[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11670-H11678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4437, BORDER PROTECTION,
ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 610 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 610
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to
enhance border security, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two
hours equally divided among and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary
and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against the bill, as amended, are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment
to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each further amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
further amendments are waived. After disposition of the
further amendments printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole shall rise
without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be
in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 610 is a structured rule. It provides 2
hours of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary
and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration
of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, shall be considered
as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and shall be
considered as read. It waives all points of order against the bill, as
amended.
This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in part
B of the Rules Committee report. It provides that the amendments
printed in part B of the report may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or
in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against
amendments printed in part B of the report, and it provides that after
disposition of the amendments printed in part B of the report, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion, and no further
consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent
order of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 610 and the
underlying H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and
Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
Today, this Congress continues an ongoing and difficult debate. The
need for fundamental immigration reform is critical and long overdue.
In 1986, President Reagan pushed for reforms to address this problem.
In 1996, the 104th Congress pushed for more reforms to address the
problem. Now here we are 10 years later. This Congress once again has
an opportunity to debate how to best secure our borders and remove
incentives for illegal immigration by enacting meaningful changes.
I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King for this
bill to close our borders to illegal immigrants and potential
terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, since the attacks of September 11, 4 years ago, the
debate on immigration is a fundamentally different debate. Border
security is no longer just a legal or economic issue, which of course
it still is. Secure borders now are also a matter of national security.
Procrastination and ignoring the problem will simply not make it go
away. Every day we put off debating and passing comprehensive reform
creates more and more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our
laws and violate our borders with the social, economic and political
repercussions. For instance, there are an estimated 376,000 illegal
immigrants who live in my home State of Georgia and bear an incredible
toll on our social services and health care system.
The burden of illegal immigrants continues to increase for the
American citizens as hospitals and schools are filled with illegal
immigrants who cannot pay for their education and medical expenses.
Mr. Speaker, some of our schools continue to struggle simply because
of the inherent burden of some illegal immigrants who require extensive
remedial education at the expense of the American taxpayer and our
schoolchildren. Regardless of their intention, this effect on our
schools highlights the fact that illegal immigration is not a
victimless crime.
As this Congress continues to contemplate ways to relieve escalating
medical costs, part of that expense is to reimburse doctors, nurses and
hospitals who have treated illegal immigrants who could not pay their
medical bills. I am a firsthand witness to doctors who have treated
patients, only to have them skip out on a medical bill because they are
here illegally and they do not want to be traced.
Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the
immigrants themselves. I do not think this can be stated too
forcefully; illegal immigration also endangers the lives of the
immigrants themselves. Just ask the families of the 19 illegal
immigrants who were found dead in the back of a tractor-trailer truck
in Victoria, Texas, in May of 2003. As long as incentives for human
border smuggling persist, we will continue to see people manipulated,
abused and, yes, even killed through this deplorable process.
As I mentioned earlier and as is clearly evidenced and described,
illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and H.R. 4437 goes a
long way to combating it on multiple fronts, from the provision against
illegal immigrants themselves to those who would either incentivize or
aid them in illegally entering this country.
First, Mr. Speaker, this bill will make illegal immigration into this
country a felony offense, thereby increasing the penalties for jumping
the border. H.R. 4437 will combat the economic incentives for illegal
immigration by transferring the current employment verification system
that validates Social Security numbers from a voluntary program to a
mandatory program.
{time} 1145
This bill also would increase civil and criminal penalties for those
employers who knowingly and repeatedly employ or hire an illegal
worker. Further, this
[[Page H11671]]
bill would mandate detention for all aliens apprehended at the border
while also stiffening the penalties for aliens already removed once
from this country who try to reenter.
Additionally, H.R. 4437 would increase existing and establish further
mandatory minimums for alien smuggling and would vigorously combat
through deportation members of alien street gangs. From the border to
the street of every city, this bill takes a holistic approach to
reforming our immigration laws, strengthening our border in defense of
our country against a very real threat to not only American security
but also, Mr. Speaker, American sovereignty.
I ask for my colleagues' full support of the rule and this underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates that this legislation is simply
not ready for consideration by the House. I have worked carefully with
my Republican colleague on the Homeland Security Committee, Chairman
King, to develop a border security bill that has made many good
provisions. This rule defeats that.
We could have given the House a Christmas present of a bipartisan
bill that would secure our border in a real and fair way. Now this bill
looks like a gift from an extremist Grinch, rather than one from Santa
Claus. The Committee on the Judiciary has so loaded up our bill with
controversial immigration proposals that now it is opposed by every
reasonable business, immigration or human rights group in America. The
Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform opposes this bill. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce opposes it. The American Bar Association opposes it. The
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes it. What reasonable group,
Mr. Speaker, does not oppose it?
Now the Republican leadership is grasping for straws as it tries to
figure out what amendments can best fit the bill. We are now here
debating a rule with only half the amendments to be allowed, but we
have not even seen what the final version of the bill looks like. How
can we be here debating amendments when we do not even know what we are
amending? This feels like another Republican power grab.
Mr. Speaker, we need to go slow and think this thing through. Let us
take the bill back to the drawing board and pass a real border security
bill that is fair and effective, not a partisan bill that almost no
reasonable organization supports. And now, as we are about to return to
our districts, let us think about the people that this bill will hurt,
what kind of Christmas they will have.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
(Mr. KING of New York asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey), my good friend, for yielding me time.
I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R.
