[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11800-H11845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT 
                                OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 610 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4437.

                              {time}  1618


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen 
enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Bass in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 2 hours, with 60 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, and 60 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H11801]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border 
Security, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 
2005.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation has lost control of its borders, which has 
resulted in a sharp increase in illegal immigration and has left us 
vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists and criminals. Estimates 
indicate that there are currently more than 10 million illegal aliens 
already here, and that population continues to grow by an estimated 
half million additional aliens each year.
  Large majorities of Americans support efforts to restore the security 
of our Nation's borders and to assure accountability of those who 
illegally enter the United States. America is a compassionate Nation 
that welcomes legal immigrants from all corners of the world. But it is 
also a Nation of laws. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, and 
H.R. 4437 reflects this.
  This legislation, which I introduced with Homeland Security Committee 
Chairman King, will diminish the lure of higher-wage employment that 
drives illegal entry into the United States while enhancing border 
security. This legislation will re-establish respect for our laws by 
holding violators accountable, including human traffickers, employers 
who hire illegal aliens, and alien gang members who terrorize 
communities throughout the country.
  I am pleased that this bill incorporates vital border security 
provisions from legislation reported by the Committee on Homeland 
Security and congratulate Chairman King for his committee's important 
role in drafting this component of the bill.
  H.R. 4437 will deliver on the unkept promise of the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986 by providing employers with a reliable 
method of determining whether their employees are eligible to work. The 
bill expands on the premise of Representative Calvert's legislation, 
H.R. 19, to build upon a successful pilot program that currently 
enables employers to verify the employment eligibility of their 
workers. Currently, employer participation in this program is on a 
voluntary basis. Within 2 years, this bill provides that all employers 
must check new hires against this database.
  The bill also increases penalties for alien smuggling. Those who 
suffer most from alien smuggling are often the most vulnerable and 
desperate, entering the country in perilous conditions that sometimes 
result in injury or even death.
  Moreover, debts owed to alien smugglers by those transported into the 
country illegally often create a form of indentured servitude that 
enriches criminal syndicates. The GAO has found that convicted 
smugglers, including those responsible for death or serious injury, 
receive an average prison sentence of only 10 months. Only 10 months, 
far less than that imposed for transporting illegal drugs or committing 
other serious crimes. The bill corrects these disparities by increasing 
criminal penalties for alien smugglers.
  The legislation also gets tough on alien members of violent street 
gangs. It incorporates H.R. 2933, the Alien Gang Removal Act, which was 
authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes). Alien gangs are a 
threat to communities across the country and represent a problem that 
is international in scope. We should not have to wait until alien gang 
members commit violent crimes before we can remove them from our 
communities.
  The legislation also increases penalties for previously deported 
aliens who illegally re-enter the United States. These provisions are 
incorporated from H.R. 3150, the Criminal Alien Accountability Act, 
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Another crucial provision of the legislation remedies the current 
situation in which the Department of Homeland Security is required to 
release dangerous alien criminals who cannot be deported. This has 
compelled the release of nearly 1,000 criminal aliens, including 
murderers and rapists, onto our streets. One such alien shot a New York 
state trooper. The legislation allows for the continued detention of 
these violent criminal aliens.
  The bill also contains commonsense provisions that would bar aliens 
who are terrorists or security risks from being naturalized U.S. 
citizens, making aggravated felons inadmissible to the United States, 
and facilitate the deportation of aliens who sexually abuse minors.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a critical step in helping 
to regain control of our borders and to prevent illegal immigration. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let me say from the outset that we on this 
side, the Democrats, believe that a strong border security policy is an 
absolute necessity for this Nation. We must ensure that terrorists 
cannot lurk in the shadows of our society and do us harm. Let us begin 
with that.
  Now, if you will look at the dissenting views in our report on this 
measure, there may be 20 to 40 different reasons that we do not like 
the bill. So rather than take all that time up, what I want to talk 
about is the one that offends me the most, and that is the 
criminalizing of unlawful presence. Now, this, alone, should turn away 
a majority of the House. There are roughly 11 million undocumented 
individuals in the United States who, under sections 203 and 201 of 
this bill, would be subject to mandatory detention if convicted of a 
crime of being unlawfully in the United States. First time in history. 
Are you ready for this? These individuals would be mandatorily retained 
without regard to whether the person is a flight risk or poses any 
danger.
  Re-entry after removal would also be another aggravated felony, and 
these provisions would result in a permanent bar to re-entry and no 
chance of a waiver whatsoever.
  Now, criminalizing unlawful presence by an incarceration of more than 
1 year is, to me, over the top. Millions of immigrants could be 
impacted and would suddenly be unable to apply for relief if they had 
been convicted of unlawful presence. Any immigrant who overstayed a 
visa and was convicted would be permanently barred from any form of 
immigration relief. Families who have been living and working in the 
U.S. for years would suddenly be ineligible for immigration relief that 
they would otherwise be able to receive. Virtually anyone who 
overstayed a visa could be guilty of an aggravated felony and thus 
ineligible for release.
  Now, the last thing I want to mention before I reserve the balance of 
my time is to state what we do need. And I have taken a little time to 
come around to this. We do need a program for the 11 million people in 
this country who are out of status to a system of earned legalization. 
This is the only rational solution that I can bring to you today, my 
colleagues. The President of the United States, who I seldom quote, has 
said that without a comprehensive approach that includes earned 
legalization, we will not solve the problem. Otherwise, these millions 
will remain in this country, in the shadows; and we will not know what 
they are doing and who they are and where they are going.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, I think, has exposed what 
the difference is between those who are for this bill and those who are 
against this bill.

                              {time}  1630

  Earned legalization is a nice word for amnesty for illegal aliens. 
The American public is against amnesty for illegal aliens. This bill 
does not give amnesty to illegal aliens, and it should not because it 
rewards somebody for breaking our laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the American people know the 
difference between legal immigration, which has made our country great, 
and illegal immigration, which threatens our homeland security.
  This legislation represents a crucial step forward in securing our 
borders and protecting the lives and property of the American people. 
Sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King, the Border 
Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 
2005 achieves four essential goals.

[[Page H11802]]

  It combats illegal immigrant smuggling and makes it easier to deport 
illegal aliens, 20 percent of all Federal prisoners, who have committed 
crimes. This will make our communities much safer. This legislation 
makes it easier to apprehend, convict and deport potential terrorists. 
It allows employers to determine whether a job applicant is legally in 
the United States. Last year, not a single employer was fined for 
illegally hiring someone. If we do not diminish the magnet of jobs, no 
amount of border enforcement alone will prevent illegal immigration. 
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this initiative will result in more individuals 
being held accountable for breaking our immigration laws.
  Our hearts go out to those who want to come to this country. We are 
the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. It is no surprise that 
America welcomes more legal immigrants than all other countries 
combined.
  But no nation can protect its residents without knowing who is 
entering and why. Thousands of people continue to cross our borders 
illegally every day instead of playing by the rules and coming into the 
country the right way.
  No Member of Congress advocates rounding up 10 to 20 million illegal 
immigrants, no one really knows how many, for mass deportation. But if 
we enforce our laws, many either will leave voluntarily or decide not 
to enter illegally. Perhaps the time will come for a limited foreign 
worker program, but that is only after we have secured our borders and 
put the interests of American workers first.
  Immigration is an emotional, sensitive, complex subject. But 
Americans, citizens and legal immigrants alike, have every right to 
secure borders in a safe homeland. And it is time we turned that right 
into reality.
  Mr. Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King deserve much 
credit and the thanks of the American people for bringing this 
legislation to the House floor.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the head of the California Democratic delegation.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, every country has the 
right, even the obligation, to control its borders, and that includes 
the United States of America. Since 9/11, as many have mentioned, that 
obligation has taken on increased importance and significance, and all 
of us believe that we need to do a better job. The truth is that the 
bill before us today really does not do that better job.
  We all watch TV, and we see the extravagant comments made, and some 
of them turn out to be correct. There is something called ``catch and 
release,'' and actually what it is, is individuals who are apprehended 
as they unlawfully enter the United States are cited and released with 
the promise that they will appear. It turns out that over 80 percent of 
the people who promise to appear do not show up. Now, when I was in 
local government, we had a failure-to-appear rate in single digits. We 
were alarmed at that. But even though the administration has seen this 
rate, they have not stopped doing it. Does this bill order the 
administration to go out and find those people that fail to appear and 
bring them in for processing to be deported or whatever the law 
requires? No, it does not.
  When I was in local government, we would have individuals who were 
undocumented, without papers, who committed a crime, and they would be 
in our jail. And every week, the Immigration Service would come, and 
they would take those people away from our jail after their sentences 
were served, and they would deport them, which we thought was a pretty 
good deal. Recently, the ball has been dropped on that score. And so we 
have got people who have committed crimes, who should be deported, and 
they are not being deported. And sometimes they are being released from 
jail. Does this bill tell the administration to go out and find those 
people and bring them in, ready to be deported, as the law provides? 
No, it does not. It does not.
  Does it order the administration to enhance its efforts so that 
criminals who are in jails who are supposed to be brought in for 
deportation are brought in? No, it does not do that either. It does not 
increase the resources.
  And it does some things that I think are quite weird and unfortunate. 
I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee as well as the 
Judiciary Committee, and I have mentioned section 404 in both 
committees. Section 404 allows for the exclusion of legal residents if 
they were born in the following countries: China, Vietnam, Cuba, 
Ethiopia, India, Eritrea or Laos. Why is that? Those countries refuse 
to accept or unreasonably delay the acceptance of people whom we 
deport. The answer is not to exclude legal residents who were born in 
those countries.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will have 
further comments as the day proceeds.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could we begin this discussion amongst 
ourselves by distinguishing between earned legalization and amnesty? 
Earned legalization is not a free lunch. Those working under this 
program will have to work for years in the United States to gain 
citizenship. They are here. They work. They pay taxes. They raise their 
families. And that is one legitimate plan.
  What does someone have here for an alternative? The bill before us 
does nothing about the 11 million people who are already here. And, by 
the way, is the President of the United States supporting an amnesty 
program? I do not think so.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission 
to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the primary 
attributes of a sovereign nation is the ability to control its own 
borders. In this regard, it is clear that the Constitution, article 1, 
section 8, places this duty right here, in the Congress. We have thus 
arrived at that moment of decision where the American people have a 
legitimate expectation that we will rise to this fundamental 
responsibility of governance.
  As one who has had the opportunity to participate in the birthing 
process of this legislation in both of the committees of primary 
jurisdiction, I would be the first to acknowledge that this was not an 
immaculate conception. It remains my belief that a comprehensive 
approach to the issue is necessary if we are to maximize the 
effectiveness of our resources on the border.
  However, it is critical that we have to take a first step. This bill 
should be judged on the basis of what it does contain, not for what it 
does not. On its own merits, this is a good bill. It is a good first 
step towards regaining control of our borders. And, furthermore, we 
have the assurances of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that 
other aspects of the larger immigration issue will be considered after 
our return. The decision has been made to begin the process of reform 
of the border security bill. Why? Because that is what the American 
people expect of us. Even if it is not a Rembrandt, it is not a bad 
paint job.
  As one who participated in the crafting of the 1986 Immigration 
Reform and Control Act, actually as the Republican floor manager of 
that bill, I can tell the Members that it was on the issue of employer 
sanctions that that bill crashed and burn. That legislation made it 
illegal for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible 
to work in the United States. It was part of a carefully crafted 
compromise. It was part of the balance in the program. Little did we 
know that neither Republican nor Democratic administrations were going 
to enforce it nor Democratic nor Republican Congresses were going to 
support it. There is enough blame to go around. It is not just in the 
Executive branch. It is here in this body as well. And the American 
people now are demanding that we do something about it.
  Under the law then passed, employers were to check the identity and 
work eligibility documents of all new hires. However, the explosion of 
a new industry dedicated to the production of false and fraudulent 
documents completely

[[Page H11803]]

undermined the employer sanctions provision of the bill. It did not 
have to happen that way. Congressman Hall of Texas offered a 
verification system somewhat like that contained in the bill before us. 
However, at that time I did not believe, nor did others in this body, 
that we had the technology to make it work. However, today, we do. It 
is incumbent upon us that we must learn from the past and have a 
reliable system of employment verification if employer sanctions are to 
work. A workable employment verification system is the critical 
linchpin in devising a strategy to demagnetize the attraction of 
unlawful employment.
  These and other things are in this bill. This is a good first step. 
Let us not fall on our own swords in an effort to try to say we want a 
perfect bill. If we do not do this, we will not do anything.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very 
much for yielding me this time.
  And might I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner because, as I said in the Rules 
Committee, I believe, between the ranking chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and certainly the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, there are a lot of good intentions. But, frankly, I 
think it is overwhelming to expect that, in this short period of time, 
that we can answer all of the concerns of the American people and 
answer the question of 20 years of shortsighted enforcement-only 
legislation to address this question of the enormity of illegal and 
undocumented individuals but, in particular, to address the question of 
security. That is the underpinning of this border security bill, and 
that is where I believe that we have a number of failures.
  The American people have polled repeatedly on one concept. That is 
whether or not they consider the immigration question a crisis worthy 
of our attention. But when they are asked about solutions, they 
specifically suggest the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. 
Strong enforcement at the border, which many legislative initiatives 
offered by Kolbe and Gutierrez, offered by members of the Homeland 
Security Committee, offered in Judiciary, offered by H.R. 4044, the 
Rapid Response Border Protection bill, all had reasonable responses, 
enforcement and earned access to immigration.
  But allow me to tell my colleagues why this particular bill is going 
to fall on its own weight and, as I heard someone say, the wheels are 
going to fall off, unless we turn back the bill and work together.
  It is important to note that as we stand here on the floor today, 
there are members of the United States military on the frontlines of 
Iraq and Afghanistan whose family members are undocumented. We have a 
program that many of us supported that would allow those who are on the 
frontlines of Iraq to become documented, legal permanent residents. In 
fact, we heard a story of a young man who was killed on his way to get 
fingerprinted, tragically. But it allows them to be able to be 
documented, and they can then access legalization for their family 
members.
  While they are on the frontlines of Iraq, the very presence of their 
grandmother, their mother, their sister or their father will allow them 
to be incarcerated as a felon under this bill, will allow them to be 
detained under this bill. And then you want to ask the employers of 
America, who I believe should be responsible for who they hire, not to 
verify people whom they may question, and that means that they will 
think that anyone with a name that sounds unlike American should be 
verified.

                              {time}  1645

  That will be close to 146 million persons who are currently employed 
and then 54 million persons who are eligible for employment. The basic 
pilot program will fall under its own weight. Why? Because the 
technology is not yet able to document and detail whether one name that 
has a particular sounding name is equal to the other name. Our 
technology does not equal that kind of competence at this point.
  And we have not answered the question of the funding because we 
require mandatory detention. The question is what kind of resources 
will be utilized.
  There are many elements to this bill that we could find common ground 
on, and those are the technology aspects. I believe there should be 
more in there to provide for our Border Patrol agents, the equipment, 
the night goggles, the computers that we have been saying they need 
over and over again, the helicopters, power boats and training. But 
that, unfortunately, was not allowed in this legislation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, might I thank those who have done 
the heavy lifting, might I thank the work that the Hispanic Caucus has 
done on behalf of all immigrants or individuals that may be 
undocumented. I value the fact that we as a Congress have been charged 
with the responsibility of securing America. Criminalizing undocumented 
hotel workers and restaurant workers does not do the job. Let us turn 
this bill back so that we will have an opportunity to work in a 
bipartisan manner.
  I rise in support of my Rapid Response Border Protection Amendment, 
H.R. 4044, to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437, and against the underlining 
bill as it is presently drafted.
  H.R. 4437 has a substantial number of provisions that would increase 
border security, but it is lacking in one very important respect. It 
does not provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources 
that it needs to secure the border. My amendment would address that 
deficiency.
  For instance, aircraft and watercraft are invaluable tools for 
spotting people illegally crossing our borders and for assisting in 
their apprehension. They also are essential for rescue operations when 
people crossing the border need emergency assistance. The Secretary of 
the Homeland Security Department would be required to increase the 
number of Border Patrol helicopters by at least 100 and to increase the 
number of Border Patrol powerboats by at least 250.
  The Border Patrol currently suffers from a severe shortage of 
serviceable, police-type vehicles. In many locations, agents have to 
wait for vehicles to be brought in from the field by other agents on 
the previous shift before they can begin their duties. The Secretary 
would be required to establish a fleet of such motor vehicles of at 
least one vehicle per every three Border Patrol agents.
  The lack of portable computers precludes Border Patrol agents from 
utilizing biometric databases in the field. This results in inadequate 
checks being performed before suspects are released. The Secretary 
would be required to ensure that each police-type motor vehicle in the 
Border Patrol's fleet is equipped with a portable computer with access 
to all necessary law enforcement databases.
  Smugglers and other criminals historically have used the cover of 
darkness to cross our borders. Although technology that enables the 
user to see at night has been available for many years, it is not 
readily available to all of the Border Patrol agents, and the Border 
Patrol is one of the few law enforcement agencies that conducts most of 
its operations in remote areas during the hours of darkness. The 
Secretary would be required to ensure that sufficient quantities of 
state-of-the-art night vision equipment are provided for every Border 
Patrol agent who works during the hours of darkness.
  Body armor is a relatively inexpensive piece of protective equipment 
that has saved the lives of countless law enforcement officers. The 
Secretary would be required to ensure that every Border Patrol agent is 
issued high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and 
risks faced by the individual officers.
  Currently, fewer than 11,000 Border Patrol agents are responsible for 
patrolling more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders. Because 
of the need to provide continuous, around-the-clock coverage, no more 
than 25 percent of those agents are securing our borders at any given 
time. That averages one Border Patrol agent every 3 miles. A 
substantial increase in personnel is desperately needed. The Secretary 
would be required to hire an additional 10,000 agents.
  Recruitment and retention problems make it difficult to maintain a 
large force of experienced Border Patrol agents. One of the key 
difficulties in this regard is the fact that the pay lags behind that 
of many other law enforcement officers. The amendment would address 
this problem by requiring the Secretary to raise the base pay for all 
journey-level Border Patrol agents to a GS-13 level.

[[Page H11804]]

  Nonimmigrant S visas are available for aliens who assist the 
Government with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal 
organization or a terrorist organization. The amendment would establish 
a third category for aliens who assist the United States Government 
with the investigation or prosecution of a commercial alien smuggling 
organization or an organization engaged in the sale or production of 
fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United 
States unlawfully. A protection program would be available for 
informants who need it.
  A rewards program would be established for encouraging informants to 
assist in the elimination or disruption of commercial alien smuggling 
operations or an organization engaged in the sale or production of 
fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United 
States unlawfully. A protection program would be available if needed.
  Those who object to the cost of H.R. 4044 need to recall the enormous 
costs, not just in monetary terms, of the last terrorist attacks. If we 
want to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must be 
prepared to devote whatever resources are necessary to keeping 
terrorists out of our country.
  I urge you to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time and for his extraordinary leadership of the Judiciary 
Committee on which I serve. I also congratulate Chairman King for his 
hard work on this important legislation.
  As the grandson of an Irish immigrant, I believe in the ideals that 
are enshrined on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. America has 
always and will always be a welcoming Nation, welcoming under the law 
any and all with the courage enough to come to this shining city on a 
hill. But a nation without borders is not a nation, and across this 
country Americans are anxious about the security of our border. Night 
after night they see news images of people sneaking across the border 
in the dark of night; they hear tales of people paying thousands of 
dollars to so-called ``coyotes'' to smuggle them into the country; they 
worry that drugs will make their way into the hands of their children 
more readily; and they rightly fear that our porous borders make it 
more likely that terrorists will cross with deadly intentions against 
our families.
  This year alone, some 115,000 illegal aliens from countries other 
than Mexico have been apprehended by our Border Patrol; and simply as 
an ordinary American, I share this concern. That is why I support the 
legislation before us today.
  Estimates vary, but it is generally accepted that around 11 million 
illegal aliens are living in our Nation today. The great majority of 
these people entered America by making an illegal border crossing. We 
cannot allow this trend to continue.
  In today's legislation, the Department of Homeland Security is 
required to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for 
securing the border, including surveillance plans, a timeline for 
implementation, 1,000 additional port of entry inspection personnel, 
1,500 additional canine units and beyond.
  Also, importantly, this legislation takes a giant step towards ending 
the current practice of what is known as ``catch and release'' that 
plagues the border by requiring mandatory detention of illegal border 
crossers until an immigration removal hearing can be held. As part of a 
well-developed strategy, the bill mandates that Homeland Security use 
every available detention bed and authorizes new detention space.
  Finally, this bill addresses the need to enforce our employment laws 
by instituting an employer verification system whereby employers will 
be required to submit information to the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Social Security Administration for verification. 
Providing this verification system will ensure that only Americans and 
legal visitors to the United States of America are living and working 
in our Nation.
  We have before us today an important first step in securing America's 
borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into our Nation. I 
rise again in strong support of the Border Protection, 
Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. With 
gratitude for its authors, I urge its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the one gentleman not on the Judiciary 
Committee that has worked with us all year long on this subject matter, 
who has done noble work for his caucus and for the committee.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for all 
of his hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I come to speak before this very, very able 
body today to say that we are really not solving the problem. The fact 
is that this bill represents a retreat from true immigration reform and 
from true security. Evaluate the bill, and you will see that it neither 
demonstrates the political will nor commits the requisite resources to 
deport 11 million people who currently live and work in the United 
States of America.
  So after the bill is passed, there will still be 11 million, and I do 
not see anything in the bill that is going to cure that problem; 11 
million people who we should, as President Bush has urged, as all like-
minded people have urged, should be given the opportunity to come out 
of the shadows of darkness, should come out of the marginalized 
existence of exploitation in which they live and be able to join all of 
us doing three things: demonstrating their good moral character; 
demonstrating that they pay taxes; demonstrating that they work and 
they contribute to this great country of ours.
  The bill does not do anything. It is silent. Eleven million people. 
Are we going to go out and arrest and detain and deport 11 million 
people? Nobody would argue that that is what we are going to do, 
because we have never demonstrated the political will to do that, nor 
have we ever committed the requisite resources to do that. So in the 
absence of that, if you truly want security here, I suggest that we 
should get their fingerprints; that we should have them come out of the 
darkness and give us their fingerprints; give us their bank accounts; 
give us their addresses and become full-fledged members of our society.
  I am not saying put them at the head of the line. Put them at the 
back of the line. Let us see what it truly is. They have committed what 
is a civil offense. That is what it is, according to our statute. You 
cannot retroactively make it a criminal offense. It is a civil offense, 
and let us deal with the civil offense that they have committed.
  What offense have they committed to come here? I do not know. But I 
just think that in America no one is in fear and trepidation of the 
Windex-wielding cleaning lady at K-Mart. I do not think anyone in 
America is in fear of the woman who wakes up every morning to cherish 
and to nourish and to raise the children of American citizens. No one 
is in fear when they go to their hotel room and they see the woman that 
has made their bed and cleaned their carpeting and placed their towels 
in their appropriate places. No one in this place fears walking into a 
restaurant and eating from the dishes that have been cleaned. No one in 
this room would say, God, I cannot eat those grapes, will not touch 
those apples from Washington State. Yet we well know who has toiled in 
those vineyards and in that agricultural sector in very tough 
conditions with very low wages.
  I do not see people in America saying, God, Luis, the Congress of the 
United States should do something. I want my son to be a dishwasher. I 
want my daughter to pick grapes out there in the State of California.
  We know who is doing these jobs. As a matter of fact, according to 
our own Department of Labor, our economy will continue to create low-
wage, low-skilled, entry-level jobs for which there will not be an 
American workforce to fulfill those necessities.
  So given that reality, let us not cast that all of the problems and 
ills of our society are somehow upon the immigrants who have come to 
this country. I will suggest to you that they are your neighbors; that 
you know that when you walk into a building and you see those shiny 
floors, you know who was up the night before shining those floors; when 
you walk into that comfortable room after a long day of work, you know 
who cleaned that room; when you eat from those dishes, you know who 
washed them.

[[Page H11805]]

  It is critical and essential to our economy for their being here in 
the United States of America. So let us stop it. Let us put an end to 
it.
  I would say to all of my colleagues here today, if you are selling 
drugs, if you are a rapist, if you are a robber, if you are a murderer, 
if you are someone of ill repute, I and the colleagues I know would be 
the first to stand up and to say, Out with you and back to your country 
of origin, if that is what you have come here to do.
  But let us be honest. The immense majority of them are hardworking. 
The immense majority of them are people we know that are hardworking, 
taxpaying, good moral character people who want to do nothing more than 
what other immigrants have done before them, to become part of this 
great process.
  So let us keep that in mind as we continue this debate. Let us take 
the high road, not the low road, in this debate.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4437, the Border 
Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. I 
would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King for the 
remarkable job they have done to bring this bill to the floor today.
  A mandatory electronic employment verification system must be a key 
component in any immigration reform bill worthy of the name. We can 
never gain control of our borders until we turn off the job magnet that 
encourages people to flout the law. If illegal immigrants know that a 
job awaits them in the United States provided they can get past the 
gauntlet of the border, no amount of border security will ever stop 
them.
  Every employee already fills out an I-9 immigration form and presents 
documents confirming their identify and eligibility to work. Of course, 
the current system does not work because the documents themselves are 
easily forged and cannot be checked.
  The system proposed today would simply require that the information 
on the I-9 form be confirmed. It is not discriminatory; it is easy to 
use and will do more to stem the tide of illegal immigration than any 
other single provision.
  Many people have commented on the mandatory employment verification 
system, and some comments have missed the point. This system is all 
about ensuring a legal workforce by preventing document fraud during 
the hiring process.
  I believe that most employers are trying to do the right thing and 
hire only legal workers. Unfortunately, the current employment 
verification system does not give the employer enough information to be 
confident that their workforce is legal. Forged documents easily pass 
through the system without a problem, which leaves the employer with 
dubious U.S. citizens and legal immigrants at a competitive 
disadvantage and encourages the mass illegal immigration America is 
experiencing today.
  Not only would this system strike a blow against document fraud; it 
would also reduce identity theft, a practice on the rise in the United 
States. Just like credit card companies can flag unusual purchases to 
stop identity theft, this program would flag unusual behavior.
  This is a good program, and this bill must pass.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), one of our dedicated members on the 
Judiciary Committee and a leader in the Hispanic Caucus.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Michigan for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4437. 
Americans are right to demand better border security and better 
enforcement of our immigration laws, but this bill is just a false 
sense of security. It does not secure our borders, it leaves our ports 
of entry exposed, and does nothing to reform our broken immigration 
system. What is needed is enforcement of laws that work, and we cannot 
have this without comprehensive immigration reform. Even President Bush 
agrees on this.
  We should not be debating a bill thrown together at the 11th hour 
before we adjourn for recess, a bill that basically opens the door for 
witch hunts of anyone who looks foreign and a bill that erodes basic 
civil liberties and human rights for migrants, legal immigrants, and 
even citizens.
  In looking at the lack of merit in this bill, we need to ask 
ourselves what kind of America do we want to live in. Do we want an 
America where we have mass deportations? Do we want an America where 
police officers can randomly ask foreign-looking Americans to produce 
identification to prove their legal status? Do we want an America where 
people can be detained for life when their home country is unwilling to 
take them back? Do we want an America where American citizens will have 
to carry national identification cards to travel, work, or just walk 
down the street? Do we want an America that criminalizes 1.6 million 
children? Because that is exactly what this bill will do.

                              {time}  1700

  As the daughter of immigrants, I am offended by this bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to think long and hard about the vote they are about to 
cast and the detrimental impact it will have on the proud tradition of 
immigration that this country was built on.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who is an emeritus member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Chairman King of New York for their extraordinary efforts on this bill. 
I do rise in support of H.R. 4437 today.
  We do have a border crisis on our hands, and it is time that we do 
something about it other than talk. The chairmen have done a great job 
in bringing this forward. Everywhere I go in my district, Democrats, 
Republicans, everyone is united in the belief that our border 
enforcement is out of control and we have to give our border agents the 
tools they need to protect this great Nation.
  My constituents see this truly as an issue of national security and 
of grave importance to our country. It is one we cannot wait to handle. 
We have to do something to secure those borders.
  I am especially pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee has 
inserted several items on the bill that I had worked on while I was a 
member of the committee. During the 108 and 109th Congress, I 
introduced the Federal Contractor Security Act to tackle the problem of 
illegal entrants working for Federal contractors at critical 
infrastructure sites, at sites that are sensitive to our national 
security. And now the bill makes it mandatory for all employers, 
including Federal contractors, to use the worker verification system.
  This is a system that employers can use at no charge, at no charge, 
and provide the sense of security that is needed by American citizens 
that the individuals working are indeed who they claim to be.
  The legislation removes the guesswork about a worker's status and 
separates illegal entrants well before a business has invested time and 
money to train them.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King of 
New York. I want to thank the leadership for their work and encourage 
support of H.R. 4437. This is something that is good for business. It 
is good for our Nation's security.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this very poorly 
drafted bill. I learned long ago in my legislative career that you 
should not enact laws that you cannot enforce. This bill has some good 
provisions, but it also has a lot of bad provisions.
  If there was ever a moment, I think, in legislative history of 
congressional hypocrisy, it has got to be right now. Just a few minutes 
ago we voted to recognize and support the symbols of Christmas. This 
bill steps on the spirit of Christmas for 11 million people in America 
who are now being given a Christmas present, being told they are

[[Page H11806]]

``criminals.'' Not only are all the undocumented people made instant 
criminals, so are their churches, so are their neighbors, and so are 
the people that support them and employ them.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill declares war mostly on Mexicans because they 
are the vast majority of undocumented people in the United States. They 
are people that are already here, working, living in our communities. 
Who are these people? They may be your town heroes. They may be the 
latest valedictorian in your high school. They might have been the star 
of your football team or other sports team. They may have been the next 
scholarship winners. They may be some of America's brightest, our 
future. And yet now, by caveat, they are criminals.
  Some cut your lawn, some clean your house, some harvest your food and 
that is the food that we pray over. This bill makes criminals out of 
innocent children, their mothers and their fathers. You cannot enforce 
this bill, I think, without a revolution. That is why the Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Bar Association, the Association of Builders and 
Contractors, the Episcopal Church, the International Association of 
Firefighters, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and many 
other areas oppose this legislation.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on a badly drafted bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, just to clarify everything, if someone entered the 
United States illegally, they have committed a Federal misdemeanor. If 
they overstayed their visa, they have committed a civil grounds of 
inadmissibility. So the people who snuck under the fence are already 
criminals, and what this bill does is criminalize the 40 percent who 
entered legally and did not go home when they were supposed to. And 
that is fair and that is equal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4437. This legislation is long overdue, and I want to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Chairman King of New York for their great work in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  My constituents are fed up with porous borders, lax enforcement, and 
excuses about why the Federal Government is unable or unwilling to 
ensure that immigrants entering our country are legal.
  This measure provides genuine solutions such as state-of-the-art 
surveillance technology, 8,000 new border agents, and widespread 
physical barriers.
  The citizens of Altoona, Pennsylvania, experienced the sobering 
realities of a poorly enforced immigration system when this last August 
an illegal alien with a prior criminal record of assault, reckless 
endangerment, and a weapons violation murdered three innocent people. 
Had the catch and release practice been eliminated and mandatory 
detention been in place, perhaps this painful tragedy could have been 
prevented.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill's time has come. We cannot continue to allow 
overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants to flood our communities 
without any scrutiny. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
commonsense approach that will combat illegal immigration and 
strengthen our Nation's security.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  I am told that the chairman of the committee, I was not on the floor, 
in his comments after our ranking member spoke said, This shows the 
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats are for 
amnesty. Republicans are not.
  I remember back in the campaign in 1968 for President, or one in one 
of his races for Governor, George Wallace made the comment that, No one 
was going to out-``seg'' me.
  Those kinds of charges and that kind of misuse of language is done by 
people who know that they are trying to fool the American people into 
thinking they are doing something.
  This bill will never become law. It may pass this House, but it will 
never become law for the very reasons that it does not take a 
comprehensive approach to the problem.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it is already illegal to 
come to this country without permission, without a visa of one kind or 
another; and he is right. That is why we call them illegal immigrants. 
And he says, so all we are doing with this bill is dealing with the 
people who came legally and then overstayed. I guess that is because 
the first part of it, dealing with the people who came here illegally, 
has worked so well. That is why every year hundreds of thousands of 
people are able to cross this border and work in this country. A few do 
some horrible things. But they come and the law has not made a 
difference. Unless you take a comprehensive approach, you will never 
solve the problem.
  If what the chairman defines as amnesty is amnesty, then George Bush 
is for amnesty; John Cornyn, the Senator from Texas, is for amnesty; 
Senator Kyl of Arizona is for amnesty; and the chairman himself by 
saying that there needs to be a guest worker program eventually is for 
amnesty, because when the people who came here illegally get to come 
back into this country, because they have left or they have applied 
from within this country to work in our fields or our restaurants or 
other industries that have become heavily reliant on unauthorized 
workers, we are saying you get to do what you came here to do even 
though you committed an illegal act.
  The fact in 1986 was not amnesty. None of the proposals now for a 
comprehensive immigration proposal include amnesty because they are all 
based on meeting certain future obligations, paying fines, continuing 
to work, coming out of the shadows, going through a background, 
learning whether or not they have committed any criminal acts other 
than the entrance here.
  At the heart of why this bill will never become law are the reasons 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) spoke to. In this bill 
is a very logical employer verification system. It was what was missing 
from the 1986 bill. It is why the 1986 bill did not work. But everyone 
knows you can never implement an employer verification system unless 
you deal with the 11 million people who are now in this country. 
Because otherwise every grower, every restaurant owner, every hotel, 
every tourism industry, huge numbers of construction firms are all 
going to get the answer back on this verification system: the person 
you have working for you is not here legally; you will have to fire 
them. They will be closed down.
  That will never happen. The employers of this country will never let 
that pass, because this bill will not even allow us to offer an 
amendment to make it comprehensive, to accept every one of the 
provisions, some of them to my way of thinking are draconian and over 
broad, but accept every one of the provisions of this bill and just add 
that aspect of the bill that can make for a coherent whole. They will 
not even let us bring that as an amendment.
  I urge that Members of this House rise above the demagoguery that is 
going on about who stands for what and oppose this bill until we are 
allowed the chance to vote for a tough, comprehensive bill that does 
something real about illegal immigration.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Chairman King of New York for working on this bill and bringing 
something very substantial forward for our Members to vote on.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government for decades has ignored this 
problem. And it has become an enormous problem facing the entire 
Nation, not just the border States.
  I am not sure I agree with my friend and colleague, Mr. Berman, that 
a comprehensive bill is actually possible. It is a big, big problem. We 
have got to

[[Page H11807]]

make a start at least. I think this legislation represents a good-faith 
attempt to begin to deal with the problem. Dealing with that 11 million 
is extremely difficult. I think at a minimum we need to start to deal 
with those who continue to enter the country illegally. It is certainly 
unacceptable for people to enter this country illegally, seek out our 
taxpayer-financed services, and hand the bill to the taxpayers.
  I commend the chairman for putting provisions in the bill that reduce 
the likelihood of that continued flow of illegals into the country. I 
particularly like the provisions dealing with the San Diego-type fences 
in the urban areas. That is very, very important and I think will be 
effective. I know those are to be considered for approximately a dozen 
places along the border.
  The other thing I like, in fact, several months ago I introduced a 
bill to end the absurd catch and release policy where our government 
has been giving tickets, essentially, to people who enter illegally and 
then letting them go and show up of their own volition. So far about 
90,000 people this year have failed to appear in court who entered 
illegally and received such tickets. I am grateful that the provision 
to end that was included in the bill. That will make a big difference 
and will start us down the road to having a more effective border 
security policy. And I am confident we will have to continue to work 
together as we address this important issue. Please support this 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
legislation, the Border Protection Antiterterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act.
  I support this bill for several reasons, but I think one of the 
things that must be noted is it provides the Federal Government with 
needed authority to secure the borders.

