[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.
____________________