4437. Let me just say at the outset, because I know this will be a very
heated debate over the next several days, let me say I have had nothing
but the utmost cooperation from my good friend, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. We
did report out a piece of legislation which did pass by voice vote. And
while there were differences along the way, they were resolved
equitably. I wanted to commend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi for that
and put that on the record.
This legislation, which incorporates both the bill adopted in the
Homeland Security Committee and then the bill adopted in the Judiciary
Committee under Chairman Sensenbrenner, is a wide-ranging bill. All of
us realize that more has to be done on the issue of immigration.
This is probably the first step in a three-legged stool. Much more
has to be done. This is a very, very significant first step in
protecting our borders, because until the borders are protected, we
cannot have any type of meaningful immigration reform.
Just several of the high points is that it requires the Secretary of
Homeland Security to do whatever has to be done to secure the border,
using whatever physical infrastructure is required, whatever technology
is required, whatever personnel is required. It also for the first time
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Defense to utilize military technology to control the borders. This is
a significant first step and I believe very, very important.
It also ends the practice of catch and release, whereby hundreds of
thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border would be
captured and then released back into society and asked to return at
some time for a hearing. Many, of course, never did. And the last
several years we saw a significant increase in immigrants coming across
the southern border illegally other than Mexicans, OTMs, which raises
significant homeland security and national security issues.
This has gone beyond just being an immigration issue, just an issue
with social aspects. It also has very, very severe homeland security,
internal security and national security issues. The attacks of 9/11
made us aware of that. That is why I urge adoption of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
member of the Rules Committee for yielding me time, and I thank you,
Mr. Speaker, very much for allowing me the opportunity to cast this
debate hopefully in as broad a light as it possibly can be cast.
I would like to suggest that members of the Homeland Security
Committee and Committee on the Judiciary all have participated in what
we call the ``heavy lifting.'' As a member of both committees, I know
that there are individuals, well intentioned, who had come together to
try to construct, if you will, a reasonable response to this pending
and ongoing concern that Americans have expressed.
But let me tell you why this rule is fractured and why the underlying
bill needs to be returned back to not only the Rules Committee but the
committee in order to put together for America the real comprehensive
immigration reform that I hope legislators will bring to the floor of
the House, as opposed to political sound bites.
It is well known that America is asking for the enforcement of our
immigration laws, but they are not asking for enforcement only. They
want a comprehensive reform package that provides a pathway to
citizenship and legalization and enforcement. As someone who comes from
a border State, and particularly Texas, I can assure you that there is
no divide amongst many Members on the needs for security and protection
at the border. It was our State that experienced the viciousness and
the seriousness of the Victoria deaths. Out of that particular tragedy
I authored alien smuggling legislation which I am proud to say was
included in the 9/11 legislation passed almost a year ago.
We are very serious about border security, but this underlying bill
does not speak to border security. What it does do is it provides the
enormous burden of unfunded mandates and it is impracticable. It cannot
work.
What it does, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear us say this over and
over again today, it criminalizes 11 million individuals, as the number
seems to be of undocumented individuals, in this country. That means
that they may be here, taxpayers, children in school, recognizing that
they may have come to this particular place undocumented. But it
criminalizes them by their very presence. That means they have to be
mandatorily put in jail. Whether you are an elderly person, whether you
are a child, you have to be mandatorily put in jail.
The so-called ``employer verification program'' was a pilot program.
There is
[[Page H11672]]
no guarantee in this bill for full funding for that, nor is there a
guarantee that the data base is secure enough that the employers can
rely upon it. I believe employers should verify who they are employing,
but they cannot do it with a system that is fractured and is not funded
the way it should be funded.
This bill requires a lot of work and the work is that we must combine
comprehensive immigration reform. We must also address the question
very quickly, Mr. Speaker, of giving the right equipment to border
patrol agents. None of that is in there: night goggles, computers,
helicopters, power boats.
In the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, the
ranking member, and myself offered an amendment that would equip the
border patrol agents as they should be. You ask one American, Do you
want your border patrol agents to have the right uniforms, the right
ID, and the right equipment? They cannot function without helicopters,
power boats, night goggles, computers and other technology to help them
secure the border, nor can they work without doubling or tripling the
number of border patrol agents. That is why this bill is fractured.
So I conclude by simply saying, respond to what America is asking us
to do: comprehensive immigration reform, earned access to legalization
and, as well strong, strong enforcement.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I
thank him for the work he has done on this and a wide range of other
very important issues.
We have by virtue of calling up this rule begun the debate on what is
clearly one of the most contentious, challenging, and difficult issues
that we will face as an institution. We know that this is a volatile
issue, but it is one that does need to be addressed.
This has really come to the forefront since September 11 of 2001, a
renewed focus on something that is critically important for any nation,
and that is the security of its borders. But in light of what we went
through on September 11 and in light of the fact that we are in the
midst of the global war on terror, there is a renewed understanding of
how great the threat is to us.
We have just this week passed the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act
which is an important step in dealing with that. We have been able to
put into place by virtue of seeing our friend from New York (Mr. King)
here, that he ably chairs the Committee on Homeland Security, a
Department of Homeland Security. We have made major modifications in
the way we deal with the security of our borders. And yet we continue
to have a very serious problem with the security of our borders.
The thing that is very, very troubling for many of us is the prospect
of seeing this debate degenerate into something that it should not be.