                              {time}  1715

  It also closes the loopholes in current law that illegal immigrants 
and their facilitators exploit to enter and remain in the United States 
illegally. It is estimated that more than 11 million people, as it has 
been brought out here today, enter the U.S. illegally. That number 
includes those who have stayed over their visa and those who have 
entered this country illegally in the first place.
  Of course, America is a very charitable Nation. We welcome those with 
open arms who wish to live here, who wish to work here, raise a family 
here and eventually become naturalized citizens. That is why we have a 
legal process to do so.
  Since September 11, 2001, we as a Nation have had to reevaluate our 
willingness to have among us so many noncitizens that are here 
illegally. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of 
government programs that many of our colleagues on this side also 
cherish, we must pass a bill to begin to perform our duties to secure 
our borders.
  This bill also facilitates cooperation between border sheriffs and 
Federal law enforcement by authorizing reimbursements to local 
sheriffs, along the border, for the cost of enforcing immigration laws 
and detaining illegal immigrants until transferred to Federal custody. 
This has been a growing problem, and the clarification provided in this 
bill and the financial resources are important.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Border Protection, 
Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act. I support this bill 
because it provides the Federal Government with needed authority to 
secure our borders. It also closes loopholes in current law that 
illegal immigrants and their facilitators exploit to enter and remain 
in the U.S. illegally. It's estimated that there are more than 11 
million people in the U.S. here illegally. That number includes those 
who have overstayed their visas and those who have entered the country 
illegally.
  America is a charitable nation; welcoming those who wish to live, 
work, raise a family and eventually become naturalized citizens. This 
is why we have a legal process to do so. Since September 11, 2001 we, 
as a nation, have had to re-evaluate our willingness to have among us 
so many non-citizens that are here illegally. For the sake of our 
national security, and for the sake of the government programs that 
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cherish, we must 
pass this bill and begin to perform our duty to secure our borders.
  Since the changes will increase the number of illegal aliens in 
Federal custody, this bill includes provisions to increase the number 
of beds available to house these illegal aliens. The Department of 
Homeland Security will expand capacity to house those awaiting court 
hearings or removal.
  I want to thank the Chairman for yielding time and I'll close by 
asking all of my colleagues to support this bill; it is long overdue 
and a vital first step towards improving border security.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the courageous 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership and for making sure that we in this entire 
country understand what this so-called immigration reform bill is 
really about.
  I rise in strong opposition to this bill. At best, this legislation 
is unbalanced; it is harsh, and it is unfair. Quite frankly, I think it 
is very un-American.
  It criminalizes millions of hardworking people simply for being 
undocumented. It would turn local law enforcement into deputies of the 
border patrol, and innocent people will be needlessly scrutinized and 
jailed. I can only imagine how this irresponsible provision will affect 
racial profiling of Hispanics and other minorities.
  This bill also ignores due process and would expand the government's 
ability to keep noncitizens locked up behind bars if they cannot be 
deported to their native countries. Jailed immigrants will lose the 
ability to appeal a deportation order.
  Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the reasons why this bill 
really makes no sense for our great country. Let us address the real 
issues of immigration reform that include a clear path to citizenship 
and commonsense protections for our borders. We need full immigration 
initiatives that make sense, not these very punitive and very un-
American provisions that are included in this bill.
  We cannot, and we must not, forget the undeniable history, our 
history, American history, that we have as a nation of immigrants and 
the contribution that immigrants have had on our economy, on our 
diversity and our way of life. This bill, quite frankly, just flies in 
the face of that history, and it should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman again for his leadership 
and for yielding me the time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to both chairmen on 
this bill, I do understand the importance of this measure and all of 
the hard work that has gone into it. We do need border security, and we 
need to beef up our Federal personnel and protect our citizens from 
terrorist threats.
  However, we should not be moving a border bill that imposes penalties 
on employees and avoids dealing with the undocumented workers who are 
here now.
  I do not support H.R. 4437 because it does not include comprehensive 
guest worker reform that my constituents desperately want back home in 
the San Joaquin Valley of California.
  In 1986, Congress passed immigration reform. Two major mistakes were 
made when this bill was passed. Number one, it did not contain a guest 
worker provision, and number two, it provided amnesty for millions of 
illegal immigrants.
  In passing immigration reform and granting amnesty in 1986, Congress 
thought that they would stop illegal immigration. Well, they were 
wrong, because today, we have about 10 million immigrants in our 
country.
  Now we are here once again debating an immigration bill, and there is 
no guest worker program in the provisions. In this bill, we are 
penalizing employers without dealing with the millions of illegal 
workers currently here.
  As long as this House continues to avoid the need to include a guest 
worker program in immigration reform, we will continue to have an 
illegal immigration problem in the United States.

[[Page H11808]]

  U.S. border patrols are overwhelmed, and the cost of enforcement has 
skyrocketed. If we are implementing a guest worker program to provide 
temporary worker permits and allow workers to go home for part of the 
year, border enforcement officials could focus their resources on 
securing the border.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure, and it is with 
great respect to the chairman because it does not contain comprehensive 
guest worker reform.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  This debate has a peculiar forgetfulness about where we are. The 
Republicans have been in control for 5 years, and we keep hearing about 
what is wrong: There is not enough personnel; there is not enough 
equipment; we are giving people tickets and letting them go; the whole 
program is horrible.
  Would you explain to me why it has not been corrected before now, and 
you offer now criminalizing up to 11 million people as a solution? This 
doesn't make sense.
  But, folks, hang on to your hats because tomorrow it could get worse. 
The distinguished Rules Committee has proposals before them. We do not 
know what we will get on the floor. Citizenship for people born in the 
United States, just because their parents were born somewhere else, 
forfeiture of church property if they provide shelter for illegal 
immigrants, jail sentences for priests or nuns who help illegal 
immigrants get food or shelter; these are serious Republican proposals 
for improving immigration policy of which they have complained without 
letup since this discussion has begun. The Rules Committee takes these 
proposals up tomorrow, and we may see them on the floor with 
recommendations that they become part of this bill.
  We don't need it to get worse to know that we don't need this 
measure. It's going nowhere, and I hope that somebody feels that they 
are getting some sound-bites out of this because I feel very badly 
about this important measure.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I was here in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was 
passed. I voted against it because I didn't think it was a balanced 
bill, and I didn't think it was a workable bill, and I think that what 
has happened in the last 19 years showed that a no vote was the right 
vote.
  That bill was based on the fact that we would solve the illegal alien 
problem by giving those who are already here amnesty and then we would 
impose sanctions on employers who hired new illegal aliens. The reason 
it didn't work, as my friend from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) 
has stated, is that the employer sanctions were never enforced. As a 
result, illegal aliens came across the border in increasing floods.
  The current system gives an incentive to an employer to hire an 
illegal alien in an entry-level job that is labor intensive because 
illegal aliens work for less money than either documented aliens with 
green cards or United States citizens. As a result, the bad actors in 
areas like the hotel and restaurant business, agriculture, landscaping 
and the construction business, are able to have such a competitive 
economic advantage because of the low wages over those who are trying 
to do it the right way.
  I can understand why the Chamber of Commerce is against this bill 
because of the employer verification system. I guess if I were lobbying 
for them, I would be, too, because they have benefited from the low 
wages, and the low wages that these corporations have benefited from 
have depressed the wages of honest, hardworking, middle-income American 
people and those who are trying to get these entry-level jobs who are 
authorized to work in this country.
  The key in this bill is Mr. Calvert's employer verification system 
because that will flush out those who hire large numbers of illegal 
aliens, and they can go into the marketplace and pay a decent wage to 
people who are legally entitled to work here. I think that this is the 
main reason why this bill should pass.
  We have heard a litany of complaints about all of the enforcement 
provisions, fences on the border, making a criminal offense overstaying 
one's visa, giving the sheriffs in border counties the authority to 
enforce the immigration law which they don't have now. The fact is that 
those people who are against this bill don't want any changes in the 
existing system except perhaps amnesty or, excuse me, earned 
legalization and ultimately citizenship for those who have broken the 
law.
  This bill has our priorities straight. We have to secure the border. 
We have to provide law enforcement the tools to apprehend those who 
have broken the law, and we have to force our employers to flush out 
all the fake documents that are out there that are held by people who 
are illegally in this country, which is what the verification program 
proposes to do.
  This is a good bill. It is a necessary first step, and if this bill 
is defeated, as all of those who have been saying no to everything goes 
down, the consequence is going to be the continuation of the 
intolerable existing system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border 
Protection, Antiterterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 
2005.
  The bill before us today incorporates both border security and 
immigration enforcement provisions and is the result of a strong 
collaborative effort by the Committee on Homeland Security and the 
Committee on the Judiciary to address these important issues.
  The Committee on Homeland Security began this process last month when 
we introduced the bill, H.R. 4312, entitled the Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. This measure focused on border 
security provisions and reflected a truly bipartisan effort among 
members of my committee to solve lingering problems in our border 
defenses. I particularly appreciate the strong and able leadership of 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), our ranking member, in 
achieving important goals in this bill. I also want to commend the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez). Thanks to their 
cooperation, we were able to pass H.R. 4312 on a voice vote with 
absolutely no opposition.
  I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and his staff 
for their diligence and willingness to cooperate with us in expanding 
and improving this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I will focus in my remarks on the border security 
aspects of the bill because, since September 11, it has become more and 
more apparent that our borders are in crisis. In addition to whatever 
social issues there are with immigration or whatever criminal issues 
there are with immigration, there are now, since September 11 brought 
home to us dramatically, the terrorism aspects of illegal immigration.
  The homeland security provisions of this bill try to, and I believe 
do, very effectively address the issue of terrorism that must be 
confronted if we are to survive as a people.
  This legislation requires 100 percent coverage of our land and 
maritime borders, including physical infrastructure, border patrol 
personnel and the use of all available technology.

                              {time}  1730

  It also requires a joint and collaborative effort between the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to use 
all available military technology to ensure that our borders are 
controlled and sealed. Most importantly, I believe, and as importantly 
as any other provision, it ends the policy of catch and release, which 
has been discussed in the previous hour; and it mandates expedited 
removal. We no longer have the luxury; and if we are talking about, I 
know the gentleman from Michigan before was talking about, who has been 
in control and who has not been in control, I would be the first to say 
that we are dealing with a bipartisan problem which is why it requires 
a bipartisan effort. That was the bill that we attempted to pass out of 
the Homeland Security Committee, because we have to end such policies 
as catch and release and expedited removal.

[[Page H11809]]

  I would hope that, as the debate goes forward, both sides acknowledge 
the good faith of the others. This is too serious an issue to be 
trivialized or demagogued. It is too serious an issue to be looked at 
in any kind of casual way. I listened very carefully to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich). I understand his concerns about there 
not being guest worker provisions in this bill; but I believe that if 
the American people are to take us seriously, they want to see us 
address the issue of border control before we go on to any other 
expansion of rights or any other legalization of those who are here 
already or even setting in process a motion where we make it easier for 
workers to come into this country. We have to show we can control the 
borders before we go further, and that is the purpose of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as the grandson of immigrants who 
grew up in an immigrant neighborhood in New York City, I yield to no 
one in my admiration of what immigrants have contributed, are 
contributing, and must continue to contribute to our country; but it 
has to be legal immigration. I say that. Some of the things that maybe 
were looked at or not looked at prior to September 11 can not longer be 
ignored. They have to be addressed. We have to address head on the 
issue of illegal immigration because of its ties to international 
terrorism.
  So while I grew up in a neighborhood of immigrants as a child, I also 
saw many of my neighbors killed on September 11. So neighborhoods have 
changed; things have changed. What was tolerated before September 11 
maybe in some quarters can no longer be tolerated now. We no longer 
have the luxury of looking the other way. We have to address head on 
this issue of illegal immigration. That is what this bill is about. 
Certainly the aspects passed from the Homeland Security Committee, that 
is what they were about, combating illegal immigration and thereby also 
undercutting international terrorism.
  I would ask the debate go forward in a reasonable way where we can 
exchange ideas, confront the issues that are confronting our Nation on 
this issue of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it used to be said that we are all either Republicans 
or we are all Democrats, but I wonder what is happening to this country 
as I look at this bill. But today that principle is long gone, replaced 
by partisan efforts to satisfy extremist groups. The Democratic members 
of the committee of Homeland Security, including myself, Ms. Sanchez, 
Ms. Lofgren, worked tirelessly with my counterpart, Chairman King, to 
create a good border security bill that had many, many good provisions; 
but after that bill left our committee, it fell into partisan hands to 
satisfy the extremist anti-immigrant groups.
  Instead of giving the American people a Christmas present of a 
bipartisan bill that would secure our borders in a real and fair way, 
we are giving them a bill that looks more like a gift from an extremist 
Grinch who stole Christmas and trampled our Constitution on the way. 
The Judiciary Committee has loaded up our bill with controversial 
immigration proposals that are now opposed by nearly every reasonable 
business, immigration, and human rights group in America. I hope my 
chairman from New York recognizes this.
  I know it is difficult, but if you look at the groups that have 
opposed this piece of legislation, you can understand why it is a bad 
bill. The Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill. The American Bar 
Association opposes this bill. The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform 
opposes this bill. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops oppose this 
bill. What reasonable organization is left to support it?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is so ridiculous that, according to the 
Republican version, Santa Claus himself would be a criminal for 
trekking from the North Pole to deliver holiday gifts without a visa. 
This bill is not a step in the right direction. It is time that we pass 
a real border security bill that is fair and effective, not a partisan 
bill that does not solve our problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's reference to 
Santa Claus shows what a pleasure it is to deal with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. McCaul) who is a former Federal prosecutor, a member of the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force, and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Investigations.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman 
King for his hard work on this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, before running for Congress, as the chairman indicated, 
I had a counterterrorism background as a Federal prosecutor in the 
Justice Department. My jurisdiction included the Mexican border. Based 
upon this experience, I have a direct understanding of America's need 
for this comprehensive border security legislation; and I am proud to 
say out of our committee, Mr. Chairman, it was truly bipartisan.
  The Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act is a result of the 
United States' grave and perpetual problem with undocumented aliens. An 
estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the 
United States. Last year alone, over 1 million illegal aliens were 
apprehended at the border, and the Border Patrol estimates that many 
more have crossed undetected. In addition, there is evidence to support 
that al Qaeda would like to exploit our southwest border, and we know 
that it is vulnerable.
  In the post-9/11 world, these figures no longer represent just an 
immigration problem, but rather one of national security. America's 
borders are being compromised by our inability to identify those who 
are coming into our country. This commonsense legislation will work to 
fix this growing problem and will greatly enhance security along our 
Nation's borders. If passed, America will begin to establish 
operational control of its borders and ports and have a national 
strategy, thereby ensuring a safer and more secure home for all of us.
  I am honored to serve on the Homeland Security Committee and to have 
played a role in the drafting of this important legislation, including 
the mandatory detention provisions which will end the so-called catch 
and release policy of undocumented aliens, particularly those from 
other countries other than Mexico. Unknown OTMs crossing our borders 
present a dire national security risk, since most of the detained OTMs 
are immediately released into our streets never to return for their 
court date. Sadly, the number of OTMs crossing America's border has 
tripled over the last 3 years.
  The second provision that I was proud to have a part in was to 
reimburse State and local law enforcement agencies for the cost they 
bear due to the national border security burden. If we have learned 
anything after 9/11, it is that the Federal Government must work with 
the State and local law enforcement to prevent terrorism.
  It is our duty, indeed it is our responsibility as Members of this 
distinguished body, to do everything in our power to ensure that 
another 9/11 never occurs in this country again. This vital piece of 
legislation will greatly advance our efforts towards preventing 
terrorists from entering our shores.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4437. The 
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the committee on which 
I serve, is right in saying that we worked on this bill in a very 
bipartisan way, at least the initial King-Sanchez bill that came to the 
Homeland Committee. We did it over a period of 2 months. We worked back 
and forth many of us on our side of the committee with Mr. King and 
others, and then we brought a bill to the Homeland Security Committee, 
a bill that dealt with border security. Border security.
  By the way, it was not just the immediate southern border we were 
talking about; we were talking about issues that are affecting us all, 
many of the borders and airports and coastal sections, and it included, 
this border security bill, even land away from the border, in the sense 
that it comes up to the area I represent. If you are in

[[Page H11810]]

Disneyland in my district, you are less than 100 miles away from the 
California border with Mexico. This bill that we had in Homeland 
Security would have affected my area.
  Now, not everything was great about the Homeland Security bill. In 
fact, I was very angry at some pieces that managed to get in. But we 
had a real debate, and we took our time, and we understood what we were 
talking about. And then this bill was taken over by the Judiciary 
Committee, usurped, with many, many more pieces put on, pieces that do 
not make any sense and really are not about border security. They are 
not about getting rid of the catch and release process that we have 
right now; they are not about tightening. They are about being mean, 
mean to immigrants in this community. And not just those who have no 
documents to be in the United States. This bill dangerously is unfair 
and penalizes everyday Americans regardless of what their immigration 
status is.
  Under this legislation, the Sensenbrenner bill, it would be a 
criminal offense, criminal offense, to be in the United States in 
violation of immigration laws. It would affect millions of legal 
immigrants, including lawful permanent residents and nonimmigrants who 
accrue technical violations of immigration regulations, like failing to 
report a change of address.
  Now, I know this because we have been working, we have been thinking, 
and we have been looking. But many of my colleagues may not understand 
the impact that the Sensenbrenner bill has on the people of America, 
legal residents in some cases. People would be criminalized under H.R. 
4437.
  In addition, this bill criminalizes anyone who assists undocumented 
immigrants in the United States; and this would include, listen to 
this, please, it would include churches, other faith-based groups, 
volunteers that provide food aid, shelter, or other life-saving 
assistance to members of its community who may not have documents.
  Do we really want to clog up the Federal system with decent people 
who are just trying to be Good Samaritans? Is that what this is about? 
For you taxpayers, is that what you want to spend your monies on, 
providing public defenders for everyone we are about to put in jail? 
And the 11 million, supposed, because we do not even know really how 
many people there are here without documents, that we are going to 
criminalize, women and children, where are we going to hold them? 
Because the mere presence of them being in the United States the day 
after a bill like this passes would make them felons in this country, 
according to Sensenbrenner.
  So, it is not a good bill. This has not been thought through, the 
implications and how we handle it. And the money that this would cost 
is something that America really is not really ready for.
  The Sensenbrenner bill also cripples American businesses. All of 
these people all of a sudden are felons. They are not in. They are not 
working. And all employers would be forced to use an employment 
eligibility verification system that, quite frankly, is not capable of 
handling the increase in volume that this Sensenbrenner bill would 
require.
  The database for the employment eligibility verification system 
contains widespread flaws and false information, false information, 
which would show many legal workers as undocumented, depriving legal 
employees of jobs and employers of the much-needed workers, the reason 
these people are here.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business groups across America 
oppose H.R. 4437 because the employers will pay the price for these 
impractical provisions and because enforcement-only legislation like 
H.R. 4437 will not create a rational immigration system needed to serve 
all Americans, businesses, and potential immigrants.

                              {time}  1745

  It does not address real comprehensive immigration reform, which is 
necessary for everybody out there in America who thinks that 
undocumented workers are a problem. This Sensenbrenner bill will not 
fix what we have on our hands. You have only to look at demographics to 
understand we in America need more workers than we can provide. And we 
need to get them from somewhere. So we need to get back to 
comprehensive immigration reform, not just closing off borders or 
hurting people or taking children away from mothers or deporting 
mothers. This will not solve the problem we have at hand.
  And so when we were in the Homeland Security Committee, we were 
working on border security in the hopes that this would be a good-faith 
effort to work together in a bipartisan manner and to get the ball 
rolling to work on more comprehensive reform that would bring about 
what we need here: Family reunification, good economic conditions for 
our economy and homeland security.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4437. We deserve a comprehensive 
solution to our immigration problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cyber 
Security, and the former attorney general of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, there are a number 
of major provisions in this bill, and let me speak of one that has been 
referred to on both sides of the aisle, some in support and some not in 
support.
  Section 407 which is the expedited removal section, this was adopted 
in the markup in the Homeland Security Committee. The question of 
expedited removal was one that we explored in our subcommittee. The 
specific context of our hearing involved the growing number of illegal 
border crossings by what is referred to by the service as ``other than 
Mexicans'' or ``OTMs.'' Let me explain what this is.
  Most people who come across the border illegally from our adjoining 
countries, either on the north from Canada or on the south from Mexico, 
accept voluntary departure. They agree to voluntarily go home and agree 
that they do not go through the various processes involved. We cannot 
do that with those people who are not from those countries because 
neither Mexico nor Canada would accept them. So we have to have an 
acknowledgment from the country from whence they came, their home 
country, that they are, in fact, residents of those countries or 
citizens of those countries. That requires us to detain those people 
for some period of time. That requires detention space, and the subject 
that has been discussed before, the idea of catch and release was 
created as a result of insufficient detention space and insufficient 
resources dedicated to that proposition. After that was revealed by the 
press earlier this year, the administration responded by trying out a 
couple of pilot projects in certain sectors. Instead of catch and 
release, it was retain them and then have expedited removal. They found 
that to be successful, and so they have expanded it to the entire 
southern border.
  Our bill mandates that not only be a temporary policy but a permanent 
policy. Yes, it does extend within 100 miles of the border, and it is 
limited to 14 days. That is, people who have been here less than 14 
days, even though the underlying law allows it to be done for a 2-year 
period of time, it does not limit it to 100 miles from the border. This 
is a border security bill, and we limit it in that fashion. It is 
directed at those who have come here.
  We even had the incident of a large number of people from Brazil this 
past year coming up, and we found that not only did they come across 
the border but instead of running away from our immigration officers, 
they ran to them. They ran to them to surrender, and they ran to them 
to surrender so they could be cited so they could actually get the 
citation which said you have entered this country illegally, you have 
to show up for your hearing 90 days hence. And 90-some percent did not 
show up.
  My question is, why did the 6 percent show up? If you look at it, we 
have created a system with every incentive to come back. That has 
turned around because of the pilot project. What this bill does is 
mandates it. It is commonsensical. It is the right thing to do. It 
helps us take a right step in the right direction.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

[[Page H11811]]

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides of the aisle 
believe that the government has a right to know who is coming into this 
country.
  Secondly, it would seem to me, once you get past the rhetoric, that 
we do not accept lawlessness. But I must say to Chairman King, a man of 
intellect and compassion, and I will get to that in a second, and my 
very good friend, I must say to the chairman that, when we look at 
section 612, denying citizenship to any legal permanent resident who 
has been unlawfully present in the country at any time in their life, 
what we are doing is forgetting how Italians and how Irish came into 
this country.
  Now 9/11 did change a lot of things, obviously; no question about 
that. And it does not mean that we should open the floodgates or close 
them or build them or not build them. But when we forget how our 
ancestors got here, many times not in a pristine fashion, this is not 
of your doing, Mr. Chairman. You can scream to the high moon, but this 
is not your idea, and even if you put your name on this, I know it is 
not for sure. We didn't pass this out of the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  And by the way, how many folks are we going to have to hire to do all 
of this? Who is paying for this?
  You have lost your background, and I mean that in a complimentary 
way. I do not mean that to be a wise guy. What you did just several 
years ago with the Irish immigrants who came here, when our British 
friends wanted to pluck them up and throw them out of the country, it 
was courageous. You cannot deny this in a bill. You cannot deny your 
heritage. I call on you to look at your heritage.
  We are making all immigrants here suspects. I believe, and I think 
all of us do, that it is a moral imperative for Congress to enact 
comprehensive immigration reform. Both sides of the aisle agree on 
that. We need a full and robust approach, one that includes not only 
strong and effective enforcement provisions but strategies to create 
new legal channels for future flows of immigrants because they are 
coming.
  Family immigration backlogs. Families, we want to unite families in a 
legal fashion. This bill does not do that, Mr. Chairman.
  Indeed, it fails to address many of the most important elements of 
immigration reform while imposing harsh, considered punitive, measures. 
That is why I believe it is a moral imperative to vote this bill down 
today. I do not think it is wise, and I do not think it is a real plan. 
Instead of proceeding in a judicious manner that could affectively stem 
the flow of illegal immigration, we are debating ineffectual 
enforcement measures that do not increase the safety and security of 
the American people.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks 
to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I, once again, admire the passion of the gentleman from New Jersey 
and assure the gentleman that I hold in high esteem the contributions 
immigrants have made, are making and will continue to make to this 
country. I believe, however, that it is essential that we put it on a 
legal basis in fairness to those who are coming here legally and also 
because of the situation that developed after 9/11. Having said that, I 
have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and he and 
I, in our own way, will be able to resolve some of our differences.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.R. 4437. To 
paraphrase an old Ford commercial, border security is job one for 
America. Safeguarding the integrity of our borders is an important 
component of both economic and national security. H.R. 4437, the Border 
Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 
2005, represents an important step towards the completion of this job.
  H.R. 4437 modernizes and improves our border security operations, 
allows the Department of Homeland Security to utilize the Department of 
Defense surveillance assets to monitor activities around the border. It 
establishes physical barriers to crossing, and it calls for the 
utilization of new technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, 
to ensure that we have 100 percent coverage of the areas in question.
  And in order to monitor those coming across at legal check points, it 
authorizes 100,000 new, full-time port-of-entry inspectors as well as 
the training of 1,500 additional K-9 units over the next 5 years. This 
will go a long way towards making sure that people who are not supposed 
to be here, whether they be undocumented aliens or terrorists or both, 
do not get here.
  The border is a dangerous place. It is a dangerous place to us as a 
country, as it can be an open door to those wishing to do us harm. But 
it is also dangerous place for individuals who cross for other reasons. 
Many women have been murdered along the border, and most of these 
homicides remain unsolved. People have died in the desert after being 
exploited by human traffickers, known as coyotes. This bill provides 
for mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of alien smuggling. 
It also has the potential to save many lives.
  Because of the enhanced surveillance capabilities provided by the 
bill, we are more likely to detect individuals who are lost, in 
distress or who are about to become victims of crime near these border 
crossings.
  For all of the foregoing reasons, I ask that the body pass this 
important legislation. I commend Chairman King and Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for their leadership on this issue.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the chairman of the Hispanic 
Caucus Task Force.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California, 
and I rise today in opposition to the legislation.
  First of all, let us get it straight, this is not about border 
protection, and it is not about antiterterrorism. If it was, we would 
be debating the bill that was voted out of Homeland Security. But 
instead, that bill has been hijacked and now is a vehicle used to 
promote ineffective and hypocritical so-called illegal immigration 
control.
  Let us start with the obvious. When it comes to the hiring of the 
undocumented worker, and that is simple: Demand will always determine 
supply. If you were serious about limiting the number of undocumented 
workers coming into this country, then significantly increase the fines 
levied against the employers. This bill does not do that. Make it as 
easy to criminalize the act of hiring as you do the act of entry into 
this country; this bill does not do that. Exclude employers that hire 
undocumented workers from government contracts and foreign subsidies 
and make sure that is a fact; this bill does not do that.
  Overall, we need to stop the hypocrisy, and we need to deal with the 
reality. It is the hypocrisy of failing to acknowledge that the 
undocumented worker comes to this country at our behest and that they 
make this economy work. We should be discussing the legal framework 
that addresses these realities, that encourages assimilation, becoming 
one people and one Nation.

                              {time}  1800

  I believe many supporters of this bill are concerned with the 
changing face of this country when what they are doing today and 
tomorrow will be changing the heart and soul of this country, which 
matters much more. The nature of those concerns happens to be 
superficial, just as this legislation is superficial. If this 
legislation does not fail now before it becomes law, it will fail later 
after it becomes law. I ask my colleagues, do not vote for failure.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Prevention of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding this 
time, and I want to commend both Chairman King and Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for being able to work together and bring this 
legislation to the floor. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a very, 
very good start.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4437 and urge my colleagues 
to

[[Page H11812]]

join me. While much of our Nation's attention is rightfully focused on 
hostilities abroad, I am pleased that the House is working to uphold 
the other half of its responsibility to protect the American people, 
namely, the prevention of dangers here at home.
  It is widely acknowledged that issue one of illegal immigration must 
be addressed on two major fronts, the first of which being the 
prevention of illegal entry into the United States, and the second, 
concentrating on finding, documenting and in most cases deporting 
illegals already within our borders. The bill before us addresses both 
of these contentious points.
  It appears that protecting our borders has drawn the ire of some, 
including our neighbors to the south, who have called our effort today 
``disgraceful and shameful'' and question whether the economic 
prosperity of our country will be adversely affected by our actions.
  My response is that until they fully grasp the concept that a lack of 
control at the border allows in not only those seeking a better life in 
this country but those also seeking to destroy us, I, for one, will 
respond that the United States has a sovereign right and responsibility 
to protect its own domestic interests as it sees fit.
  I agree with the assessment of many regarding the positive 
contributions of those from other nations, without whom many components 
of our economy could be hurt.
  But, frankly, today's debate is one of security, not commerce. If we 
are to believe that our immigration laws simply have no value, as our 
current policies would have us believe, should we then simply throw 
them all out, the entire lot of immigration law? I hope not.
  The American people want economic prosperity, high-quality goods and 
low prices, all of which I support. My concerns, however, are very 
simple. If we fail to secure our borders, to prevent the entry of 
individuals illegally into this country and to uphold the rule of law, 
then we waste our time worrying about the strength of our economy, for 
an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, carried by a 
terrorist who brought that weapon across our borders, would certainly 
destroy it all, and preventing that scenario, which is the mission of 
my subcommittee, the Homeland Security full committee and the Congress 
as a whole, should be reason enough to support this bill.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 
minutes.
  It is interesting that in the face of a massive failure of 
administration of our border security, the Congress responds not with 
enhancing the remedies and its personnel so that we can enforce the 
law, but instead comes up with a bill to dramatically change the law.
  I mentioned earlier, we have cited and released individuals who never 
showed up, 80 percent of the time or better. And what did the 
administration do? They just kept doing it. That is the definition of 
insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a 
different outcome. Well, changing the law is not going to change the 
fact that this has been a massive failure of administration. Making 11 
million people without their papers aggravated felons is not going to 
remedy the failure of the administration at the border.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned that there was a 
provision that could criminalize churches. In fact, it is section 202 
in the base bill. It provides that people who assist those who do not 
have their papers could be guilty of a crime and, in fact, requires the 
seizure of property. We know that some of our churches that are helping 
the homeless do not ask for papers when they hand out the soup. In this 
bill it requires seizure of their church properties.
  I want to mention another provision I touched on earlier, and that is 
section 404 of the bill. It does not make any sense at all when we are 
talking about the need to secure our borders, which every country has a 
right and an obligation to do, to reinstate the exclusion of legal 
persons based on the place they were born.
  There is a sad part of American history. In 1882, the 47th Congress 
of the United States passed a bill called the Chinese Exclusion Act, 
and that bill haunted this country, really, into 1943. It provided that 
people from China could not come.
  In section 404, we are de facto reinstituting the Chinese Exclusion 
Act because we are saying that countries that do not cooperate with us, 
currently the State Department tells me it is China, Vietnam, Ethiopia 
and Cuba, then we have the ability to exclude people who are born in 
those countries.
  Let me just give you an example. I have a lot of Vietnamese Americans 
in my district. Do you think the Communist government in Vietnam cares 
if we do not let a refugee from their country into the United States? 
Do you think that the communists in China really would be concerned if 
a Chinese citizen was escaping from China, because they are facing a 
forced abortion in China? Do you think that enhancing the Communist 
governments of Cuba, Vietnam and China is really about securing our 
Nation's borders? I think not.
  This bill is defective in so many ways that a wide number of groups 
have opposed it. The minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, will submit the list 
for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Management, Integration and Oversight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of this bill and in particular the provisions of this bill that help 
secure our border and protect our homeland.
  The bill we are considering today contains many key border security 
provisions from H.R. 4312, the Border Security and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2005, which was passed recently out of the Homeland Security 
Committee by a unanimous voice vote.
  I would like to note that H.R. 4312 was the first major bill reported 
by the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. King, and we appreciate 
his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, we have nothing less than a crisis situation on our 
borders. This past August I led a congressional delegation to our 
southern border with Mexico, and we saw firsthand vast areas without 
fences and densely populated areas where illegal aliens find their way 
across our border.
  And I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, and our colleagues to refer to 
these individuals as what they are. They are illegal aliens, not the 
benign, friendly, undocumented worker phrase. They are illegal aliens.
  I was impressed during this visit with the dedication and level of 
our Border Patrol agents. However, they desperately need more 
resources.
  We also need to make sure that they have more cameras; more vehicles; 
and in particular, more canine assets.
  Section 108 of this bill that we are considering today in particular 
will strengthen border security by increasing the number of canine 
detection teams working with our Border Patrol agents. These detection 
dogs are instrumental in finding concealed humans, explosives, drugs, 
and bulk cash.
  We also need to ensure new border surveillance equipment is 
functional and cost efficient.
  Section 109 of this bill addresses these concerns. It requires that a 
DHS Inspector General conduct reviews of each contract action over $20 
million relating to the new Secure Border Initiative.
  With thousands of new Border Patrol agents being hired, we also need 
to ensure they are trained as cost effectively as possible. Therefore, 
section 110 of this bill would instruct the GAO to evaluate and review 
the cost of Border Patrol training.
  H.R. 4437 includes many other strong border security provisions that 
will improve the safety and security of this great Nation.
  I commend Chairman King for his leadership on these issues, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a member 
of the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend Chairman King 
and Ranking Member Thompson for their work on legislation which passed 
on a voice vote out of our Homeland

[[Page H11813]]

Security Committee and which is included in this bill before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, securing our Nation's air, land, and sea borders is a 
difficult, yet critical, task. While H.R. 4437 takes some good steps in 
addressing this problem, such as authorizing more Border Patrol agents 
and creating a new Border Patrol unit in my district, it also includes 
a number of harsh and contentious provisions which makes it impossible 
for it to receive the same kind of bipartisan support that was achieved 
in the Homeland Security Committee.
  So while I am pleased that the passage of this bill would mean that 
over 175 miles of unprotected and open borders in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, a gateway of choice for smugglers into the United States, 
would finally receive protection from a newly established Border Patrol 
unit, I remain deeply concerned that H.R. 4437 would be excessively 
harmful to immigrants, families, businesses, and communities. It was a 
much better bill when it left out of the Homeland Security Committee. 
And I would hope that as we continue the process of moving this bill 
through Congress, we would find a way to develop a consensus on the 
final form that the legislation would take, which would protect our 
borders without doing harm to immigrants and Americans of all 
backgrounds.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard Maritime Transportation, 
for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time, and I thank him for engaging in a colloquy to clarify the intent 
of this bill regarding our Nation's seaports.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you if it is the sentiment of the 
chairman that this bill does not intend to duplicate or supersede 
existing policies and strategies that have been developed specifically 
for the maritime domain as part of the Strategy for Maritime Security 
or the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, because these 
strategies provide a comprehensive framework to enhance maritime domain 
awareness including activities that may affect or threaten our maritime 
border security.
  Mr. KING of New York. I would say to the gentleman that it is my 
intent that maritime border security strategies called for in H.R. 4437 
should be developed under the framework of the Strategy for Maritime 
Security and in a way that complements the maritime security strategies 
that are being implemented under that plan
  Mr. LoBIONDO. As the chairman knows, the Coast Guard has been 
identified as the lead Federal agency with responsibilities over 
maritime domain awareness. The Coast Guard's efforts to enhance 
awareness of activities in the maritime domain, in addition to the 
services role as the lead law enforcement agency in the maritime 
environment, enhance the Nation's capabilities to maintain security 
along our maritime borders. The Coast Guard carries out missions every 
day to interdict illegal immigrants, drugs, and suspect cargo and crew 
before each reaches the United States.
  I ask the chairman if it is his intent to continue this House's 
support of the Coast Guard's efforts to maintain heightened border 
security and that this act would not hinder these critical Coast Guard 
missions.
  Mr. KING of New York. Nothing in this act should be understood to 
divert existing responsibilities for maritime border security or more 
generally any component of security in the maritime domain from the 
Coast Guard to any other entities in the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank the chairman for clarifying these very 
critically important issues regarding our maritime homeland security 
and the Coast Guard.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-
conceived and harmful legislation, H.R. 4437. Our immigration laws are 
in need of a complete overhaul. There are bipartisan proposals on the 
table, but the majority is not interested in solutions. It is 
interested in finding its next wedge issue for this 2006 campaign 
season. Our Nation will suffer as a result.
  For the past 20 years we have taken a get-tough enforcement-only 
approach to this immigration problem, and the result has been the 
situation we find ourselves in today.
  Those of us who represent border districts live on the front lines on 
the immigration issue. Let me give you a view from where we live. Our 
schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and social services are being 
stretched to the limit. At the same time, we have experienced a surge 
in economic activity and growth. My area has one of the fastest rates 
of job growth in the Nation.

