[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11845-H11858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT
OF 2005
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Part B Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. 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. 6 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
SEC. 118. SUSPENSION OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the visa waiver program established under section 217 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187)is hereby
suspended until such time as the Secretary of Homeland
Security determines and certifies to Congress that--
(1) the automated entry-exit control system authorized
under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is
fully implemented and functional;
(2) all United States ports of entry have functional
biometric machine readers; and
(3) all nonimmigrants, including Border Crossing Card
holders, are processed through the automated entry-exit
control system.
(b) Repeal.--Subparagraph (B) of section 217(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is
hereby repealed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Border Protection,
Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 needs to
address a loophole in our immigration system. I have introduced this
amendment which suspends, not cancels, but suspends temporarily the
Visa Waiver Program until the machine-readable and tamper-resistant
biometric identification system mandated by the PATRIOT Act to be the
cornerstone of the entry-exit system is fully operational.
Until we have the technical and human resources to secure our points
of entry, we cannot afford to allow visitors to come to the United
States without prescreening them prior to arrival. Despite the fact
that the United Kingdom is one of our Nation's closest friends and
allies, the London subway bombings earlier this year were executed in
large part by British citizens with known ties to terrorism.
We know that terrorists like Zacharias Moussaui and Richard Reid
exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United States. Do we
want individuals like these to fly to America unchecked and to attack
our subway system in the name of terrorist groups like al Qaeda under
the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program? Do we want French citizens with
Islamofascist mindsets to get a free pass through Customs? If not, we
need to suspend this program until we are equipped to check the
criminal and terrorist backgrounds of every visitor who arrives at a
point of entry and to confirm the identity of each visitor using
biometric identifiers.
The success and failure of the Visa Waiver Program can trace its
roots back to 1986 when it was passed as part of the Immigration Reform
Control Act. As many of my colleagues know, what we left undone in 1986
is in large part why we need to consider a new immigration reform law
in 2005 that is consistent with the recent reauthorization of the
PATRIOT Act. The Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a
temporary program for a small and select group of nations. Today, 27
countries are eligible under visa waivers, opening the door widely,
widely, Mr. Chairman, for an unscreened terrorist to attack the United
States.
Yesterday, the United States USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention
Reauthorization Act of 2005 passed by a vote of 251-174, a strong
endorsement for securing our Nation against terrorism. The PATRIOT Act
acknowledges the problem of the Visa Waiver Program, and I have
introduced this amendment to suspend the program until the solution
made possible by the PATRIOT Act can realistically take effect. This is
an issue that extends beyond apprehending illegal immigrants and
actually works to secure our points of entry from those who desire to
attack our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the 9/11
Families for a Secure America in full support of this amendment.
9/11 Families for a Secure America, December 15, 2005.
Staten Island, NY,
Hon. Phil Gingrey,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Gingrey, 9/11 Families for a Secure America fully
supports your amendment to H.R. 4437 to suspend the Visa
Waiver Program until the automated entry-exit control system
authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 is fully implemented.
The recent civil disturbances in France make it quite clear
that the time is past when citizens of particular countries
should be granted blanket permission to enter the United
States without first applying for a visa. Many of the nations
of Europe, after decades of permitting mass immigration from
nations that sponsor terrorism have created a situation where
large numbers of Islamic extremists, though closely connected
to the terrorism that originates in countries such as Saudi
Arabia, are themselves citizens or native born in any of a
dozen European nations. The result is that Islamic extremism
is no longer limited to persons born
[[Page H11846]]
in or citizens of Middle Eastern nations. For this reason,
citizens of European countries should be subject to the same
visa application process which applies to the other nations
of the world.
If Islamic extremists commit another 9/11 it will not make
any difference to the victims of that attack that the people
responsible carried French passports rather than ones issued
by Iran, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors,
9/11 Families for a Secure America
Bruce DeCell, Sergeant, NYPD (retired), Father-in-law of
Mark Petrocelli, age 29.
Bill Doyle, father of Joseph, age 24, WTC North Tower.
Lynn Faulkner, husband of Wendy, WTC South Tower.
Peter and Jan Gadiel, parents of James, age 23, WTC, North
Tower 103rd floor.
Grace Godshalk, mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC
South Tower 89th floor.
Joan Molinaro, mother of firefighter Carl Molinaro.
Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, father of
Jason Sekzer, age 31, WTC North Tower 105th floor.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, these are issues that must be
addressed, and I will assure the gentleman that, as chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee, that I will work on these issues and
address the very real concerns that you have. I would ask in that
context you consider withdrawing the amendment with that pledge I make
to you.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation. I
know there are some concerns about the amendment. Indeed, a major
airline in my district, in my State, has some concern over it, and
people who are concerned about tourism and the economic effects of this
amendment.