I believe that we need to have a full recognition of the rights of
every human being. I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to
realize that 98 percent of the people who enter this country illegally
enter here with one goal and one goal only, and that is to feed their
families, to make a better life for themselves, to see their economic
standing improve.
In light of that, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can deal with
the issue of the demand side on this question of border security and
immigration reform in an important way. Much of what we are going to be
doing in considering this legislation is focused on the supply side,
trying to put a fence at the areas that are most dangerous. I am
joining my colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, and several others,
Mr. Royce. I know Mr. Gingrey will be supportive of our amendment, to
focus as we have along the 14-mile stretch from the Pacific Ocean to
the Otay Mesa at San Diego. We will be having an amendment that will
deal with that.
It is important that we do other things to focus on the supply side,
but it is also equally important for us to focus on the demand side,
the magnet that draws people into this country illegally. And it is
also important for us to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is an
economic demand that exists in the United States of America for a
workforce. That is why as we proceed with this debate, I hope that we
can recognize the dignity of everyone involved while doing all that we
can to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, in
fact, bring an end to illegal immigration.
That is our goal. Our goal is to see an end to this kind of illegal
action that has taken place. It is my sense that beginning with border
security, which is what this measure that we are going to be
considering does, it starts with that process.
{time} 1200
I happen to think that as we look towards moving this legislation to
the President's desk, it should include comprehensive reform.
Sitting on the front row here is my very good friend, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who is in his last term here. He,
unfortunately, has chosen to retire, but one of the issues that he has
championed is the recognition that an economic demand that exists in
the United States of America is addressed. That is why I happen to
concur that a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker
program is the right thing to do.
I believe it is in our national security interest. Why? We regularly
hear, Mr. Speaker, about the 11 million people who are in this country
illegally. We know that we have not seen a terrorist from Mexico in the
United States, and that is something that I think is important for us
to underscore again and again and again so the people do not engage in
the demonization of Mexico and Mexicans, but I think it is important
for us to realize that there is the threat that a terrorist could, in
fact, be among the 11 million people who are in this country illegally.
That is why a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker
program allows people to come from the shadows, and it allows them to
become part of society without making them American citizens but, in
fact, focusing on the need for their work and the need for our
security.
So, Mr. Speaker, as this debate proceeds, I hope very much that we
are able to recognize the importance of security of our borders,
recognize the importance of ending the problems of illegal immigration.
We all have story after story, and I can tell my colleagues, coming
from southern California, we have tremendous problems that have been
inflicted, whether it is dealing with Mexican nationals who have
reportedly killed law enforcement agents like Deputy Sheriff David
March 3 months ago and fled into the country of Mexico, or dealing with
the onerous responsibility of providing services to people who are here
illegally and then, of course, other crime, and then, as I said a
moment ago, the threat of terrorism. We need to deal with these issues.
But let us do the first step by focusing on border security, and then
as we move ahead with this legislation, look comprehensively at the
need to address this very, very challenging question.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough
to advise both sides as to the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 24 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive
rule and the underlying legislation which is nothing more than a
xenophobic attack on immigrants who were in search of a better way of
life for them and their children.
The United States has long been a shining example of inclusion and
diversity. Even in some of our darkest days of intolerance, we have
always managed to rise above our differences and fuel the flame beneath
the world's melting pot. By resolving these differences, we have
cultivated a strong Nation of citizens from around the world.
That is why I find it so troubling that some here today are
determined
[[Page H11673]]
to extinguish that flame with so-called immigration reform that does
little to address current immigration challenges or make our borders
safer.
Even worse is the manner by which this legislation is being brought
to the floor today. Under the rule, part A, a meager 15 of the 130
amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee are actually made
in order. That means that 115 amendments, 115 ideas, 115 voices are all
shut out from debate under this rule, and you multiply that by their
constituents.
Included in these 115 blocked amendments is an amendment offered by
my good friend from south Florida (Mr. Meek) which sought to remedy
some of the double standard immigration practices that apply to Haitian
immigrants. Also blocked from consideration under the rule are the
Sanchez-Conyers substitute and the President's very own guest worker
visa program offered by Representatives Kolbe, Berman, Flake and
Gutierrez.
I heard the chairman a moment ago say that we should have this guest
worker program. Well, he did not put it in this rule, and all we had to
do was do that to at least give some credibility to that argument. I
was confused as I heard him. I did not know whose side he was on.
Clearly, the autocracy in this Republican-controlled body has reached
an all-time high when a Republican President cannot get a vote on his
own proposal.
I offered an amendment to the rule this morning at 7 a.m., barely 3
hours ago, that would have made the Kolbe-Berman amendment in order,
but Republicans on the Rules Committee, except one, rejected my
amendment and blocked this amendment from being considered by the
House.
I understand that the House leadership has told many in the majority
that it intends to consider the President's proposal on the floor
sometime before the House recesses this week. If that is, in fact, the
case then why did the chairman of the Rules Committee specifically tell
his assembled Republican colleagues this morning to vote against making
the President's proposal in order?
Perhaps it is because the majority do not want to consider what they
cannot defeat or perhaps they have zero intention of ever considering
the Kolbe-Berman amendment.
Whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dollar for every time
the Republican leadership promised a Member something and failed to
keep that promise since 1995, well, I would be a Republican. Words are
cheap until they are backed up with action, and if anybody thinks that
this part A is getting ready to have the necessary appropriations to
undertake the meager measures on border security, then I have a bridge
in Mr. Nadler's general area that I would like to sell them.