                              {time}  1815

  Immigration is both a challenge and an engine for growth. We need 
laws that are up to the challenge.
  For a perspective from the front lines, listen to the words of John 
McClung, the president of the Texas Produce Association: ``Attempting 
to solve our border problems by passing draconian `enforcement' 
legislation, absent a credible guest worker program, would be 
enormously destructive to the economy, unfair to employers, ruinous to 
our relations with Mexico, and, yes, that really does matter.''
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit the full text of this letter into the 
Record.
  This bill will not help families. In my district, our caseworkers and 
our advocacy organizations, on a daily basis, work with families who 
have been waiting 10 years or more to be re-united with loved ones--a 
spouse, a sister, a child, a grandparent. The backlogs are enormous, 
and the system is capricious and error-ridden. Call for information on 
your immigration case, and the temporary contract worker at the call 
center with little to no training in immigration rules will give you a 
different answer every time.
  This bill does nothing to fix our immigration system. It is not 
reality-based. It should be rejected.

                                    Texas Produce Association,

                                    Mission, TX, December 13, 2005
     Hon. Ruben E. Hinojosa,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Hinojosa: I am writing the Texas Congressional 
     delegation in the belief that the Congress is perilously 
     close to passing ill conceived immigration reform legislation 
     that will do grave injury to this country, and fail in its 
     objectives.
       My office is about five miles from the U.S./Mexico border. 
     My home is about a third of a mile from that border. I am as 
     mindful as any American--more than most--of the surge of 
     illegals into this country, and I certainly understand, and 
     sympathize with, the need most of us feel to return to the 
     rule of law. From the front yard of my house in the rural Rio 
     Grande Valley, I often see groups of illegals trudging down 
     the road. Many times I've watched the Border Patrol agents 
     chase them down, cuff them, and haul them away. I can tell 
     you that there's no satisfaction in it, no sense of the good 
     guys prevailing. Only a sad recognition that this country's 
     immigration laws are a dismal failure by any measure: 
     economic, humanitarian, political. The saving grace is that 
     enough illegals, get through to do most of the jobs that need 
     doing, as disgraceful, flawed and inefficient as our 
     nonsystem may be.
       At least, they get through for now. I represent an industry 
     that employs thousands of semi-skilled laborers, and 
     increasingly is unable to find anywhere near an adequate 
     supply of willing workers. Most people don't want to do stoop 
     labor in the fields, no matter the pay scale. They certainly 
     don't want their kids doing it. So we truly need guest 
     workers from Mexico or Central America or wherever. So does 
     the restaurant industry, and the construction industry, and 
     every other industry that requires numbers of semiskilled 
     workers. And what is the U.S. Congress doing about this mess? 
     Preparing, it appears, to make a very bad situation a lot 
     worse.
       Most of us get it down here in rural Texas.
       Why can't more members of Congress get it?
       Is the need to act tough for the media so compelling? Is 
     the ideologue mantra of no amnesty (adjustment of status?) 
     for lawbreakers going to be allowed to jeopardize American 
     agriculture, and conceivably the national economy? Is the 
     fact that these illegals want essential jobs in this country 
     that none of our own citizens will take at any realistic pay 
     rate of no consequence at all because they're ``illegal'' or 
     ``undocumented''?

[[Page H11814]]

       Attempting to solve our border problems by passing 
     draconian ``enforcement'' legislation, absent a credible 
     guest worker program, would be enormously destructive to the 
     economy, unfair to employers, ruinous to our relations with 
     Mexico (and yes, that really does matter), and ultimately 
     unenforceable. The Sensenbrenner bill just passed out by the 
     Judiciary Committee (H.R. 4437)--the Border Protection, 
     Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005--
     is a grand example. It relies on bludgeoning U.S. employers 
     into submission with fines and administrative procedures, but 
     only after denying them the only source of labor they might 
     realistically have hoped for. As I hope you recognize, it's 
     just one of several one-sided bills designed to appease the 
     ``broken borders'' crowd.
       Here's what we're asking. The Sensenbrenner bill needs to 
     be shelved, as do all proposals that do not include a 
     practical alien worker provision. To require electronic 
     verification of employment eligibility without a smart guest 
     laborer program, and without some form of ``amnesty,'' won't 
     succeed. For those who gag on the idea of amnesty, the real 
     question isn't determining how to avoid rewarding scofflaws--
     the real issue is deciding to avoid punishing this country. 
     The produce industry has long supported the Craig-Kennedy 
     AgJOBS bill (Flake-Kolbe on the House side), and continues to 
     do so. If you and your colleagues can engineer a better bill 
     than Flake-Kolbe, that would be great. If you can't, pass 
     AgJOBS. Either way, please help lead the nation away from a 
     politically expedient catastrophe.
       Thank you for your consideration.
                                                  John M. McClung,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman King and 
Subcommittee Chairman Lungren for their leadership in bringing this to 
the floor.
  I have serious problems with some non-Homeland Security parts of this 
bill, but I want to praise the Homeland Security section because I 
think they have done a terrific job.
  I would like to thank them in particular for two key provisions that 
we have been working to fix ever since Homeland Security has broken 
them. One is in section 502, the Office of Air and Marine Operations, 
AMO; and in section 503 relating to the Native American Customs Patrol 
Officers known as the Shadow Wolves.
  Section 502 relates to the AMO, which has historically been 
responsible for interdicting drug smuggling airplanes and ``go-fast'' 
speed boats; for supporting Customs drug investigations and raids as 
well as migrant interdictions; for providing airspace security in the 
Nation's capital and at special events like the Olympics; and for 
providing crucial maritime patrol aircraft, most notably the fleet of 
P-3 radar planes, for drug interdiction operations in the Caribbean and 
Eastern Pacific. Now they are being deployed as a picket fence. It 
makes no sense, and this bill helps to start to fix that before we 
destroy one of our best units in the United States Government.
  In section 503, the Shadow Wolves have fallen victim to the same kind 
of over-compartmentalized thinking that threatens AMO. The Shadow 
Wolves are one of the last remaining Customs Patrol Officer units in 
the country. They control one of the critical points of the border and 
operate on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation in southern Arizona, 
which has 70 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border running through it.
  Here we have a Native American group that has been honored all over 
the United States and the world, something we need at several other 
parts of the border, and they want to break them up and make them fit 
some arbitrary thing, when they are really more like detectives than 
patrol officers, and put them as part of the Border Patrol. I do not 
have any axe to grind with the Border Patrol. I think they do a great 
job. But units like AMO and the Shadow Wolves do not fit this cookie 
cutter approach in trying to systematize this agency, and this bill 
fixes that before we lose some of our most effective anti-drug units in 
our entire government. And I thank the chairman and the subcommittee 
chairman for finally addressing this question.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who had a distinguished career in the 
Border Patrol before being elected to Congress.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the well-known comedienne Joan Rivers used to say: Can 
we talk? And that is what I would like to say tonight, is, can we talk 
about a terrible bill, a bill that may feel good and make some people 
think they are voting for border security and to do a better job of 
monitoring the borders of our Nation but really is not?
  We can do much better. This bill reminds me a lot of the automobile 
that was built by Dr. Seuss that looked like an abomination. This bill 
has fenders sponsored by Congressman Issa. It has got a horn and a 
steering wheel sponsored by somebody else. It has got an engine that 
belongs to somebody else. And in its totality, it does nothing to 
address the issues and the problems that we have as a Nation.
  It talks about getting tough on smugglers, and do my colleagues know 
what it does? It criminalizes immediate family members. That means, if 
an individual is bringing in his wife or his children or his parents, 
he gets zapped just like that individual that is bringing in people for 
profit. Terrible.
  It talks about mandatory sentencing. That translates, if we are 
serious about that, to billions of dollars in prison construction. It 
does nothing for assistant U.S. Attorneys who are going to have to 
prosecute all these new felons. It does nothing to provide new judges 
that are going to be needed in this process. And it certainly is silent 
on U.S. marshals who, today, their vehicles average about 140,000 miles 
when the replacement suggested mileage is about 95,000.
  But, oh, no, we are not doing anything about the things that we 
really need on the border. We are doing things that are mean spirited, 
things that are not in keeping with the best traditions of a Nation 
that was founded by our immigrants. It betrays our legacy. It insults 
our immigrants. And I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, we can do 
much better.
  In fact, last week, in my district, I was informed that two young men 
that had just come back from Iraq, two young men that I have gotten to 
know because their father a long time ago came into this country as a 
bracero; he overstayed, raised a family here, and under the provisions 
and amendments that are proposed in this legislation, those two young 
men would be ineligible to be U.S. citizens. But, oh, yes, by the way, 
that is okay that they can go to Iraq and fight for the principles and 
for the rights of all people in this country.
  This is a terrible bill. I am opposed to it. I recommend that all our 
colleagues oppose it. Let us talk about doing a better job for this 
country by doing a better job with immigration.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the new member of the 
committee, who, also, is back from surgery.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, 
and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
  I am proud to be a new member of the Homeland Security Committee and 
appreciate this opportunity to work with Chairman King on this 
legislation.
  Every weekend, when I go back home to Florida, I hear from 
constituents that our country is being overrun by illegal immigrants. 
Today, we truly show our constituents that Congress is listening to 
them and that we mean business.
  For starters, the bill requires mandatory detention of illegal 
aliens, eliminating the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous 
catch-and-release policy. Catch and release does nothing other than 
allow the Border Patrol to apprehend illegal immigrants then release 
them with nothing but a flimsy promise that they will return for a 
deportation hearing. Ha, ha. It does not happen. As Members may guess, 
75 percent of them do not show up for their court date and are free to 
roam throughout our neighborhoods. That policy has existed for far too 
long. This bill requires that law enforcement hold illegal aliens until 
they are deported.
  I am also pleased that the chairman was able to include some language 
in the bill that authorizes Homeland Security to engage in competitive 
contracts with companies to help manage the transportation of illegal 
aliens. Allowing the Secretary to engage in

[[Page H11815]]

these contracts will free up these resources and assist the department 
as it eliminates the harmful catch-and-release policy.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's lawmakers did not craft our immigration 
laws as suggestions or reading material for insomniacs. Our laws were 
made to ensure proper, secure and legal entry into our country. This 
bill helps to accomplish exactly that, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let us set the record straight. This 
legislation is not real. It is a cynical political ploy.
  Do not take my word for it. Grover Norquist, one of your heroes, said 
this, this morning: ``The good news is that the legislation that is 
being voted on, even with amendments that would improve it and make it 
less problematic, is not a piece of legislation that is going to pass 
the Senate and be signed by the President.'' So we are making political 
points, not policy.
  This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue 
that confronts our Nation: the Federal Government's failure to ensure 
that our borders are secure. Who says that? George Bush, President of 
the United States, says that.
  Let no one be mistaken. Our Nation has a border security problem. And 
it has an immigration problem. These problems were not created 
overnight, and they will not be remedied with a misguided, mean-
spirited proposal that the majority has put on the floor today. The 
fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill-prepared to 
prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil. Do not take 
my word for it. Tom Kean, former Republican Governor, and the 9/11 
Commission gave Congress and the White House grades of D and F on the 
implementation of 17 of the commission's recommendations. This 
legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from 
entering our country.
  Democrats are for the rule of law. We want to get border security 
right. But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about 
harsh, punitive measures that will not work.
  Oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, let's set the record straight: This legislation is a 
cynical, political charade.
  But don't take my word for it. Just listen to Grover Norquist, the 
President of Americans for Tax Reform and a White House confidante.
  This morning he is quoted as saying: ``The good news is that the 
legislation that is being voted on, even with amendments that would 
improve it and make it less problematic, is not a piece of legislation 
that is going to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''
  This bill, even if it did become law, would not solve the real issue 
that confronts our Nation--the Federal Government's failure to ensure 
that our borders are secure.
  Let no one be mistaken: Our Nation has a border security problem. 
And, it has an immigration problem.
  These problems were not created overnight. And they will not be 
remedied with the misguided, mean-spirited proposal that the majority 
has put on this floor today.
  The fact is, Republican inaction has left the United States ill-
prepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack on our soil.
  The 9/11 commission just issued a report card that gave Congress and 
the White House grades of D or F on the implementation of 17 of the 
Commission's recommendations.
  This legislation would do little to prevent would-be terrorists from 
entering our country.
  Democrats are for the rule of law, we want to get border security 
right.
  But this bill is not about solving problems. It is all about harsh, 
punitive measures that will not work.
  This Republican Congress has simply failed to provide the resources 
that our Federal law enforcement agencies need to get the job done.
  And, we certainly do not have the detention space necessary to keep 
all the undocumented migrants we detain--much less the millions of 
people that this bill would force us to incarcerate.
  So, after allowing this situation to become a crisis, Republicans 
today offer a purely political proposal that promises a quick-fix, a 
magic bullet: Make them all criminals--the workers, their neighbors, 
and their employers.
  And, make local and State law enforcement officials do the job of the 
Federal Government.
  Democrats have a different approach. We want to take on this 
challenge in a comprehensive fashion.
  We would do what's necessary to protect our borders, give law 
enforcement the tools that they need, ensure that our businesses have 
the workers they require, allow families to stay united, and honor the 
principles of inclusion and freedom that have always been our hallmark.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman 
for yielding me this time to speak on this issue.
  I rise to strongly support the reform of our border security and 
enforcement and strengthening of current law.
  My constituents keep asking me: When are we going to do something 
about illegal immigration? When are we going to take this problem 
seriously? Our borders must be secure, and our laws must be enforced.
  America is a good and a generous Nation. We open our arms to the 
world. It is that spirit that makes us unique and inviting and 
vulnerable. And the world has changed, and our Nation is not secure 
unless our borders are secure. And it ought not be too much to ask to 
bring accountability to the prevention of illegal immigration. And is 
that not what it is all about, accountability? Those who break our 
immigration laws should be held accountable. Those who hire illegal 
aliens should be held accountable. And those who turn the other way and 
claim that there is no problem should be held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a large and a growing crises in our country, 
and it is our responsibility to act on behalf of our constituents and 
our Nation. Simply put, if our borders are not secure, our Nation is 
not secure. The time to act is now.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Democratic 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
want to commend her for her tremendous leadership on keeping our 
borders safe and strong and secure and for moving toward a 
comprehensive immigration policy.
  I also want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Conyers; and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, 
Mr. Bennie Thompson, for their outstanding work in keeping America 
secure.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said in his opening remarks, When 
are we going to take this issue seriously, the issue of borders and the 
issue of immigration?
  That is exactly what I would like to know. For a long time now, there 
have been Members on both sides of the aisle, led by Mr. Kolbe on the 
Republican side, who have called for comprehensive immigration reform. 
That would be taking this issue seriously.
  We ask the same question of the President. When, Mr. President, are 
we going to take this issue seriously? And instead of having one bad 
bill after another come to the floor, we can have comprehensive 
bipartisan reform. It does exist now in the Kolbe-Gutierrez legislation 
that is also sponsored in the Senate by Senator McCain and Senator 
Kennedy. I want to commend Mr. Gutierrez on our side of the aisle for 
his leadership as well.
  Broken borders, that is an oxymoron, something we cannot tolerate. 
Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a Nation and our 
protection as a country. Broken borders, they do not exist. We cannot 
tolerate them.

                              {time}  1830

  So let us say from the start that we all in this body, and I know I 
can speak very firmly for the Democrats, support strong border control, 
and it must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration 
reform. Our obligation as elected officials is to keep the American 
people safe, and our borders are one of our early lines of defense to 
do that. It used to be our first and only line of defense, but in this 
age of technology, more is possible.
  In our caucus, we have a true expert on the issue of border security, 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, who just recently spoke on the 
floor. He is ready to further these efforts. Over and over, Democratic 
initiatives to make our borders more secure have been soundly rejected 
by the majority of the Republicans and the Republican leadership.

[[Page H11816]]

  Democrats also support enforcing laws, current laws, against those 
who came here illegally and those who hire illegal immigrants; yet the 
Bush administration has refused to do just this. There is all of this 
talk about illegal immigration to the United States and going after 
those workers who are working here illegally, and we should, but we 
also must have employer sanctions. Where are these people working? Why 
are we not enforcing the law against employers who hire illegal, 
undocumented people here?
  The Bush administration has prosecuted only three employer sanctioned 
cases in the last fiscal year; only three cases. When, yes, when, are 
we going to take this issue seriously? That is my question, my 
colleagues.
  The point employer clarification provision in this bill, however, 
would have a big percentage of error built into it because it is so 
unwise and would put enormous financial burdens on American businesses, 
again unwisely. It would be discriminatory in questioning the legal 
status of not only every newcomer to our country but anyone who looked 
like a newcomer to our country.
  Democrats have led the way to meet our urgent homeland security needs 
as well, not only at our borders but in all aspects identified by the 
9/11 Commission; at our ports, at our nuclear facilities, at our 
chemical plants and rail yards. But Republicans have not done so, even 
4 years after 9/11. So if we want to talk about broken borders, as I 
said earlier, those borders as they define our country geographically, 
we can also be invaded in ways that go well beyond our borders, and 
that is why the 9/11 Commission has given the President and the 
Republican Congress a failing grade.
  For the first time in our history, this bill would make it a Federal 
crime instead of a civil offense to be in the United States in 
violation of immigration laws or regulations. This provision would turn 
millions of immigrants currently here into criminals, hindering their 
ability to acquire any legal status, and would effectively frustrate 
the proposals that would provide real immigration reform.
  Under the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling, it could 
make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers, rabbis and 
social service workers who provide assistance and acts of charity to 
those in need. It would impose prison sentences of up to 5 years on 
those who answer God's call and provide assistance to those in need. 
This is from the party who claims to promote religious and family 
values.
  I will submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a list of organizations 
that are opposing this bill. From the Jewish community, from the 
Methodist community, from the Presbyterian community, from the Catholic 
community, from the Lutheran community, from the Arab community, from 
almost every denomination that you can name; the list goes on and on of 
religious people of faith who are opposing this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, it simply does not take the immigration and broken 
borders issue seriously. It does not. It misses the mark completely by 
its arbitrary provisions, and, again, it misses an opportunity for 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know what we must do. Democrats have long called 
for strong border security, effective law enforcement and for 
comprehensive immigration reform, not this punitive, mean-spirited 
legislation that does nothing to weed out terrorists.
  This Republican bill before us is an attempt to belatedly address 
some border security needs but fails to provide real security, as I 
said, as envisioned by the 9/11 Commission. It is not comprehensive 
immigration reform, and that is what we need. Instead, Republicans have 
proposed a bill that is an abomination of the worst kind. It calls upon 
the worst political and most craven impulses. It is a failure of 
leadership. It is a failure of moral leadership.
  All in all, what we must do as elected officials, we have the 
responsibility to make the American people safer and to make America 
stronger. We can make America stronger, not only at our borders but in 
upholding our values and our principles.
  I want to commend, again, Mr. Kolbe and others who have worked with 
Mr. Gutierrez and others on our side of the aisle to make America safe 
and strong, because I know that, together, America can do better.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the list of organizations 
opposing this legislation.

             List of Groups Opposed to Border Security Bill


                      Lead National Organizations 

       League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Mexican 
     American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), 
     National Council of La Raza--NCLR, National Immigration 
     Forum, American Civil Liberties Union, National Asian Pacific 
     American Legal Consortium, National League of Cities, People 
     For the American Way, NALEO--National Association of Latino, 
     Elected and Appointed Officials, American Jewish Committee, 
     Anti-Defamation League, Catholic Charities USA, Episcopal 
     Church, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Leadership Conference 
     for Civil Rights, American Jewish Community, National 
     Immigration Forum, ACORN, and US Action.


                              Faith Groups

       American Jewish Committee (AJC), Amnesty International USA, 
     Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, 
     Arizona Interfaith Network (AIN), Episcopal Migration 
     Ministries, FaithAction, Jesuit Refugee Services, Jesuit 
     Conference of the United States, Jewish Federation of Greater 
     Philadelphia, Justice for Immigrants--Catholic Coalition, 
     Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), Presbyterian 
     Church USA, National Catholic Association of Diocesan, U.S. 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops, Church World Service/
     Immigration, Refugee Program, Catholic Charities of Dallas, 
     Inc., Catholic Charities of Des Moines--Iowa, Catholic 
     Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, and Catholic 
     Charities of the Diocese of Stockton.


                                 Labor

       AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, American 
     Federation of Teachers, and United-Here.


                            Minority Groups

       American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Polish 
     American Association, Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), 
     Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian 
     Pacific American Legal Resource Center, Asian Pacific 
     American Community, and Organization of Chinese Americans.


                            Business Groups

       Alliance for Worker Freedom, American Council on 
     International Personnel and Society for Human Resource 
     Management (Joint Letter), American Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, American Nursery & Landscape Association, 
     American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 
     American Trucking Associations, Americans for Tax Reform, 
     Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General 
     Contractors, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC), 
     HR Policy Association, International Foodservice Distributors 
     Association, International Franchise Association, National 
     Association of Home Builders, National Association of 
     Manufacturers, National Club Association, National Council of 
     Chain Restaurants, National Restaurant Association, National 
     Retail Federation, National Roofing Contractors Association, 
     National Utility Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-
     Cooling Contractors--National Association, Retail Industry 
     Leaders Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship 
     Council, Society of American Florists, The Associated General 
     Contractors of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. 
     Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, U.S. African American Chamber 
     of Commerce, and US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Nothing is more 
important than good border security for our national security. Nothing 
is more important than enforcing the law of the land. And we cannot go 
on indefinitely with immigration laws that nobody pays any attention 
to. Yes, indeed, this is a bill that is courageous. It is bold. 
Certainly, it is controversial. But it is a step in the right 
direction, and it moves this issue forward.
  What I am most particularly interested in is the committee's 
acceptance of a provision that Congressman Norwood and I brought to the 
first responders bill that would allow States to use homeland security 
funds, State police, local police and so forth, to round up illegal 
immigrants and deliver them to the Feds. In New Hampshire, we spent 
over $650,000 in State police funds last year doing Federal duties and 
$200,000 from the Marine Patrol on the sea coast. I think this is a 
provision that adds flexibility to a bill that needs to be passed in 
this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents and constituents all over the country 
are crying out for a just law to end this

[[Page H11817]]

process of having undocumented illegal aliens working and flaunting the 
law.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate in 
Homeland Security to have two of us who serve both on the Judiciary 
Committee and Homeland Security Committee, and I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of the 
Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what disappoints me most on 
this legislation is, the men and women that are on the front lines, the 
Border Patrol agents, are the most left out of this particular 
legislative vehicle.
  Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that an amendment that was 
offered by myself and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member, specifically 
gives tools to those Border Patrol agents, who I believe are the people 
that are entrusted with the responsibility of securing the borders by 
the American people.
  We do not have aircraft and watercraft, which are valuable tools. We 
do not have the helicopters that are necessary. We do not have the 
necessary Border Patrol agents, which in my amendment to H.R. 4044, the 
bill that we offered, the homeland security legislation, we would have 
added 10,000 more agents. We would have added provisions about 
recruitment and retention problems so that we would have an experienced 
Border Patrol agency.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, Mr. Reyes, indicated the importance of a 
secure homeland with the right kind of personnel. We would have raised 
the base pay for a journey level Border Patrol agent to a GS-13. We 
leave out the very men and women on the front lines, and I would hope 
we will go back and fix this legislation to do that.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. If we 
fail to secure our borders, we could face an even greater terrorist 
attack than 9/11. We live in the greatest country on Earth. It is no 
wonder that so many people from other nations want to live in a land of 
such opportunity. I certainly do not want to stop people from wanting 
to live and work in this great country. My paternal grandparents were 
legal immigrants to America several decades ago. But we have a 
responsibility to keep this great Nation safe and secure for future 
generations.
  If we continue to neglect our porous borders and the potential harm 
that can come from that, then we might as well bury the American flag 
in the sand. Every day that we fail to secure our borders is another 
day when a hardened criminal or even a terrorist might slip through. We 
risk the lives of our sons and daughters and risk the longevity of this 
great Nation.
  I am certainly not saying that all of those who have come through our 
borders illegally are criminals or terrorists, but the possibility of 
letting in just one who is could cost many American lives and wreak 
havoc on our way of life.
  Securing our borders is not closing them. I applaud Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Chairman King and their staffs for their tireless 
efforts on this bill to secure our borders and prevent potential 
terrorist attacks.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, remember at the height of Katrina, that tragedy, and we 
heard the words, ``Good job, Brownie.'' Well, we have someone equally 
qualified now in charge of the immigration function in the Homeland 
Security Department, and I think it is that level of competence that 
has led us to the problem that we face today, and that is that we have 
basically dropped the ball, the administration has dropped the ball at 
the border. They have permitted thousands, tens of thousands, of 
individuals to promise to appear and then simply to escape into the 
country.
  This bill does not direct the administration to go find them and 
deport them or have their matter be heard. We used to, on a regular 
basis during the first Bush administration, the father Bush and the 
Clinton administration, persistently go and grab criminals after their 
sentences were served out in State and local incarceration facilities 
and deport them. The law provides for that. The ball has been dropped 
on that. This bill does not direct the administration to go find those 
folks who should have been taken in, who should have been deported.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had some questions about section 404 of the act 
that I have mentioned previously, and I want to spend a moment on that. 
Incredibly enough, it provides that legal individuals, permanent 
residents of the United States, could be precluded, barred from reentry 
if they leave. Let me give you an example of how it would work.
  Say your son falls in love with a gal who was born in Cuba. She 
becomes a legal permanent resident because your son is an American 
citizen. They go on vacation to London. They try to come back in. Your 
son gets in, but his wife, a legal permanent resident of the United 
States, is refused admission. Why? Because Cuba will not accept people 
who we deport. Now, do you think Fidel Castro cares whether your 
daughter-in-law is barred or not? I do not think so.
  This is a ridiculous provision, and it is punitive towards people who 
were born in China, in Vietnam, in Cuba and in Ethiopia. It has nothing 
to do with securing our borders, but it does have a lot to do with the 
de facto reinstatement of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and has a 
very pernicious, very pernicious result for those who have fled 
communism in Vietnam and also in Cuba.
  People are calling in wondering about this bill. They cannot believe 
that it is true. But let me explain how other provisions would work. 
The proposal is that individuals who are here without their proper 
documents, something none of us approve of, would become aggravated 
felons under this bill. If you are a 10-year-old and you came in here 
with your parents, you do not have your papers, under this bill, you 
are an aggregated felon. This will not make up for the Bush 
administration's failure at the border.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very lively and interesting debate. I 
would hope that as we go through the amendments and into tomorrow, we 
would keep focusing on the fact that everyone here is well-intentioned.
  We face a crisis on our borders. We face a national crisis. We face a 
crisis involving international terrorism, and we must fix it. We must 
take significant first steps. That is what this bill is.
  We can have honest disagreements, but it is wrong, I believe, to be 
impugning motives, to be suggesting someone is anti-immigrant.
  For instance, the gentlewoman from California is talking about 
section 404. What that does is give the Secretary of Homeland Security 
the right, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take action 
if the Secretary deems it necessary.

                              {time}  1845

  That to me is an appropriate power, an appropriate discretionary 
power to be given to the Secretary of Homeland Security at a time when 
our homeland security is being threatened. It is irresponsible to not 
give the Secretary that power, and that is what this is about. It is a 
power, by the way, which the Secretary of State has had for many years.
  As we go forward, let us keep in mind that this country was built by 
immigrants, that immigrants are essential. They are the life's blood of 
our Nation. All of us are descendents of immigrants. At the same time, 
for our country to survive, for our country to be secure, for our 
country to be safe we must be as certain as we can be that the 
immigrants entering this country deserve to be in this country, that 
they are no threat to this country.
  As long as we have this mass entrance of millions and millions of 
illegal immigrants, we do not have that security that we need. We do 
not have the sense of safety that we need, and we are not protecting 
ourselves to the extent we must if we are going to avoid having another 
September 11.
  I lost many people in my district on September 11. I do not want 
another 9/11 commission to come back in several years and say why did 
you not close

[[Page H11818]]

the borders, why did you not allow another 9/11 to go forward, to 
happen? Why could you not stop another 9/11? Because you did not have 
the guts to take the tough action.
  We are being confronted here by many forces including big business. 
Big business does not want this. We also have advocacy groups that do 
not want it. We cannot yield our responsibility to any outside pressure 
groups, whether they be big business or advocacy groups. I urge the 
adoption of this legislation as we go through this process.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this measure.
  Border security is a critical component of our nation's security, but 
we cannot have true border security without addressing comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  As U.S. Homeland Security Department Secretary Chertoff pointed out,
  ``[t]he problem of immigration is one that's been with this country 
for 20 years. So we are digging ourselves out of a hole which it took 
20 years to dig ourselves into.''
  During the past twenty years, Congress has been taking an enforcement 
only approach which has put us in the ``hole'' that Secretary Chertoff 
referenced.
  If you want to get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging.
  The Border Security bill we have today will only worsen an already 
broken immigration system and it represents the latest in misguided 
enforcement only approaches.
  In the past few years we have passed the Patriot Act, the Real ID act 
and now we are further expanding a big brother form of government by 
taking up this flawed bill.
  To fix our immigration system we must uphold American values by 
reuniting families, providing earned legalization for immigrants who 
have proven to be law abiding members of society and as the president 
has said, develop a guest worker program.
  Reuniting families is of particular concern for Congressional Asian 
Pacific American Caucus. Our family preference immigration system has 
not been updated in more than a decade, and an increasing number of 
families face periods of separation of up to twenty years.
  Family reunification is impeded by immigration backlogs and by 
outdated quota systems. The backlog for processing children of 
permanent residents to come to the U.S. is unconscionable if we are a 
nation that truly believes in family values.
  Earned legalization is important to the many Asian Americans who are 
here working hard, paying taxes and need a chance to adjust their 
status.
  A fair, efficient and sensible guest worker program is also needed to 
provide a labor supply for American employers.
  Again, the real solution requires a comprehensive approach, not a 
border enforcement only measure.
  H.R. 4437, a bill that deals with enforcement only, ignores the 
reality of our current immigration challenges and will not be an 
effective way to address the security of our nation and the well being 
of our people.
  The time has come for Congress to make immigration reform a priority.
  Congress is long overdue in passing immigration laws that meet the 
real needs of families and businesses while reflecting America's 
tradition of embracing the contributions of immigrants.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support HR 4437, the Border 
Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act.
  The debate over our nation's immigration policy has steadily moved 
from the back of the newspaper to the front page. I should know. I've 
been working on this issue since I first came to the House of 
Representatives in 1996.
  Americans are rightly concerned about the security and the integrity 
of our nation's borders because the very system designed to stem the 
flow of illegal immigrants into our country is broken. Current 
statistics estimate that we now have at least 10 million illegal aliens 
in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to fix this system, it is important 
that we fix it in the right way, comprehensively, so that we are not 
back debating this issue within a year.
  We need a system that will encourage well-intentioned, contributing 
aliens out of the shadows so they can be identified. Standing on the 
soap box, spouting fire and brimstone is not going to do that, but laws 
implementing a guest worker program will.
  From 1990 to 2000, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly 
tripled, but illegal immigration increased by as much as 5.5 million. 
Increasing enforcement resources to keep out willing immigrant workers, 
as we did throughout the 1990s, has obviously failed.
  Mr. Chairman, as most are well aware, I have long stated that 
enforcement, border security and a guest worker program are the pieces 
of the puzzle that need to be linked together to allow us to 
effectively control our border. A broader strategy that includes both 
enforcement and the creation of adequate legal channels for immigration 
serves our nation's interests.
  Our immigration laws and policies must reflect the realities we face 
today. Our economy demands workers, but our national security demands 
that we identify those lurking in the shadows.
  An editorial that ran on KSL-TV of Utah last week stated: ``Steps 
must be taken to stop the torrential northward flow of illegal workers. 
As that is accomplished, attention can focus on rationally dealing with 
the millions of illegal immigrants already here. A realistic temporary 
worker program, in some form, must be part of the effort.''
  Mr. Chairman, KSL has it right. Enhanced enforcement must be a 
priority for immigration policy, but as part of today's debate, we must 
realize that we owe it to our constituents to resolve all the issues 
that contribute to true immigration reform and that includes a guest 
worker program.
  I would like to note that the Mexican government and their President 
Vincente Fox have taken steps to work cooperatively with the United 
States to protect our southern border. What often goes unnoticed in the 
immigration debate is Mexico's efforts to reign in organized crime, 
stymie drug trafficking and the ongoing cooperation between our 
Attorney Generals to combat narcotics, illegal immigration and related 
violence on the border. The OASISS, a prosecution program launched by 
our countries this year to stop human smuggling by criminal rackets, 
has helped stem the illegal flow of persons, but there is more to do. 
President Fox has shown himself to be an ally of America's national and 
economic security by standing up to the dictators of Latin America, 
like Hugo Chavez, and this should not go unnoticed.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Broader immigration 
reform has been outlined by President Bush, and there are ideas in both 
Houses of Congress that will restore public confidence in a safe and 
secure immigration system.
  I stand committed to seeing comprehensive immigration reform passed 
out of Congress and sent to the President for his signature. That is 
what America wants and needs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his tireless work on 
this issue. I support this bill as the first step in the process 
towards true immigration reform.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
which fails to provide the strengthened border security our nation 
needs to deter terrorists while also leaving many of our internal 
immigration problems unresolved. This bill claims to address the 
problem of illegal immigration, but it offers an enforcement-only 
solution, where a comprehensive strategy is needed. I planned to offer 
two amendments to improve this bill, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican-
controlled Rules Committee refused to permit them to be debated and 
voted on today on the House Floor. Many of my colleagues also were 
blocked from offering important amendments.
  Shutting out more than 100 amendments certainly represents serious 
``sins of omission'' by this Republican Congress. There are also many 
``sins of commission'' tucked into this bill. For example, the bill:
  Subjects members of churches and other humanitarian organizations to 
criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison if they provide food, 
shelter, or health care to undocumented immigrants, even if they are in 
desperate or life-threatening circumstances; and the bill
  Reclassifies 11 million undocumented immigrants--including children--
as aggravated felons who could be arrested and imprisoned for more than 
a year if they are caught.
  These provisions do not make us safer. Mr. Chairman, and they do not 
reflect the values of our nation.
  The first amendment I planned to offer today would have tightened 
security on the millions of cargo containers that enter our country 
from overseas, from Mexico and from Canada. Seven million cargo 
containers arrive at U.S. ports every year. These containers represent 
an important component of our economy, providing consumers with an 
enormous array of choices. In Massachusetts, the port of Boston--which 
became an international cargo port in 1630 and is the oldest 
continually active major port in the Western Hemisphere--handles 1.3 
million tons of general cargo and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargos 
every year. Clearly, such global commerce is critical to the economic 
health of our country.
  At the same, however, cargo containers represent tempting targets for 
terrorists. Arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more 
likely than not'', there will be terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb 
in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive 
device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario 
for our country. Steven Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on 
Foreign Relations and former officer in the Coast Guard, wrote in his 
book

