerns with overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the
bill and unrelated security concerns, and believes that the States, as
in the Senate bill, should work these things out.'' So there are
provisions for securing driver's licenses and making sure that they are
secure. We have that in the Senate bill.
The gentleman keeps speaking about the 9/11 families. I have an open
letter from the 9/11 families, the same families that came to testify
before the Congress of the United States, in which they say
``recommendations.'' ``We have heard that the House bill to implement
9/11 Commission recommendations also includes provisions to expand the
U.S. PATRIOT Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by
the commission and which we are against.'' This is the 9/11 families.
Look, anybody listening to this debate would think that if tomorrow
somebody who works in Washington State picking apples, and I think the
gentleman from Indiana and I would agree that most of the workers in
the field of agriculture in Washington State are undocumented here in
this country, without legal documentation, picking our apples, let us
use that as one example, do you think if you do not give them a
driver's license, they are going to stop coming? Do you think if you
take away the matricula consular and they cannot get a bank account,
they are not coming? Do you think if we pass every other kind of ID
requirement, they will stop coming?
They are going to keep coming, as long as in this country there are
apple growers who need their work and Americans like you and I that
were born here who will not do the work. So let us face it, these are
obscuring the real issues we have before us.
I would suggest to the gentleman that he says that maybe the State of
Illinois is in play in the electoral college. We just elected a
Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois and the former Republican,
how ironic, the former Republican Governor of the State of Illinois is
currently under indictment by the Federal Government. Do you want to
know why? For issuing bogus driver's licenses and taking bribes for
them. That is a fact.
Unfortunately, let us have a debate on immigration policy that is
really about immigration and security concerns that are really about
security.
Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the statement of administration
policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 10 and
appreciates the efforts of the House Leadership and
Committees to bring this legislation quickly to the Floor.
The Administration looks forward to working with the House
and Senate in conference as they resolve their differences on
intelligence reform legislation so that it can be enacted as
soon as possible The Administration looks forward to working
with Congress to address its concerns with the bill,
including those described below, and to ensure prompt
enactment of necessary legislation to create a strong
National Intelligence Director (NID) with full budget
authority and other authorities to manage the Intelligence
Community, and to provide statutory authority for the newly
created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
The Administration appreciates that H.R. 10 has been
revised to clarify the authorities of the NCTC and the
definition of national intelligence. The Administration is
also pleased that H.R. 10 would prevent disclosure of
sensitive information about the intelligence budget.
Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during
wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provide
by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence
activities would be a mistake.
Legislation proposed by the President provides the NID with
full budget authority, including clear authority to determine
the national intelligence budget, strong transfer and
reprogramming authorities, explicit authority to allocate
appropriations, and the ability to influence the execution of
funds by national intelligence agencies. The Administration
is concerned that H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient
authorities to manage the Intelligence Community effectively.
The Administration looks forward to working with the House
to improve a number of provisions relating to appointments.
In particular, the Director of the NCTC should be appointed
by the President, and the appointment of certain other
officers as proposed in H.R. 10 may raise constitutional
issues.
The Administration remains concerned about other provisions
that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the
office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help,
the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and
preserve constitutional rights.
The Administration commends and supports provisions of H.R.
10 that promote the development of a secure information
sharing environment under the direction of the NID while also
providing flexibility concerning its design and
implementation. We look forward to working with Congress to
address some concerns with the degree of specificity of
provisions concerning interoperable law enforcement and
intelligence data systems.
In addition to provisions concerning the NID, the NCTC, and
other core issues responsive to the Administration's
proposal, H.R. 10 contains a number of additional provisions,
some of which are discussed below.
The Administration strongly supports those provisions of
Title II that ensure the Intelligence Community and others in
the war on terror have all the necessary tools to prevent
terrorist attacks--including provisions to prevent attack by
``lone wolf'' terrorists and enhanced provisions to deny
material support to terrorists, prevent attacks using weapons
of mass destruction, and further dry up sources of terrorist
financing. These and other additional antiterrorism tools
would help keep America safer.
The Administration also supports those provisions of Titles
II and III that will better protect our borders from
terrorists, while still maintaining our traditions as a
welcoming Nation. In particular, the Administration supports
efforts to allow visa revocations as a basis for deportation
and provisions concerning the judicial review of immigration
orders, as in Section 3009. The Administration strongly
opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal
authorities. The Administration has concerns with the
overboard alien identification standards proposed by the bill
that are unrelated to security concerns. The Administration
welcomes efforts in Congress to address the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations concerning uniform standards for preventing
counterfeiting of and tampering with drivers licenses and
birth certificates, but believes that additional consultation
with the States is necessary to address important concerns
about flexibility, privacy, and unfunded mandates.