Our immigration laws are in dire need of revision. Everybody in this
House knows, Mr. Speaker, that our immigration laws are broken. The
current system is rife with double standards, quota limit, wet foot-dry
foot, air foot-boat foot, student visas, just to name a few.
The bill before us today does absolutely nothing to address these
shortcomings in the law. Instead, it is a harsh set of laws that favor
heavy-handed enforcement in the guise of protection.
Mr. Speaker, my south Florida-based district staff, as I am speaking,
work every single day, and today as I speak there are immigrants lined
up throughout the halls of the office that I am privileged to serve,
lined sometimes as many as 30 or 40 people deep snake through the
hallways of that office. Some came here legally. Others arrived
illegally. Regardless, all of them share the same American dream with
one another and all of us. Our rich and diverse cultural backgrounds
are our strength.
The underlying legislation, however, mocks that diversity and creates
a system under which simply applying for citizenship would be risky.
Arbitrary factors could deny naturalization on the basis of whether an
alien is a person of good, moral character.
If this bill becomes law, anyone who has ever had an illegal presence
in the United States will be arrested, convicted of a felony and
jailed. Even those who seek asylum from honor killings, human
trafficking, and forced prostitution would immediately be branded as
felons and thrown into American jails.
This wide net of prosecution is also cast upon American citizens
accused of helping, hiring or transporting potential immigrants. We
have a wonderful and rich history of churches and philanthropic groups
who serve as a lifeline for newly arrived immigrants who diligently
seek legal status.
Business owners could also be fined and penalized for not verifying
the citizenship of every worker through a new system of stringent
checks that is an unfunded mandate at best. These checks would require
approximately 7 million American employers to screen almost 140 million
workers. These are the people who do not believe in big government.
We owe it to all who live here, whether born on this soil or not, the
chance to contribute in a fair and meaningful way that protects our
safety, provides for our prosperity and values our distinction.
Let me go back and say that there are people in this country, there
are elected officials in this country whose parentage may very well
have been brought here under certain circumstances, forced here under
others, came here of their own volition, and likely were here
illegally. Many of those persons are some of the stellar citizens in
our respective communities. I look no further south than my district
and can tell you the significant number of Cuban Americans and Haitian
Americans that all of us ought be proud they are here and Jamaican
Americans, the whole Caribbean basin, many from South America,
everybody ain't in this category of 11 million people who we are
getting ready to felonize.
We need look no further than our own families to appreciate the
richness and diversity of this country. Most of us here today in this
House are no more than two to three generations away from an ancestor
who traveled to America by boat, plane or even on foot or were brought
here by others to work for nothing. Many came at great risk and
sacrifice. Thousands died on the way here. They journeyed here not for
a free ride but for a better way of life, not for a handout but for a
hand up.
I went a few months ago to the Statue of Liberty, and I had my
grandson with me. We stood and we looked and he began to understand
what it meant more and more. He is 11 years old, and I could see the
pride as he thought of his many friends that he goes to school with
that come from other countries and his understanding the need for
tolerance that that great symbol signifies for this Nation.
As a nation of immigrants, it is beyond irresponsible to address this
issue with such closed minds. It is time for us to undertake
comprehensive illegal reform, and I urge my colleagues to reject this
restrictive rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is well aware that we will be
having another rule and additional amendments made in order under that
rule. Many of the ones that he mentioned hopefully will have that
opportunity to be made in order and to be discussed.
I want to point out also that the give and take between the Democrats
and the Republicans on the Rules Committee brought to the attention
this potential problem of criminalizing existing illegal aliens, and we
will have a manager's amendment in the next rule that corrects that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Keller), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the number one issue my constituents raise with me at
town hall meetings is the need to strengthen our border security by
cracking down on illegal immigration. Why? Our current immigration
system is broken, and the American people expect us to secure our
borders.
We have 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. Illegal
aliens continue to enter the U.S. from the Mexican border at the rate
of 8,000 per day. Last year, our border patrol agents arrested 1.2
million illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States.
[[Page H11674]]
Significantly, 155,000 arrests of illegal immigrants were from
countries other than Mexico. They included illegal immigrants from
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.
This poses a very serious national security problem according to the
testimony of CIA Director Porter Goss before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on March 17 of this year.
Our law enforcement authorities believe that the mass movement of
illegal aliens across the porous Mexican-U.S. border offers the perfect
cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S., especially since
tighter controls have been imposed to airports.
{time} 1215
For example, when we go to the airport, our names are checked against
the terrorist watch list. We have to produce a photo ID, we remove our
shoes, we walk through a metal detector, and we send our briefcase and
luggage through an x-ray machine to check if there are any weapons or
explosive devices. Of course, this does not happen to 8,000 illegal
aliens who enter the U.S. every day from the Mexican border. There are
no terrorist background checks, no photo ID checks, no shoe removal, no
metal detectors, and no x-ray machines for bombs or weapons.
In addition to threatening our national security, illegal immigration
places a crushing burden on the American taxpayers who end up getting
stuck with a tab for over $45 billion a year for the health care and
education of illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, we must get serious about strengthening our border by
cracking down on illegal immigration. Good fences make good neighbors,
but that is only a start. We need to build more fences, hire more
border patrol agents, use unmanned aerial drones to enforce the border,
authorize our local sheriffs to enforce our immigration laws, and hold
our employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. This
bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to take
positive action today to secure our borders. Vote ``yes'' on the rule
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4437.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will debate legislation attempting to
address immigration in our country, the challenges of which are
extremely complex. Unfortunately, this legislation focuses entirely on
border security and cracking down on illegal immigration. It fails to
truly address the underlying issue of why people risk long boat rides
in cargo containers, open rafts, extreme temperatures crossing deserts
and risking death to come to the United States. This legislation
overlooks the multifaceted nature of immigration and sadly ignores the
fact the immigration system is broken.