[[Page H11819]]

America the Vulnerable about ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a 
box'' delivered by a cargo ship to one of our ports. [Page 84].
  To balance the need to participate in the global economy and the 
security concerns associated with the millions of cargo containers 
entering our ports every year, the Department of Homeland Security's 
Customs and Border Security division developed the Customs-Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Under C-TPAT, shippers commit 
to improving the security of their cargo shipments, and in return, they 
receive a range of benefits from our government.
  Specifically, if shippers provide information about their operations 
to Customs and Border Protection, their goods are less likely to be 
inspected at the border. They basically receive an ``E-Z Pass'' from 
our government, sort of like drivers who speed right through toll 
booths without having to stop.
  The problem is that Customs and Border Protection grants these 
special benefits without verifying that the security information 
provided by the shippers--is reliable, accurate and effective. 
According to the GAO, Customs and Border Protection has conducted 
validations at the facilities of only 11 percent of all the C-TPAT 
members. [''Key Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved,'' May 26, 
2005]
  Basically, the C-TPAT program really is a ``STAND PAT'' program. It 
takes a complacent posture towards port security by giving companies 
the benefit of speedy approval at the border without checking to make 
sure that promised security measures actually are in place at their 
facilities.
  Customs and Border Program also has a related program, called 
``FAST'', which stands for Free and Secure Trade program. The FAST 
program requires that trucking companies subject their drivers to 
background checks and participate in the C-TPAT program. Again, the 
problem is that the truckers get waved through the FAST lane, but the 
trucking companies' facilities are rarely, if ever, inspected to 
validate that the security policies they've promised to implement are 
fact or fiction.
  This makes the FAST program, really the ``FAST ONE'' program, since 
truckers are pulling a fast one on our country by getting benefits 
without having to demonstrate the promised security policies.
  My amendment would have required Customs and Border Protection to 
verify the security measures at the facilities of each member of the C-
TPAT and FAST programs within one year of the enactment of this bill 
and twice a year thereafter. Moreover, the amendment would require 
Customs and Border Protection to establish policies if members do not 
live up to their obligations under the C-TPAT and FAST programs.
  Now, some of my colleagues may argue that we simply do not have the 
resources to conduct these validations. Or real validations would bring 
global commerce to a grinding halt.
  The numbers simply do not support this assertion. Customs and Border 
Protection has approximately 100 inspectors to conduct validations, and 
there are approximately 11,000 ``STAND PAT'' and ``FAST ONE'' members.
  If each inspector performed only about 2 validations per week, all 
the facilities could be validated in less than a year--within 45 weeks 
or so.
  When it comes to these two programs, we should follow the Reagan 
Doctrine of cargo inspection and Trust and Verify that the shippers are 
performing as promised.
  The second amendment I would have offered today, if the Republican-
controlled Rules Committee it in order, deals with the issue of torture 
of detainees. Mr. Chairman, this issue has received considerable 
attention recently--and for good reason--but we cannot have a full and 
open debate today on the House Floor because the Republican majority 
has shut out my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides that if an alien is apprehended 
at or between a port of entry or along the interational land or 
maritime borders of the United States, and is then detained pursuant to 
the new authorities set forth in Section 301 of the bill, than that 
alien shall not be transferred or rendered to any country if there are 
substantial grounds to believe that the alien would be in danger of 
being tortured, or of being subjected to cruel, humiliating or 
degrading treatment or punishment.
  The Convention Against Torture already bars the practice of torture, 
or of rendering persons to countries where they are likely to face 
torture or other forms of cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. 
This treaty was signed by the United States during the Reagan 
Administration, and ratified by the Senate in 1994.
  Despite our commitments under this treaty and the statements made by 
the Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and 
unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the 
U.S. sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face 
torture, including to countries notorious for human rights violations. 
This practice known as ``Extraordinary Rendition,'' and amounts to 
nothing more than Outsourcing Torture.
  Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture explicitly requires 
parties to refrain from sending persons to countries where they are 
likely be tortured.
  In order to be able to argue that it is meeting this obligation under 
the Convention, the Bush Administration has been engaging in a piece of 
legalistic fiction. The Administration obtains ``diplomatic 
assurances'' that the transferred detainee will not be tortured, and 
then based on these assurances, it argues that our obligation under the 
Convention has been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial 
likelihood that the person we are sending to one of these known 
torturing countries will, in fact, be tortured.
  In other words, our government is relying on ``diplomatic 
assurances'' or promises from countries like Egypt or Syria that they 
will not torture transferred detainees. Based on the word of Syria or 
Libya, our government is arguing that our obligations under the 
Convention Against Torture are satisfied. Apparently, the Bush 
Administration's motto here is ``In Syria We Trust''.
  This is outrageous. Is there any Member who thinks that we should 
accept the word of Syria and Libya--longtime human rights violators?
  Here is how the State Department's annual human rights report 
describes typical Syrian methods of interrogation:
  ``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing 
objects into the rectum, . . .''
  My amendment reaffirmed our commitment to the Convention Against 
Torture. It said that we should not transfer aliens who have tried to 
enter this country to other countries where they are likely to face 
torture. It said that we should not rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' 
from torturers that they will refrain from engaging in torture. Torture 
mocks the core values on which our nation was founded. And it endangers 
our men and women in uniform who we send abroad to fight for our 
freedom.
  We should not be sending aliens who have sought entry into this 
country, and who have been apprehended and detained by the U.S., to 
other countries where they are likely to be tortured and then pretend 
to stand against torture. This is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee made in order only 15 of the more 
than 120 amendments submitted to the Committee. These amendments could 
have substantially improved the bill on the Floor today. Without these 
perfecting amendments, I cannot support this flawed bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``No.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005. I too am committed to protecting our 
borders and strengthening our immigration policies. However, this bill 
does neither.
  Instead of offering necessary comprehensive immigration reform, this 
bill simply continues the same failed policies of the past. Over the 
last decade, from Fiscal Year 1993 to Fiscal Year 2004, the number of 
Border Patrol officers tripled from 3,965 to 10,835 agents, and 
spending on border enforcement quintupled from $740 million to $3.8 
billion per year. In that same time frame, the number of undocumented 
immigrants in the U.S. doubled from 4.5 million to 9.3 million. Clearly 
our current policies have failed to stop the flow of illegal 
immigration. Yet this bill simply offers more of the same failed 
remedies to our immigration problems.
  Furthermore, this bill contains several unacceptable provisions. 
Please allow me to outline a few of the most egregious of these.
  First, by expanding mandatory detention, this bill would allow women 
and children seeking asylum to be held in jails or prison-like 
detention centers while their immigration proceedings are pending even 
though they are no threat to our national security. Imprisoning these 
asylum seekers who often times are trying to escape brutalities back 
home violates the integrity of what our nation stands for and 
undermines our history of due process of law.
  Second, this bill unfairly denies admission to immigrants who legally 
come to the U.S. from countries that do not accept the re-entry of 
their citizens. This means that, even though our State Department has 
approved their visas, legal immigrants and refugees from communist 
countries such as Vietnam, China and Somalia would be refused entry 
into the U.S. and forced to return to the oppressive regimes they are 
trying to escape.
  Third, this bill takes valuable time and resources away from urgent 
police responsibilities, such as dealing with murder, rape, and gang 
activity by empowering state and local police to enforce immigration 
laws which is currently the responsibility of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Fourth, this bill would classify as aggravated felons children who 
through no fault of their

[[Page H11820]]

own are brought here illegally by their parents. While I support 
cracking down on criminal aliens, I cannot support the criminalization 
of innocent children and thus deny them the opportunity to advance 
their lives in the future.
  Fifth, this bill can weaken our fight against terrorism by permitting 
Homeland Security Grant Funds to be diverted from critical personnel 
such as our first responders. The State Homeland Security Grant Program 
has already been cut in half from $1.1 billion to $550 million. Our 
state and local governments cannot afford further shrinking of these 
critical funds if they are to protect us in the event of another 
terrorist attack.
  Finally, this bill would expand the controversial process of removing 
individuals from our country without a fair hearing. This flawed 
procedure, known as expedited removal, has already resulted in the 
wrongful deportation of refugees who faced torture and death when they 
were returned to their native countries. Rather than fix this unjust 
procedure and protect these vulnerable individuals, this provision 
further denies them due process of law.
  Our great nation serves as a model for democracy, fairness, and the 
rule of law. Unfortunately, this bill takes us away from these ideals 
upon which our nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
defeating this dangerous bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005. Rather than take a hard look at our 
immigration system, this legislation uses broad strokes targeting both 
legal and undocumented immigrants and would make felons of nonprofits 
working to care for the underserved in our communities.
  The American public knows that our immigration system is broken. 
Polls show that two-thirds of the country believes that our system 
needs to be fixed. But instead of working to assemble a comprehensive 
package to fix our Nation's immigration system, we are being given this 
bill that has no chance of being enacted, that is intent on punishing 
immigrants, and relies more on rhetoric than real solutions.
  What we need is a comprehensive approach that deals not just with 
border security, but with employers and the undocumented immigrants who 
are supporting our economy by working in jobs Americans refuse to take. 
This legislation is a punitive, heavy-handed measure that would not in 
any shape reform immigration, but would only make matters worse.
  First and foremost, this bill seeks to criminalize both legal and 
illegal immigrants. Current law holds that undocumented immigrants face 
civil charges and may be subject to fines and deportation if found to 
be living here illegally. This legislation would change those civil 
charges to a criminal felony, ensnaring not only undocumented 
immigrants but also people who are here legally but have not notified 
the Government of technical changes in their status, such as an address 
change. These people, here legally and working hard to support their 
families in low wage jobs, could face up to a year in prison under the 
bill's provisions.
  Many of the working immigrants who are here illegally perform jobs 
that U.S. citizens simply do not want or will not take. They are mainly 
in service and agricultural jobs, which are a vital part of our 
economy. Punishing those people, who contribute greatly to our economy, 
rather than providing some form of guest worker visa program, is penny 
wise but pound foolish. We should be in the business of helping them 
gain a pathway to legal status rather than locking them up.
  One of the most deleterious provisions of this legislation is the 
section that would make it a crime for a U.S. citizen to help an 
undocumented immigrant, even if this is done unknowingly. Under the 
expanded definition of smuggling, a citizen could be prosecuted for 
simply driving a neighbor to the grocery store or hospital emergency 
room.
  Such a provision risks criminalizing the work of nonprofits and 
religious organizations, whose sole purpose is to help human beings in 
need. Many organizations work on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers, 
helping them navigate their way through the Byzantine immigration 
process. Because our immigration system is so complicated, it is 
possible that asylum seekers are in the United States illegally for a 
short time. Any citizen who helps people who have fled their home 
country because they feared for their lives could be prosecuted under 
the wording of this bill. This is totally unacceptable and runs counter 
to the values that have made our country great. The United States is a 
beacon for democracy and has always been a refuge for people seeking 
freedom. From the first settlers who were escaping religious 
persecution, to Europeans escaping Communist regimes, accepting the 
huddled masses yearning to be free has been a part of our Nation's 
genetic code.
  Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy once stated, ``Everywhere immigrants 
have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.'' This can 
be seen in all aspects of our society from advances in science and 
medicine to great works of art and literature. If this legislation is 
passed, the fabric of our Nation could be permanently altered.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 109-347, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 4437

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Border 
     Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control 
     Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. State defined.
Sec. 3. Sense of Congress on setting a manageable level of immigration.

                TITLE I--SECURING UNITED STATES BORDERS

Sec. 101. Achieving operational control on the border.
Sec. 102. National strategy for border security.
Sec. 103. Implementation of cross-border security agreements.
Sec. 104. Biometric data enhancements.
Sec. 105. One face at the border initiative.
Sec. 106. Secure communication.
Sec. 107. Port of entry inspection personnel.
Sec. 108. Canine detection teams.
Sec. 109. Secure border initiative financial accountability.
Sec. 110. Border patrol training capacity review.
Sec. 111. Airspace security mission impact review.
Sec. 112. Repair of private infrastructure on border.
Sec. 113. Border Patrol unit for Virgin Islands.
Sec. 114. Report on progress in tracking travel of Central American 
              gangs along international border.
Sec. 115. Collection of data.
Sec. 116. Deployment of radiation detection portal equipment at United 
              States ports of entry.
Sec. 117. Consultation with businesses and firms.

  TITLE II--COMBATTING ALIEN SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL ENTRY AND PRESENCE

Sec. 201. Definition of aggravated felony.
Sec. 202. Alien smuggling and related offenses.
Sec. 203. Improper entry by, or presence of, aliens.
Sec. 204. Reentry of removed aliens.
Sec. 205. Mandatory sentencing ranges for persons aiding or assisting 
              certain reentering aliens.
Sec. 206. Prohibiting carrying or using a firearm during and in 
              relation to an alien smuggling crime.
Sec. 207. Clarifying changes.
Sec. 208. Voluntary departure reform.
Sec. 209. Deterring aliens ordered removed from remaining in the United 
              States unlawfully and from unlawfully returning to the 
              United States after departing voluntarily.
Sec. 210. Establishment of a special task force for coordinating and 
              distributing information on fraudulent immigration 
              documents.

         TITLE III--BORDER SECURITY COOPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Joint strategic plan for United States border surveillance 
              and support.
Sec. 302. Border security on protected land.
Sec. 303. Border security threat assessment and information sharing 
              test and evaluation exercise.
Sec. 304. Border Security Advisory Committee.
Sec. 305. Permitted use of Homeland Security grant funds for border 
              security activities.
Sec. 306. Center of excellence for border security.
Sec. 307. Sense of Congress regarding cooperation with Indian Nations.

                    TITLE IV--DETENTION AND REMOVAL

Sec. 401. Mandatory detention for aliens apprehended at or between 
              ports of entry.
Sec. 402. Expansion and effective management of detention facilities.
Sec. 403. Enhancing transportation capacity for unlawful aliens.
Sec. 404. Denial of admission to nationals of country denying or 
              delaying accepting alien.
Sec. 405. Report on financial burden of repatriation.
Sec. 406. Training program.
Sec. 407. Expedited removal.
Sec. 408. GAO study on deaths in custody.

      TITLE V--EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION OF BORDER SECURITY AGENCIES

Sec. 501. Enhanced border security coordination and management.

[[Page H11821]]

Sec. 502. Office of Air and Marine Operations.
Sec. 503. Shadow Wolves transfer.

                TITLE VI--TERRORIST AND CRIMINAL ALIENS

Sec. 601. Removal of terrorist aliens.
Sec. 602. Detention of dangerous aliens.
Sec. 603. Increase in criminal penalties.
Sec. 604. Precluding admissibility of aggravated felons and other 
              criminals.
Sec. 605. Precluding refugee or asylee adjustment of status for 
              aggravated felonies.
Sec. 606. Removing drunk drivers.
Sec. 607. Designated county law enforcement assistance program.
Sec. 608. Rendering inadmissible and deportable aliens participating in 
              criminal street gangs; detention; ineligibility from 
              protection from removal and asylum.
Sec. 609. Naturalization reform.
Sec. 610. Expedited removal for aliens inadmissible on criminal or 
              security grounds.
Sec. 611. Technical correction for effective date in change in 
              inadmissibility for terrorists under REAL ID Act.
Sec. 612. Bar to good moral character.
Sec. 613. Strengthening definitions of ``aggravated felony'' and 
              ``conviction''.
Sec. 614. Deportability for criminal offenses.

             TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

Sec. 701. Employment eligibility verification system.
Sec. 702. Employment eligibility verification process.
Sec. 703. Expansion of employment eligibility verification system to 
              previously hired individuals and recruiting and 
              referring.
Sec. 704. Basic pilot program.
Sec. 705. Hiring halls.
Sec. 706. Penalties.
Sec. 707. Report on Social Security card-based employment eligibility 
              verification.
Sec. 708. Effective date.

           TITLE VIII--IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ABUSE REDUCTION

Sec. 801. Board of Immigration Appeals removal order authority.
Sec. 802. Judicial review of visa revocation.
Sec. 803. Reinstatement.
Sec. 804. Withholding of removal.
Sec. 805. Certificate of reviewability.
Sec. 806. Waiver of rights in nonimmigrant visa issuance.

     SEC. 2. STATE DEFINED.

       In titles I, III, IV, and V of this Act, the term ``State'' 
     has the meaning given it in section 2(14) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(14)).

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SETTING A MANAGEABLE LEVEL OF 
                   IMMIGRATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that the immigration and 
     naturalization policy shall be designed to enhance the 
     economic, social and cultural well-being of the United States 
     of America.

                TITLE I--SECURING UNITED STATES BORDERS

     SEC. 101. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and 
     appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over 
     the entire international land and maritime borders of the 
     United States, to include the following--
       (1) systematic surveillance of the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States through more effective 
     use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial 
     vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, 
     and cameras;
       (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent 
     unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and 
     facilitate access to the international land and maritime 
     borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such 
     as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and 
     vehicle barriers;
       (3) hiring and training as expeditiously as possible 
     additional Border Patrol agents authorized under section 5202 
     of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004 (Public Law 108-458); and
       (4) increasing deployment of United States Customs and 
     Border Protection personnel to areas along the international 
     land and maritime borders of the United States where there 
     are high levels of unlawful entry by aliens and other areas 
     likely to be impacted by such increased deployment.
       (b) Operational Control Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``operational control'' means the prevention of the entry 
     into the United States of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, 
     instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

     SEC. 102. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) Surveillance Plan.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a comprehensive plan for the systematic 
     surveillance of the international land and maritime borders 
     of the United States. The plan shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of existing technologies employed on such 
     borders.
       (2) A description of whether and how new surveillance 
     technologies will be compatible with existing surveillance 
     technologies.
       (3) A description of how the United States Customs and 
     Border Protection is working, or is expected to work, with 
     the Directorate of Science and Technology of the Department 
     of Homeland Security to identify and test surveillance 
     technology.
       (4) A description of the specific surveillance technology 
     to be deployed.
       (5) The identification of any obstacles that may impede 
     full implementation of such deployment.
       (6) A detailed estimate of all costs associated with the 
     implementation of such deployment and continued maintenance 
     of such technologies.
       (7) A description of how the Department of Homeland 
     Security is working with the Federal Aviation Administration 
     on safety and airspace control issues associated with the use 
     of unmanned aerial vehicles in the National Airspace System.
       (b) National Strategy for Border Security.--Not later than 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a National Strategy 
     for Border Security to achieve operational control over all 
     ports of entry into the United States and the international 
     land and maritime borders of the United States. The Secretary 
     shall update the Strategy as needed and shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, not later than 30 days after each such 
     update, the updated Strategy. The National Strategy for 
     Border Security shall include the following:
       (1) The implementation timeline for the surveillance plan 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) An assessment of the threat posed by terrorists and 
     terrorist groups that may try to infiltrate the United States 
     at points along the international land and maritime borders 
     of the United States.
       (3) A risk assessment of all ports of entry to the United 
     States and all portions of the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States with respect to--
       (A) preventing the entry of terrorists, other unlawful 
     aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other 
     contraband into the United States; and
       (B) protecting critical infrastructure at or near such 
     ports of entry or borders.
       (4) An assessment of the most appropriate, practical, and 
     cost-effective means of defending the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States against threats to 
     security and illegal transit, including intelligence 
     capacities, technology, equipment, personnel, and training 
     needed to address security vulnerabilities.
       (5) An assessment of staffing needs for all border security 
     functions, taking into account threat and vulnerability 
     information pertaining to the borders and the impact of new 
     security programs, policies, and technologies.
       (6) A description of the border security roles and missions 
     of Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal authorities, 
     and recommendations with respect to how the Department of 
     Homeland Security can improve coordination with such 
     authorities, to enable border security enforcement to be 
     carried out in an efficient and effective manner.
       (7) A prioritization of research and development objectives 
     to enhance the security of the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States.
       (8) A description of ways to ensure that the free flow of 
     legitimate travel and commerce of the United States is not 
     diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at 
     securing the international land and maritime borders of the 
     United States.
       (9) An assessment of additional detention facilities and 
     bed space needed to detain unlawful aliens apprehended at 
     United States ports of entry or along the international land 
     borders of the United States in accordance with the National 
     Strategy for Border Security required under this subsection 
     and the mandatory detention requirement described in section 
     401 of this Act.
       (10) A description of how the Secretary shall ensure 
     accountability and performance metrics within the appropriate 
     agencies of the Department of Homeland Security responsible 
     for implementing the border security measures determined 
     necessary upon completion of the National Strategy for Border 
     Security.
       (11) A timeline for the implementation of the additional 
     security measures determined necessary as part of the 
     National Strategy for Border Security, including a 
     prioritization of security measures, realistic deadlines for 
     addressing the security and enforcement needs, and resource 
     estimates and allocations.
       (c) Consultation.--In creating the National Strategy for 
     Border Security described in subsection (b), the Secretary 
     shall consult with--
       (1) State, local, and tribal authorities along the 
     international land and maritime borders of the United States; 
     and
       (2) an appropriate cross-section of private sector and 
     nongovernmental organizations with relevant expertise.
       (d) Priority of National Strategy.--The National Strategy 
     for Border Security described in subsection (b) shall be the 
     controlling document for security and enforcement efforts 
     related to securing the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States.
       (e) Immediate Action.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to relieve the Secretary of the responsibility to 
     take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and 
     maintain operational control over the entire international 
     land and maritime borders of the United States pursuant to 
     section 101 of this Act or any other provision of law.
       (f) Reporting of Implementing Legislation.--After submittal 
     of the National Strategy for Border Security described in 
     subsection (b) to the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives, such Committee shall

[[Page H11822]]

     promptly report to the House legislation authorizing 
     necessary security measures based on its evaluation of the 
     National Strategy for Border Security.
       (g) Appropriate Congressional Committee.--For purposes of 
     this title, the term ``appropriate congressional committee'' 
     has the meaning given it in section 2(2) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(2)).

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTATION OF CROSS-BORDER SECURITY AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees (as defined in section 102(g)) a report on the 
     implementation of the cross-border security agreements signed 
     by the United States with Mexico and Canada, including 
     recommendations on improving cooperation with such countries 
     to enhance border security.
       (b) Updates.--The Secretary shall regularly update the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives concerning such implementation.

     SEC. 104. BIOMETRIC DATA ENHANCEMENTS.

       Not later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       (1) in consultation with the Attorney General, enhance 
     connectivity between the IDENT and IAFIS fingerprint 
     databases to ensure more expeditious data searches; and
       (2) in consultation with the Secretary of State, collect 
     all fingerprints from each alien required to provide 
     fingerprints during the alien's initial enrollment in the 
     integrated entry and exit data system described in section 
     110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

     SEC. 105. ONE FACE AT THE BORDER INITIATIVE.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     Congress a report--
       (1) describing the tangible and quantifiable benefits of 
     the One Face at the Border Initiative established by the 
     Department of Homeland Security;
       (2) identifying goals for and challenges to increased 
     effectiveness of the One Face at the Border Initiative;
       (3) providing a breakdown of the number of inspectors who 
     were--
       (A) personnel of the United States Customs Service before 
     the date of the establishment of the Department of Homeland 
     Security;
       (B) personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     before the date of the establishment of the Department;
       (C) personnel of the Department of Agriculture before the 
     date of the establishment of the Department; or
       (D) hired after the date of the establishment of the 
     Department;
       (4) describing the training time provided to each employee 
     on an annual basis for the various training components of the 
     One Face at the Border Initiative; and
       (5) outlining the steps taken by the Department to ensure 
     that expertise is retained with respect to customs, 
     immigration, and agriculture inspection functions under the 
     One Face at the Border Initiative.

     SEC. 106. SECURE COMMUNICATION.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as expeditiously 
     as practicable, develop and implement a plan to ensure clear 
     and secure two-way communication capabilities--
       (1) among all Border Patrol agents conducting operations 
     between ports of entry;
       (2) between Border Patrol agents and their respective 
     Border Patrol stations;
       (3) between Border Patrol agents and residents in remote 
     areas along the international land border who do not have 
     mobile communications, as the Secretary determines necessary; 
     and
       (4) between all appropriate Department of Homeland Security 
     border security agencies and State, local, and tribal law 
     enforcement agencies.

     SEC. 107. PORT OF ENTRY INSPECTION PERSONNEL.

       In each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, increase by not less than 250 the number of 
     positions for full-time active duty port of entry inspectors. 
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such 
     sums as may be necessary for each such fiscal year to hire, 
     train, equip, and support such additional inspectors under 
     this section.

     SEC. 108. CANINE DETECTION TEAMS.

       In each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, increase by not less than 25 percent above 
     the number of such positions for which funds were allotted 
     for the preceding fiscal year the number of trained detection 
     canines for use at United States ports of entry and along the 
     international land and maritime borders of the United States.

     SEC. 109. SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) In General.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security shall review each contract action related 
     to the Department's Secure Border Initiative having a value 
     greater than $20,000,000, to determine whether each such 
     action fully complies with applicable cost requirements, 
     performance objectives, program milestones, inclusion of 
     small, minority, and women-owned business, and timelines. The 
     Inspector General shall complete a review under this 
     subsection with respect to a contract action--
       (1) not later than 60 days after the date of the initiation 
     of the action; and
       (2) upon the conclusion of the performance of the contract.
       (b) Report by Inspector General.--Upon completion of each 
     review described in subsection (a), the Inspector General 
     shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a report 
     containing the findings of the review, including findings 
     regarding any cost overruns, significant delays in contract 
     execution, lack of rigorous departmental contract management, 
     insufficient departmental financial oversight, bundling that 
     limits the ability of small business to compete, or other 
     high risk business practices.
       (c) Report by Secretary.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     receipt of each report required under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 
     102(g)) a report on the findings of the report by the 
     Inspector General and the steps the Secretary has taken, or 
     plans to take, to address the problems identified in such 
     report.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts that are otherwise authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Office of the Inspector General, an additional amount 
     equal to at least five percent for fiscal year 2007, at least 
     six percent for fiscal year 2008, and at least seven percent 
     for fiscal year 2009 of the overall budget of the Office for 
     each such fiscal year is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Office to enable the Office to carry out this section.

     SEC. 110. BORDER PATROL TRAINING CAPACITY REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a review of the basic training provided 
     to Border Patrol agents by the Department of Homeland 
     Security to ensure that such training is provided as 
     efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
       (b) Components of Review.--The review under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following components:
       (1) An evaluation of the length and content of the basic 
     training curriculum provided to new Border Patrol agents by 
     the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, including a 
     description of how the curriculum has changed since September 
     11, 2001.
       (2) A review and a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred 
     by United States Customs and Border Protection and the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to train one new 
     Border Patrol agent.
       (3) A comparison, based on the review and breakdown under 
     paragraph (2) of the costs, effectiveness, scope, and 
     quality, including geographic characteristics, with other 
     similar law enforcement training programs provided by State 
     and local agencies, non-profit organizations, universities, 
     and the private sector.
       (4) An evaluation of whether and how utilizing comparable 
     non-Federal training programs, proficiency testing to 
     streamline training, and long-distance learning programs may 
     affect--
       (A) the cost-effectiveness of increasing the number of 
     Border Patrol agents trained per year and reducing the per 
     agent costs of basic training; and
       (B) the scope and quality of basic training needed to 
     fulfill the mission and duties of a Border Patrol agent.

     SEC. 111. AIRSPACE SECURITY MISSION IMPACT REVIEW.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report detailing the impact the airspace 
     security mission in the National Capital Region (in this 
     section referred to as the ``NCR'') will have on the ability 
     of the Department of Homeland Security to protect the 
     international land and maritime borders of the United States. 
     Specifically, the report shall address:
       (1) The specific resources, including personnel, assets, 
     and facilities, devoted or planned to be devoted to the NCR 
     airspace security mission, and from where those resources 
     were obtained or are planned to be obtained.
       (2) An assessment of the impact that diverting resources to 
     support the NCR mission has or is expected to have on the 
     traditional missions in and around the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States.

     SEC. 112. REPAIR OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE ON BORDER.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the amount appropriated in 
     subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall reimburse property owners for costs associated 
     with repairing damages to the property owners' private 
     infrastructure constructed on a United States Government 
     right-of-way delineating the international land border when 
     such damages are--
       (1) the result of unlawful entry of aliens; and
       (2) confirmed by the appropriate personnel of the 
     Department of Homeland Security and submitted to the 
     Secretary for reimbursement.
       (b) Value of Reimbursements.--Reimbursements for submitted 
     damages as outlined in subsection (a) shall not exceed the 
     value of the private infrastructure prior to damage.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and every subsequent six months 
     until the amount appropriated for this section is expended in 
     its entirety, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report that details the expenditures and 
     circumstances in which those expenditures were made pursuant 
     to this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There shall be 
     authorized to be appropriated an initial $50,000 for each 
     fiscal year to carry out this section.

     SEC. 113. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS.

       Not later than September 30, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish at

[[Page H11823]]

     least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 114. REPORT ON PROGRESS IN TRACKING TRAVEL OF CENTRAL 
                   AMERICAN GANGS ALONG INTERNATIONAL BORDER.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives on the progress of the Department of Homeland 
     Security in tracking the travel of Central American gangs 
     across the international land border of the United States and 
     Mexico.

     SEC. 115. COLLECTION OF DATA.

       Beginning on October 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall annually compile data on the following 
     categories of information:
       (1) The number of unauthorized aliens who require medical 
     care taken into custody by Border Patrol officials.
       (2) The number of unauthorized aliens with serious injuries 
     or medical conditions Border Patrol officials encounter, and 
     refer to local hospitals or other health facilities.
       (3) The number of unauthorized aliens with serious injuries 
     or medical conditions who arrive at United States ports of 
     entry and subsequently are admitted into the United States 
     for emergency medical care, as reported by United States 
     Customs and Border Protection.
       (4) The number of unauthorized aliens described in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) who subsequently are taken into 
     custody by the Department of Homeland Security after 
     receiving medical treatment.

     SEC. 116. DEPLOYMENT OF RADIATION DETECTION PORTAL EQUIPMENT 
                   AT UNITED STATES PORTS OF ENTRY.

       (a) Deployment.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall deploy radiation portal monitors at all United States 
     ports of entry and facilities as determined by the Secretary 
     to facilitate the screening of all inbound cargo for nuclear 
     and radiological material.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
     Department's progress toward carrying out the deployment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection 
     (a) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007.

     SEC. 117. CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESSES AND FIRMS.

       With respect to the Secure Border Initiative and for the 
     purposes of strengthening security along the international 
     land and maritime borders of the United States, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall conduct outreach to and consult 
     with members of the private sector, including business 
     councils, associations, and small, minority-owned, women-
     owned, and disadvantaged businesses to--
       (1) identify existing and emerging technologies, best 
     practices, and business processes;
       (2) maximize economies of scale, cost-effectiveness, 
     systems integration, and resource allocation; and
       (3) identify the most appropriate contract mechanisms to 
     enhance financial accountability and mission effectiveness of 
     border security programs.

  TITLE II--COMBATTING ALIEN SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL ENTRY AND PRESENCE

     SEC. 201. DEFINITION OF AGGRAVATED FELONY.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (2) of section 274(a) (relating to alien smuggling)'' and 
     inserting ``section 274(a)'' and by adding a semicolon at the 
     end;
       (2) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``section 275(a) or 
     276 committed by an alien who was previously deported on the 
     basis of a conviction for an offense described in another 
     subparagraph of this paragraph'', and inserting ``section 275 
     or section 276 for which the term of imprisonment was at 
     least one year'';
       (3) in subparagraph (U), by inserting before ``an attempt'' 
     the following: ``soliciting, aiding, abetting, counseling, 
     commanding, inducing, procuring or''; and
       (4) by striking all that follows subparagraph (U) and 
     inserting the following:
     ``The term applies--
       ``(i) to an offense described in this paragraph whether in 
     violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an 
     offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for 
     which the term of imprisonment was completed within the 
     previous 15 years;
       ``(ii) even if the length of the term of imprisonment is 
     based on recidivist or other enhancements;
       ``(iii) to an offense described in this paragraph even if 
     the statute setting forth the offense of conviction sets 
     forth other offenses not described in this paragraph, unless 
     the alien affirmatively shows, by a preponderance of evidence 
     and using public records related to the conviction, including 
     court records, police records and presentence reports, that 
     the particular facts underlying the offense do not satisfy 
     the generic definition of that offense; and
       ``(iv) regardless of whether the conviction was entered 
     before, on, or after September 30, 1996, and notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law (including any effective date).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to offenses that occur before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 274 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                 ``ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES

       ``Sec. 274. (a) Criminal Offenses and Penalties.--
       ``(1) Prohibited activities.--Whoever--
       ``(A) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to 
     come to or enter the United States, or to attempt to come to 
     or enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard 
     of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful 
     authority to come to or enter the United States;
       ``(B) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to 
     come to or enter the United States at a place other than a 
     designated port of entry or place other than as designated by 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether 
     such person has official permission or lawful authority to be 
     in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the 
     fact that such person is an alien;
       ``(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to 
     reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to 
     reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in 
     reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien 
     who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the 
     United States;
       ``(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, 
     knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person 
     is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the 
     United States, where the transportation or movement will aid 
     or further in any manner the person's illegal entry into or 
     illegal presence in the United States;
       ``(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person 
     in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the 
     fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority 
     to be in the United States;
       ``(F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals, or shields from 
     detection a person outside of the United States knowing or in 
     reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien 
     in unlawful transit from one country to another or on the 
     high seas, under circumstances in which the person is in fact 
     seeking to enter the United States without official 
     permission or lawful authority; or
       ``(G) conspires or attempts to commit any of the preceding 
     acts,
     shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2), regardless of 
     any official action which may later be taken with respect to 
     such alien.
       ``(2) Criminal penalties.--A person who violates the 
     provisions of paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (D) through (H), 
     in the case where the offense was not committed for 
     commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain, be 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 
     18, United States Code, or both;
       ``(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (C) through (H), 
     where the offense was committed for commercial advantage, 
     profit, or private financial gain--
       ``(i) in the case of a first violation of this 
     subparagraph, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or both; and
       ``(ii) for any subsequent violation, be imprisoned for not 
     less than 3 years nor more than 20 years, or fined under 
     title 18, United States Code, or both;
       ``(C) in the case where the offense was committed for 
     commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain and 
     involved 2 or more aliens other than the offender, be 
     imprisoned for not less than 3 nor more than 20 years, or 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;
       ``(D) in the case where the offense furthers or aids the 
     commission of any other offense against the United States or 
     any State, which offense is punishable by imprisonment for 
     more than 1 year, be imprisoned for not less than 5 nor more 
     than 20 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, 
     or both;
       ``(E) in the case where any participant in the offense 
     created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury 
     to another person, including--
       ``(i) transporting a person in an engine compartment, 
     storage compartment, or other confined space;
       ``(ii) transporting a person at an excessive speed or in 
     excess of the rated capacity of the means of transportation; 
     or
       ``(iii) transporting or harboring a person in a crowded, 
     dangerous, or inhumane manner,
     be imprisoned not less than 5 nor more than 20 years, or 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;
       ``(F) in the case where the offense caused serious bodily 
     injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18, United States 
     Code, including any conduct that would violate sections 2241 
     or 2242 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct 
     occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
     of the United States) to any person, be imprisoned for not 
     less than 7 nor more than 30 years, or fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both;
       ``(G) in the case where the offense involved an alien who 
     the offender knew or had reason to believe was an alien--
       ``(i) engaged in terrorist activity (as defined in section 
     212(a)(3)(B)); or
       ``(ii) intending to engage in such terrorist activity,

     be imprisoned for not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, or 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or both; and
       ``(H) in the case where the offense caused or resulted in 
     the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned 
     for not less than 10

[[Page H11824]]

     years, or any term of years, or for life, or fined under 
     title 18, United States Code, or both.
       ``(3) Extraterritorial jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over the offenses 
     described in this subsection.
       ``(b) Employment of Unauthorized Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who, during any 12-month 
     period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 
     individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are 
     aliens described in paragraph (2), shall be fined under title 
     18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, 
     or both.
       ``(2) Alien described.--A alien described in this paragraph 
     is an alien who--
       ``(A) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 
     274A(h)(3)); and
       ``(B) has been brought into the United States in violation 
     of subsection (a).
       ``(c) Seizure and Forfeiture.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any property, real or personal, that has 
     been used to commit or facilitate the commission of a 
     violation of this section, the gross proceeds of such 
     violation, and any property traceable to such property or 
     proceeds, shall be subject to forfeiture.
       ``(2) Applicable procedures.--Seizures and forfeitures 
     under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, relating to civil 
     forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except 
     that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under the customs laws described in that section 
     shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other 
     persons as may be designated for that purpose by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(d) Authority to Arrest.--No officer or person shall have 
     authority to make any arrests for a violation of any 
     provision of this section except officers and employees 
     designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, either 
     individually or as a member of a class, and all other 
     officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
       ``(e) Admissibility of Evidence.--
       ``(1) Prima facie evidence in determinations of 
     violations.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal 
     Rules of Evidence, in determining whether a violation of 
     subsection (a) has occurred, any of the following shall be 
     prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the violation 
     lacks lawful authority to come to, enter, reside, remain, or 
     be in the United States or that such alien had come to, 
     entered, resided, remained or been present in the United 
     States in violation of law:
       ``(A) Any order, finding, or determination concerning the 
     alien's status or lack thereof made by a federal judge or 
     administrative adjudicator (including an immigration judge or 
     an immigration officer) during any judicial or administrative 
     proceeding authorized under the immigration laws or 
     regulations prescribed thereunder.
       ``(B) An official record of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, Department of Justice, or the Department of State 
     concerning the alien's status or lack thereof.
       ``(C) Testimony by an immigration officer having personal 
     knowledge of the facts concerning the alien's status or lack 
     thereof.
       ``(2) Videotaped testimony.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or 
     otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to 
     a violation of subsection (a) who has been deported or 
     otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise 
     unavailable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an 
     action brought for that violation if the witness was 
     available for cross examination at the deposition and the 
     deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of 
     Evidence.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `lawful authority' means permission, 
     authorization, or license that is expressly provided for in 
     the immigration laws of the United States or the regulations 
     prescribed thereunder. Such term does not include any such 
     authority secured by fraud or otherwise obtained in violation 
     of law, nor does it include authority that has been sought 
     but not approved. No alien shall be deemed to have lawful 
     authority to come to, enter, reside, remain, or be in the 
     United States if such coming to, entry, residence, remaining, 
     or presence was, is, or would be in violation of law.
       ``(2) The term `unlawful transit' means travel, movement, 
     or temporary presence that violates the laws of any country 
     in which the alien is present, or any country from which or 
     to which the alien is traveling or moving.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 274 
     in the table of contents of such Act is amended to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 274. Alien smuggling and related offenses.''.