But I think this is a situation where, when we look back and think
about
9/11, it would probably cost our economy $3 trillion if we have another
attack of that magnitude. The cost of that, of reduced tourism, would
pale in comparison to another $3 trillion cost to our economy if that
should occur. I sincerely appreciate the chairman's willingness to
cooperate with us, and I look forward to working with him on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Part B Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. 7 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 308. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1373) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Immigration and Naturalization Service''
and inserting ``Department of Homeland Security'' each place
it appears; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Enforcement.--
``(1) Ineligibility for federal law enforcement aid.--Upon
a determination that any person, or any Federal, State, or
local government agency or entity, is in violation of
subsection (a) or (b), the Attorney General shall not provide
to that person, agency, or entity any grant amount pursuant
to any law enforcement grant program carried out by any
element of the Department of Justice, including the program
under section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 241(i)), and shall ensure that no such grant
amounts are provided, directly or indirectly, to such person,
agency, or entity. In the case of grant amounts that
otherwise would be provided to such person, agency, or entity
pursuant to a formula, such amounts shall be reallocated
among eligible recipients.
``(2) Violations by government officials.--In any case in
which a Federal, State, or local government official is in
violation of subsection (a) or (b), the government agency or
entity that employs (or, at the time of the violation,
employed) the official shall be subject to the sanction under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Duration.--The sanction under paragraph (1) shall
remain in effect until the Attorney General determines that
the person, agency, or entity has ceased violating
subsections (a) and (b).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to grant requests pending on or or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are cities around this country that have laws or
executive orders under which they prohibit law enforcement officials
from reporting to the Department of Homeland Security when they
encounter, through the normal course of law enforcement practice,
individuals who are aliens, who are foreign nationals and who are in
this country illegally. That, first of all, is a violation of Federal
law. Both the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 both prohibit cities from adopting that sort
of ordinance.
But secondly, it is just wrong. We have Federal law here, and we have
people in the ordinary course of their law enforcement activities
encountering people who are foreign nationals and in this country
illegally, and cities are passing ordinances making it a crime
basically for those law enforcement officials to let Department of
Homeland Security know that.
The reason this happens is there is no enforcement mechanism on this
Federal law right now. What this amendment would do is simply provide
an enforcement mechanism by making those law enforcement agencies in
those areas not eligible for Federal grants if they have such a
prohibition which is in violation of Federal law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1945
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) that it is interesting that we come to
the floor and try to make like there is a divide in the arresting and
detaining of criminals. Every jurisdiction, outside of the Federal
jurisdiction, has the right and responsibility to arrest criminals,
whether they be documented or undocumented. There is no divide on that
question. Local law enforcement, local sheriffs, local constables,
local police, can, in fact, arrest criminals, detain them and even send
them through our judicial system.
Your amendment, however, breaks the back of our local jurisdiction,
and it creates an enormous unfunded mandate. It would force cash-
strapped State and local governments to enforce civil immigration laws.
We want the criminals off the street. But you would force our local
governments to take on extra responsibilities without funding.
Let me remind you that the idea of enforcement of terrorism really
begins outside of our borders. That is what we are here to talk about,
to ensure that we have strong border security enforcement.
I would also offer to say that we hope that the DeFazio-Lungren bill
passes in a few moments because that is what it does, it ensures that
we protect against those who would come inside. That would protect the
Federal jurisdiction and the State. But this amendment preempts any
State and local laws that bar their law enforcement officers from
assuming the Federal responsibility of enforcing civil immigration
laws.
But more importantly, what it does is it forces local jurisdictions
to send private information on crime victims, possibly a rape victim,
who may be an undocumented immigrant. And this amendment opposes
another unfunded mandate on State and local governments. It undermines
effective community policing, increases racial profiling. As well, let
me suggest that it requires local government to give information that
it might not even have. Then you eliminate their opportunities to
secure their own communities.
And so, frankly, this is a bill that most of the law enforcement are
against, and it is enormously burdensome, and it breaks up the
responsibility, or it stops the responsibility of
[[Page H11847]]
law enforcement because it is divisive and it is unworkable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman from Texas, but let me
make it clear what this bill does and does not do, what this amendment
does and does not do. It does not require local governments to do
anything. All it does is tell them they should not prohibit, they
should not actively prohibit their law enforcement officials from
giving this information to the Department of Homeland Security. It does
not require them to give the information. It says you may not prohibit
or you lose Federal funds.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I welcome the newest
Member of the House from California; and I, likewise, welcome this
commonsense amendment because in this amendment the gentleman from
California encapsulates the challenge facing this House. We claim we
are going to enforce existing laws. Let us begin here. Thirty-two
cities and counties have not been cooperating. They say let us carve
out an exception. Two states in our Union are sanctuaries, Oregon and
Maine.