Individuals waiting years to receive a visa is not an uncommon
occurrence, nor is it rare for someone who came to the United States
legally for work or to study to wait years at a time to bring their
spouses, children, and loved ones to this country to join them.
What we cannot forget is that these are real people. My grandparents
were immigrants. So many people from California, Florida, North
Carolina, Texas, New York, I could go on and on, are immigrants. We
should take a breath and hold for a moment before we rush this. What we
do to address our broken immigration system must be thoughtful.
Like many of our districts, my hometown of Sacramento has an
immigrant population, and in Sacramento that population includes many
from Russia and the former Soviet Union. I am currently helping some of
my constituents to bring their 13-year-old son back to the United
States. Seven years ago, this constituent legally came to our country.
This past June, the family traveled to Russia for vacation and on
return was shocked to learn that their son's eligibility had been
canceled. Their son was barred from reentering this country with his
parents. We are working as fast as we can to correct what seems to be a
mistake and reunite this family. Until then, this young boy must remain
in Russia.
As a mother and grandmother, I cannot fathom what this family must be
going through, nor can I understand how we have not reformed a system
that would allow this separation. We must not put families in a
situation where they feel they must make a decision to enter legally or
illegally or separate their families. We must reform our immigration
system to end backlogs and to help reunite families.
As I said before, this is a multifaceted issue of which family
unification is only one component. There are an estimated 11 million
undocumented immigrants in the United States. They came here illegally
in search of a better opportunity, to work on farms and restaurants,
hotels, and hundreds of other service jobs. Whether we like it or not,
they are part of our economy and fill a needed gap in our labor force.
That is why the chamber of commerce, the business community, the
immigrant community, and the President all support a guest worker
program. That is the only way to end the incentive to enter the United
States illegally to find work, and bring out of shadows the illegal
immigrants already here.
This legislation, however, ignores these issues. That is not to say
it is without some needed provisions. I support increasing the number
of border patrol agents and port inspectors as well as adding radiation
detection equipment at all of our maritime ports. However, on the
whole, it is filled with ill-considered provisions. What makes this
worse is that there is no reason why we need to rush this through in
the last days of the session.
It is clear there are many questions surrounding this legislation.
The action we take on immigration will reverberate across the country
and affect people's lives. We need to know its full implications before
we proceed. It is not clear that we need to do this now. The American
people deserve clarity now.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my physician colleague
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
and strong support of the underlying bill. As was previously stated on
the debate on the rule on the pension bill, let us not make the perfect
enemy of the good. This is not a good bill; it is a very good bill. It
is a step in the right direction. Yes, we do need to do more.
I have been saying for years there is no greater disconnect between
the will of the American people and the inside-the-Beltway environment
than on this issue of border security and illegal immigration, and we
are finally taking a strong step in the right direction here.
I want to address one of the most important features in this issue,
and that is the fundamental issue of security, of securing our borders.
The American people know that coming across the border are some people,
and the FBI Director has testified to this effect in the committee that
I serve on, there are some people who are not economic immigrants. They
are coming from countries other than Mexico, Middle Eastern countries;
they are here to do us harm. So it is desperately important we secure
our borders.
This bill gets at one of the most important things that I think we
need to address, and that is employer sanctions. I want to share with
my colleagues a story. My brother-in-law installs air-conditioning
systems on construction sites in New York, and he told me the story of
how on one Monday morning he saw a new man on that construction site
and he asked the gentleman to explain to him in his broken English when
he came to the United States. He said that he had come on Saturday. He
had come across the American border and he had gone to a safe house in
the Southwest, gotten a plane ticket, flew to New York specifically for
a job that was waiting for him there.
We need to put a stop to this, and we need stronger sanctions against
employers. We need better enforcement of our existing laws. This is a
national security issue. We desperately need to pass this bill, and we
need to do more to end this way of illegal immigration and secure our
borders.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
[[Page H11675]]
minutes to my classmate and good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, what an underhanded, sneaky rule and bill
this is. The Social Security Act has a provision that prohibits, that
prohibits the use of Social Security trust funds for changing the
Social Security cards. This bill repeals that provision. CBO estimates
the cost that could be incurred there by between 5 and $10 billion to
be looted out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by that
provision of this bill.
Now, I offered an amendment to restore this provision, to repeal the
repeal. Mr. Thomas ran into the Rules Committee at midnight last night
with his own amendment, because they saw the damage this could do. And
his own amendment ostensibly repeals this, but it does not. The Thomas
amendment only applies to the Social Security trust fund, but allows
the looting of the Medicare trust fund. It allows monies from all trust
funds, including Social Security, to carry out section 707 of the bill,
a smaller expenditure, but a major expenditure.
The Thomas amendment limits the prohibition against raiding the trust
funds to title VII of the current bill. My amendment prohibits the use
of these monies for any costs incurred in developing and implementing
any change in Social Security cards. The Thomas amendment leaves open
the possibility of future legislation looting all the trust funds.