     SEC. 203. IMPROPER ENTRY BY, OR PRESENCE OF, ALIENS.

       Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1325) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``unlawful 
     presence;'' after ``improper time or place;'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Any alien'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), any alien'';
       (B) by striking ``or'' before (3);
       (C) by inserting after ``concealment of a material fact,'' 
     the following: ``or (4) is otherwise present in the United 
     States in violation of the immigration laws or the 
     regulations prescribed thereunder,''; and
       (D) by striking ``6 months'' and inserting ``one year and a 
     day'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``An offense under 
     this subsection continues until the fraudulent nature of the 
     marriage is discovered by an immigration officer.'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years'';
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``An offense under 
     this subsection continues until the fraudulent nature of the 
     commercial enterprise is discovered by an immigration 
     officer.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e)(1) Any alien described in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense 
     described in such paragraph was committed subsequent to a 
     conviction or convictions for commission of three or more 
     misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or 
     both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony); or
       ``(B) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, if such offense 
     was committed subsequent to a conviction for commission of an 
     aggravated felony.
       ``(2) An alien described in this paragraph is an alien 
     who--
       ``(A) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any 
     time or place other than as designated by immigration 
     officers;
       ``(B) eludes examination or inspection by immigration 
     officers;
       ``(C) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United 
     States by a willfully false or misleading representation or 
     the willful concealment of a material fact; or
       ``(D) is otherwise present in the United States in 
     violation of the immigration laws or the regulations 
     prescribed thereunder.
       ``(3) The prior convictions in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (1) are elements of those crimes and the penalties 
     in those subparagraphs shall apply only in cases in which the 
     conviction (or convictions) that form the basis for the 
     additional penalty are alleged in the indictment or 
     information and are proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial 
     or admitted by the defendant in pleading guilty. Any 
     admissible evidence may be used to show that the prior 
     conviction is an aggravated felony or other qualifying crime, 
     and the criminal trial for a violation of this section shall 
     not be bifurcated.
       ``(4) An offense under subsection (a) or paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection continues until the alien is discovered 
     within the United States by immigration officers.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `attempts to 
     enter' refers to the general intent of the alien to enter the 
     United States and does not refer to the intent of the alien 
     to violate the law.''.

     SEC. 204. REENTRY OF REMOVED ALIENS.

       Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1326) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking all that follows ``United 
     States'' the first place it appears and inserting a comma;
       (B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``imprisoned not more than 2 years,'' and inserting 
     ``imprisoned for a term of not less than 1 year and not more 
     than 2 years,'';
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``It shall be an 
     affirmative defense to an offense under this subsection that 
     (A) prior to an alien's reembarkation at a place outside the 
     United States or an alien's application for admission from 
     foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security has expressly consented to the alien's reapplying 
     for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously 
     denied admission and removed, such alien was not required to 
     obtain such advance consent under this Act or any prior 
     Act.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years,'' and insert ``imprisoned for a term of not 
     less than 5 years and not more than 10 years,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``imprisoned not more 
     than 20 years,'' and insert ``imprisoned for a term of not 
     less than 10 years and not more than 20 years,'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``. or'' and inserting 
     ``; or'';
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``imprisoned for not more 
     than 10 years,'' and insert ``imprisoned for a term of not 
     less than 5 years and not more than 10 years,''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following: ``The prior 
     convictions in paragraphs (1) and (2) are elements of 
     enhanced crimes and the penalties under such paragraphs shall 
     apply only where the conviction (or convictions) that form 
     the basis for the additional penalty are alleged in the 
     indictment or information and are proven beyond a reasonable 
     doubt at trial or admitted by the defendant in pleading 
     guilty. Any admissible evidence may be used to show that the 
     prior conviction is a qualifying crime and the criminal trial 
     for a violation of either such paragraph shall not be 
     bifurcated.'';
       (3) in subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c), by striking 
     ``Attorney General'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland 
     Security'' each place it appears;
       (4) in subsection (c), by striking ``242(h)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``241(a)(4)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) For purposes of this section, the term `attempts to 
     enter' refers to the general intent of the alien to enter the 
     United States and does not refer to the intent of the alien 
     to violate the law.''.

     SEC. 205. MANDATORY SENTENCING RANGES FOR PERSONS AIDING OR 
                   ASSISTING CERTAIN REENTERING ALIENS.

       Section 277 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1327) is amended--

[[Page H11825]]

       (1) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting ``(a) Subject 
     to subsection (b), any person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien 
     violating section 276(b) to reenter the United States, or who 
     connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, 
     procure, or permit any such alien to reenter the United 
     States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisoned for a term imposed under paragraph (2), or both.
       ``(2) The term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be within the range to which the reentering alien is 
     subject under section 276(b).''.

     SEC. 206. PROHIBITING CARRYING OR USING A FIREARM DURING AND 
                   IN RELATION TO AN ALIEN SMUGGLING CRIME.

       Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(D)(ii), by inserting ``, 
     alien smuggling crime,'' after ``crime of violence'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `alien 
     smuggling crime' means any felony punishable under section 
     274(a), 277, or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a), 1327, or 1328).''.

     SEC. 207. CLARIFYING CHANGES.

       (a) Exclusion Based on False Claim of Nationality.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or nationality'' after 
     ``citizenship''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or national'' after ``citizen'' each 
     place it appears.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to acts occurring before, on, or after such 
     date.
       (b) Sharing of Information.--Section 290(b) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1360(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or as to any person seeking any 
     benefit or privilege under the immigration laws,'' after 
     ``United States'';
       (2) by striking ``Service'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Homeland Security''; and
       (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (c) Exceptions Authority.--Section 212(a)(3)(B)(ii) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking 
     ``Subclause (VII)'' and inserting ``Subclause (IX)''.

     SEC. 208. VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE REFORM.

       (a) Encouraging Aliens to Depart Voluntarily.--
       (1) Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 240B of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) is amended--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In lieu of removal proceedings.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may permit an alien voluntarily to depart 
     the United States at the alien's own expense under this 
     subsection, in lieu of being subject to proceedings under 
     section 240, if the alien is not described in section 
     237(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section 237(a)(4).'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings.--
     After removal proceedings under section 240 are initiated, 
     the Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to 
     depart the United States at the alien's own expense under 
     this subsection, prior to the conclusion of such proceedings 
     before an immigration judge, if the alien is not described in 
     section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section 237(a)(4).''; and
       (E) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2)''.
       (2) Voluntary departure period.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1)(C)--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) In lieu of removal.--Subject to subparagraph (C), 
     permission to depart voluntarily under paragraph (1) shall 
     not be valid for a period exceeding 120 days. The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may require an alien permitted to depart 
     voluntarily under paragraph (1) to post a voluntary departure 
     bond, to be surrendered upon proof that the alien has 
     departed the United States within the time specified.'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subparagraphs (C) 
     and (D)(ii)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (D) and 
     (E)(ii)'';
       (iii) in subparagraphs (C) and (D), by striking 
     ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C)'' each 
     place it appears;
       (iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively; and
       (v) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings.--
     Permission to depart voluntarily under paragraph (2) shall 
     not be valid for a period exceeding 60 days, and may be 
     granted only after a finding that the alien has established 
     that the alien has the means to depart the United States and 
     intends to do so. An alien permitted to depart voluntarily 
     under paragraph (2) must post a voluntary departure bond, in 
     an amount necessary to ensure that the alien will depart, to 
     be surrendered upon proof that the alien has departed the 
     United States within the time specified. An immigration judge 
     may waive posting of a voluntary departure bond in individual 
     cases upon a finding that the alien has presented compelling 
     evidence that the posting of a bond will be a serious 
     financial hardship and the alien has presented credible 
     evidence that such a bond is unnecessary to guarantee timely 
     departure.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``60 days'' and 
     inserting ``45 days''.
       (3) Voluntary departure agreements.--Subsection (c) of such 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Conditions on Voluntary Departure.--
       ``(1) Voluntary departure agreement.--Voluntary departure 
     will be granted only as part of an affirmative agreement by 
     the alien. A voluntary departure agreement under subsection 
     (b) shall include a waiver of the right to any further 
     motion, appeal, application, petition, or petition for review 
     relating to removal or relief or protection from removal.
       ``(2) Concessions by the secretary.--In connection with the 
     alien's agreement to depart voluntarily under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of 
     discretion may agree to a reduction in the period of 
     inadmissibility under subparagraph (A) or (B)(i) of section 
     212(a)(9).
       ``(3) Failure to comply with agreement and effect of filing 
     timely appeal.--If an alien agrees to voluntary departure 
     under this section and fails to depart the United States 
     within the time allowed for voluntary departure or fails to 
     comply with any other terms of the agreement (including a 
     failure to timely post any required bond), the alien 
     automatically becomes ineligible for the benefits of the 
     agreement, subject to the penalties described in subsection 
     (d), and subject to an alternate order of removal if 
     voluntary departure was granted under subsection (a)(2) or 
     (b). However, if an alien agrees to voluntary departure but 
     later files a timely appeal of the immigration judge's 
     decision granting voluntary departure, the alien may pursue 
     the appeal instead of the voluntary departure agreement. Such 
     appeal operates to void the alien's voluntary departure 
     agreement and the consequences thereof, but the alien may not 
     again be granted voluntary departure while the alien remains 
     in the United States.''.
       (4) Eligibility.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(e) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Prior grant of voluntary departure.--An alien shall 
     not be permitted to depart voluntarily under this section if 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General 
     previously permitted the alien to depart voluntarily.
       ``(2) Additional limitations.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may by regulation limit eligibility or impose 
     additional conditions for voluntary departure under 
     subsection (a)(1) for any class or classes of aliens. The 
     Secretary or Attorney General may by regulation limit 
     eligibility or impose additional conditions for voluntary 
     departure under subsection (a)(2) or (b) for any class or 
     classes of aliens. Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 
     28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, 
     and section 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court may review 
     any regulation issued under this subsection.''.
       (b) Avoiding Delays in Voluntary Departure.--
       (1) Alien's obligation to depart within the time allowed.--
     Subsection (c) of section 240B of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c), as amended by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Voluntary departure period not affected.--Except as 
     expressly agreed to by the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
     writing in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion before 
     the expiration of the period allowed for voluntary departure, 
     no motion, appeal, application, petition, or petition for 
     review shall affect, reinstate, enjoin, delay, stay, or toll 
     the alien's obligation to depart from the United States 
     during the period agreed to by the alien and the 
     Secretary.''.
       (2) No tolling.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or 
     nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United 
     States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
     section 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have 
     jurisdiction to affect, reinstate, enjoin, delay, stay, or 
     toll the period allowed for voluntary departure under this 
     section.''.
       (c) Penalties for Failure to Depart Voluntarily.--
       (1) Penalties for failure to depart.--Subsection (d) of 
     section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     229c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Penalties for Failure to Depart.--If an alien is 
     permitted to depart voluntarily under this section and fails 
     voluntarily to depart from the United States within the time 
     period specified or otherwise violates the terms of a 
     voluntary departure agreement, the following provisions 
     apply:
       ``(1) Civil penalty.--
       ``(A) In general.--The alien will be liable for a civil 
     penalty of $3,000.
       ``(B) Specification in order.--The order allowing voluntary 
     departure shall specify the amount of the penalty, which 
     shall be acknowledged by the alien on the record.
       ``(C) Collection.--If the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     thereafter establishes that the alien failed to depart 
     voluntarily within the time allowed, no further procedure 
     will be necessary to establish the amount of the penalty, and 
     the Secretary may collect the civil penalty at any time 
     thereafter and by whatever means provided by law.
       ``(D) Ineligibility for benefits.--An alien will be 
     ineligible for any benefits under this title until any civil 
     penalty under this subsection is paid.
       ``(2) Ineligibility for relief.--The alien will be 
     ineligible during the time the alien remains in

[[Page H11826]]

     the United States and for a period of 10 years after the 
     alien's departure for any further relief under this section 
     and sections 240A, 245, 248, and 249.
       ``(3) Reopening.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the alien 
     will be ineligible to reopen a final order of removal which 
     took effect upon the alien's failure to depart, or the 
     alien's violation of the conditions for voluntary departure, 
     during the period described in paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) does not preclude a 
     motion to reopen to seek withholding of removal under section 
     241(b)(3) or protection against torture.

     The order permitting the alien to depart voluntarily under 
     this section shall inform the alien of the penalties under 
     this subsection.''.
       (2) Implementation of existing statutory penalties.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement regulations to 
     provide for the imposition and collection of penalties for 
     failure to depart under section 240B(d) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, as amended by paragraph (1).
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     all orders granting voluntary departure under section 240B of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) made on 
     or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply with respect to any petition for review which 
     is entered on or after such date.

     SEC. 209. DETERRING ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED FROM REMAINING IN 
                   THE UNITED STATES UNLAWFULLY AND FROM 
                   UNLAWFULLY RETURNING TO THE UNITED STATES AFTER 
                   DEPARTING VOLUNTARILY.

       (a) Inadmissible Aliens.--Paragraph (9) of section 212(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``within 5 years 
     of'' and inserting ``before, or within 5 years of,''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``within 10 years 
     of'' and inserting ``before, or within 10 years of,''.
       (b) Failure to Depart, Apply for Travel Documents, or 
     Appear for Removal or Conspiracy to Prevent or Hamper 
     Departure.--Section 274D of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1324d) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Commissioner'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Ineligibility for Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), unless a 
     timely motion to reopen is granted under section 240(c)(6), 
     an alien described in subsection (a) shall be ineligible for 
     any discretionary relief from removal pursuant to a motion to 
     reopen during the time the alien remains in the United States 
     and for a period of 10 years after the alien's departure.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not preclude a motion 
     to reopen to seek withholding of removal under section 
     241(b)(3) or protection against torture.''.
       (c) Deterring Aliens From Unlawfully Returning to the 
     United States After Departing Voluntarily.--Section 275(a) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1325(a)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     following an order of voluntary departure'' after ``a 
     subsequent commission of any such offense''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act with respect to aliens who are subject to a final order 
     of removal, whether the removal order was entered before, on, 
     or after such date.
       (2) Voluntary departure.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and shall apply with respect to conduct occurring on or 
     after such date.

     SEC. 210. ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL TASK FORCE FOR 
                   COORDINATING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION ON 
                   FRAUDULENT IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     establish a task force (to be known as the Task Force on 
     Fraudulent Immigration Documents) to carry out the following:
       (1) Collect information from Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies, and Foreign governments on the 
     production, sale, and distribution of fraudulent documents 
     intended to be used to enter or to remain in the United 
     States unlawfully.
       (2) Maintain that information in a comprehensive database.
       (3) Convert the information into reports that will provide 
     guidance for government officials on identifying fraudulent 
     documents being used to enter or to remain in the United 
     States unlawfully.
       (4) Develop a system for distributing these reports on an 
     ongoing basis to appropriate Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (b) Distribution of Information.--Distribute the reports to 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies on an ongoing basis.

         TITLE III--BORDER SECURITY COOPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR UNITED STATES BORDER 
                   SURVEILLANCE AND SUPPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     Secretary of Defense shall develop a joint strategic plan to 
     use the authorities provided to the Secretary of Defense 
     under chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code, to increase 
     the availability and use of Department of Defense equipment, 
     including unmanned aerial vehicles, tethered aerostat radars, 
     and other surveillance equipment, to assist with the 
     surveillance activities of the Department of Homeland 
     Security conducted at or near the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States.
       (b) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     and the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (1) a description of the use of Department of Defense 
     equipment to assist with the surveillance by the Department 
     of Homeland Security of the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States;
       (2) the joint strategic plan developed pursuant to 
     subsection (a);
       (3) a description of the types of equipment and other 
     support to be provided by the Department of Defense under the 
     joint strategic plan during the one-year period beginning 
     after submission of the report under this subsection; and
       (4) a description of how the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the Department of Defense are working with the 
     Department of Transportation on safety and airspace control 
     issues associated with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in 
     the National Airspace System.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as altering or amending the prohibition on the use 
     of any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus 
     under section 1385 of title 18, United States Code.

     SEC. 302. BORDER SECURITY ON PROTECTED LAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     evaluate border security vulnerabilities on land directly 
     adjacent to the international land border of the United 
     States under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 
     Interior related to the prevention of the entry of 
     terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other 
     contraband into the United States.
       (b) Support for Border Security Needs.--Based on the 
     evaluation conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide appropriate 
     border security assistance on land directly adjacent to the 
     international land border of the United States under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, its bureaus, 
     and tribal entities.

     SEC. 303. BORDER SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENT AND INFORMATION 
                   SHARING TEST AND EVALUATION EXERCISE.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall design and 
     carry out a national border security exercise for the 
     purposes of--
       (1) involving officials from Federal, State, territorial, 
     local, tribal, and international governments and 
     representatives from the private sector;
       (2) testing and evaluating the capacity of the United 
     States to anticipate, detect, and disrupt threats to the 
     integrity of United States borders; and
       (3) testing and evaluating the information sharing 
     capability among Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal, 
     and international governments.

     SEC. 304. BORDER SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment of Committee.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish an advisory committee to be 
     known as the Border Security Advisory Committee (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Committee'').
       (b) Duties.--The Committee shall advise the Secretary on 
     issues relating to border security and enforcement along the 
     international land and maritime border of the United States.
       (c) Membership.--The Secretary shall appoint members to the 
     Committee from the following:
       (1) State and local government representatives from States 
     located along the international land and maritime borders of 
     the United States.
       (2) Community representatives from such States.
       (3) Tribal authorities in such States.

     SEC. 305. PERMITTED USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR 
                   BORDER SECURITY ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     allow the recipient of amounts under a covered grant to use 
     those amounts to reimburse itself for costs it incurs in 
     carrying out any activity that--
       (1) relates to the enforcement of Federal laws aimed at 
     preventing the unlawful entry of persons or things into the 
     United States, including activities such as detecting or 
     responding to such an unlawful entry or providing support to 
     another entity relating to preventing such an unlawful entry;
       (2) is usually a Federal duty carried out by a Federal 
     agency; and
       (3) is carried out under agreement with a Federal agency.
       (b) Use of Prior Year Funds.--Subsection (a) shall apply to 
     all covered grant funds received by a State, local 
     government, or Indian tribe at any time on or after October 
     1, 2001.
       (c) Covered Grants.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     term ``covered grant'' means grants provided by the 
     Department of Homeland Security to States, local governments, 
     or Indian tribes administered under the following programs:
       (1) State homeland security grant program.--The State 
     Homeland Security Grant Program of the Department, or any 
     successor to such grant program.
       (2) Urban area security initiative.--The Urban Area 
     Security Initiative of the Department, or any successor to 
     such grant program.

[[Page H11827]]

       (3) Law enforcement terrorism prevention program.--The Law 
     Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program of the Department, 
     or any successor to such grant program.

     SEC. 306. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish a university-based Center of Excellence for 
     Border Security following the merit-review processes and 
     procedures and other limitations that have been established 
     for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of 
     Excellence.
       (b) Activities of the Center.--The Center shall prioritize 
     its activities on the basis of risk to address the most 
     significant threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences posed 
     by United States borders and border control systems. The 
     activities shall include the conduct of research, the 
     examination of existing and emerging border security 
     technology and systems, and the provision of education, 
     technical, and analytical assistance for the Department of 
     Homeland Security to effectively secure the borders.

     SEC. 307. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION WITH INDIAN 
                   NATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Homeland Security should strive to 
     include as part of a National Strategy for Border Security 
     recommendations on how to enhance Department cooperation with 
     sovereign Indian Nations on securing our borders and 
     preventing terrorist entry, including, specifically, the 
     Department should consider whether a Tribal Smart Border 
     working group is necessary and whether further expansion of 
     cultural sensitivity training, as exists in Arizona with the 
     Tohono O'odham Nation, should be expanded elsewhere; and
       (2) as the Department of Homeland Security develops a 
     National Strategy for Border Security, it should take into 
     account the needs and missions of each agency that has a 
     stake in border security and strive to ensure that these 
     agencies work together cooperatively on issues involving 
     Tribal lands.

                    TITLE IV--DETENTION AND REMOVAL

     SEC. 401. MANDATORY DETENTION FOR ALIENS APPREHENDED AT OR 
                   BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on October 1, 2006, an alien who 
     is attempting to illegally enter the United States and who is 
     apprehended at a United States port of entry or along the 
     international land and maritime border of the United States 
     shall be detained until removed or a final decision granting 
     admission has been determined, unless the alien--
       (1) is permitted to withdraw an application for admission 
     under section 235(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(4)) and immediately departs from the 
     United States pursuant to such section; or
       (2) is paroled into the United States by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for urgent humanitarian reasons or 
     significant public benefit in accordance with section 
     212(d)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)).
       (b) Requirements During Interim Period.--Beginning 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and before 
     October 1, 2006, an alien described in subsection (a) may be 
     released with a notice to appear only if--
       (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, after 
     conducting all appropriate background and security checks on 
     the alien, that the alien does not pose a national security 
     risk; and
       (2) the alien provides a bond of not less than $5,000.
       (c) Rules of Construction.--
       (1) Asylum and removal.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as limiting the right of an alien to apply for 
     asylum or for relief or deferral of removal based on a fear 
     of persecution.
       (2) Treatment of certain aliens.--The mandatory detention 
     requirement in subsection (a) does not apply to any alien who 
     is a native or citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere 
     with whose government the United States does not have full 
     diplomatic relations.

     SEC. 402. EXPANSION AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DETENTION 
                   FACILITIES.

       Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall fully utilize--
       (1) all available detention facilities operated or 
     contracted by the Department of Homeland Security; and
       (2) all possible options to cost effectively increase 
     available detention capacities, including the use of 
     temporary detention facilities, the use of State and local 
     correctional facilities, private space, and secure 
     alternatives to detention.

     SEC. 403. ENHANCING TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY FOR UNLAWFUL 
                   ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is 
     authorized to enter into contracts with private entities for 
     the purpose of providing secure domestic transport of aliens 
     who are apprehended at or along the international land or 
     maritime borders from the custody of United States Customs 
     and Border Protection to detention facilities and other 
     locations as necessary.
       (b) Criteria for Selection.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to enter into a contract under paragraph 
     (1), a private entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require. The Secretary shall 
     select from such applications those entities which offer, in 
     the determination of the Secretary, the best combination of 
     service, cost, and security.

     SEC. 404. DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO NATIONALS OF COUNTRY DENYING 
                   OR DELAYING ACCEPTING ALIEN.

       Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1253(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Denial of Admission to Nationals of Country Denying 
     or Delaying Accepting Alien.--Whenever the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines that the government of a foreign 
     country has denied or unreasonably delayed accepting an alien 
     who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that 
     country after the alien has been ordered removed, the 
     Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     may deny admission to any citizen, subject, national, or 
     resident of that country until the country accepts the alien 
     who was ordered removed.''.

     SEC. 405. REPORT ON FINANCIAL BURDEN OF REPATRIATION.

       Not later than October 31 of each year, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Secretary of State and 
     Congress a report that details the cost to the Department of 
     Homeland Security of repatriation of unlawful aliens to their 
     countries of nationality or last habitual residence, 
     including details relating to cost per country. The Secretary 
     shall include in each such report the recommendations of the 
     Secretary to more cost effectively repatriate such aliens.

     SEC. 406. TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Not later than six months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security--
       (1) review and evaluate the training provided to Border 
     Patrol agents and port of entry inspectors regarding the 
     inspection of aliens to determine whether an alien is 
     referred for an interview by an asylum officer for a 
     determination of credible fear;
       (2) based on the review and evaluation described in 
     paragraph (1), take necessary and appropriate measures to 
     ensure consistency in referrals by Border Patrol agents and 
     port of entry inspectors to asylum officers for 
     determinations of credible fear.

     SEC. 407. EXPEDITED REMOVAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'' each place it 
     appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subclause:

       ``(III) Exception.--Notwithstanding subclauses (I) and 
     (II), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall apply clauses 
     (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph to any alien (other than an 
     alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is not a national of 
     a country contiguous to the United States, who has not been 
     admitted or paroled into the United States, and who is 
     apprehended within 100 miles of an international land border 
     of the United States and within 14 days of entry.''.

       (b) Exceptions.--Section 235(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(F)) is amended by 
     striking ``who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry'' and 
     inserting ``, and who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry 
     or who is present in the United States and arrived in any 
     manner at or between a port of entry''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to all aliens apprehended on or after such 
     date.

     SEC. 408. GAO STUDY ON DEATHS IN CUSTODY.

       The Comptroller General of the United States, within 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the deaths in custody of 
     detainees held on immigration violations by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security. The report shall include the following 
     information with respect to any such deaths and in connection 
     therewith:
       (1) Whether any crimes were committed by personnel of the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (2) Whether any such deaths were caused by negligence or 
     deliberate indifference by such personnel.
       (3) Whether Department practice and procedures were 
     properly followed and obeyed.
       (4) Whether such practice and procedures are sufficient to 
     protect the health and safety of such detainees.
       (5) Whether reports of such deaths were made under the 
     Deaths in Custody Act.

      TITLE V--EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION OF BORDER SECURITY AGENCIES

     SEC. 501. ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY COORDINATION AND 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure full 
     coordination of border security efforts among agencies within 
     the Department of Homeland Security, including United States 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Customs 
     and Border Protection, and United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and shall identify and remedy any 
     failure of coordination or integration in a prompt and 
     efficient manner. In particular, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       (1) oversee and ensure the coordinated execution of border 
     security operations and policy;
       (2) establish a mechanism for sharing and coordinating 
     intelligence information and analysis at the headquarters and 
     field office levels pertaining to counter-terrorism, border 
     enforcement, customs and trade, immigration, human smuggling, 
     human trafficking, and other issues of concern to both United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States 
     Customs and Border Protection;
       (3) establish Department of Homeland Security task forces 
     (to include other Federal, State, Tribal and local law 
     enforcement agencies as appropriate) as necessary to better 
     coordinate border enforcement and the disruption and 
     dismantling of criminal organizations engaged in cross-border 
     smuggling, money laundering, and immigration violations;

[[Page H11828]]

       (4) enhance coordination between the border security and 
     investigations missions within the Department by requiring 
     that, with respect to cases involving violations of the 
     customs and immigration laws of the United States, United 
     States Customs and Border Protection coordinate with and 
     refer all such cases to United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement;
       (5) examine comprehensively the proper allocation of the 
     Department's border security related resources, and analyze 
     budget issues on the basis of Department-wide border 
     enforcement goals, plans, and processes;
       (6) establish measures and metrics for determining the 
     effectiveness of coordinated border enforcement efforts; and
       (7) develop and implement a comprehensive plan to protect 
     the northern and southern land borders of the United States 
     and address the different challenges each border faces by--
       (A) coordinating all Federal border security activities;
       (B) improving communications and data sharing capabilities 
     within the Department and with other Federal, State, local, 
     tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies on matters 
     relating to border security; and
       (C) providing input to relevant bilateral agreements to 
     improve border functions, including ensuring security and 
     promoting trade and tourism.

     SEC. 502. OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS.

       (a) Establishment.--Subtitle C of title IV of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 431. OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Department an Office of Air and Marine Operations (referred 
     to in this section as the `Office').
       ``(b) Assistant Secretary.--The Office shall be headed by 
     an Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine Operations who 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate, and who shall report directly to 
     the Secretary. The Assistant Secretary shall be responsible 
     for all functions and operations of the Office.
       ``(c) Missions.--
       ``(1) Primary mission.--The primary mission of the Office 
     shall be the prevention of the entry of terrorists, other 
     unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and 
     other contraband into the United States.
       ``(2) Secondary mission.--The secondary mission of the 
     Office shall be to assist other agencies to prevent the entry 
     of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of 
     terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband into the United 
     States.
       ``(d) Air and Marine Operations Center.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office shall operate and maintain 
     the Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, 
     California, or at such other facility of the Office as is 
     designated by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Center shall provide comprehensive 
     radar, communications, and control services to the Office and 
     to eligible Federal, State, or local agencies (as determined 
     by the Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine Operations), in 
     order to identify, track, and support the interdiction and 
     apprehension of individuals attempting to enter United States 
     airspace or coastal waters for the purpose of narcotics 
     trafficking, trafficking of persons, or other terrorist or 
     criminal activity.
       ``(e) Access to Information.--The Office shall ensure that 
     other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and 
     such other Federal, State, or local agencies, as may be 
     determined by the Secretary, shall have access to the 
     information gathered and analyzed by the Center.
       ``(f) Requirement.--Beginning not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     require that all information concerning all aviation 
     activities, including all airplane, helicopter, or other 
     aircraft flights, that are undertaken by the either the 
     Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
     United States Customs and Border Protection, or any 
     subdivisions thereof, be provided to the Air and Marine 
     Operations Center. Such information shall include the 
     identifiable transponder, radar, and electronic emissions and 
     codes originating and resident aboard the aircraft or similar 
     asset used in the aviation activity.
       ``(g) Timing.--The Secretary shall require the information 
     described in subsection (f) to be provided to the Air and 
     Marine Operations Center in advance of the aviation activity 
     whenever practicable for the purpose of timely coordination 
     and conflict resolution of air missions by the Office, United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States 
     Customs and Border Protection.
       ``(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to alter, impact, diminish, or in any way 
     undermine the authority of the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to oversee, regulate, and control the 
     safe and efficient use of the airspace of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Additional assistant secretary.--Section 103(a)(9) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113(a)(9)) is 
     amended by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 101) is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 430 the following new item:

``Sec. 431. Office of Air and Marine Operations.''.

     SEC. 503. SHADOW WOLVES TRANSFER.

       (a) Transfer of Existing Unit.--Not later that 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall transfer to United States Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement all functions (including the 
     personnel, assets, and liabilities attributable to such 
     functions) of the Customs Patrol Officers unit operating on 
     the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation (commonly known as the 
     ``Shadow Wolves'' unit).
       (b) Establishment of New Units.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to establish within United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement additional units of Customs Patrol 
     Officers in accordance with this section, as appropriate.
       (c) Duties.--The Customs Patrol Officer unit transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (a), and additional units established 
     pursuant to subsection (b), shall operate on Indian lands by 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, 
     instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband 
     into the United States.
       (d) Basic Pay for Journeyman Officers.--A Customs Patrol 
     Officer in a unit described in this section shall receive 
     equivalent pay as a special agent with similar competencies 
     within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security's Human 
     Resources Management System established under section 841 of 
     the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 411).
       (e) Supervisors.--Each unit described in this section shall 
     be supervised by a Chief Customs Patrol Officer, who shall 
     have the same rank as a resident agent-in-charge of the 
     Office of Investigations within United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement.

                TITLE VI--TERRORIST AND CRIMINAL ALIENS

     SEC. 601. REMOVAL OF TERRORIST ALIENS.

       (a) Expansion of Removal.--
       (1) Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``Attorney General may not'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security may not'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or the Secretary'' after ``if the 
     Attorney General''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security'' 
     after ``if the Attorney General'';
       (ii) by striking ``or'' in clause (iii);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; or'';
       (iv) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) the alien is described in any subclause of section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(i) or section 212(a)(3)(F), unless, in the case 
     only of an alien described in subclause (IV) or (IX) of 
     section 212(a)(3)(B)(i), the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     determines, in the Secretary's discretion, that there are not 
     reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the 
     security of the United States.''; and
       (v) in the third sentence, by inserting ``or the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security'' after ``Attorney General''; and
       (vi) by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or 
     (VI)'' and inserting ``any subclause'';
       (B) by striking ``237(a)(4)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``212(a)(3)(F)''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or (IX)'' after ``subclause (IV)''.
       (3) Section 240A(c)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(4)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``inadmissible under'' and inserting 
     ``described in''; and
       (B) by striking ``deportable under'' and inserting 
     ``described in''.
       (4) Section 240B(b)(1)(C) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1229c(b)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``deportable under'' 
     and inserting ``described in''.
       (5) Section 249 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1259)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``inadmissible under'' and inserting 
     ``described in''; and
       (B) in paragraph (d), by striking ``deportable under'' and 
     inserting ``described in''.
       (b) Retroactive Application.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and sections 208(b)(2)(A), 240A, 240B, 241(b)(3), and 249 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as so amended, shall 
     apply to--
       (1) all aliens in removal, deportation, or exclusion 
     proceedings;
       (2) all applications pending on or filed after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (3) with respect to aliens and applications described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2), acts and conditions constituting a 
     ground for inadmissibility, excludability, deportation, or 
     removal occurring or existing before, on, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 602. DETENTION OF DANGEROUS ALIENS.