Ladies and gentlemen, if border security is national security, if we
have found that we have illegally in this Nation over 80,000 convicted
felons from other cultures, why should it be difficult for local law
enforcement agencies to themselves obey the law? ``Yes'' on this
amendment. It puts some teeth in the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, would the author please tell me what is
broken that needs fixing? Where is the local agency not, I mean, as you
say in your bill, you shall not provide any person, agency or entity,
pursuant, any grant, even any formula grants. You are going to just
bring law enforcement to a standstill here. You are going to create the
biggest bureaucracy in the world.
I represent a lot of local governments. I do not know any of them
that do not share this information. But I also know that there are
times when local law enforcement has undercover agents who are
undocumented. I found that out from previous experiences where they may
not want to tell anybody that is an undercover agent. And is that the
kind of thing? I mean, this is not the law that the local city councils
adopt. This is the way law enforcement does their business. And with
your amendment, I see that the Attorney General has now to determine
whether that city or county receives any formula funds of any amount,
and that they cannot receive those amounts in the future. What are you
going to do about Katrina? What are you going to do about all those
cities that you are trying to bail out with the floods? I think this
amendment is fixing something that is not even broken. I oppose it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell
amendment. This legislation is quite straightforward. It informs our
States and localities to enforce the law. That sounds ridiculous to us,
I am sure. But the fact is that one of the main problems with our
immigration laws is that we are not enforcing them. And under the
immigration reform legislation we passed in 1996, we prohibited States
and localities from barring their entities and barring officials from
providing immigration information to the Department of Homeland
Security.
Now, these counties and these States have decided to defy the law.
There should be a cost for that. And the cost, according to this
amendment, which says we mean what we say, the cost is that they would
receive no grant amounts made available to any Federal, State, or local
government agency or entity that violates the law. The rule of law is
important. Support this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
You know, I wish that we could find common ground on really securing
America and not, if you will, unduly burdening our local and State
jurisdictions that already comply with the law, that already arrest the
criminals. Now you are asking them to engage in civil immigration
issues, which should be under Federal jurisdiction.
And my good friend suggests that this is an allowance amendment; it
simply allows them to do this. He knows that by the very announcement
or pronouncement coming from the Federal Government, what he does is he
intimidates local jurisdictions and they take on burdens that they
truly cannot fund.
We should be focusing on securing the borders, providing an enhanced,
pre-testing program for those who are coming into the United States,
providing more resources for Border Patrol agents, allowing them to
enforce the border, giving them the law enforcement authority, being
more secure in the visa program that we have. Those are some of the
underlying elements that are missing out of this legislation, and I am
sad to say that the present amendment will not in any way, I believe,
provide any more security than what we have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support Mr.
Campbell's amendment to help rid our communities of dangerous illegal
alien criminals. I commend Mr. Campbell for his commitment to
immigration reform. His amendment would make sure that cities do not
get Federal taxpayer dollars if they have policies in place that harbor
and give sanctuary to illegal alien criminals. Sanctuary policies tie
the hands of local law enforcement officers and keep illegal aliens who
commit crimes in our country rather than deporting criminals according
to U.S. law. Under these so-called sanctuary policies, in certain
cities the police officers are prohibited from reporting the illegal
aliens who commit crimes to Federal immigration authorities for
deportation. As a result, taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien
prisoners who are later released back onto the streets.
Welcome to Congress. You have had an impact right away, Mr. Campbell.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I point out to all Members the reason you
must pass this amendment is it is against the law to have a sanctuary
city, a sanctuary State. This amendment goes to the heart of the
frustrations of the police and deputies. They apprehend the criminal
aliens, are forced to turn them back onto the streets. You want to know
what is wrong? Somebody says tell me something is wrong.
Newlywed Dallas, Texas, police officer Brian Jackson, 28 years old,
is the latest victim of this outrage. He was shot and killed November
13 in the line of duty. The suspect is an illegal alien that had been
arrested and released by Dallas Police Department on September the 11
and again on September the 16 with the full knowledge that he was
violating the law. That is why you need to vote for this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This bill will not work because local officials are not trained. They
do not understand the difference between those who are undocumented or
citizens. We are putting an unfunded mandate on it. We are keeping
crime victims from reporting the crimes to local law enforcement. We
are breaking community policing; and we are putting this heavy burden,
and we are not securing America.
Provide resources to the Border Patrol and you will secure America.
Provide technology and you will secure America. Vote ``no'' on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H11848]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 109-347.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The request of the gentlewoman is not timely.
Part B Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE 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. 8 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Amend section 402 to read as follows:
SEC. 402. EXPANSION AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DETENTION
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--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 (in accordance with subsection
(b)).