Why will we not simply restore the provision, as my amendment would,
that this bill would take out? Why are we opening up the Social
Security and Medicare and disability and unemployment insurance trust
funds to be looted for these purposes? Mr. Thomas's amendment undoes a
little of the damage, but it leaves wide loopholes. Wide.
Does anybody know that in the immigration bill we are debating is
permission to take $5 billion to $10 billion out of Social Security and
Medicare and unemployment and disability? Is that what we want to do?
I urge the Rules Committee, if it wants to make sure this is honestly
done, make my amendment in order, not just Mr. Thomas's amendment,
which is self-executed in this rule, although only brought to the Rules
Committee at midnight last night. Make my amendment in order so we can
stop the looting of the Social Security, disability unemployment, and
Medicare trust funds.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 4437.
This is not a theoretical exercise for me. No congressional district
in the United States suffers more from the degradations of illegal
immigration than mine. For years now, we have had the largest number of
apprehensions in the country. In fact, more people cross the border
illegally in the border-patrolled Tucson sector than all, all of the
other border States combined. The strain on law enforcement, on
education, on health care, and on social services is severe. It is real
and it hurts.
No, Mr. Speaker, in my part of the country we know what illegal
immigration means. So I will listen today with a mixture of anger and
amusement to all the things said here today by the experts who, for
more than a decade, have paid no attention to the complaints and cries
of alarm to those of us along the border.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today does nothing to solve the
real problems of immigration. In fact, it is worse than nothing. It is
worse than nothing because it tries to fool the public. It pulls the
wool over their eyes. It pretends we are doing something to secure our
border, when in fact we are doing nothing except throwing words and
money at the problem.
Anyone who really cares about a solution to our immigration woes
knows that border enforcement is one prong of a three-part solution.
The first is enforcement, border enforcement and employer enforcement.
Second, you have to have some means of allowing those who want to work
and are willing to work come into the United States legally to work on
a temporary basis. And, third, you have to deal with the 10, 11, 12
million people illegally in this country now.
Now, that is the reality. But the bill brought before us today is an
amnesty bill. That is our dark little secret, the unspoken truth that
no one wants to talk about.
Why do I say that? Because if you are really for enforcement, you
have to get those 11 million people out of the country. We have to
round them up, apprehend them, and ship them back home. But this bill
does not do that. It ignores the problem.
The committee knows that. The leadership knows that. We are going
down this path, continuing this charade, continuing to lie to the
American people, continuing to pretend we are doing something to
prevent illegal immigration.
The real question, Mr. Speaker, is when will this body have a serious
dialogue about immigration issues? When will we engage each other and
the American people on this difficult problem? We can only hope someday
soon. But not today, Mr. Speaker. Not today. Not with this bill. Not
with this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle from
Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in part because I disagree
with the previous speaker in the well on many points dealing with the
immigration question and border security. But I rise to oppose the rule
precisely because of our disagreements.
I rise in reluctance, but these are the circumstances in which we
confront this. Here we are rushing toward the Christmas holiday break
and at the last nanosecond of the 11th hour, we are going to debate
this important question. The American people deserve more.
No, there will not be unanimity on this question. Illegal immigration
threatens our sovereignty, our security, and our reverence for the rule
of law. It discriminates against American workers, particularly those
who struggle to survive at the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
{time} 1230
It also locks illegal aliens into a permanent underclass to be
exploited and discarded. It demands that we give serious deliberative
attention to the question of illegal immigration on our economy, on the
health care system, our public school system and our criminal justice
system. Because it is so important, we need more time to deliberate and
debate and make the right choices. Vote no on the rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a no-spin zone in my district called
Radams. As a family-owned agriculture supply store, this is a place
where normally 40 to 50 farmers and growers meet every morning before
the sun comes up to talk about the issues of the day. I was there last
Friday, and the mood was not a happy one because we all learned the day
before the Judiciary Committee had marked up this immigration bill, and
I do not think there was a single hearing on that bill.
I am one that does not believe you can do a broad, bipartisan
comprehensive immigration bill without including provisions related to
guest workers. My district is a microcosm of the country. That means I
have agriculture. In fact, I have a ton of fruit and vegetable growers,
and they rely on good, migrant labor to harvest their crops, starting
with asparagus in the spring, going through apples in the fall. None of
those family operators, none of them, can survive without migrant or
seasonal workers. Many have between 50 and 150 workers. Yet in this
legislation there are no provisions, none, that will help my growers
keep a viable workforce in order to pick their crops.
Whenever I raise this issue, this shortcoming in this bill, I am told
the Senate will deal with it. They will save it. They will take it up.
Mr. Speaker, why are we punting on the issues? Amendments were
submitted to deal with this, but they were rejected by the Rules
Committee. That
[[Page H11676]]
means if this rule passes, there will be no debate, let alone a vote on
whether these provisions should be included. I think that is wrong, and
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so amendments can be
considered. This is too important an issue to gag this debate. Let us
have a real debate, a constructive debate that will actually do
something about the problem of illegal immigration.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Listen to Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Upton and Mr. Hayworth. This rule will bring
to the floor a bill which is an insult to the intelligence of the
American people and an insult to the intelligence of this body. We can
have all kinds of debates; guest worker, no guest worker; birthright
citizenship, no birthright citizenship; fence, no fence. These are
legitimate arguments to have. But a bill that the Speaker of the House,
the chairman of the Rules Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee know cannot solve the crisis of illegal immigration, they
know from the start, that they bring up and ask this body to pass in
order to tell the American people they are doing something about a
problem they know cannot be solved by the bill they are presenting is
insulting the intelligence and trying to con the American people. This
rule should be rejected for that reason.