        (a) In General.--Section 241 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by adding after and below 
     clause (iii) the following:

     ``If, at that time, the alien is not in the custody of the 
     Secretary (under the authority of this Act), the Secretary 
     shall take the alien into custody for removal, and the 
     removal period shall not begin until the alien is taken into 
     such custody. If the Secretary transfers custody of the alien 
     during the removal period pursuant to law to another Federal 
     agency or a State or local government agency in connection 
     with the official duties of such agency, the removal period 
     shall be tolled, and shall begin anew on the date of the 
     alien's return to the custody of the Secretary.'';

[[Page H11829]]

       (3) by amending clause (ii) of subsection (a)(1)(B) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(ii) If a court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an 
     immigration judge orders a stay of the removal of the alien, 
     the date the stay of removal is no longer in effect.'';
       (4) by amending subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) Suspension of period.--The removal period shall be 
     extended beyond a period of 90 days and the alien may remain 
     in detention during such extended period if the alien fails 
     or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the 
     removal order, or to fully cooperate with the Secretary's 
     efforts to establish the alien's identity and carry out the 
     removal order, including making timely application in good 
     faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's 
     departure, or conspires or acts to prevent the alien's 
     removal subject to an order of removal.'';
       (5) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If a court orders a stay of removal of an alien 
     who is subject to an administratively final order of removal, 
     the Secretary in the exercise of discretion may detain the 
     alien during the pendency of such stay of removal.'';
       (6) in subsection (a)(3), by amending subparagraph (D) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(D) to obey reasonable restrictions on the alien's 
     conduct or activities, or perform affirmative acts, that the 
     Secretary prescribes for the alien, in order to prevent the 
     alien from absconding, or for the protection of the 
     community, or for other purposes related to the enforcement 
     of the immigration laws.'';
       (7) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``removal period and, 
     if released,'' and inserting ``removal period, in the 
     discretion of the Secretary, without any limitations other 
     than those specified in this section, until the alien is 
     removed. If an alien is released, the alien'';
       (8) by redesignating paragraph (7) of subsection (a) as 
     paragraph (10) and inserting after paragraph (6) of such 
     subsection the following new paragraphs:
       ``(7) Parole.--If an alien detained pursuant to paragraph 
     (6) is an applicant for admission, the Secretary, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, may parole the alien under section 
     212(d)(5) of this Act and may provide, notwithstanding 
     section 212(d)(5), that the alien shall not be returned to 
     custody unless either the alien violates the conditions of 
     the alien's parole or the alien's removal becomes reasonably 
     foreseeable, provided that in no circumstance shall such 
     alien be considered admitted.
       ``(8) Application of additional rules for detention or 
     release of certain aliens who have made an entry.--The 
     procedures described in subsection (j) shall only apply with 
     respect to an alien who--
       ``(A) was lawfully admitted the most recent time the alien 
     entered the United States or has otherwise effected an entry 
     into the United States, and
       ``(B) is not detained under paragraph (6).
       ``(9) Judicial review.--Without regard to the place of 
     confinement, judicial review of any action or decision 
     pursuant to paragraphs (6), (7), or (8) or subsection (j) 
     shall be available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings 
     instituted in the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia, and only if the alien has exhausted all 
     administrative remedies (statutory and regulatory) available 
     to the alien as of right.''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Additional Rules for Detention or Release of Certain 
     Aliens Who Have Made an Entry.--
       ``(1) Application.--The procedures described in this 
     subsection apply in the case of an alien described in 
     subsection (a)(8).
       ``(2) Establishment of a detention review process for 
     aliens who fully cooperate with removal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     administrative review process to determine whether the aliens 
     should be detained or released on conditions for aliens who--
       ``(i) have made all reasonable efforts to comply with their 
     removal orders;
       ``(ii) have complied with the Secretary's efforts to carry 
     out the removal orders, including making timely application 
     in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the 
     alien's departure, and
       ``(iii) have not conspired or acted to prevent removal.
       ``(B) Determination.--The Secretary shall make a 
     determination whether to release an alien after the removal 
     period in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4). The 
     determination--
       ``(i) shall include consideration of any evidence submitted 
     by the alien and the history of the alien's efforts to comply 
     with the order of removal, and
       ``(ii) may include any information or assistance provided 
     by the Department of State or other Federal agency and any 
     other information available to the Secretary pertaining to 
     the ability to remove the alien.
       ``(3) Authority to detain beyond the removal period .--
       ``(A) Initial 90 day period.--The Secretary in the exercise 
     of discretion, without any limitations other than those 
     specified in this section, may continue to detain an alien 
     for 90 days beyond the removal period (including any 
     extension of the removal period as provided in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C)).
       ``(B) Extension.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary in the exercise of 
     discretion, without any limitations other than those 
     specified in this section, may continue to detain an alien 
     beyond the 90 days authorized in subparagraph (A) if the 
     conditions described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     paragraph (4) apply.
       ``(ii) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a certification 
     under paragraph (4)(A) every six months without limitation, 
     after providing an opportunity for the alien to request 
     reconsideration of the certification and to submit documents 
     or other evidence in support of that request. If the 
     Secretary does not renew a certification, the Secretary may 
     not continue to detain the alien under such paragraph.
       ``(iii) Delegation.--Notwithstanding section 103, the 
     Secretary may not delegate the authority to make or renew a 
     certification described in clause (ii), (iii), or (v) of 
     paragraph (4)(B) below the level of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       ``(iv) Hearing.--The Secretary may request that the 
     Attorney General provide for a hearing to make the 
     determination described in clause (iv)(II) of paragraph 
     (4)(B).
       ``(4) Conditions for extension.--The conditions for 
     continuation of detention are any of the following:
       ``(A) The Secretary determines that there is a significant 
     likelihood that the alien--
       ``(i) will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future; 
     or
       ``(ii) would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
     future, or would have been removed, but for the alien's 
     failure or refusal to make all reasonable efforts to comply 
     with the removal order, or to fully cooperate with the 
     Secretary's efforts to establish the alien's identity and 
     carry out the removal order, including making timely 
     application in good faith for travel or other documents 
     necessary to the alien's departure, or conspiracies or acts 
     to prevent removal.
       ``(B) The Secretary certifies in writing any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) In consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, the alien has a highly contagious disease 
     that poses a threat to public safety.
       ``(ii) After receipt of a written recommendation from the 
     Secretary of State, the release of the alien is likely to 
     have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the 
     United States.
       ``(iii) Based on information available to the Secretary 
     (including available information from the intelligence 
     community, and without regard to the grounds upon which the 
     alien was ordered removed), there is reason to believe that 
     the release of the alien would threaten the national security 
     of the United States.
       ``(iv) The release of the alien will threaten the safety of 
     the community or any person, the conditions of release cannot 
     reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the community 
     or any person, and--

       ``(I) the alien has been convicted of one or more 
     aggravated felonies described in section 101(a)(43)(A) or of 
     one or more crimes identified by the Secretary by regulation, 
     or of one or more attempts or conspiracies to commit any such 
     aggravated felonies or such crimes, for an aggregate term of 
     imprisonment of at least five years; or
       ``(II) the alien has committed one or more crimes of 
     violence and, because of a mental condition or personality 
     disorder and behavior associated with that condition or 
     disorder, the alien is likely to engage in acts of violence 
     in the future.

       ``(v) The release of the alien will threaten the safety of 
     the community or any person, conditions of release cannot 
     reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the community 
     or any person, and the alien has been convicted of at least 
     one aggravated felony.
       ``(C) Pending a determination under subparagraph (B), so 
     long as the Secretary has initiated the administrative review 
     process no later than 30 days after the expiration of the 
     removal period (including any extension of the removal period 
     as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C)).
       ``(5) Release on conditions.--If it is determined that an 
     alien should be released from detention, the Secretary in the 
     exercise of discretion may impose conditions on release as 
     provided in subsection (a)(3).
       ``(6) Redetention.--The Secretary in the exercise of 
     discretion, without any limitations other than those 
     specified in this section, may again detain any alien subject 
     to a final removal order who is released from custody if the 
     alien fails to comply with the conditions of release or to 
     cooperate in the alien's removal from the United States, or 
     if, upon reconsideration, the Secretary determines that the 
     alien can be detained under paragraph (1). Paragraphs (6) 
     through (8) of subsection (a) shall apply to any alien 
     returned to custody pursuant to this paragraph, as if the 
     removal period terminated on the day of the redetention.
       ``(7) Certain aliens who effected entry.--If an alien has 
     effected an entry into the United States but has neither been 
     lawfully admitted nor physically present in the United States 
     continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the 
     commencement of removal proceedings under this Act or 
     deportation proceedings against the alien, the Secretary in 
     the exercise of discretion may decide not to apply subsection 
     (a)(8) and this subsection and may detain the alien without 
     any limitations except those imposed by regulation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, shall apply to--
       (1) all aliens subject to a final administrative removal, 
     deportation, or exclusion order that was issued before, on, 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) acts and conditions occurring or existing before, on, 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 603. INCREASE IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1253) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--

[[Page H11830]]

       (A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``or 212(a)'' after ``section 237(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``imprisoned not more than four years'' and 
     inserting ``imprisoned for not less than six months or more 
     than five years''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``not more than $1,000'' and inserting 
     ``under title 18, United States Code''; and
       (B) by striking ``for not more than one year'' and 
     inserting ``for not less than six months or more than five 
     years (or 10 years if the alien is a member of any class 
     described in paragraph (1)(E), (2), (3), or (4) of section 
     237(a)''.

     SEC. 604. PRECLUDING ADMISSIBILITY OF AGGRAVATED FELONS AND 
                   OTHER CRIMINALS.

       (a) Exclusion Based on Fraudulent Documentation.--Section 
     212(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subclause (II), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after subclause (II) the following new 
     subclause:

       ``(III) a violation (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) 
     an offense described in section 208 of the Social Security 
     Act or section 1028 of title 18, United States Code,''.

       (b) Exclusion Based on Aggravated Felony, Unlawful 
     Procurement of Citizenship, and Crimes of Domestic 
     Violence.--Section 212(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(J) Aggravated felony.--Any alien who is convicted of an 
     aggravated felony at any time is inadmissible.
       ``(K) Unlawful procurement of citizenship.--Any alien 
     convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits 
     committing acts which constitute the essential elements of, a 
     violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) 
     subsection (a) or (b) of section 1425 of title 18, United 
     States Code is inadmissible.
       ``(L) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation 
     of protection orders; crimes against children.--
       ``(i) Domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), any alien who 
     at any time is convicted of, or who admits having committed, 
     or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential 
     elements of, a crime of domestic violence, a crime of 
     stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child 
     abandonment is inadmissible.
       ``(II) Waiver for victims of domestic violence.--Subclause 
     (I) shall not apply to any alien described in section 
     237(a)(7)(A).
       ``(III) Crime of domestic violence defined.--For purposes 
     of subclause (I), the term `crime of domestic violence' means 
     any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, 
     United States Code) against a person committed by a current 
     or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom 
     the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is 
     cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, 
     by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person 
     under the domestic or family violence laws of the 
     jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other 
     individual against a person who is protected from that 
     individual's acts under the domestic or family violence laws 
     of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, 
     or unit of local or foreign government.

       ``(ii) Violators of protection orders.--

       ``(I) In general.--Any alien who at any time is enjoined 
     under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court 
     determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion 
     of a protection order that involves protection against 
     credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily 
     injury to the person or person for whom the protection order 
     was issued is inadmissible.
       ``(II) Protection order defined.--For purposes of subclause 
     (I), the term `protection order' means any injunction issued 
     for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of 
     domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued 
     by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child 
     custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an 
     independent action or as an independent order in another 
     proceeding.''.

       (c) Waiver Authority.--Section 212(h) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Attorney General may, in his 
     discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), 
     (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``The 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security may, 
     in the discretion of the Attorney General or such Secretary, 
     waive the application of subparagraph (A)(i)(I), (A)(i)(III), 
     (B), (D), (E), (K), and (L) of subsection (a)(2)'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) and the last sentence, 
     by inserting ``or the Secretary'' after ``Attorney General'' 
     each place it appears;
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Attorney General, in 
     his discretion,'' and inserting ``Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in the discretion of the 
     Attorney General or such Secretary,'';
       (4) in paragraph (2), by striking ``as he'' and inserting 
     ``as the Attorney General or the Secretary'';
       (5) in the second sentence, by striking ``criminal acts 
     involving torture'' and inserting ``criminal acts involving 
     torture, or an aggravated felony''; and
       (6) in the third sentence, by striking ``if either since 
     the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an 
     aggravated felony or the alien'' and inserting ``if since the 
     date of such admission the alien''.
       (d) Construction.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not be construed to create eligibility for relief from 
     removal under section 212(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, as in effect before its repeal by section 
     304(b) of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208), where such 
     eligibility did not exist before these amendments became 
     effective.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) any act that occurred before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) to all aliens who are required to establish 
     admissibility on or after the such date, and in all removal, 
     deportation, or exclusion proceedings that are filed, 
     pending, or reopened, on or after such date.

     SEC. 605. PRECLUDING REFUGEE OR ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS 
                   FOR AGGRAVATED FELONIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 209(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1159(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``However, an alien who is convicted 
     of an aggravated felony is not eligible for a waiver or for 
     adjustment of status under this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply--
       (1) to any act that occurred before, on, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) to all aliens who are required to establish 
     admissibility on or after such date, and in all removal, 
     deportation, or exclusion proceedings that are filed, 
     pending, or reopened, on or after such date.

     SEC. 606. REMOVING DRUNK DRIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including a third drunk driving conviction, 
     regardless of the States in which the convictions occurred, 
     and regardless of whether the offenses are deemed to be 
     misdemeanors or felonies under State or Federal law,'' after 
     ``offense)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to convictions entered before, on, or after 
     such date.

     SEC. 607. DESIGNATED COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Designated Counties Adjacent to the Southern Border of 
     the United States Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``designated counties adjacent to the southern international 
     border of the United States'' includes a county any part of 
     which is within 25 miles of the southern international border 
     of the United States.
       (b) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Any Sheriff or coalition or group of 
     Sheriffs from designated counties adjacent to the southern 
     international border of the United States may transfer aliens 
     detained or in the custody of the Sheriff who are not 
     lawfully present in the United States to appropriate Federal 
     law enforcement officials, and shall be promptly paid for the 
     costs of performing such transfers by the Attorney General 
     for any local or State funds previously expended or proposed 
     to be spent by that Sheriff or coalition or group of 
     Sheriffs.
       (2) Payment of costs.--Payment of costs under paragraph (1) 
     shall include payment for costs of detaining, housing, and 
     transporting aliens who are not lawfully present in the 
     United States or who have unlawfully entered the United 
     States at a location other than a port of entry and who are 
     taken into custody by the Sheriff.
       (3) Limitation to future costs.--In no case shall payment 
     be made under this section for costs incurred before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Advance payment of costs.--The Attorney General shall 
     make an advance payment under this section upon a 
     certification of anticipated costs for which payment may be 
     made under this section, but in no case shall such an advance 
     payment cover a period of costs of longer than 3 months.
       (c) Designated County Law Enforcement Account.--
       (1) Separate account.--Reimbursement or pre-payment under 
     subsection (b) shall be made promptly from funds deposited 
     into a separate account in the Treasury of the United States 
     to be entitled the ``Designated County Law Enforcement 
     Account''.
       (2) Availability of funds.--All deposits into the 
     Designated County Law Enforcement Account shall remain 
     available until expended to the Attorney General to carry out 
     the provisions of this section.
       (3) Promptly defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``promptly'' means within 60 days.
       (d) Funds for the Designated County Law Enforcement 
     Account.--Only funds designated, authorized, or appropriated 
     by Congress may be deposited or transferred to the Designated 
     County Law Enforcement Account. The Designated County Law 
     Enforcement Account is authorized to receive up to 
     $100,000,000 per year.
       (e) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds provided under this section shall be 
     payable directly to participating Sheriff's offices and may 
     be used for the transfers described in subsection (b)(1), 
     including the costs of personnel (such as overtime pay and 
     costs for reserve deputies), costs of training of such 
     personnel, equipment, and, subject to paragraph (2), the 
     construction, maintenance, and operation of detention 
     facilities to detain aliens who are unlawfully present in the 
     United States. For purposes of this section, an alien who is 
     unlawfully present in the United States shall be deemed to be 
     a Federal prisoner beginning upon determination by Federal 
     law enforcement officials that such alien is unlawfully

[[Page H11831]]

     present in the United States, and such alien shall, upon such 
     determination, be deemed to be in Federal custody. In order 
     for costs to be eligible for payment, the Sheriff making such 
     application shall personally certify under oath that all 
     costs submitted in the application for reimbursement or 
     advance payment meet the requirements of this section and are 
     reasonable and necessary, and such certification shall be 
     subject to all State and Federal laws governing statements 
     made under oath, including the penalties of perjury, removal 
     from office, and prosecution under State and Federal law.
       (2) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the amount of 
     funds provided under this section may be used for the 
     construction or renovation of detention or similar 
     facilities.
       (f) Disposition and Delivery of Detained Aliens.--All 
     aliens detained or taken into custody by a Sheriff under this 
     section and with respect to whom Federal law enforcement 
     officials determine are unlawfully present in the United 
     States, shall be immediately delivered to Federal law 
     enforcement officials. In accordance with subsection (e)(1), 
     an alien who is in the custody of a Sheriff shall be deemed 
     to be a Federal prisoner and in Federal custody.
       (g) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall issue, on an 
     interim final basis, regulations not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) governing the distribution of funds under this section 
     for all reasonable and necessary costs and other expenses 
     incurred or proposed to be incurred by a Sheriff or coalition 
     or group of Sheriffs under this section; and
       (2) providing uniform standards that all other Federal law 
     enforcement officials shall follow to cooperate with such 
     Sheriffs and to otherwise implement the requirements of this 
     section.
       (h) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect on its enactment. The promulgation of any 
     regulations under subsection (g) is not a necessary 
     precondition to the immediate deployment or work of Sheriffs 
     personnel or corrections officers as authorized by this 
     section. Any reasonable and necessary expenses or costs 
     authorized by this section and incurred by such Sheriffs 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act but prior to the 
     date of the promulgation of such regulations are eligible for 
     reimbursement under the terms and conditions of this section.
       (i) Audit.--All funds paid out under this section are 
     subject to audit by the Inspector General of the Department 
     of Justice and abuse or misuse of such funds shall be 
     vigorously investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of 
     Federal law.
       (j) Supplemental Funding.--All funds paid out under this 
     section must supplement, and may not supplant, State or local 
     funds used for the same or similar purposes.

     SEC. 608. RENDERING INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS 
                   PARTICIPATING IN CRIMINAL STREET GANGS; 
                   DETENTION; INELIGIBILITY FROM PROTECTION FROM 
                   REMOVAL AND ASYLUM.

       (a) Inadmissible.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)), as amended by section 
     604(b), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(M) Criminal street gang participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is inadmissible if the alien 
     has been removed under section 237(a)(2)(F), or if the 
     consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, 
     or has reasonable ground to believe that the alien--

       ``(I) is a member of a criminal street gang and has 
     committed, conspired, or threatened to commit, or seeks to 
     enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or 
     incidentally in, a gang crime or any other unlawful activity; 
     or
       ``(II) is a member of a criminal street gang designated 
     under section 219A.

       ``(ii) Criminal street gang defined.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `criminal street gang' means a formal 
     or informal group or association of 3 or more individuals, 
     who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of which is a crime of 
     violence, as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States 
     Code) in 2 or more separate criminal episodes in relation to 
     the group or association.
       ``(iii) Gang crime defined.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `gang crime' means conduct 
     constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by 
     imprisonment for one year or more, in any of the following 
     categories:

       ``(I) A crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code).
       ``(II) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering 
     with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, 
     or burglary.
       ``(III) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, 
     distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or 
     otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed 
     chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       ``(IV) Any conduct punishable under section 844 of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to explosive materials), 
     subsection (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a 
     violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of such 
     title) or is a serious drug offense (as defined in section 
     924(e)(2)(A)), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of 
     section 922 of such title (relating to unlawful acts), or 
     subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of 
     section 924 of such title (relating to penalties), section 
     930 of such title (relating to possession of firearms and 
     dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 of such 
     title (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body 
     armor by violent felons), sections 1028 and 1029 of such 
     title (relating to fraud and related activity in connection 
     with identification documents or access devices), section 
     1952 of such title (relating to interstate and foreign travel 
     or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), 
     section 1956 of such title (relating to the laundering of 
     monetary instruments), section 1957 of such title (relating 
     to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from 
     specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 
     of such title (relating to interstate transportation of 
     stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).
       ``(V) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to 
     bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 
     (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 
     United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 
     alien for immoral purpose) of this Act.''.

       (b) Deportable.--Section 237(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Criminal street gang participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is deportable who--

       ``(I) is a member of a criminal street gang and is 
     convicted of committing, or conspiring, threatening, or 
     attempting to commit, a gang crime; or
       ``(II) is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     to be a member of a criminal street gang designated under 
     section 219A.

       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     terms `criminal street gang' and `gang crime' have the 
     meaning given such terms in section 212(a)(2)(M).''.
       (c) Designation of Criminal Street Gangs.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:


                 ``DESIGNATION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

       ``Sec. 219A. (a) Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     designate a group or association as a criminal street gang in 
     accordance with this subsection if the Attorney General finds 
     that the group or association meets the criteria described in 
     section 212(a)(2)(M)(ii)(I).
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) Notice.--
       ``(i) To congressional leaders.--Seven days before making a 
     designation under this subsection, the Attorney General shall 
     notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 
     of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of 
     the intent to designate a group or association under this 
     subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to that group or association, and the 
     factual basis therefor.
       ``(ii) Publication in federal register.--The Attorney shall 
     publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days 
     after providing the notification under clause (i).
       ``(B) Effect of designation.--
       ``(i) A designation under this subsection shall take effect 
     upon publication under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(ii) Any designation under this subsection shall cease to 
     have effect upon an Act of Congress disapproving such 
     designation.
       ``(3) Record.--In making a designation under this 
     subsection, the Attorney General shall create an 
     administrative record.
       ``(4) Period of designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A designation under this subsection 
     shall be effective for all purposes until revoked under 
     paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall review the 
     designation of a criminal street gang under the procedures 
     set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated gang or 
     association files a petition for revocation within the 
     petition period described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--

       ``(I) if the designated gang or association has not 
     previously filed a petition for revocation under this 
     subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the 
     date on which the designation was made; or
       ``(II) if the designated gang or association has previously 
     filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the 
     petition period begins 2 years after the date of the 
     determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.

       ``(iii) Procedures.--Any criminal street gang that submits 
     a petition for revocation under this subparagraph must 
     provide evidence in that petition that the relevant 
     circumstances described in paragraph (1) are sufficiently 
     different from the circumstances that were the basis for the 
     designation such that a revocation with respect to the gang 
     is warranted.
       ``(iv) Determination.--

       ``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving 
     a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph, 
     the Attorney General shall make a determination as to such 
     revocation.
       ``(II) Publication of determination.--A determination made 
     by the Attorney General under this clause shall be published 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(III) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Attorney General 
     shall be made in accordance with paragraph (6).

       ``(C) Other review of designation.--
       ``(i) In general.--If in a 5-year period no review has 
     taken place under subparagraph (B), the Attorney General 
     shall review the designation of the criminal street gang in 
     order to determine whether such designation should be revoked 
     pursuant to paragraph (6).
       ``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for 
     revocation that is filed in accordance with that 
     subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to 
     procedures established by the Attorney General. The results 
     of such review and the applicable procedures shall not be 
     reviewable in any court.

[[Page H11832]]

       ``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Attorney 
     General shall publish any determination made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register.
       ``(5) Revocation by act of congress.--The Congress, by an 
     Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(6) Revocation based on change in circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Attorney General may revoke a 
     designation made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall 
     revoke a designation upon completion of a review conducted 
     pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the 
     Attorney General finds that the circumstances that were the 
     basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to 
     warrant revocation.
       ``(B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements of paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph. 
     Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the 
     revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no 
     effective date is specified.
       ``(7) Effect of revocation.--The revocation of a 
     designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any 
     action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the 
     effective date of such revocation.
       ``(8) Use of designation in hearing.--If a designation 
     under this subsection has become effective under paragraph 
     (2)(B) an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be 
     permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of 
     the issuance of such designation as a defense or an objection 
     at any hearing.
       ``(b) Judicial Review of Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after publication 
     of the designation in the Federal Register, a group or 
     association designated as a criminal street gang may seek 
     judicial review of the designation in the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       ``(2) Basis of review.--Review under this subsection shall 
     be based solely upon the administrative record.
       ``(3) Scope of review.--The Court shall hold unlawful and 
     set aside a designation the court finds to be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law;
       ``(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, 
     or immunity;
       ``(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or 
     limitation, or short of statutory right;
       ``(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative 
     record taken as a whole; or
       ``(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
       ``(4) Judicial review invoked.--The pendency of an action 
     for judicial review of a designation shall not affect the 
     application of this section, unless the court issues a final 
     order setting aside the designation.
       ``(c) Relevant Committee Defined.--As used in this section, 
     the term `relevant committees' means the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Senate.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 219 the following:

``Sec. 219A. Designation of criminal street gangs.''.

       (d) Mandatory Detention of Criminal Street Gang Members.--
       (1) In general.--Section 236(c)(1)(D) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(D)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or 212(a)(2)(M)'' after 
     ``212(a)(3)(B)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``237(a)(2)(F) or'' before 
     ``237(a)(4)(B)''.
       (2) Annual report.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     (beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 
     with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit a report 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate on the number of aliens 
     detained under the amendments made by paragraph (1).
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments 
     made by this subsection are effective as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to aliens detained on 
     or after such date.
       (e) Ineligibility of Alien Street Gang Members From 
     Protection From Removal and Asylum.--
       (1) Inapplicability of restriction on removal to certain 
     countries.--Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3)(B)) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``who is described 
     in section 212(a)(2)(M)(i) or section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) or who 
     is'' after ``to an alien''.
       (2) Ineligibility for asylum.--Section 208(b)(2)(A) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) the alien is described in section 212(a)(2)(M)(i) or 
     section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) (relating to participation in 
     criminal street gangs); or''.
       (3) Denial of review of determination of ineligibility for 
     temporary protected status.--Section 244(c)(2) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Limitation on judicial review.--There shall be no 
     judicial review of any finding under subparagraph (B) that an 
     alien is in described in section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi).''.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     are effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall 
     apply to all applications pending on or after such date.
       (f) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by this section are effective as of the date 
     of enactment and shall apply to all pending cases in which no 
     final administrative action has been entered.

     SEC. 609. NATURALIZATION REFORM.

       (a) Barring Terrorists From Naturalization.--Section 316 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) No person shall be naturalized who the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines, in the Secretary's discretion, 
     to have been at any time an alien described in section 
     212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4). Such determination may be based upon 
     any relevant information or evidence, including classified, 
     sensitive, or national security information, and shall be 
     binding upon, and unreviewable by, any court exercising 
     jurisdiction under the immigration laws over any application 
     for naturalization, regardless whether such jurisdiction to 
     review a decision or action of the Secretary is de novo or 
     otherwise.''.
       (b) Concurrent Naturalization and Removal Proceedings.--The 
     last sentence of section 318 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1429) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall be considered by the Attorney 
     General'' and inserting ``shall be considered by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security or any court'';
       (2) by striking ``pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued 
     under the provisions of this or any other Act:'' and 
     inserting ``or other proceeding to determine the applicant's 
     inadmissibility or deportability, or to determine whether the 
     applicant's lawful permanent resident status should be 
     rescinded, regardless of when such proceeding was 
     commenced:''; and
       (3) by striking ``upon the Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``upon the Secretary of Homeland Security''.
       (c) Pending Denaturalization or Removal Proceedings.--
     Section 204(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``No petition shall be 
     approved pursuant to this section if there is any 
     administrative or judicial proceeding (whether civil or 
     criminal) pending against the petitioner that could (whether 
     directly or indirectly) result in the petitioner's 
     denaturalization or the loss of the petitioner's lawful 
     permanent resident status.''.
       (d) Conditional Permanent Residents.--Section 216(e) and 
     section 216A(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a(e), 1186b(e)) are 
     each amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, if the alien has had the conditional basis 
     removed under this section''.
       (e) District Court Jurisdiction.--Section 336(b) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1447(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) If there is a failure to render a final 
     administrative decision under section 335 before the end of 
     the 180-day period after the date on which the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security completes all examinations and interviews 
     conducted under such section, as such terms are defined by 
     the Secretary pursuant to regulations, the applicant may 
     apply to the district court for the district in which the 
     applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court 
     shall only have jurisdiction to review the basis for delay 
     and remand the matter to the Secretary for the Secretary's 
     determination on the application.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 310(c) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1421(c)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, no later than the date that is 120 
     days after the Secretary's final determination'' before 
     ``seek''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The burden shall be upon the petitioner to show 
     that the Secretary's denial of the application was not 
     supported by facially legitimate and bona fide reasons. 
     Except in a proceeding under section 340, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including 
     section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other 
     habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such 
     title, no court shall have jurisdiction to determine, or to 
     review a determination of the Secretary made at any time 
     regarding, for purposes of an application for naturalization, 
     whether an alien is a person of good moral character, whether 
     an alien understands and is attached to the principles of the 
     Constitution of the United States, or whether an alien is 
     well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United 
     States.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     shall apply to any act that occurred before, on, or after 
     such date, and shall apply to any application for 
     naturalization or any other case or matter under the 
     immigration laws pending on, or filed on or after, such date.

     SEC. 610. EXPEDITED REMOVAL FOR ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON 
                   CRIMINAL OR SECURITY GROUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 238(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1228(b)) is amended-
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of 
     discretion''; and
       (B) by striking ``set forth in this subsection or'' and 
     inserting ``set forth in this subsection, in lieu of removal 
     proceedings under'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraph (1) until 14 
     calendar days'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (3) until 7 
     calendar days'';
       (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears 
     in paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Homeland Security'';
       (4) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``described in this section'' and inserting 
     ``described in paragraph (1) or (2)''; and
       (B) by striking ``the Attorney General may grant in the 
     Attorney General's discretion'' and

[[Page H11833]]

     inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Attorney General may grant, in the discretion of the 
     Secretary or Attorney General, in any proceeding'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of 
     discretion may determine inadmissibility under section 
     212(a)(2) (relating to criminal offenses) and issue an order 
     of removal pursuant to the procedures set forth in this 
     subsection, in lieu of removal proceedings under section 240, 
     with respect to an alien who
       ``(A) has not been admitted or paroled;
       ``(B) has not been found to have a credible fear of 
     persecution pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 
     235(b)(1)(B); and
       ``(C) is not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or 
     relief from removal.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     but shall not apply to aliens who are in removal proceedings 
     under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
     of such date

     SEC. 611. TECHNICAL CORRECTION FOR EFFECTIVE DATE IN CHANGE 
                   IN INADMISSIBILITY FOR TERRORISTS UNDER REAL ID 
                   ACT.

       Effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 
     109-13, section 103(d)(1) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 
     (division B of such Public Law) is amended by inserting ``, 
     deportation, and exclusion'' after ``removal''.

     SEC. 612. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(f) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) one who the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Attorney General determines, in the unreviewable discretion 
     of the Secretary or the Attorney General, to have been at any 
     time an alien described in section 212(a)(3) or section 
     237(a)(4), which determination may be based upon any relevant 
     information or evidence, including classified, sensitive, or 
     national security information, and which shall be binding 
     upon any court regardless of the applicable standard of 
     review;'';
       (2) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``, regardless whether 
     the crime was classified as an aggravated felony at the time 
     of conviction'' after ``(as defined in subsection (a)(43))''; 
     and
       (3) by striking the sentence following paragraph (9) and 
     inserting the following: ``The fact that any person is not 
     within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a 
     discretionary finding for other reasons that such a person is 
     or was not of good moral character. The Secretary and the 
     Attorney General shall not be limited to the applicant's 
     conduct during the period for which good moral character is 
     required, but may take into consideration as a basis for 
     determination the applicant's conduct and acts at any 
     time.''.
       (b) Aggravated Felony Effective Date.--Section 509(b) of 
     the Immigration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-649), as amended 
     by section 306(a)(7) of the Miscellaneous and Technical 
     Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (Public Law 
     102-232) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on November 29, 1990, and shall apply to 
     convictions occurring before, on, or after such date.''.
       (c) Technical Correction to the Intelligence Reform Act.--
     Effective as if included in the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
     458), section 5504(2) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``adding at the end'' and inserting ``inserting immediately 
     after paragraph (8)''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a) and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, shall apply to any act that occurred before, on, or 
     after such date, and shall apply to any application for 
     naturalization or any other benefit or relief or any other 
     case or matter under the immigration laws pending on, or 
     filed on or after, such date.

     SEC. 613. STRENGTHENING DEFINITIONS OF ``AGGRAVATED FELONY'' 
                   AND ``CONVICTION''.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (A) of paragraph (43) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(A) murder, manslaughter, homicide, rape, or any sexual 
     abuse of a minor, whether or not the minority of the victim 
     is established by evidence contained in the record of 
     conviction or by evidence extrinsic to the record of 
     conviction;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (48)(A), by inserting after and below 
     clause (ii) the following:

     ``Any reversal, vacatur, expungement, or modification to a 
     conviction, sentence, or conviction record that was granted 
     to ameliorate the consequences of the conviction, sentence, 
     or conviction record, or was granted for rehabilitative 
     purposes, or for failure to advise the alien of the 
     immigration consequences of a guilty plea or a determination 
     of guilt, shall have no effect on the immigration 
     consequences resulting from the original conviction. The 
     alien shall have the burden of demonstrating that the 
     reversal, vacatur, expungement, or modification was not 
     granted to ameliorate the consequences of the conviction, 
     sentence, or conviction record, for rehabilitative purposes, 
     or for failure to advise the alien of the immigration 
     consequences of a guilty plea or a determination of guilt.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any act that occurred before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any 
     matter under the immigration laws pending on, or filed on or 
     after, such date.

     SEC. 614. DEPORTABILITY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 237(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by inserting ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iv) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to 
     violate, subsection (a) or (b) of section 1425 of title 18, 
     United States Code,''.
       (b) Deportability; Criminal Offenses.--Section 237(a)(2) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)), as amended by section 608(b), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(G) Social security and identification fraud.--Any alien 
     who at any time after admission is convicted of a violation 
     of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) an offense 
     described in section 208 of the Social Security Act or 
     section 1028 of title 18, United States Code is 
     deportable.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any act that occurred before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and to all aliens who are 
     required to establish admissibility on or after such date and 
     in all removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings that 
     are filed, pending, or reopened, on or after such date.

             TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

     SEC. 701. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(7) Employment eligibility verification system.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     establish and administer a verification system through which 
     the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary, which may be a 
     nongovernmental entity)--
       ``(i) responds to inquiries made by persons at any time 
     through a toll-free telephone line and other toll-free 
     electronic media concerning an individual's identity and 
     whether the individual is authorized to be employed; and
       ``(ii) maintains records of the inquiries that were made, 
     of verifications provided (or not provided), and of the codes 
     provided to inquirers as evidence of their compliance with 
     their obligations under this section.
       ``(B) Initial response.--The verification system shall 
     provide verification or a tentative nonverification of an 
     individual's identity and employment eligibility within 3 
     working days of the initial inquiry. If providing 
     verification or tentative nonverification, the verification 
     system shall provide an appropriate code indicating such 
     verification or such nonverification.
       ``(C) Secondary verification process in case of tentative 
     nonverification.--In cases of tentative nonverification, the 
     Secretary shall specify, in consultation with the 
     Commissioner of Social Security, an available secondary 
     verification process to confirm the validity of information 
     provided and to provide a final verification or 
     nonverification within 10 working days after the date of the 
     tentative nonverification. When final verification or 
     nonverification is provided, the verification system shall 
     provide an appropriate code indicating such verification or 
     nonverification.
       ``(D) Design and operation of system.--The verification 
     system shall be designed and operated--
       ``(i) to maximize its reliability and ease of use by 
     persons and other entities consistent with insulating and 
     protecting the privacy and security of the underlying 
     information;
       ``(ii) to respond to all inquiries made by such persons and 
     entities on whether individuals are authorized to be employed 
     and to register all times when such inquiries are not 
     received;
       ``(iii) with appropriate administrative, technical, and 
     physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of 
     personal information; and
       ``(iv) to have reasonable safeguards against the system's 
     resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices based on 
     national origin or citizenship status, including--

       ``(I) the selective or unauthorized use of the system to 
     verify eligibility;
       ``(II) the use of the system prior to an offer of 
     employment; or
       ``(III) the exclusion of certain individuals from 
     consideration for employment as a result of a perceived 
     likelihood that additional verification will be required, 
     beyond what is required for most job applicants.