(b) Secure Alternatives to Detention Program.--
(1) Nature of the program.--For purposes of this section,
the secure alternatives to detention referred to in
subsection (a) is a program under which eligible aliens are
released to the custody of suitable individual or
organizational sponsors who will supervise them, use
appropriate safeguards to prevent them from absconding, and
ensure that they make required appearances.
(2) Program development.--The program shall be developed in
accordance with the following guidelines:
(A) The Secretary shall design the program in consultation
with nongovernmental organizations and academic experts in
both the immigration and the criminal justice fields.
Consideration should be given to methods that have proven
successful in appearance assistance programs, such as the
appearance assistance program developed by the Vera Institute
and the Department of Homeland Security's Intensive
Supervision Appearance Program.
(B) The program shall utilize a continuum of alternatives
based on the alien's need for supervision, including
placement of the alien with an individual or organizational
sponsor, a supervised group home, or in a supervised, non-
penal community setting that has guards stationed along its
perimeter.
(C) The Secretary shall enter into contracts with
nongovernmental organizations and individuals to implement
the secure alternatives to detention program.
(c) Eligibility and Operations.--
(1) Selection of participants.--The Secretary shall select
aliens to participate in the program from designated groups
specified in paragraph (4) if the Secretary determines that
such aliens are not flight risks or dangers to the community.
(2) Voluntary participation.--An alien's participation in
the program is voluntary and shall not confer any rights or
benefits to the alien under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(3) Limitation on participation.--
(A) In general.--Only aliens who are in expedited removal
proceedings under section 236 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) may participate in the
program.
(B) Rules of construction.--
(i) Aliens applying for asylum.--Aliens who have
established a credible fear of persecution and have been
referred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review for
an asylum hearing shall not be considered to be in expedited
removal proceedings and the custody status of such aliens
after service of a Notice to Appear shall be determined in
accordance with the procedures governing aliens in removal
proceedings under section 240 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
(ii) Unaccompanied alien children.--Unaccompanied alien
children (as defined in section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland
Security Act (6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2))) shall be considered to be
in the care and exclusive custody of the Department of Health
and Human Services and shall not be subject to expedited
removal and shall not be permitted to participate in the
program.
(4) Designated groups.--The designated groups referred to
in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Alien parents who are being detained with one or more
of their children, and their detained children.
(B) Aliens who have serious medical or mental health needs.
(C) Aliens who are mentally retarded or autistic.
(D) Pregnant alien women.
(E) Elderly aliens who are over the age of 65.
(F) Aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings after
being rescued from trafficking or criminal operations by
Government authorities.
(G) Other groups designated in regulations promulgated by
the Secretary.
(5) Implementing regulations.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall promulgate regulations to implement the secure
alternatives to detention program and to standardize the care
and treatment of aliens in immigration custody based on the
Detention Operations Manual of the Department of Homeland
Security.
(6) Decisions regarding program not reviewable.--The
decisions of the Secretary regarding when to utilize the
program and to what extent and the selection of aliens to
participate in the program shall not be subject to
administrative or judicial review.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a report that details all policies, regulations, and
actions taken to comply with the provisions in this section,
including maximizing detention capacity and increasing the
cost-effectiveness of detention by implementing the secure
alternatives to detention program, and a description of
efforts taken to ensure that all aliens in expedited removal
proceedings are residing under conditions that are safe,
secure, and healthy.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available
until expended.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My amendment is very concise and very direct. The amendment deals
with eligible aliens who are released to the custody of suitable
individual or organizational sponsors who will supervise them, prevent
them from absconding, and ensure required appearances.
Decisions on eligibility for participation are made on case-by-case
determination by DHS with no judicial review. The various options for
secure alternatives include placement with sponsor, group home or
supervised environment with adequate security.
There is a need for secure alternative programs because my good
friends over here are criminalizing the elderly, the sick, children,
and others who are now undocumented in the country.
The annual population of aliens in DHS custody is more than 200,000.
We will add another 11 million. The gap between the number of
noncitizens in immigration proceedings on a given day and the number of
detention beds available to the DHS continues to grow.
This is a simple, straightforward amendment that would allow
alternative sites to be established with criteria given by the
Secretary of Homeland Security so that you can, in essence, provide
secure alternatives for the elderly, the sick, the infirm, and
children. When you make criminals out of 11 million undocumented who
are here in the United States, by their very presence are made
criminals, then I would assure you that this particular secure
alternative program is needed. I would ask my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
rise in support of this very intelligent amendment. You know, most
people do not realize that we actually have fewer beds, detention space
in America today than we did on September 11. We have 700 fewer beds
today than we did on September 11, 2001.