Section 3001 acts to close a security gap by eliminating
the Western Hemisphere exception for U.S. citizens. The
Administration intends to work with the Congress to ensure
that these new requirements are implemented in a way that
does not create unintended, adverse consequences.
The Administration strongly opposes section 3032 of the
bill. The Administration remains committed to upholding the
United States' obligations under the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States
does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries
where the United States believes it is more likely than not
they will be tortured. The Administration is willing to work
with the Congress on ways to address the Supreme Court's
decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), insofar
as it may constrain the detention of criminal aliens, while
they are awaiting removal, or limit the government's
authority to detain dangerous aliens who would be removed
from the United States but for the fact that they are
afforded protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Title IV contains a number of provisions that purport to
establish the policy of the United States on foreign policy
issues, require the Executive branch to negotiate certain
international agreements, direct how the President will use
the voice and vote of the United States in international
institutions, direct the content of diplomatic communications
with foreign governments, direct the make-up of U.S.
delegations to multilateral meetings and negotiations, and
require that plans and strategies to achieve specified
foreign policy objectives be submitted to the Congress. These
provisions are
[[Page H8986]]
inconsistent with the President's constitutional authority
with respect to foreign relations, diplomacy, and
international negotiations. Therefore, these provisions
should be eliminated or cast in precatory rather than
mandatory terms.
In Title V, the Administration commends the provisions that
add to the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility in
providing first responder grant funds to certain high-risk
areas, but has concerns about border state funding mandates
which reduce that flexibility. The Administration opposes
provisions in Title V that would create inequities in
personnel policy between the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies, and looks forward to working with the Congress on a
separate and comprehensive reform of law enforcement pay and
benefits. The Administration also opposes provisions that
would encumber the Federal rulemaking process with
duplicative and burdensome new requirements.
The Administration opposes Section 5043 of the bill, which
would eliminate the level playing field established for all
three branches of government by the Government-Wide Ethics
Reform Act of 1989, creating a new regime of non-uniform
ethics laws. The financial disclosure process should be
modernized to reflect changed circumstances. The
Administration urges Congress to adopt the bill to modernize
government-wide financial disclosure submitted by the Office
of Government Ethics to the Speaker on July 16, 2003.
The Administration is also very concerned about the dozens
of new reporting requirements contained in the bill. The
Administration will continue to work with the Congress to
eliminate or reduce the burden created by unnecessary or
duplicative statutory reporting requirements, while
respecting the responsibilities of the Congress.
The Administration is also concerned about provisions in
Title V that would, taken together, construct a cumbersome
new bureaucracy, duplicate existing legal requirements, and
risk unnecessary litigation. The Administration urges the
House to delete or significantly revise these problematic
provisions.
The Administration notes that the Committee bill did not
include Section 6 (``Preservation of Authority and
Accountability'') of the Administration's proposal; the
Administration strongly supports inclusion of this provision
in the House bill. The Administration's proposal also
provides necessary additional authorities for the NID to be
able to effectively operate the Office of NID; however, H.R.
10 does not provide the NID with these additional
authorities. The legislation should also recognize that its
provisions would be executed to the extent consistent with
the constitutional authority of the President: to conduct the
foreign affairs of the United States; to withhold information
the disclosure of which could impair the foreign relations,
the national security, deliberative processes of the
Executive, or the performance of the Executive's
constitutional duties; to recommend for congressional
consideration such measures as the President may judge
necessary or expedient; and to supervise the unitary
executive.
Finally, the Administration has concerns with a number of
other provisions in the bill and looks forward to working
with Congress to address them as the bill proceeds.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak about Representative Gutierrez's motion to instruct on H.R. 10, I
must oppose this motion to instruct.
This motion specifically instructs the conferees to remove sections
3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3032, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, and
3056, something I agree with. However, his motion to instruct also
calls conferees to recede from the entire House amendment and thus
accept Senate bill, S. 2845, which has some very unacceptable
provisions. One such provision exposes the funds we spend on the
intelligence community.
Even though he references immigration provisions, which forced me to
vote against the House bill, his motion to instruct has the purpose of
accepting the entire Senate bill. This is something I cannot agree to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on this motion are postponed.
____________________