       ``(E) Responsibilities of the commissioner of social 
     security.--As part of the verification system, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (and any designee of the 
     Secretary selected to establish and administer the 
     verification system), shall establish a reliable, secure 
     method, which, within the time periods specified under 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), compares the name and social 
     security account number provided in an inquiry against such 
     information maintained by the Commissioner in order to 
     validate (or not validate) the information provided regarding 
     an individual whose identity and employment eligibility must 
     be confirmed, the correspondence of the name and number, and 
     whether the individual has presented a social security 
     account number that is not valid for employment. The 
     Commissioner shall not disclose or release social security 
     information (other than such verification or nonverification) 
     except as provided for in this section or section 
     205(c)(2)(I) of the Social Security Act.

[[Page H11834]]

       ``(F) Responsibilities of the secretary of homeland 
     security.--(i) As part of the verification system, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (in consultation with any 
     designee of the Secretary selected to establish and 
     administer the verification system), shall establish a 
     reliable, secure method, which, within the time periods 
     specified under subparagraphs (B) and (C), compares the name 
     and alien identification or authorization number which are 
     provided in an inquiry against such information maintained by 
     the Secretary in order to validate (or not validate) the 
     information provided, the correspondence of the name and 
     number, and whether the alien is authorized to be employed in 
     the United States.
       ``(ii) When a single employer has submitted to the 
     verification system pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) the 
     identical social security account number in more than one 
     instance, or when multiple employers have submitted to the 
     verification system pursuant to such paragraph the identical 
     social security account number, in a manner which indicates 
     the possible fraudulent use of that number, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall conduct an investigation, within the 
     time periods specified in subparagraphs (B) and (C), in order 
     to ensure that no fraudulent use of a social security account 
     number has taken place. If the Secretary has selected a 
     designee to establish and administer the verification system, 
     the designee shall notify the Secretary when a single 
     employer has submitted to the verification system pursuant to 
     paragraph (3)(A) the identical social security account number 
     in more than one instance, or when multiple employers have 
     submitted to the verification system pursuant to such 
     paragraph the identical social security account number, in a 
     manner which indicates the possible fraudulent use of that 
     number. The designee shall also provide the Secretary with 
     all pertinent information, including the name and address of 
     the employer or employers who submitted the relevant social 
     security account number, the relevant social security account 
     number submitted by the employer or employers, and the 
     relevant name and date of birth of the employee submitted by 
     the employer or employers.
       ``(G) Updating information.--The Commissioner of Social 
     Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall update 
     their information in a manner that promotes the maximum 
     accuracy and shall provide a process for the prompt 
     correction of erroneous information, including instances in 
     which it is brought to their attention in the secondary 
     verification process described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(H) Limitation on use of the verification system and any 
     related systems.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit 
     or allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the 
     United States Government to utilize any information, data 
     base, or other records assembled under this paragraph for any 
     other purpose other than as provided for.
       ``(ii) No national identification card.--Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to authorize, directly or 
     indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification 
     cards or the establishment of a national identification card.
       ``(I) Federal tort claims act.--If an individual alleges 
     that the individual would not have been dismissed from a job 
     but for an error of the verification mechanism, the 
     individual may seek compensation only through the mechanism 
     of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and injunctive relief to 
     correct such error. No class action may be brought under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(J) Protection from liability for actions taken on the 
     basis of information.--No person or entity shall be civilly 
     or criminally liable for any action taken in good faith 
     reliance on information provided through the employment 
     eligibility verification mechanism established under this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Repeal of Provision Relating to Evaluations and Changes 
     in Employment Verification.--Section 274A(d) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a(d)) is repealed.

     SEC. 702. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PROCESS.

       Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``(A)'' after 
     ``Defense.--'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Failure to seek and obtain verification.--In the case 
     of a person or entity in the United States that hires, or 
     continues to employ, an individual, or recruits or refers an 
     individual for employment, the following requirements apply:
       ``(i) Failure to seek verification.--
       ``(I) In general.--If the person or entity has not made an 
     inquiry, under the mechanism established under subsection 
     (b)(7), seeking verification of the identity and work 
     eligibility of the individual, by not later than the end of 3 
     working days (as specified by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security) after the date of the hiring, the date specified in 
     subsection (b)(8)(B) for previously hired individuals, or 
     before the recruiting or referring commences, the defense 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not be considered to apply with 
     respect to any employment, except as provided in subclause 
     (II).
       ``(II) Special rule for failure of verification 
     mechanism.--If such a person or entity in good faith attempts 
     to make an inquiry in order to qualify for the defense under 
     subparagraph (A) and the verification mechanism has 
     registered that not all inquiries were responded to during 
     the relevant time, the person or entity can make an inquiry 
     until the end of the first subsequent working day in which 
     the verification mechanism registers no nonresponses and 
     qualify for such defense.
       ``(ii) Failure to obtain verification.--If the person or 
     entity has made the inquiry described in clause (i)(I) but 
     has not received an appropriate verification of such identity 
     and work eligibility under such mechanism within the time 
     period specified under subsection (b)(7)(B) after the time 
     the verification inquiry was received, the defense under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be considered to apply with 
     respect to any employment after the end of such time 
     period.'';
       (2) by amending subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(1) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The person or entity must attest, under 
     penalty of perjury and on a form designated or established by 
     the Secretary by regulation, that it has verified that the 
     individual is not an unauthorized alien by--
       ``(i) obtaining from the individual the individual's social 
     security account number and recording the number on the form 
     (if the individual claims to have been issued such a number), 
     and, if the individual does not attest to United States 
     citizenship under paragraph (2), obtaining such 
     identification or authorization number established by the 
     Department of Homeland Security for the alien as the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may specify, and recording 
     such number on the form; and
       ``(ii)(I) examining a document described in subparagraph 
     (B); or (II) examining a document described in subparagraph 
     (C) and a document described in subparagraph (D).

     A person or entity has complied with the requirement of this 
     paragraph with respect to examination of a document if the 
     document reasonably appears on its face to be genuine, 
     reasonably appears to pertain to the individual whose 
     identity and work eligibility is being verified, and, if the 
     document bears an expiration date, that expiration date has 
     not elapsed. If an individual provides a document (or 
     combination of documents) that reasonably appears on its face 
     to be genuine, reasonably appears to pertain to the 
     individual whose identity and work eligibility is being 
     verified, and is sufficient to meet the first sentence of 
     this paragraph, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed 
     as requiring the person or entity to solicit the production 
     of any other document or as requiring the individual to 
     produce another document.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)(D)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``or such other personal 
     identification information relating to the individual as the 
     Attorney General finds, by regulation, sufficient for 
     purposes of this section''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting before the period ``and 
     that contains a photograph of the individual'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The individual must also provide that 
     individual's social security account number (if the 
     individual claims to have been issued such a number), and, if 
     the individual does not attest to United States citizenship 
     under this paragraph, such identification or authorization 
     number established by the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the alien as the Secretary may specify.''; and
       (5) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (b) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Retention of verification form and verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--After completion of such form in 
     accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), the person or entity 
     must--
       ``(i) retain a paper, microfiche, microfilm, or electronic 
     version of the form and make it available for inspection by 
     officers of the Department of Homeland Security, the Special 
     Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, 
     or the Department of Labor during a period beginning on the 
     date of the hiring, recruiting, or referral of the individual 
     or the date of the completion of verification of a previously 
     hired individual and ending--

       ``(I) in the case of the recruiting or referral of an 
     individual, three years after the date of the recruiting or 
     referral;
       ``(II) in the case of the hiring of an individual, the 
     later of--

       ``(aa) three years after the date of such hiring; or
       ``(bb) one year after the date the individual's employment 
     is terminated; and

       ``(III) in the case of the verification of a previously 
     hired individual, the later of--

       ``(aa) three years after the date of the completion of 
     verification; or
       ``(bb) one year after the date the individual's employment 
     is terminated;
       ``(ii) make an inquiry, as provided in paragraph (7), using 
     the verification system to seek verification of the identity 
     and employment eligibility of an individual, by not later 
     than the end of 3 working days (as specified by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security) after the date of the hiring or in the 
     case of previously hired individuals, the date specified in 
     subsection (b)(8)(B), or before the recruiting or referring 
     commences; and
       ``(iii) may not commence recruitment or referral of the 
     individual until the person or entity receives verification 
     under subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(iii).
       ``(B) Verification.--
       ``(i) Verification received.--If the person or other entity 
     receives an appropriate verification of an individual's 
     identity and work eligibility under the verification system 
     within the time period specified, the person or entity shall 
     record on the form an appropriate code that is provided under 
     the system and that indicates a final verification of such 
     identity and work eligibility of the individual.
       ``(ii) Tentative nonverification received.--If the person 
     or other entity receives a tentative nonverification of an 
     individual's identity or work eligibility under the 
     verification system within the time period specified, the 
     person or entity shall so inform the individual for whom the 
     verification is sought. If the individual does

[[Page H11835]]

     not contest the nonverification within the time period 
     specified, the nonverification shall be considered final. The 
     person or entity shall then record on the form an appropriate 
     code which has been provided under the system to indicate a 
     tentative nonverification. If the individual does contest the 
     nonverification, the individual shall utilize the process for 
     secondary verification provided under paragraph (7). The 
     nonverification will remain tentative until a final 
     verification or nonverification is provided by the 
     verification system within the time period specified. In no 
     case shall an employer terminate employment of an individual 
     because of a failure of the individual to have identity and 
     work eligibility confirmed under this section until a 
     nonverification becomes final. Nothing in this clause shall 
     apply to a termination of employment for any reason other 
     than because of such a failure.
       ``(iii) Final verification or nonverification received.--If 
     a final verification or nonverification is provided by the 
     verification system regarding an individual, the person or 
     entity shall record on the form an appropriate code that is 
     provided under the system and that indicates a verification 
     or nonverification of identity and work eligibility of the 
     individual.
       ``(iv) Extension of time.--If the person or other entity in 
     good faith attempts to make an inquiry during the time period 
     specified and the verification system has registered that not 
     all inquiries were received during such time, the person or 
     entity may make an inquiry in the first subsequent working 
     day in which the verification system registers that it has 
     received all inquiries. If the verification system cannot 
     receive inquiries at all times during a day, the person or 
     entity merely has to assert that the entity attempted to make 
     the inquiry on that day for the previous sentence to apply to 
     such an inquiry, and does not have to provide any additional 
     proof concerning such inquiry.
       ``(v) Consequences of nonverification.--

       ``(I) Termination or notification of continued 
     employment.--If the person or other entity has received a 
     final nonverification regarding an individual, the person or 
     entity may terminate employment of the individual (or decline 
     to recruit or refer the individual). If the person or entity 
     does not terminate employment of the individual or proceeds 
     to recruit or refer the individual, the person or entity 
     shall notify the Secretary of Homeland Security of such fact 
     through the verification system or in such other manner as 
     the Secretary may specify.
       ``(II) Failure to notify.--If the person or entity fails to 
     provide notice with respect to an individual as required 
     under subclause (I), the failure is deemed to constitute a 
     violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) with respect to that 
     individual.

       ``(vi) Continued employment after final nonverification.--
     If the person or other entity continues to employ (or to 
     recruit or refer) an individual after receiving final 
     nonverification, a rebuttable presumption is created that the 
     person or entity has violated subsection (a)(1)(A).''.

     SEC. 703. EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION 
                   SYSTEM TO PREVIOUSLY HIRED INDIVIDUALS AND 
                   RECRUITING AND REFERRING.

       (a) Application to Recruiting and Referring.--Section 274A 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``for a fee'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1), by amending subparagraph (B) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) to hire, continue to employ, or to recruit or refer 
     for employment in the United States an individual without 
     complying with the requirements of subsection (b).'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``after hiring an 
     alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1),'' and 
     inserting ``after complying with paragraph (1),''; and
       (4) in subsection (a)(3), as amended by section 702, is 
     further amended by striking ``hiring,'' and inserting 
     ``hiring, employing,'' each place it appears.
       (b) Employment Eligibility Verification for Previously 
     Hired Individuals.--Section 274A(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a(b)), as amended by section 701(a), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Use of employment eligibility verification system for 
     previously hired individuals.--
       ``(A) On a voluntary basis.--Beginning on the date that is 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of the Border 
     Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control 
     Act of 2005 and until the date specified in subparagraph 
     (B)(iii), a person or entity may make an inquiry, as provided 
     in paragraph (7), using the verification system to seek 
     verification of the identity and employment eligibility of 
     any individual employed by the person or entity, as long as 
     it is done on a nondiscriminatory basis.
       ``(B) On a mandatory basis.--
       ``(i) A person or entity described in clause (ii) must make 
     an inquiry as provided in paragraph (7), using the 
     verification system to seek verification of the identity and 
     employment eligibility of all individuals employed by the 
     person or entity who have not been previously subject to an 
     inquiry by the person or entity by the date three years after 
     the date of enactment of the Border Protection, 
     Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
       ``(ii) A person or entity is described in this clause if it 
     is a Federal, State, or local governmental body (including 
     the Armed Forces of the United States), or if it employs 
     individuals working in a location that is a Federal, State, 
     or local government building, a military base, a nuclear 
     energy site, a weapon site, an airport, or that contains 
     critical infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the 
     Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 
     5195c(e))), but only to the extent of such individuals.
       ``(iii) All persons and entities other than those described 
     in clause (ii) must make an inquiry, as provided in paragraph 
     (7), using the verification system to seek verification of 
     the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals 
     employed by the person or entity who have not been previously 
     subject to an inquiry by the person or entity by the date six 
     years after the date of enactment of the Border Protection, 
     Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 
     2005.''.

     SEC. 704. BASIC PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is 
     amended by striking ``at the end of the 11-year period 
     beginning on the first day the pilot program is in effect'' 
     and inserting ``two years after the enactment of the Border 
     Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 705. HIRING HALLS.

       Section 274A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Definition of recruit or refer.--As used in this 
     section, the term `refer' means the act of sending or 
     directing a person or transmitting documentation or 
     information to another, directly or indirectly, with the 
     intent of obtaining employment in the United States for such 
     person. Generally, only persons or entities referring for 
     remuneration (whether on a retainer or contingency basis) are 
     included in the definition. However, union hiring halls that 
     refer union members or nonunion individuals who pay union 
     membership dues are included in the definition whether or not 
     they receive remuneration, as are labor service agencies, 
     whether public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit, that 
     refer, dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of 
     laborers for any period of time by a third party. As used in 
     this section the term `recruit' means the act of soliciting a 
     person, directly or indirectly, and referring the person to 
     another with the intent of obtaining employment for that 
     person. Generally, only persons or entities recruiting for 
     remunerations (whether on a retainer or contingency basis) 
     are included in the definition. However, union hiring halls 
     that refer union members or nonunion individuals who pay 
     union membership dues are included in this definition whether 
     or not they receive remuneration, as are labor service 
     agencies, whether public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit 
     that recruit, dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of 
     laborers for any period of time by a third party.''.

     SEC. 706. PENALTIES.

       Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter before clause (i), 
     by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (10),'' after ``in an 
     amount'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``not less than 
     $250 and not more than $2,000'' and inserting ``not less than 
     $5,000'';
       (C) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``not less than 
     $2,000 and not more than $5,000'' and inserting ``not less 
     than $10,000'';
       (D) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``not less than 
     $3,000 and not more than $10,000'' and inserting ``not less 
     than $25,000''; and
       (E) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) may require the person or entity to take such other 
     remedial action as is appropriate.'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(5)--
       (A) by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (10),'' after 
     ``in an amount'';
       (B) by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$1,000'';
       (C) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$25,000'';
       (D) by striking ``the size of the business of the employer 
     being charged, the good faith of the employer'' and inserting 
     ``the good faith of the employer being charged''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following sentence: ``Failure 
     by a person or entity to utilize the employment eligibility 
     verification system as required by law, or providing 
     information to the system that the person or entity knows or 
     reasonably believes to be false, shall be treated as a 
     violation of subsection (a)(1)(A).'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(10) Mitigation of civil money penalties for smaller 
     employers.--In the case of imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (4)(A) with respect to a violation of 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) for hiring or continuation of 
     employment by an employer and in the case of imposition of a 
     civil penalty under paragraph (5) for a violation of 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) for hiring by an employer, the dollar 
     amounts otherwise specified in the respective paragraph shall 
     be reduced as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of an employer with an average of fewer 
     than 26 full-time equivalent employees (as defined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security), the amounts shall be reduced 
     by 60 percent.
       ``(B) In the case of an employer with an average of at 
     least 26, but fewer than 101, full-time equivalent employees 
     (as so defined), the amounts shall be reduced by 40 percent.
       ``(C) In the case of an employer with an average of at 
     least 101, but fewer than 251, full-time equivalent employees 
     (as so defined), the amounts shall be reduced by 20 percent.

     The last sentence of paragraph (4) shall apply under this 
     paragraph in the same manner as it applies under such 
     paragraph.''.
       (4) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (f) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity which engages 
     in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1) 
     or (2) shall be fined

[[Page H11836]]

     not more than $50,000 for each unauthorized alien with 
     respect to which such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not 
     less than one year, or both, notwithstanding the provisions 
     of any other Federal law relating to fine levels.''; and
       (5) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``Attorney General'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland 
     Security''.

     SEC. 707. REPORT ON SOCIAL SECURITY CARD-BASED EMPLOYMENT 
                   ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than than 9 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, 
     shall submit a report to Congress that includes an evaluation 
     of the following requirements and changes:
       (A) A requirement that social security cards that are made 
     of a durable plastic or similar material and that include an 
     encrypted, machine-readable electronic identification strip 
     and a digital photograph of the individual to whom the card 
     is issued, be issued to each individual (whether or not a 
     United States citizen) who--
       (i) is authorized to be employed in the United States;
       (ii) is seeking employment in the United States; and
       (iii) files an application for such card, whether as a 
     replacement of an existing social security card or as a card 
     issued in connection with the issuance of a new social 
     security account number.
       (B) The creation of a unified database to be maintained by 
     the Department of Homeland Security and comprised of data 
     from the Social Security Administration and the Department of 
     Homeland Security specifying the work authorization of 
     individuals (including both United States citizens and 
     noncitizens) for the purpose of conducting employment 
     eligibility verification.
       (C) A requirement that all employers verify the employment 
     eligibility of all new hires using the social security cards 
     described in subparagraph (A) and a phone, electronic card-
     reading, or other mechanism to seek verification of 
     employment eligibility through the use of the unified 
     database described in subparagraph (B).
       (2) Items included in report.--The report under paragraph 
     (1) shall include an evaluation of each of the following:
       (A) Projected cost, including the cost to the Federal 
     government, State and local governments, and the private 
     sector.
       (B) Administrability.
       (C) Potential effects on--
       (i) employers;
       (ii) employees, including employees who are United States 
     citizens as well as those that are not citizens;
       (iii) tax revenue; and
       (iv) privacy.
       (D) The extent to which employer and employee compliance 
     with immigration laws would be expected to improve.
       (E) Any other relevant information.
       (3) Alternatives.--The report under paragraph (1) also 
     shall examine any alternatives to achieve the same goals as 
     the requirements and changes described in paragraph (1) but 
     that involve lesser cost, lesser burden on those affected, or 
     greater ease of administration.
       (b) Inspector General Review.--Not later than 3 months 
     after the report is submitted under subsection (a), the 
     Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, in 
     consultation with the Inspectors General of the Department of 
     Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 
     Department of Justice, shall send to the Congress an 
     evaluation of the such report.

     SEC. 708. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that the 
     requirements of persons and entities to comply with the 
     employment eligibility verification process takes effect on 
     the date that is two years after such date.

     SEC. 710. LIMITATION ON VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITIES OF 
                   COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

       The Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to 
     perform activities with respect to carrying out the 
     Commissioner's responsibilities in this title or the 
     amendments made by this title, but only to the extent (extent 
     for the purpose of carrying out section 707) the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security has provided, in advance, funds to cover 
     the Commissioner's full costs in carrying out such 
     responsibilities. In no case shall funds from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund be used to carry out such 
     responsibilities.

           TITLE VIII--IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ABUSE REDUCTION

     SEC. 801. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS REMOVAL ORDER 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(47) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(47)(A) The term `order of removal' means the order of 
     the immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or 
     other administrative officer to whom the Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated the 
     responsibility for determining whether an alien is removable, 
     concluding that the alien is removable or ordering removal.
       ``(B) The order described under subparagraph (A) shall 
     become final upon the earliest of--
       ``(i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals 
     affirming such order;
       ``(ii) the entry by the Board of Immigration Appeals of 
     such order;
       ``(iii) the expiration of the period in which any party is 
     permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of 
     Immigration Appeals;
       ``(iv) the entry by an immigration judge of such order, if 
     appeal is waived by all parties; or
       ``(v) the entry by another administrative officer of such 
     order, at the conclusion of a process as authorized by law 
     other than under section 240.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to ordered entered before, on, or after such 
     date.

     SEC. 802. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VISA REVOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 221(i) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by amending the 
     last sentence to read as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including 
     section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other 
     habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such 
     title, a revocation under this subsection may not be reviewed 
     by any court, and no court shall have jurisdiction to hear 
     any claim arising from, or any challenge to, such a 
     revocation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to visa revocations effected before, on, or 
     after such date.

     SEC. 803. REINSTATEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) Reinstatement of removal orders against aliens 
     illegally reentering.--If the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     finds that an alien has entered the United States illegally 
     after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, 
     under an order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, 
     regardless of the date of the original order or the date of 
     the illegal entry--
       ``(A) the order of removal, deportation, or exclusion is 
     reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being 
     reopened or reviewed;
       ``(B) the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any 
     relief under this Act, regardless of the date that an 
     application for such relief may have been filed; and
       ``(C) the alien shall be removed under the order of 
     removal, deportation, or exclusion at any time after the 
     illegal entry.

     Reinstatement under this paragraph shall not require 
     proceedings before an immigration judge under section 240 or 
     otherwise.''.
       (b) Judicial Review.--Section 242 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Judicial Review of Reinstatement Under Section 
     241(a)(5).--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of 
     title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus 
     provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, or 
     subsection (a)(2)(D) of this section, no court shall have 
     jurisdiction to review any cause or claim arising from or 
     relating to any reinstatement under section 241(a)(5) 
     (including any challenge to the reinstated order), except as 
     provided in paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(2) Challenges in court of appeals for district of 
     columbia to validity of the system, its implementation, and 
     related individual determinations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Judicial review of determinations under 
     section 241(a)(5) and its implementation is available in an 
     action instituted in the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit, but shall be limited, 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B), to the following 
     determinations:
       ``(i) Whether such section, or any regulation issued to 
     implement such section, is constitutional.
       ``(ii) Whether such a regulation, or a written policy 
     directive, written policy guideline, or written procedure 
     issued by or under the authority of the Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement such section, 
     is not consistent with applicable provisions of this Act or 
     is otherwise in violation of a statute or the Constitution.
       ``(B) Related individual determinations.--If a person 
     raises an action under subparagraph (A), the person may also 
     raise in the same action the following issues:
       ``(i) Whether the petitioner is an alien.
       ``(ii) Whether the petitioner was previously ordered 
     removed or deported, or excluded.
       ``(iii) Whether the petitioner has since illegally entered 
     the United States.
       ``(C) Deadlines for bringing actions.--Any action 
     instituted under this paragraph must be filed no later than 
     60 days after the date the challenged section, regulation, 
     directive, guideline, or procedure described in clause (i) or 
     (ii) of subparagraph (A) is first implemented.
       ``(3) Individual determinations under section 242(a).--
     Judicial review of determinations under section 241(a)(5) is 
     available in an action under subsection (a) of this section, 
     but shall be limited to determinations of--
       ``(A) whether the petitioner is an alien;
       ``(B) whether the petitioner was previously ordered 
     removed, deported, or excluded; and
       ``(C) whether the petitioner has since illegally entered 
     the United States.
       ``(4) Single action.--A person who files an action under 
     paragraph (2) may not file a separate action under paragraph 
     (3). A person who files an action under paragraph (3) may not 
     file an action under paragraph (2).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect as if enacted on April 1, 1997, and 
     shall apply to all orders reinstated on or after that date by 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security (or by the Attorney 
     General prior to March 1, 2003), regardless of the date of 
     the original order.

[[Page H11837]]

     SEC. 804. WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C 1231(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The burden of proof is on the alien to establish 
     that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that 
     country, and that race, religion, nationality, membership in 
     a particular social group, or political opinion would be at 
     least one central reason for such threat.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``In determining 
     whether an alien has demonstrated that the alien's life or 
     freedom would be threatened for a reason described in 
     subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``For purposes of this 
     paragraph''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     101(c) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division B of Public Law 
     109-13).

     SEC. 805. CERTIFICATE OF REVIEWABILITY.

       (a) Alien's Brief.--Section 242(b)(3)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(3)(C)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) Alien's brief.--The alien shall serve and file a 
     brief in connection with a petition for judicial review not 
     later than 40 days after the date on which the administrative 
     record is available. The court may not extend this deadline 
     except upon motion for good cause shown. If an alien fails to 
     file a brief within the time provided in this paragraph, the 
     court shall dismiss the appeal unless a manifest injustice 
     would result.''.
       (b) Certificate of Reviewability.--Section 242(b)(3) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252 (b)(3)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) Certificate.--
       ``(i) After the alien has filed the alien's brief, the 
     petition for review shall be assigned to a single court of 
     appeals judge.
       ``(ii) Unless that court of appeals judge or a circuit 
     justice issues a certificate of reviewability, the petition 
     for review shall be denied and the government shall not file 
     a brief.
       ``(iii) A certificate of reviewability may issue under 
     clause (ii) only if the alien has made a substantial showing 
     that the petition for review is likely to be granted.
       ``(iv) The court of appeals judge or circuit justice shall 
     complete all action on such certificate, including rendering 
     judgment, not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     judge or circuit justice was assigned the petition for 
     review, unless an extension is granted under clause (v).
       ``(v) The judge or circuit justice may grant, on the 
     judge's or justice's own motion or on the motion of a party, 
     an extension of the 60-day period described in clause (iv) 
     if--

       ``(I) all parties to the proceeding agree to such 
     extension; or
       ``(II) such extension is for good cause shown or in the 
     interests of justice, and the judge or circuit justice states 
     the grounds for the extension with specificity.

       ``(vi) If no certificate of reviewability is issued before 
     the end of the period described in clause (iv), including any 
     extension under clause (v), the petition for review shall be 
     deemed denied, any stay or injunction on petitioner's removal 
     shall be dissolved without further action by the court or the 
     government, and the alien may be removed.
       ``(vii) If a certificate of reviewability is issued under 
     clause (ii), the Government shall be afforded an opportunity 
     to file a brief in response to the alien's brief. The alien 
     may serve and file a reply brief not later than 14 days after 
     service of the Government's brief, and the court may not 
     extend this deadline except upon motion for good cause shown.
       ``(E) No further review of the court of appeals judge's 
     decision not to issue a certificate of reviewability.--The 
     single court of appeals judge's decision not to issue a 
     certificate of reviewability, or the denial of a petition 
     under subparagraph (D)(vi), shall be the final decision for 
     the court of appeals and shall not be reconsidered, reviewed, 
     or reversed by the court of appeals through any mechanism or 
     procedure.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to petitions filed on or after the date that is 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 806. WAIVER OF RIGHTS IN NONIMMIGRANT VISA ISSUANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 221(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) An alien may not be issued a nonimmigrant visa unless 
     the alien has waived any right--
       ``(A) to review or appeal under this Act of an immigration 
     officer's determination as to the inadmissibility of the 
     alien at the port of entry into the United States; or
       ``(B) to contest, other than on the basis of an application 
     for asylum, any action for removal of the alien.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to visas issued on or after the date that is 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the committee amendment 
is in order except those printed in part B of the report. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


              Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Carter

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Carter of Texas:
       In section 106, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike ``communication capabilities'' and insert 
     ``communication capabilities, including the specific use of 
     satellite communications''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Carter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
would look at all technical solutions to find the best solution for 
effective two-way communication on the United States border. By 
specifically requiring the Department of Homeland Security to include 
satellite communications as part of this solution to curing the 
inefficiencies of existing communication on the border, Congress would 
be ensuring the consideration of the only proven communication tool 
that can maintain the constant connection to the Border Patrol officers 
in the field, thereby saving their lives and providing homeland 
security seamlessly and flawlessly.
  In many instances during the recent natural disasters of hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita, satellite technology was the only reliable method of 
communication. Moreover, this technology has been used extensively by 
the U.S. military in inhospitable and remote areas of Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Satellite communication has proven its worth.
  During the Katrina disaster, I had a conversation with the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Porter) about going down with a load of provisions to 
help folks down there. When he arrived at the town, I do not remember 
the name of the town, he ask if they had talked to FEMA and they said, 
yes, they gave us a phone number to call, but, unfortunately, our cell 
phones do not work, and our land lines are down so there is no 
telephone in this town.
  Mr. Porter had his satellite phone with him. He shared his satellite 
phone with those disaster victims, and they were able to communicate 
with FEMA.
  Given the unique characteristics of our border area, satellite 
technology would be specifically useful in alleviating many of the 
communication problems that currently exist and can be done in a very 
cost-effective way to the U.S. taxpayer. This amendment ensures that 
all available options would be considered instead of limiting the 
Border Patrol to outmoded and frequently ineffective technology.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it will greatly 
enhance the U.S. Border Patrol's ability to protect our Nation's 
borders and provide for their individual safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose 
the amendment, I would note that we will support this amendment, and I 
would also like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
Texas colleague's amendment, but against the bill with reservations. 
There are many aspects of this bill that I support. I believe we should 
improve security along the border. Every nation in the world should 
control their borders and know who is crossing their borders. That is 
why I co-sponsored the Border Security Act last Congress with our 
former colleague Jim Turner.
  I believe we should prevent immigration officials from having to 
catch and release detainees because there are not enough detention beds 
and holding facilities. That is why I co-sponsored legislation with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) that would give us the number of beds we need.

[[Page H11838]]

However, I cannot support this bill in its current form.
  Under this bill, approximately 11 million people in this country 
would become aggravated felons. If you think we have catch and release 
problems now, wait until we have an additional 11 million felons that 
have to be detained under this legislation. There are not enough 
prisons to handle these numbers. I cannot imagine our country loading 
box cars with the estimated 10 to 12 million people who do not have 
documents showing they are legal. This brings visions of deportation 
and Nazi Germany and Stalin and the Soviet Union.
  Currently, 40 percent of immigration detainees are held in Department 
of Homeland Security facilities; 60 percent of these detainees are in 
local jails under contract with the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government needs to take responsibility for holding all of these 
detainees, much less the concern we have about an additional 11 
million.
  It is estimated by making all these people felons there are 
approximately 3 million U.S. citizen children that would be impacted by 
having their parents or guardians detained or deported. This is 
something we need to review closely and make sure we are not making 
life harder for children that are U.S. citizens who happen to be born 
to undocumented parents.
  Finally, this bill closes the door to the courthouse for many 
immigrants. Without judicial review, we cannot be certain that our laws 
are being enforced appropriately. I believe in increasing protection 
along our borders, realistically addressing the current undocumented 
population; but I also oppose a new guest worker program.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter) for this very fine amendment. It is important to the 
bill. It is a well-intentioned and well-drawn amendment. I am willing 
to accept the amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful consideration and for all 
that he does on this very, very vital issue.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I do not oppose the amendment. 
Land line and cellular telecommunications can be severely disrupted in 
a time of natural disaster, and it is important to have satellite 
communications available so that they are a reliable alternative for 
first responders and others involved in natural disasters.
  However, I would note that while I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on 
the amendment; we do not actually need this amendment to have the use 
of satellite communications. That is something that the administration 
could have done on its own. There are some other things that they ought 
to be doing that would really make a difference.
  The U.S. Border Patrol needs additional agents, and we need new 
training for those agents. We need 2,000 additional agents in ICE and 
250 additional detention officers. U.S. Marshals need 250 additional 
personnel and $50 million for vehicles, communications equipment, and 
miscellaneous equipment. U.S. Attorneys, we need 100 additional 
personnel on the southwest border and $30 million for additional office 
space. Why? We have talked about detention beds, but the issue is we 
need to be able to process these cases, not just hold people. We needs 
to bring charges against them, those who have an arguable claim, and 
then adjudicate that claim: either deport them or find that their claim 
is a valid one.
  We need additional immigration judges. We need 2,500 additional 
enforcement personnel in the Coast Guard, and we need 25,000 detention 
beds. We need 1,000 investigators for fraudulent schemes and documents. 
We need at least 100 helicopters and 250 power boats for the Border 
Patrol and at least one police-type motor vehicle for every three 
agents for the Border Patrol. We need enough portable computers for 
every Border Patrol motor vehicle. We need hand-held global positioning 
systems for each Border Patrol agent.
  We need night vision equipment for all Border Patrol agents working 
during hours of darkness. We need enough body armor appropriate for the 
climate and risks faced by individual Border Patrol agents. We need to 
reestablish the Border Patrol anti-smuggling unit. And we need to 
establish specialized criminal investigator occupations: one for the 
investigation of violations of immigration law, another for customs 
laws, and a third for ag laws.
  We need to require foreign language training for all our officers in 
the Department of Homeland Security who come into contact with aliens 
who cross the border illegally.
  Yes, this amendment is worth supporting, but we do not really need it 
to get satellite communications. We do need, however, to authorize the 
equipment and the personnel so we can enforce the laws at America's 
borders both north and south. Unfortunately, the underlying bill before 
us does not do that. It is not a real enforcement measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Gohmert of Texas:
       At the end of section 109, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Action by Inspector General.--In the event the 
     Inspector General becomes aware of any improper conduct or 
     wrongdoing in accordance with the contract review required 
     under subsection (a), the Inspector General shall, as 
     expeditiously as practicable, refer information related to 
     such improper conduct or wrongdoing to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security or other appropriate official in the 
     Department of Homeland Security for purposes of evaluating 
     whether to suspend or debar the contractor.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman King of New York and 
Chairman Sensenbrenner for their hard work on this important 
legislation. Some have said it seemed like it was spur of the moment, 
but those of us who have spent hundreds of hours on this issue this 
year know otherwise and took it up in committee and subcommittee. I 
would also like to thank Mr. Dreier for allowing me to bring this 
amendment up in the Rules Committee.
  I will be brief, since my amendment is pretty straightforward. This 
amendment will help ensure that the Federal Government is doing 
business with ethical contractors. Section 109 of the bill requires the 
Inspector General to review contracts over $20 million. This review is 
to be sure that the contracts were properly competed.
  My amendment adds a subsection that says that during this review if 
the Inspector General discovers any wrongdoing or misconduct, the 
Inspector General will refer this information to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security for the purpose of evaluating whether suspension or 
debarrment is warranted.
  Some Members may be familiar with the Darlene Druyun case. She was a 
top Air Force acquisition official who awarded billions of dollars' 
worth of contract to one particular defense contractor and all the 
while she was negotiating with that same defense contractor for a job 
for herself and her daughter. The officials at the company that 
negotiated her employment and she, herself, were debarred.
  Some are familiar with Representative Cunningham. He did wrong, and 
he will and should be punished accordingly; but the contractors who 
competed illegally and unethically should also suffer.
  This amendment helps address issues such as this as it requires the 
Inspector General to go forward with information

[[Page H11839]]

to the Secretary to evaluate for possible debarrment or suspension. 
Suspension and debarrment are less costly to the government than 
criminal or civil remedies that involve the Department of Justice. In 
addition, companies learn from the process and as a result they create 
innovative compliance and ethics programs.
  Contracting with ethical companies ultimately saves taxpayers' 
dollars and gives us more quality for the money. For that reason and to 
that end I humbly offer this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentlewoman from 
California claim the time in opposition?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition; although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment. The Department of Homeland 
Security IG has exposed improper conduct or wrongdoing of contractors 
who maintain Federal contracts with the department, and I think this 
amendment is along the lines of trying to make sure that the American 
taxpayers are not going to get ripped off like they have been in the 
past.
  Take a look at the level of fraud in contracting that has occurred in 
the Middle East, in Iraq; I mean, hundreds of thousand of dollars of 
stolen money and the stories that are coming out of the taxpayers being 
ripped off by contractors in the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. 
We know that the record is not a good one in terms of this 
administration choosing contractors who will not cheat us. So I do 
think it is important to have this amendment, and I commend the 
Congressman for bringing this forward.
  In June, the Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from Joel 
Gallay who is the acting Inspector General of GSA. Mr. Gallay provided 
a detailed account of significant deficiencies he discovered in 
evaluating the efficacy of ISIS, and of particular concern to the IG 
was the procurement of remote surveillance equipment, the lack of 
progress in implementing the system and what he called the chronic 
inattention to the proper administration of the contract.
  The IG wrote that the program was severely hampered by ineffective 
management that led to waste, and the report showed deficiencies in the 
ISIS contract management and in the training of government officials 
responsible for implementing the program.
  Now, it is unfortunate that we need this amendment. We would like to 
think that our administration would not be inept; that they would have 
accountability; that they would know how to administer; and they would 
not have this rip-off of taxpayers that has been identified to the 
committee repeatedly. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case, 
and therefore, I do support this amendment to try and stop this rip-off 
of the taxpayers.
  As the philosopher George Santayana cautioned, Those who do not learn 
from history are condemned to repeat it.
  I hope that this amendment will be adopted, and that will help us 
from continuing to see the rip-off of American taxpayers in the arena 
of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my colleague from California's support on this 
amendment, and as I think she knows, this is an issue that knows no 
party boundaries, and so I am proud to stand with those who want to end 
this, and that would include Chairman King.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time, and let me express my strong support for this 
amendment and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the 
contribution he has made, for the dedication he brings to this issue.
  I also would say, parenthetically, if someone with his accent and my 
accent are supporting this bill, it shows how extensive and wide-
ranging the support is for this bill. It shows that all Americans, from 
one end of the country to the other, one accent to the other, stand 
behind a bill which is good, an amendment which really adds 
substantially to the bill and does provide the level of integrity and 
honesty and interaction that we need.
  With that, I express my strong support for the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would just note that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
the ranking member of our full committee, worked very hard on this in 
collaboration with the majority. I would like to thank him for his 
extraordinary efforts on this, along with that of the author and the 
chairman.
  As I say, we support this, although it is a sad day that it is so 
needed because of the poor administration at the department overall.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


       Part B Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:
       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 118. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   IMMIGRATION LAWS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A primary duty of the Federal Government is to secure 
     the homeland and ensure the safety of United States citizens 
     and lawful residents.
       (2) As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 
     2001, perpetrated by al Qaida terrorists on United States 
     soil, the United States is engaged in a Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       (3) According to the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States, up to 15 of the 9/11 
     hijackers could have been intercepted or deported through 
     more diligent enforcement of immigration laws.
       (4) Four years after those attacks, there is still a 
     failure to secure the borders of the United States against 
     illegal entry.
       (5) The failure to enforce immigration laws in the interior 
     of the United States means that illegal aliens face little or 
     no risk of apprehension or removal once they are in the 
     country.
       (6) If illegal aliens can enter and remain in the United 
     States with impunity, so, too, can terrorists enter and 
     remain while they plan, rehearse, and then carry out their 
     attacks.
       (7) The failure to control and to prevent illegal 
     immigration into the United States increases the likelihood 
     that terrorists will succeed in launching catastrophic or 
     harmful attacks on United States soil.
       (8) There are numerous immigration laws that are currently 
     not being enforced.
       (9) Law enforcement officers are often discouraged from 
     enforcing the law by superiors.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President, the Attorney General, Secretary of State, 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, and other Department 
     Secretaries should immediately use every tool available to 
     them to enforce the immigration laws of the United States, as 
     enacted by Congress.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Listen up. According to the 9/11 Commission, up to 15 hijackers 
should have been deported, but our immigration laws are not being 
enforced.
  We cannot sit here as a body that makes laws and just watch them 
collect dust as our enemies plot against us.
  My amendment expresses a sense of Congress that immigration laws 
enacted by Congress must be enforced.