I have a bill that has not been scheduled for action that relates to
unaccompanied minor children, and I would like to just mention the
plight of one young boy, Malik Jarno, who came to the United States in
his Boy Scout uniform to go to a Boy Scout jamboree. He is slightly
retarded and he ended up, a long story I will not bore you with, being
arrested. He did not commit any crime and was put in a jail, a 16-year-
old boy in his Boy Scout uniform, put in a jail with adults. It is
absolutely wrong to treat children in that manner.
[[Page H11849]]
The gentlewoman's amendment would make sure that children are treated
appropriately while their matters are being reviewed. It does not say
what the outcome has got to be, but just that we do not put children in
prison with adults. Civilized nations do not do that. And I commend the
gentlewoman for her amendment. It would also increase the ability to
hold those who are not currently able to be held since, for reasons we
cannot understand, the Bush administration has 700 fewer beds today
than we did on September 11, 2001.
{time} 2000
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Who claims time in opposition to
the amendment?
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me say at first, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from
Texas, and I know this is a well intentioned amendment. However, I
believe there are numerous problems with this amendment.
It is unnecessary and seeks to create a class of aliens who will are
not be detained with the rest of the alien population. However, the
mandatory detention provision of H.R. 4377 preserves the already
existing parole authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act that waives mandatory detention and releases aliens
for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public benefit. In
other words, the Secretary already is empowered and has discretion to
release juveniles and aliens who have serious medical conditions in
which continued detention would not be appropriate and women who have
been medically certified as pregnant, the very classes that the
gentlewoman seeks too release.
Also, this amendment creates a whole new bureaucracy that is not
necessary. It takes away power from the department and those who are
really experienced with these issues and concerns involving the
detention of aliens and empowers independent groups, NGOs and academic
experts from the immigration and the criminal justice field, with the
authority to design this program separate and apart from the Department
of Homeland Security. This amendment also requires the Secretary of
Homeland Security to enter into contracts with groups including the
NGOs and individuals to implement the program.
Simply put, this amendment applies only to illegal aliens who are in
expedited removal, which is typically 30 to 90 days. Such individuals
will be removed quickly from the United States. Allowing them to be
released outside of what the statute already prescribes would only
create more incentive for them to enter into and remain in this
country.
In addition, this amendment seeks to protect aliens with valid claims
of asylum who are already protected under this bill. H.R. 4377 does not
change current law regarding those with valid claims of asylum. They
currently have and, if this bill passes, will still have that right.
Detention of such aliens is still discretionary once placed into asylum
proceedings.
And, finally, this amendment seeks to shift the authority for
unaccompanied alien children to the Department of Health and Human
Services. We have a serious and significant youth alien gang problem in
the United States, MS-13, for instance, whose members are primarily
from El Salvador and enter illegally into the United States across our
land borders. Some of these gangs are dangerous criminals and such
members of alien gangs who could potentially be not only criminals but
terrorists. This amendment provides for a sweeping shift of power from
the Department of Homeland Security to HHS to deal with such aliens. I
submit that DHS has the expertise to deal with aliens.
We are in a crisis. That is why we are debating this bill today, and
mandating this change in law is not how the government should be
responding to these types of serious problems. This provision, simply
put, removes all discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security,
where it properly resides, to determine who should be detained and not
detained. And, therefore, for those reasons, I respectfully oppose this
well-intentioned amendment.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is
a decent person, and I respect that. But I do not know if he is aware
of the government's dismal record of arresting the 16-year-old in his
Boy Scout uniform having attended the International Boy Scout Jamboree
and then putting him in jail with adult prisoners. The record is not a
pretty one, and I just note that the Secretary retains full power to
lock up anyone he wants to if they are a criminal, but we have a very
serious problem.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure we
can point to extreme examples, but the fact of the matter is that the
statute does already provide and gives the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security discretion to release juveniles, aliens with
medical conditions and aliens who are medically certified as pregnant.
I think this is already addressed by the law. And, therefore, this
well-intentioned amendment, I believe, is unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I, too, have respect for the gentleman from Texas, but
I think he should read the bill and see that the bill already has a
secure alternative program in place. This amendment does not require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to be advised or the program to be
structured by a number of groups that he might consult with. It only
allows the Secretary to seek advice. Also, this provides only the
ability to set criteria for the different secure alternative programs
that might be put in place, that might help the elderly, the infirm,
the sick and children. And I give an example. In 1996, the INS
contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to run a 3-year
demonstration program in New York. It was effective, and it worked.