In this bill is an employer-eligibility system which is a critical
component of a comprehensive approach to dealing with illegal
immigration. How are you ever going to impose effectively an employer-
verification system where every person who is hired and every person
who is now working has to be verified by the Social Security
Administration when you have 11 million people in this country, almost
all of whom are working except for the children, almost all of whom are
working in undocumented fashion for an employer, the heart of the
perishable fruit and vegetable industry, the heart of a number of other
industries in this country, and expect that system to pass. This is a
con.
There are only two things going on. Mr. J.D. Hayworth is right:
Either they expect the Senate to add the program for adjustment of
status and guest workers and bring it back to the floor to the squeals
of many of the people on the other side of the aisle, or they intend
never to see this bill again but say for the next elections that they
are solving a problem or trying to solve a problem that they know
intellectually and personally and have said over and over and over
again in conversations and in the press will not solve the problem.
Vote no on the rule. Reject this con, put together a proposal that
solves the crisis in illegal immigration, that does something about the
national security issues that illegal immigration threatens, that does
something about the humanitarian tragedy that now exists, that
recognizes the crisis and that provides the solution that the American
people are entitled to.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
rule as well as the underlying bill. This legislation is absolutely
long overdue, and it is time we enact some very pragmatic and useful
methods to prevent noncitizens from moving freely back and forth across
our borders.
Quite frankly, the American people have lost their sense of humor
when it comes to illegal immigration. They are demanding action, and it
is no secret that our borders are porous. Every day, countless
individuals are entering our country illegally and advantaging
themselves of government services at taxpayer expense, and they take
the jobs that otherwise could go to American citizens as well as those
immigrants who came here legally, who abided by our laws.
It is time that we put these practices to an end. It is time that we
as Americans take more responsibility in the fight against illegal
immigration.
One of the most important provisions in this bill ends the ludicrous
practice of catch and release with detained illegal aliens. Upon
passage of this bill, anyone caught in this country illegally will be
detained until further judicial action can be taken. It is unfathomable
that this has not been the procedure since day one, but I am pleased
that we are finally going to put an end to that.
Another key feature of this bill is the increased cooperation between
Federal authorities and local law enforcement. This bill will reimburse
sheriffs on the southern border for immigration enforcement and treat
any individuals in their custody as Federal detainees. I hope this is
the beginning and not the end of immigration reform. And let us keep in
mind that while we are having this national debate today, that because
our laws currently require us to count noncitizens for the purposes of
the apportionment of congressional seats, that a number of Members of
this House represent districts where fully 30 to 40 percent of their
constituents are illegal aliens or noncitizens. So perversely, illegal
aliens will be well represented in the U.S. Congress on the vote today
to secure our border and to crack down on illegal aliens, and it is my
hope that the issue of congressional representation for American
citizens can also be dealt with as we move forward in this process so
the full voice of the American people can be heard and that American
citizens do not continue to have their vote disenfranchised. I support
the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, every country has a right
to control its borders to regulate who enters, and that includes the
United States of America. Several speakers have mentioned that this
obligation or right has been elevated since 9/11, and I think we all
acknowledge that is true. Unfortunately, the administration has
completely dropped the ball when it comes to regulation of those
entering the United States without authorization.
I want to talk about just one item, which is the citation and release
of individuals who are apprehended, who then promise to appear for
their proceedings and then promptly disappear. The failure-to-appear
rate appears to be in excess of 80 percent.
We have heard psychologists say that the definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different
result. If so, the administration has lost its mind because this
citation release program has not resulted in individuals appearing as
promised.
Does this bill do anything about that, about the hundreds of
thousands of individuals who are in America who made a promise to
appear? Unfortunately, no, it does not.
Now, I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House
Judiciary Committee, and I have gone through this bill in some detail.
There are some things that have absolutely nothing to do with unlawful
immigration.
Section 404 of the act is something I want to mention because it is
going to be important to a lot of Americans. This provision provides
that the Secretary may deny admission to any person from countries that
unreasonably delay or deny repatriation of citizens whom we have
ordered deported. That is not about unlawful immigration; it is about
people who are legal residents of the United States, husbands and wives
of American citizens, who can be denied admission to the United States
even though they are legal because the country they were born in has
done something wrong. This is the new Chinese exclusion act which we
repealed.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo some of the sentiments of
some of the earlier speakers, particularly Mr. Kolbe from Arizona. We
have to have comprehensive reform, and until we do, we are ignoring the
elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the 11 million or so
illegals who are here at present.
This is called an enforcement bill, but it does nothing to enforce
the law and the interior. It says that if you are employing an illegal,
you have up to 6 years to check their status; 6 years for that person
to stay in the shadows, driving without a license, driving without
insurance. That is not enforcement.
[[Page H11677]]
We have to have comprehensive reform that deals with border security,
a temporary worker program and also dealing effectively with those who
are here illegally at present. I hope if we do this bill that we move
quickly on to more comprehensive legislation that will do all we need
to do.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend and classmate.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, all Americans have an interest in securing
our borders, but this bill is neither genuine security nor fairness. It
threatens American businesses, agriculture, and it certainly threatens
to destroy border commerce and punish hardworking border citizens.
This is just the latest in a series of bad bills that appeal to the
worst fears and prejudices of xenophobes rather than advancing
meaningful immigration reform. It is a cynical bill because it is not
comprehensive. There is no one-dimensional solution looking solely at
law enforcement that can succeed. There is no wall that can be built
high enough to solve this problem.