[[Page H11840]]

This amendment sends a simple message from the Congress to the 
administration: Enforce the law.
  We can debate how to solve the illegal immigration problem until we 
are blue in the face, and I see some very blue faces around the room, 
but if the laws we enact are not being enforced, then it is just a 
bunch of hot air.
  I have got a four-page list of immigration laws in front of me that 
are currently being ignored. This is unacceptable. This non-enforcement 
must end. The United States Congress must demand it right now.
  Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. In 2002, we enacted a 
law requiring implementation of a system known as Chimera. This means 
there will be information sharing from Federal databases in the 
intelligence community to any Federal official considering an 
immigrant's admissibility or deportability. Well, you knew as you heard 
information sharing, it is not happening.
  Did you know we have a law forbidding public colleges from giving in-
State tuition to illegals unless they offer it to every citizen in the 
United States? It is going on in nine States. Federal law is being 
violated, and guess what, the Federal Government's doing nothing about 
it.
  Do you know that all registered aliens are required to notify DHS 
within 10 days of changing address? Failure to do so is a deportable 
offense. This has tremendous national security value, and it is not 
being enforced.
  In 1996, we made a law requiring the Department of State to suspend 
all visas to any country who refuses to receive a national who has been 
deported from the United States. So, hypothetically, if China would not 
accept people we are deporting back to China, which they are, then the 
Federal Government is not allowed to issue anymore visas to people 
coming from China. Who here thinks we are not giving visas to people 
from China?
  The list goes on and on. I will submit it for the Record at this 
point.

          Immigration Laws the Administration is NOT Enforcing


       Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

       Integration of all databases and data systems maintained by 
     [DHS] that process or contain information on aliens 
     (Sec. 202).
       DHS has no plan to accomplish this.
       Implementation of an interoperable electronic data system 
     (also known as the ``Chimera'' system) to provide current and 
     immediate access to information in databases of Federal law 
     enforcement agencies and the intelligence community that is 
     needed to determine whether to issue a visa or to determine 
     the admissibility or deportability of an alien (Sec. 202).
       Chimera is to incorporate the integrated alien data system;
       information in Chimera must be readily and easily 
     accessible--
       to any consular officer responsible for the issuance of 
     visas;
       to any Federal official responsible for determining an 
     alien's admissibility to or deportability from the United 
     States; and
       to any Federal law enforcement or intelligence officer 
     determined by regulation to be responsible for the 
     investigation or identification of aliens.
       DHS has no plan to accomplish this.
       Make interoperable all security databases relevant to 
     making determinations of admissibility under section 212 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sec. 302).
       DHS has no plan to accomplish this.
       Not later than October 26, 2004, DHS and the State 
     Department shall issue to aliens only machine-readable, 
     tamper-resistant visas and other travel and entry documents 
     that use biometric identifiers (Sec. 303).
       DHS still issues easily counterfeited temporary cards until 
     a more secure card is mailed to the alien.
       Not later than October 26, 2004, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, shall install at 
     all ports of entry of the United States equipment and 
     software (i.e., machine readers) to allow biometric 
     comparison and authentication of all United States visas and 
     other travel and entry documents issued to aliens, and 
     passports (Sec. 303).
       About 500 readers have been put in place in only some POEs, 
     and all are in secondary, rather than primary, inspection.
       Beginning upon implementation of Chimera, not later than 72 
     hours after receiving notification of the loss or theft of a 
     United States or foreign passport, DHS and State, as 
     appropriate, shall enter into Chimera the corresponding 
     identification number for every lost or stolen passport 
     (Sec. 308).


  illegal immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

       An alien presenting a border crossing identification card 
     (i.e., a laser visa) is not permitted to cross over the 
     border into the United States unless the biometric identifier 
     contained on the card matches the appropriate biometric 
     characteristic of the alien (Sec. 104).
       The Administration exempted Mexico from participation in 
     US-VISIT, so biometrics are not being verified and border 
     crossing cards are merely inspected visually.
       Process all aliens through US-VISIT (the automated entry-
     exit control system) so as to ``collect a record of departure 
     for every alien departing the United States and match the 
     records of departure with the record of the alien's arrival 
     in the United States'' (Sec. 110).
       Only about 20 percent of nonimmigrants are being processed 
     through the entry part of US-VISIT; the other 80 percent of 
     nonimmigrants have been exempted; immigrants (lawful 
     permanent residents) also have been exempted; and the exit 
     part of the system is still being tested in pilots at a 
     handful of POEs.
       Aliens who have resided illegally in the United States for 
     more than six months but less than one year and voluntarily 
     departed are barred from re-entry for three years; aliens who 
     have resided illegally in the United States for more than one 
     year are barred from re-entry for ten years (Sec. 301).
       Only about 12,000 aliens were subjected to these bars on 
     re-entry during the first four years after this provision 
     took effect: it is estimated that the bars could have been 
     applied to up to 2.5 mi11ion aliens during that period.
       Mandatory detention pending removal of all aggravated 
     felons and other aliens who are inadmissible or removable due 
     to criminal convictions (Sec. 303).
       Limited detention space and mismanagement of budgets result 
     in criminal aliens being routinely released from detention 
     prior to removal: more than 80,000 criminal aliens are free 
     in American communities.
       Mandatory detention of aliens from the time they are issued 
     a final order of removal until the alien is actually removed 
     or until 90 days have passed if the alien cannot be removed 
     within that period (Sec. 305).
       In 2004, almost half (34,800) of the more than 75,000 
     ``other than Mexicans'' apprehended by the Border Patrol were 
     released on their own recognizance pending removal: an 
     estimated 90 percent of nondetained aliens abscond after 
     being issued an order of removal.
       Upon notification by DHS or the AG that a foreign 
     government refuses or unreasonably delays the return a 
     national of that country who is ordered removed from the 
     United States, the State Department shall suspend the 
     issuance of immigrant and/or nonimmigrant visas to nationals 
     of that country (Sec. 307).
       A handful of governments routinely refuse to issue travel 
     documents to their nationals who have been ordered removed 
     from the United States, but this provision is not invoked.
       Each Department of the Federal Government shall elect to 
     participate in a pilot program to verify employment 
     authorization of its employees and shall comply with the 
     terms and conditions of such election (Sec. 402).
       The 1996 law created three different pilot programs from 
     which government agencies could choose; when two of them were 
     allowed to lapse and only one, the Basic Pilot, was extended, 
     agencies using one of the lapsed pilots simply stopped 
     participating rather than sign up for the remaining one.
       Public institutions of higher education may not offer in-
     state tuition to illegal aliens unless they also offer it to 
     every citizen of the United States (Sec. 505).
       Neither DHS nor the Justice Department has challenged any 
     of the nine states that have passed laws that violate this 
     law, despite the fact that Federal law clearly supersedes 
     state law in the area of immigration.
       Any alien seeking admission to the United States or a 
     change of status who is likely to become a public charge or 
     who is a public charge is excludable, if seeking admission, 
     or removable, if already here and seeking adjustment of 
     status (Sec. 531).
       DHS has yet to come up with a definition of ``public 
     charge'' to implement this provision.
       Upon notification that a sponsored alien has received any 
     means-tested public benefit, the entity (nongovernmental, 
     Federal, state or local) that provided the benefit shall 
     request full reimbursement by the sponsor (Sec. 551).
       Only one lawsuit seeking reimbursement has been filed, and 
     it was filed by private citizens trying to force the Los 
     Angeles public hospital system to seek reimbursement from 
     sponsors: the case was dismissed on technical, not 
     substantive, grounds.
       States and localities may not adopt policies, formally or 
     informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with 
     DHS regarding the immigration status of individuals 
     (sanctuary policies) (Sec. 642).
       Neither of the two sanctuary states, Maine and New Mexico, 
     nor any of the multitude of sanctuary cities have been 
     challenged by DHS or DOJ for violating this provision: soon 
     after this law passed, the City of New York challenged the 
     law in court and the court upheld the law and ordered the 
     City to rescind its sanctuary policy: instead, the City 
     modified its policy slightly, but the Federal Government has 
     not challenged it.
       DHS shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or 
     local government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the 
     citizenship or immigration status of any individual within 
     the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by 
     law (Sec. 642).

[[Page H11841]]

       This law also required the establishment by then-INS of the 
     Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which is available 24/
     7 to state and local police seeking information on alienage 
     and citizenship: however, state and local police who contact 
     ICE about illegal aliens they have taken into custody are 
     routinely rebuffed and told to simply release the aliens.


                    immigration and Nationality Act

       The Secretary of DHS is authorized to expand expedited 
     removal procedures to any or all aliens who have not been 
     admitted or paroled into the United States and who have not 
     affirmatively shown to the satisfaction of an immigration 
     officer that they have been physically present in the United 
     States continuously for two years immediately prior to this 
     determination (Sec. 235).
       The Secretary has only recently used this authority to 
     expand expedited removal to nine Border Patrol sectors. The 
     fact that our Federal court system is clogged with appeals of 
     removal orders--the number of cases filed in Federal court 
     rose from just over 2,000 in 1994 to more than 14,500 in 
     2004--and the fact that the illegal alien population in the 
     United States continues to grow would suggest that expedited 
     removal needs to be expanded along the entire land border of 
     the United States.
       Once an alien is apprehended and removal proceedings are 
     initiated, DHS may detain the alien, release him on a minimum 
     $1,500 bond, or release him on conditional parole (Sec. 236).
       Since on estimated 90 percent of non-detained aliens 
     abscond after being issued an order of removal, and since DHS 
     has the authority to detain aliens pending removal, it makes 
     no sense that almost half (34,800) of the more than 75,000 
     ``other than Mexicans'' apprehended by the Border Patrol were 
     released on their own recognizance pending removal in 2004.
       Marriage fraud, used in the past by at least nine 
     terrorists to prolong their stay in the United States, is a 
     deportable offense (Sec. 237).
       ICE has announced that single-instance marriage fraud is a 
     low priority and so will not be investigated or prosecuted.
       Domestic violence, false claims to US citizenship and 
     voting illegally are deportable offenses (Sec. 237).
       Illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence can 
     obtain green cards through the Violence Against Women Act, 
     but the abuser is rarely prosecuted and even more rarely 
     deported; as happened in New York City with Mayor Giuliani's 
     ``broken-window policing,'' stepped up enforcement of these 
     ``low priority'' violations would begin to reassert the rule 
     of law in our immigration system.
       Failure of an alien intending to remain in the United 
     States for thirty days or longer to apply for registration 
     and fingerprinting during that thirty-day period is a 
     deportable offense (Sec. 262).
       Enforcement of this provision would be of obvious national 
     security value, and it would send a clear message that 
     security is our top priority.
       All registered aliens are required to notify DHS within ten 
     days of changing addresses; failure to do so is a deportable 
     offense (Sec. 266).
       This, too, has important national security value.
       Any individual or entity that ``encourages or induces an 
     alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, 
     knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming 
     to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law'' 
     is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment (Sec. 274).
       A strong case could be made that localities like Herndon, 
     Virginia, that are using taxpayer funds to build and promote 
     day-labor sites for aliens they know to be illegal, and 
     government entities like the Illinois Housing Development 
     Authority, which has set aside taxpayer funds to provide 
     mortgages to illegal aliens, are ``encourag[ing illegal 
     aliens] to reside in the United States.'' The same case can 
     be made against banks that accept consular ID cards to open 
     accounts or allow illegal aliens to use individual taxpayer 
     ID numbers to get home loans.
       It is unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a 
     fee an alien who is not authorized to work in the United 
     States, and it is unlawful to hire any individual without 
     verifying the employment authorization of that individual, 
     either through the I-9 process alone or combined with the 
     Basic Pilot program (Sec. 274A).
       While it is exceedingly difficult to establish that an 
     employer knew an employee was illegal, it is not difficult to 
     establish that an employer failed to complete the I-9 
     process; it is also not difficult to encourage employers to 
     use the Basic Pilot to verify work eligibility.
       Aliens who commit fraud, use false or altered documents, or 
     make misrepresentations on applications for immigration 
     benefits are ineligible for the benefits (Sec. Sec. 212, 237, 
     340, among others).
       Not only does USCIS grant benefits to aliens despite 
     indications of, and sometimes even evidence of, fraud or 
     misrepresentation, ICE rarely investigates cases of alleged 
     benefits fraud referred by USCIS. USCIS estimates that ICE 
     declines to investigate over 70 percent of the benefits fraud 
     referrals it receives. It is exceedingly rare for either 
     agency to attempt to rescind a benefit once it is granted.

  Millions of new immigrants come to America every year, and the 
numbers are rising. Do you know why these numbers continue to increase? 
Because when we don't enforce the laws, we send the message that we 
don't take our laws seriously.
  We don't pass laws to be ignored. Join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California claim the 
time in opposition?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, but I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman can claim the 
time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I will note that the amendment does not really accomplish anything; 
although, I certainly really would not want to oppose enforcing the 
law.
  The gentleman mentioned some things that are deficient in the 
administration of our immigration laws, and they are not new things.
  Let me just give you an example on reporting a change of address. Do 
you know how that is done? You fill out a piece of paper, and you 
submit it. Do you think it is possible to actually find those pieces of 
paper, the millions of pieces of paper? Anybody who came in and who is 
a legal permit resident, you could file it, but no one will ever find 
it.
  We mention often the terrorists that came into our country and did 
such damage to us on 9/11. You know what? Those people, most of them 
were not admissible to the United States, but the poor officer at the 
border, he did not know that. He could not know it because the piece of 
information that would have told him that was on a piece of microfiche 
sitting in a bucket in Florida waiting to be translated into an actual 
database.
  There is a lack of technology in the department, and nothing in this 
bill changes that.
  Further, nothing in this bill orders the President to order his 
department to go out and get the people who promised to appear and then 
disappeared. Let us go find those people. Let us bring them to justice. 
Either they will be deported or they will have their day and find their 
remedy.
  Nothing in this bill tells the department to go out and find the 
people who have been convicted of crimes, who were supposed to be 
deported, who instead were released from county jail or from State 
prison because the department failed to go pick them up. There is 
nothing in this bill that says, go every day, check with the jails, 
find out who is a criminal alien and who is about to be released and 
deport them. There is nothing in there. There are no resources.
  So this underlying bill is a failure. The amendment is well-meaning I 
am sure, but it accomplishes almost nothing. Nevertheless, it would be 
wrong to oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very 
much.
  Let me just say, Mr. Johnson is a good friend from Texas, and I know 
that this sense of Congress reflects the attitude of the people of 
Texas and America that we should enforce the immigration laws. I am 
going to enthusiastically join and support him on this idea of 
enforcing the Nation's immigration laws.
  But what I do want to indicate is that this is building on some 
enforcement laws that we have had, and that is that, over the years, we 
have enacted 20 enforcement laws in the last 20-years. We have 
increased the Border Patrol budget by a factor of 10, but it has not 
been enough. We have tripled the number of agents, but we need to do 
more, and we have created a Department of Homeland Security.
  What we have not been able to do is write real, if you will, 
effective immigration law that brings in the comprehensive nature of 
immigration law which provides, if you will, an earned access to 
legalization and the building up and the securing of our borders by the 
enhancement of our Border Patrol agents, for example, scholarships, 
recruitment.

[[Page H11842]]

  There is another amendment coming up about making sure that clothing 
comes from the right country. I think this is a good amendment, but I 
think that we can do better by looking at this from a comprehensive 
perspective and building and writing the kinds of laws that would be 
effective, if you will, to ensure that we are enforcing those laws.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Houston for her comments. I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
introducing this amendment to this fine legislation. He recognizes that 
the failure to control and to prevent illegal immigration into the 
United States increases the likelihood that terrorists will succeed in 
launching a catastrophic or harmful attack on the United States.
  His amendment is a message to the executive branch: Please enforce 
the laws that we have now to stop illegal immigration. They will listen 
to the gentleman from Texas with his stature and patriotism. It will be 
a fine message.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would simply note that this amendment will not really cure the 
problems in this bill. It will not get the resources. It will not make 
the administration do its job. It will not cure the incompetence and 
lack of performance that we have seen at the borders, both borders, 
southern and northern, as well as our ports of entry.
  It a good idea to enforce the laws. Unfortunately, the administration 
is not doing so. Nothing in this bill is going to help them do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 4437. I have 
nothing against this particular amendment, but I am totally against 
this legislation.
  We are all about protecting our borders. We are all about 
enforcement, and we are about developing a comprehensive immigration 
reform legislation that really will impact our people, but this bill 
today, it is flawed. It is inconsistent with the American values.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the committee.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that I stand in strong support 
of his amendment. This is just one more example of the outstanding 
contributions to public service made by the gentleman from Texas. I 
support it and urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Part B Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Renzi

  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Renzi:
       Add at the end of title I the following new section:

     SEC. 118. SECURING ACCESS TO BORDER PATROL UNIFORMS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all uniforms 
     procured for the use of Border Patrol agents shall be 
     manufactured in the United States substantially all from 
     articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or 
     manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman of our Homeland 
Security Committee for his allowing to move forward on this amendment, 
and more so for the protection he is now about to provide to many of 
our Border Patrol agents. I rise today to offer an amendment that would 
require all the uniforms worn by our Border Patrol agents to be made in 
America.
  Imagine yourself a Border Patrol agent who serves in harm's way along 
this vast and violent border who dons the uniform of this Nation which 
is currently made in Mexico and which could easily fall into the wrong 
hands. As we speak, uniforms worn by our Border Patrol agents are 
manufactured in Mexico and could be easily lost or stolen or, worse 
yet, intentionally produced to undermine our border security efforts. 
These uniforms represent the law and order on our border, and allowing 
these uniforms to be made in America would minimize the possibilities 
that they could be procured by smugglers, terrorists, or others who 
pose great risk to our agents.
  In 1941, Congress passed the Berry amendment, which restricts the 
Department of Defense from procuring some military uniforms for 
national security purposes outside of them being manufactured in 
America. For over 60 years Congress has chosen to keep this policy in 
place, and yet every day on our border our agents are besieged by armed 
human smugglers and drug traffickers and those who want to use lethal 
means to target our agents.
  Just 2 years ago, the Border Patrol confiscated a smuggler's vehicle 
down on the southwest border that was painted like a Border Patrol 
vehicle.
  While we may not be able to prevent individuals from painting trucks, 
we can surely stop them from getting these uniforms and from these 
uniforms falling into the wrong hands. Our Border Patrol agents need to 
be able to take pride in the uniforms they wear. They need to be secure 
in the knowledge that, when they are on the border peering into the 
darkness at night protecting us and when they are trying to determine 
whether the individual approaching them is friend or foe, that these 
uniforms are not being used as a tool against them. When our agents 
wake up each morning, they need to see the American flag and the ``Made 
in U.S.A.'' label on their uniforms. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, but I will not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman may claim the 
time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished gentleman that offered the 
amendment, that is why we have suggested that we can work on these 
issues in a bipartisan manner. I think you have a very reasonable 
amendment, and might I just say that the National Border Patrol Council 
supports this amendment because it involves officer and public safety.
  Since early last year, the Border Patrol uniforms, including the 
patches, the identifying patches, have been made outside of the 
country. It would be quite simple for someone to bribe a low-paid 
factory worker or truck driver in order to procure a quantity of 
uniforms for the purpose of masquerading as a Border Patrol agent. 
Obviously this makes sense, and that is why part of the problem with 
the underlying bill is, frankly, that it is weighted down by the 
criminalizing of the undocumented and not focusing on the criminalizing 
of the criminals. This, in fact, is a very instructive amendment 
because it helps to ensure the sanctity of the Border Patrol officers' 
uniform and their work. Inasmuch as the Border Patrol's work is done at 
night and low-light surroundings, it would be nearly impossible for the 
genuine Border Patrol agents to spot the imposters until they were 
close enough to harm the agents if they had a false uniform. Likewise, 
members of the public could easily be fooled into believing that the 
imposters had authority to stop and question them, and they could 
perpetrate crimes.

[[Page H11843]]

  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I am delighted to yield 
such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, once again I stand in opposition to this 
legislation. This is not comprehensive legislation. We all believe that 
we could have stronger enforcement not only on our borders but also 
stronger enforcement in reference to what happened to immigrants, but 
basically this legislation is not a comprehensive educational law 
reform or immigration reform. It basically is deplorable legislation. 
It violates the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. We are 
abolishing the Constitution that protects us. How can we alter the 
Constitution?
  I must remind our colleagues that we are talking about individuals 
who have a human face, a senior, an adult, and a young child. So this 
legislation, instead, will say the 11 million undocumented workers are 
felons, are felons. Is that what America wants, to arrest and lock up 
11 million immigrants? Are we going to have detention camps, 
concentration camps? What are we going to do with these 11 million 
individuals who would be designated as undocumented individuals? What 
happens to children of individuals that will be labeled? They will be 
labeled, and they will have to carry that label the rest of their lives 
as either a felon or an individual who has a misdemeanor. When you have 
that label, you carry that label with you the rest of your life, and 
you are asking us to be productive individuals. What happens to those 
individuals that every day of their life some individual will tell 
them, well, you are the little individual, you are the criminal. We see 
a little white person looking, a little brown person stereotyping them 
and says, you are a felon, you are here in this country illegally. They 
had nothing to do with them being out here.
  Let me tell you, this legislation is horrible, it is terrible, it is 
deplorable. We must stop this kind of legislation. We must develop 
comprehensive legislation. We must not have concentration camps; we 
must not kick our students out of school. What happens to a lot of our 
kids who are in our schools because the legislation will label them as 
a criminal? ADA funding that goes to our schools, what happens? Who 
arrests them? Are we aiding and abetting? When we go to church and we 
see someone in our church or a pew right next to us, do we then turn in 
someone because we assume that you are an undocumented? We will begin 
to do more profiling. We will begin to identify more individuals like 
myself and others to say, Are you legal or not legal here in the United 
States? And people who look a different color will not be asked to 
prove their identity.
  This legislation is horrible. We should not support this kind of 
legislation. We should protect our Constitution.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
California. I do have respect for him. I think his passion on the issue 
has to do with the overall bill, while we are here discussing my 
amendment which relates to Border Patrol uniforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Renzi for his very thoughtful 
amendment, and I thank him for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about Border Patrol uniforms, the amendment. 
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I know 
we need to take the necessary steps to ensure the Federal Government is 
producing sensitive goods such as U.S. Border Patrol uniforms in the 
United States to help alleviate this national security risk. After 
reading an Associated Press article in late November, I was shocked to 
learn that U.S. Border Patrol uniforms are not made in America.
  The article states that agents and lawmakers are concerned about the 
consequences if the uniforms for agents charged with combating illegal 
immigration fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists. The article 
detailed some of the concerns I have been expressing for some time now.
  For years now I have been a stalwart for strengthening the Berry 
amendment, which requires the Department of Defense to give preference 
to domestically produced and manufactured products, notably clothing, 
food, fabrics, and specialty medals. Soon I will reintroduce a bill 
that applies the Berry amendment guidelines to Department of Homeland 
Security procurement.
  It is imperative that we remedy this issue to help protect our 
borders and deter terrorists or criminal acts. Not only is this an 
issue of national security but it would help our Nation's economic 
security by maintaining a strong U.S. manufacturing base as well.
  I commend Mr. Renzi for offering the amendment, and I look forward to 
working closely with him and my colleagues and the administration to 
ensure that we are all doing everything that we can to protect 
America's national security. I urge all my colleagues to support this 
important amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the 
fact that we could be doing more on this bill. Clearly, we want our 
Border Patrol agents to be well equipped and well uniformed. That is 
the missing part of this bill. The uniform ``Made in the USA'' is a 
good statement to make, but you cannot have Border Patrol agents 
without power boats, helicopters, night goggles, computers; and you 
cannot have them without recruitment, scholarship, and increased 
numbers to secure the border.
  That is what we should be doing with the underlying bill, but I do 
support the amendment and just wish we could do more.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the new chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, who has stepped up to protect our Border Patrol 
agents and who championed this amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and there is no one who is not on the committee 
who has done more work than the gentleman from Arizona to really work 
on the issue of terrorism in the intelligence area, in the homeland 
security area, and I strongly support this amendment.
  It is in keeping with the spirit of the law. It is in keeping in the 
spirit that we should be searching for as we try to stop illegal 
immigration, stand behind those on the borders who are protecting us 
against this massive increase of illegal immigrants.
  So I am proud to stand by and endorse the amendment of the gentleman 
from Arizona.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Part B Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware:
       At the end of title I, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 118. US-VISIT.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation 
     with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a timeline 
     for--
       (1) equipping all land border ports of entry with the US-
     VISIT system;
       (2) developing and deploying at all land border ports of 
     entry the exit component of the US-VISIT system; and
       (3) making interoperable all immigration screening systems 
     operated by the Department of Homeland Security.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this simple amendment to 
the legislation before us today. In the post-9/11 world, our primary 
concern has to be stopping terrorists from penetrating our borders. 
Chairman Sensenbrenner's dedication to fixing gaps in our security is 
commendable, and I am

[[Page H11844]]

proud to join him and Chairman King in improving our border security 
capabilities while allowing American citizens and legal immigrants to 
continue contributing to our economy.
  Both Congress and the 9/11 Commission have identified the US-VISIT 
biometric entry and exit system as essential to preventing terrorists 
from entering the country through land borders, airports, and seaports. 
Currently, US-VISIT kiosks are deployed at most airports and some land 
borders, where travelers submit biometric information, including 
digital fingerprints and a photograph, and the Department of Homeland 
Security screens the data against terrorist watch lists and criminal 
record databases.
  Since its implementation, US-VISIT has caught more than 900 
murderers, pedophiles, and other dangerous criminals attempting to 
enter the United States. Still, the system records only a fraction of 
foreign arrivals and does not yet record when foreign travelers leave 
the country. While US-VISIT is presently being used at some of the 
busiest border crossings, the Department has yet to deploy the tracking 
system at all land border ports of entry.
  The development of the system's exit component has also been slow; 
and thus our government does not yet have a reliable way of tracking 
visa overstays. In addition, the 9/11 Commission and other recent 
reports have highlighted the need for the Department to improve the 
interoperability of US-VISIT and its other immigration screening 
systems to ensure that terrorists and criminals do not slip through the 
cracks.
  The Department of Homeland Security is already working on a plan to 
expand US-VISIT and eventually track every foreign visitor entering and 
leaving the country. My amendment would simply require the Department 
to update Congress on the progress of this plan by submitting a 
detailed time line for equipping all land borders with the US-VISIT 
system, developing and deploying the exit component of the system at 
all land borders, and making all immigration screening systems operated 
by the Department compatible with one another.
  Improving the quantity and quality of the information in US-VISIT 
will undoubtedly enhance our ability to better track and identify 
potential security threats to our Nation. The Department already has a 
plan to do this, and my amendment will ensure that Congress is updated 
on the status of this important process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the 
amendment, but I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will support the 
amendment, but I am under no illusion that the amendment will actually 
achieve what the author hopes.
  Over 5 years ago, before there was a Department of Homeland Security, 
I strongly suggested to the then immigration service that we engage in 
a biometric study so that we would have a secure biometric system that 
could be deployed and would be both with our immigration screening 
systems and also with other databases. We were told by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology that they could accomplish that 
in 6 months for about $2 million. Unfortunately, we never did it.
  So we now have biometrics that are incompatible in various databases, 
law enforcement, immigration, and certain other databases that we have. 
Consequently, even the system that we have on US-VISIT is not fully 
functional. I would like to note also that the databases that are 
utilized by US-VISIT are also not integrated.
  It is true, we have caught some people who have committed crimes who 
should not be admitted to the United States through US-VISIT, and I 
count that as a good thing. But the 9/11 Commission was looking at the 
need to stop terrorists. The problem is that US-VISIT is completely 
disconnected with our databases relative to terrorists, and I do not 
think this amendment is going to fix that.
  I would also like to note that the amendment suggests that we 
accelerate, I believe, the exit component of US-VISIT.

                              {time}  1930

  There is no exit component of the US-VISIT. Basically, it does not 
exist.
  The situation with databases and technology in the department is 
simply dismal. We should be filing all immigration matters by 
biometrics so we do not have the confusion we currently have of names 
that sound similar, or, in some languages, first and last names get 
traded back and forth rather interchangeably. It is ridiculous that we 
have not done that; but it is not for lack of asking, urging and 
insisting.
  And I will say something else about getting reports. I sit on the 
Homeland Security Committee. We are due so many reports by this 
department, I cannot even begin to count them. We were due a rail 
security report, I believe, it was last June. We are due reports on 
cybersecurity; that is several years ago. The department basically 
thumbs its nose at the United States Congress. It does not provide the 
reports required under current law. I suppose hope springs internal, 
and we should ask again, but this resolution will not cure the massive 
arrogance and incompetence of the department.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the Castle amendment is extremely 
well written. I am proud to endorse it.
  I also would emphasize that the points raised in the amendment do 
refer to points that we have been asking DHS to provide us information 
on. This amendment will give us more of the muscle that we need to 
ensure DHS is in compliance. I thank the gentleman for his amendment 
and urge its adoption.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  As I said earlier, I plan to support the amendment. I think it is 
worth making clear: There is no exit system now. So why does that 
matter? People come into the United States, they put their fingerprints 
on the US-VISIT system. It catches some people, and it does not catch 
others. And then they come into the United States.
  We have been talking earlier about making aggravated felons of those 
who overstay their visas, whether they be visitor or whatever. At the 
current time, and I do not see this changing any time soon, we do not 
catch those people. If they leave, we do not know if they have left or 
if they are here. Because we do not have a connection with our 
database, we do not know if they are connected with terrorism or not.
  So the lack of functionality that we have in technology and the lack 
of deployment of additional technology has left us more vulnerable than 
we need to be.
  I mentioned earlier this evening that some of the 9/11 terrorists 
were not admissible to the United States. The officer who inspected 
them could not know that because the fact of their ineligibility was on 
a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. You cannot search a database 
if it is on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. We are not that 
much better off today than we were at that time. I am sure the 
gentleman is distraught about that. I am as well. I have been trying to 
get this changed for more than half a decade.
  The timeline for a billion-dollar program is a good idea, but I do 
not have any real confidence that the department will perform any 
better after this amendment is adopted than it has in the past several 
years with a lot of pushing and insisting from Members, frankly, on 
both sides of the aisle. The incompetence just does not quit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I agree with almost everything that the gentlewoman from California 
has said about this particular system. I share her concerns. I 
appreciate her support for my amendment and Mr. King's support as well.
  I think the whole business of biometrics and US-VISIT has tremendous 
potential that is not being realized. The reason I present this 
amendment is

[[Page H11845]]

not to change anything they are doing; this is not complimenting 
anything that they are doing or saying that they are doing it 
particularly well; but to force some sort of reportorial system back to 
Congress, that is all this amendment does, so perhaps they will get it 
in their heads that they have to do better than they are doing now.
  The gentlewoman is right, there is a lot of disorganization and 
incompatibility and inconsistency in terms of what is happening, and 
yet it has potential.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, we have numerous reports 
that are required. I sit on the committee, which is why I know this. 
They never do the reports. They are required by law to submit the 
reports. We have dozens, hundreds of reports that simply have never 
been delivered. I hope this is an exception, but I do not have a high 
level of confidence.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, we can tweak them a little bit if this 
amendment passes because I do believe, and it has worked, and even with 
the limitations the gentlewoman has shown, it has worked rather well in 
some areas where they have actually captured people who have done 
things that they should not have done. I think it could do a heck of a 
lot more in terms of terrorism, and it should. I intend to force it. We 
know this department has some start-up difficulties, and we have to 
deal with that. Having said that, I think this is a good step in the 
right direction. If we stand behind it and help it work, it will help 
us all.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________