These are the kinds of suggestions that could be handled by the secure
alternative program amendment that I offer.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentlewoman's, again, well-intentioned amendment says that the
Secretary shall, mandatory language, shall design a program in
consultation with nongovernmental organizations and academic experts in
immigration and criminal justice. Again, this is a very serious matter,
and I believe that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
is in the best position to make these determinations, not outside
groups. And, of course, the Secretary can get any advice he wishes, but
this is a decision for him to make and not for outside nongovernmental
organizations.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think if my colleagues would studiously and
deliberatively think about what this amendment stands for, they would
understand that this is simply an advisory amendment that allows the
Secretary to consult with very reasonable organizations who understand
the importance of providing secure alternatives for detainees who
happen to be infirm or children or the elderly. The Center for Gender
and Refugee Studies, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Ethiopian
Community Development Center, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Project, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the Illinois Coalition
for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Immigrant Children's Advocacy
Program, the Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Midwest Immigrant and Human
Rights Center, Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance, National
Immigration Forum, Political Asylum Project of Austin, U.S. Committee
on Refugees and Immigrants, and a number of other
[[Page H11850]]
individuals recognize that this is a reasonable approach. It is a risk-
based approach that would allow the Secretary to consult to protect
these detainees.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 9 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. 9 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware:
At the end of title IV, insert the following new section:
SEC. 408. REPORT ON APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF CERTAIN
ALIENS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than two years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) the number of illegal aliens from noncontiguous
countries who are apprehended at or between ports of entry
since the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) the number of such aliens who have been deported since
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) the number of such aliens from countries the
governments of which the Secretary of State has determined,
for purposes of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (as in effect pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act; 50 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.), section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2780(d)), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or other provision of law, are
governments that have repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Homeland Security should develop a strategy
for entering into appropriate security screening watch lists
the appropriate background information of illegal aliens from
countries described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer this straight-forward amendment to the legislation
before us today.
Following the attacks of 2001, it is essential that we improve our
ability to track and identify terrorists attempting to cross our
borders. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King have drafted
legislation to better detect terrorist infiltrators, and I applaud them
for their hard work on this important issue.
While most of the illegal immigrants who enter the United States do
so for the purposes of finding work and making a better life, there are
also those that may take advantage of our porous borders to enter the
country and take part in terrorist activities. In fact, recent reports
have projected that as many as 4,000 immigrants from countries
identified as high risk will be arrested trying to enter the country
illegally this year. As we speak, terrorists are using alien smugglers
and document forgers to help move people through Iran and Pakistan, and
it is only a matter of time until terrorist organizations attempt to
use these techniques to enter the United States.
In 2004, the Border Patrol estimated that over 55,000 illegal
immigrants from countries other than Mexico crossed our borders during
a 10-month period. Of the illegal aliens from countries identified by
the Secretary of State as sponsors of terrorism who have been ordered
deported, only about 6 percent have actually been removed, and these
are only the ones we know about.
This legislation takes steps to enhance our border security
procedures and improve our ability to identify and remove potential
terrorists. As part of this effort, it is imperative that we closely
monitor trends in the number of immigrants from noncontiguous nations,
other than, obviously, Mexico and Canada, who enter our country
illegally. After 2 years of this bill's enactment, my amendment would
provide essential oversight on the effectiveness of this system by
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on
the number of illegal aliens from noncontiguous countries who are
apprehended at or between ports of entry and the numbers of such aliens
from countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of
terrorism.
My amendment would also encourage Homeland Security to develop a
strategy for entering the appropriate background information of illegal
aliens from countries sponsoring terrorism into appropriate security
screening watch lists.
With millions of illegal immigrants flooding over our vastly
unsecured borders, there remains a huge vulnerability to terrorist
attack. There is no doubt that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will
take advantage of any area that we fail to secure. Illegal aliens from
countries known to sponsor international terrorism, in particular,
should raise red flags, and Congress and the Department of Homeland
Security need to closely monitor these trends.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
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 from
California will control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should get this information, and,
actually, I believe that, under current law, the department is required
to give us this information. In fact, there is an Office of Immigration
Statistics buried in the bureaucracy of this department that is
supposed to provide information to us on a variety of subjects.
I would just note that this is an agency that not only cannot
administer, it is an agency that cannot count. We have had, for
example, and it is a different issue, certainly, than terrorism, but I
think several years in the last half decade where they have failed to
count the number of visas when there were limits on employment visas,
and then they say a big oops; they have given too many. And sometimes
they even try to sneak around and deduct the overassessment from the
next year's. They cannot count because they do not have any technology.
I think it would be quite a dandy idea to find out not only who has
been apprehended from countries other than those who are immediately
adjacent to us but a whole variety of other information, statistical
information, about these individuals.
Again, I appreciate that the author is in good faith trying to make
this happen. I will make him a side bet, maybe lunch, that we will
never get this information any more than we get the information on the
H-1B program that usually is due every year and usually we get it
somewhere between 1, 2 and even 3 years late and wrong. I would like to
get the information, but none of this is really going to happen until
the inept administration of this function is improved. And I,
regrettably, do not see that with the new Brownie coming on.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree, again, with the gentlewoman from California. I am worried
about her pessimism in all this as to whether we can get these kinds of
reports or not.