Over a century ago, my own great grandfather came from Sweden to
Louisiana to chop sugar cane. He came for the same reason that many
people come to this country today: to take on the most difficult jobs
in order to have a better life. Until we address that economic concern
with a meaningful guest worker program, we will not address immigration
today.
To the extent that the border is inadequately patrolled, this is a
direct result not of the lack of a law, but a lack of will by the Bush
administration in its mismanagement of the Border Patrol. Last year,
this Congress approved 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and
President Bush responded by saying we only need 210 of those 2,000
Border Patrol agents for the entire country. In September, even our
Texas Republican colleagues demanded that President Bush ``stop raiding
our Texas Border Patrol'' and called the reassignment of agents to
Arizona an ``outrageous action [that] is crippling border security in
Texas.'' Today, instead of Border Patrol agents, the Republicans say we
need to punish church workers who live their faith by assisting persons
in need without first checking their visas.
The kind of measure we are offered is not new. It is part of a sad
and recurring theme in American history. In the 19th century, it was
the work of the Know-Nothing Party. Today, there are some in this
Republican leadership who want to make the Republican Party the Know-
Nothing Party of the 21st century.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the
purpose of closing.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, December 15, 2005.
Members of the United States House of Representatives: As
you prepare to debate the rule on H.R. 4437, the ``Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control
Act of 2005,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this
legislation due to its adverse impact on employers, and asks
that you reject House Resolution 610. The process that led to
the development of this legislation and its consideration on
the floor has been seriously flawed. The Chamber remains
strongly opposed to this legislation.
We have been urging Congress to fix our broken immigration
system for years, which would include securing our borders,
creating an employment verification system that is fast and
reliable, designing a temporary worker program that meets the
future demand for workers, and reasonably addressing the
legal status of the undocumented workers and their families
currently in the United States. With the notable exception of
border security, this bill, particularly the provisions of
Title VII, would make our dysfunctional immigration system
even worse.
The bill mandates that all employers of all sizes comply
with a new government-run electronic/telephonic verification
system to ensure that all employees are authorized to work.
The concept is based on past, very limited pilot projects,
and it is doubtful whether a new mandate of this breadth,
applicable to over seven million employers and over 140
million employees, can realistically be implemented,
particularly under this legislation's deadlines. These pilot
projects were limited to approximately 3,600 employers and
only new hires, while the legislation will also apply to
existing employees. Further, there have been many practical,
documented compliance problems under the program. While
improvements have been made, the extension of this program to
a much broader universe creates serious questions as to its
practicality in the real world. The proposal also includes
massive, in some cases uncapped, increases in penalties
against employers. Paperwork violation penalties are
increased 25 fold--up to $25,000 per individual.
Furthermore, the bill would now transform into a felony
with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for
unauthorized presence in the United States subject to fines
and deportation. This provision is directly inconsistent with
the President's proposal, which recognizes the economic
contributions of these workers, and that there should be a
pathway for these workers to earn legal status. The debate
over the proper status of these workers should have been left
to the context of comprehensive reform initiatives.
The Chamber continues to support the concept of a workable
verification system as part of a comprehensive reform
package, but new laws that simply place more burdens on
employers through worksite enforcement alone are not the
answer. The Chamber has repeatedly called for legislation to:
1) provide for increased national security and control of our
nation's borders; 2) create an efficient temporary worker
program that allows employers to recruit immigrant workers
when there is a shortage of domestic workers; and 3) provide
legal status for qualified, screened undocumented migrants
now in the country. As the President has stated, all three of
these elements must be part of any initiative.
The Chamber has supported efforts to address these critical
issues, and is dismayed that the House rule essentially
forecloses any meaningful debate on these important areas.
Due to the critical importance of this issue to the business
community and our nation's economy, the Chamber will use the
vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings.
Again the Chamber urges you to vote `no' on House Resolution
610, the rule on H.R. 4437.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of this letter states, ``The Chamber
has supported efforts to address these critical issues and is dismayed
that the House rule essentially forecloses any meaningful debate on
these important areas. Due to the critical importance of this issue to
the business community and our Nation's economy, the Chamber will use
the vote on this rule in our annual How They Voted rankings. Again, the
Chamber urges you to vote no on House Resolution 610, the rule on H.R.
4437.''
{time} 1245
The Chamber's display is the same dismay that we have seen in a
bipartisan fashion here. It is not that we do not need reform. But what
is needed is comprehensive reform. And simply put, we are not reaching
that with the legislation that we are making a rule on at this time.
And we cannot do that, I might add, with a restrictive rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will draw this first debate to a close by again congratulating the
Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Sensenbrenner, as well as the
Committee on Homeland Security and Chairman King for bringing this
comprehensive bill before the House today.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the problem of illegal immigration
poses multiple threats and must be addressed in multiple ways, and I am
pleased that this bill before us today goes a long way and is a great
first step to attacking the problem, both from the supply-and-demand
sides of the equation, as well as from the security side.
Mr. Speaker, through both strengthening our borders and diminishing
economic incentives for illegal immigration, we stand a much better
chance of truly reducing this problem in a meaningful way. And, yes, we
do intend, in an expeditious manner, to address the issue of a solution
for the existing 11 million illegals, most of whom are working hard to
support their families.
Again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this rule so we can move forward with the initial
consideration of the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H11678]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________