{time} 2015
But I think it is important to do this. I think it is very important
that we ask this Department to come forward with this information. This
basically is, again, a study after 2 years. They have got to give us
the report. But, by God, we have got to hold them to it, too. I just
think we have to know how these systems are working.
I do not think there is any question that the systems we have been
talking
[[Page H11851]]
about tonight on a couple of occasions could work, but they do not work
because the Department has not been able to implement very well what
they are prescribed to do by law already. We are not asking them to do
anything different here except to do some reporting. In that case, we
can start to make decisions about what is working or not.
So I understand exactly what she is saying and understand her
frustration, as a matter of fact; and in spite of that frustration, she
is supportive and I appreciate that also.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I once again am proud to urge adoption of his
amendment. It is very a constructive addition to the bill. It certainly
deserves the support of all Members, and I urge its adoption.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the chairman of the committee a
question: I understand from the Democrats on the Rules Committee that
we have not yet received the manager's amendment that has been
discussed so frequently on the floor today to the underlying bill. We
have not seen anything. Do you have any idea when Members will see this
manager's amendment that has been discussed today?
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. KING of New York. No, I cannot enlighten the gentlewoman at all.
As soon I find out, you will be the first to know.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate that.
Before recognizing my colleague, I just wanted to mention that on Mr.
Castle's amendment there are several other issues that I think we need
to consider, assuming they are going to pay any attention to this at
all, which I have questions about. We do have expedited removal
provisions, and the data-keeping is not very good there.
I would note also that part of our problem is that not only do we
have inadequate enforcement at the border; we are just not enforcing
the laws at the border, but we do not have the personnel to actually
adjudicate matters once we have apprehended people.
Now, the expedited removal at the border, it is controversial among
some, but I think not at points of entry. Judgments can be made. There
are problems that the General Accounting Office has told us relative to
asylum, the application asylum laws, that do need to be addressed. But
it is not at all clear that these numbers are going to be folded into
this, and I think we ought to be aware of that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman. You have made some very valid points, and I would rise to
support Mr. Castle's amendment; but I would appreciate if he would
recognize some of the dilemma that we face.
One of my colleagues from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, was one of the first
Members, I think, to raise the question of OTMs, which your amendment
in part would give us some answers to by providing information for
those undocumented aliens who would be coming through the southern
border who were not from contiguous countries.
One of the issues that all of us are concerned about is the route of
terrorism that might occur and might be utilized by individuals coming
from places other than Mexico. As you well know, over the years,
unfortunately, we have had a gap in our enforcement, and those
individuals have been released on their own recognizance.
My concern is as you have this thoughtful amendment, and I ask you to
consider this, we, frankly, do not have the detainee space, detention
beds, and the enforcement, internal enforcement officers, and also
Border Patrol officers, even though this is a report, to deal with the
large numbers of those who are coming in that we have been able to
ascertain. In fact, 110,000 OTMs have been released last year due to
lack of detention facilities. Legislation that I offered asked for
100,000 detention beds.
So I just raise that with the gentleman. I think the amendment is
thoughtful, but we still are without the resources to do what we need
to do on these particular detainees or undocumented aliens.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just respond for a moment, if I may, to the
gentlewoman from Texas. I do not disagree with what you are saying.
Part of the reason to get reports is to understand exactly where the
problems are, do we have insufficient detainee and foot patrol officers
and a whole variety of other things, for all that matter, judicial
personnel or whatever it may be, to take care of some of the problems
that exist.
It is fine to make the initial detention; but if you cannot do
anything with it, you have not really achieved much in terms of perhaps
preventing terrorism. So I do not disagree at all, and that is part of
my goal.
I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from California. I think there
are a lot of holes in all this; and I do not expect immediate, strong,
good reports. As a matter of fact, I think we are going to have to prod
to get some of these reports. But I think it is going to give us
information that is helpful. That is the reason we have come forward
with the amendment, probably to underline a lot of what you are
concerned about and saying in terms of what we have to improve with
respect to this whole situation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think as long as we
collectively, the gentlewoman from California, myself, are raising
concerns, and you accept or at least recognize that they exist, I do
think getting a handle on the numbers and maybe seeing that they are
larger than, and it would be wonderful if they are less than, but if we
at least have a definition of the problem. I thank the gentleman for
his amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do recognize the
problems you have raised, and I do think those are things that we have
to consider.
I do appreciate everybody's support for the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Part B Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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. 10 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
At the end of title VI, insert the following new section:
SEC. 615. DECLARATION OF CONGRESS.
Congress condemns rapes by smugglers along the
international land border of the United States and urges in
the strongest possible terms the Government of Mexico to work
in coordination with United States Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security take
immediate action to prevent such rapes from occurring.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reports of the lawlessness along our borders are
unprecedented. Stories about the number of young girls and women who
smugglers and society's dregs rape as they attempt to cross the border
are widespread.
Numerous recent articles have told stories of Minuteman members who
are haunted by cries of women who are being raped and abused, who when
they
[[Page H11852]]
first heard the cries, they actually thought they were coyotes wailing
in the desert. These are women and young girls being raped. All along
the southern border, the sight of women's undergarments hang from
border fences as trophies. This is appalling, and yet it is also very
telling. There are stories of mattresses tucked in caves for more
convenient access to rape young girls as young as 8- and 9-years-old
crossing the border. Violent acts against females in this manner are
despicable. Congress cannot and should not tolerate this behavior.
H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005, takes decisive action to reduce and
eliminate this criminal activity. My amendment to the bill is a
declaration that Congress condemns these rapes along the United States
border.
Additionally, my amendment urges the Government of Mexico and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to work together to take immediate action
to prevent such rapes from continuing.
We all understand that the best mechanism for preventing these rapes
is to encourage legal citizenship and to stop people from crossing our
borders illegally and therefore putting themselves in harm's way. By
including my amendment in the underlying legislation, this House is
sending a loud and clear message of its dedication to improving all
aspects of border security. Urging both the United States and Mexico to
take action is a good first step toward a peaceful, safe, and secure
border.
The bill also provides a tremendous overhaul of the United States
immigration policies, and I am very pleased that the House is debating
this issue before we adjourn for the year. As a member of the Committee
on Homeland Security, I look forward to implementing these measures,
and I also look forward to the time when reports of rape and cruelty to
young girls and women are not an issue on our border.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
thank the gentleman for his recognition of this amendment's merits.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Harris).
(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment offered by my colleague from Florida. Shockingly, thousands
of women who cross the U.S. border illegally from Mexico are promised
safe passage in return for sex and money. These women are not given
safe passage, but rather become the trophies of criminal rapists as
they hang the undergarments of their victims on the border fences.
But human trafficking and sexual exploitation impacts every corner of
the globe; and the United States must lead an intensive, multilateral
effort to stop it. Last year, an estimated 27 million people were
forced into slavery around the world. I have heard the heart-wrenching
stories of women and children, young girls, who are tricked, kidnapped,
and sold into sexual slavery.
These crimes occur in many forms, from sex trafficking to involuntary
servitude. Women, even young girls, are told they will be taken out of
the country where restaurants and hair salons need workers. When these
girls enter the country, their identification is taken away and there
is no restaurant, no salon, only brothels. Furthermore, these girls are
commonly told they must pay a debt for their transportation into the
country, and they are forced to sell their bodies to pay off this debt.
Our borders must not become the avenues for pimps, traffickers to make
millions of dollars.
These victims are left with insufficient housing, no access to social
services, no education, or job opportunities. Sex trafficking rings are
frequently linked to corruption, and law enforcement in some regions
are even bribed to ignore these sex slavery rings. This must stop.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment before us today takes the necessary
first step not only condemning the exploitation of people along our
borders but also strongly urges immediate action to prevent such abuse
from occurring in the future. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this amendment and condemn this lawlessness on our borders.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Who claims the time in opposition
to the amendment?
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 will control
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The amendment calls on the
Mexican Government to work closely with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of rape
along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Rape is a horrendous crime. Every 2\1/2\ minutes somewhere in the
United States someone is sexually assaulted, and only 36 percent of the
rapes are reported to law enforcement in the United States. It is safe
to assume that the rate of reporting is considerably less along the
border.
The women who are crossing our border are extremely vulnerable, and
they are unlikely to tell law enforcement officials that they were
raped while trying to cross the border without their papers. The
smugglers know that these women are vulnerable, and they take advantage
of them. I think in many ways this amendment makes clear what many have
been talking about today, and that is the need to gain control of the
situation at the border.
I have talked today a lot about how dysfunctional the administration
of our laws has been. We do not have enough Border Patrol agents; they
are not properly equipped; we do not have enough prosecutors; we do not
have enough judicial personnel; we are citing and releasing individuals
and letting them go. We have a chaotic situation at the border, and we
need to create an orderly situation at our borders. We need to take
control of it. It is not occurring right now.
Part of that, and again this has been discussed, is to regularize the
ability of individuals who want to come and be part of the American
Dream so that they do not have to be with smugglers, vulnerable victims
of crime, victims of rape; that there is some orderly manner for
individuals to move back and forth across the border, to do the jobs
that we know are not going to get done without them.
Earlier today, not on the record, someone said, Well, you know, if
this bill passes, that is the end of salads in America. I think we need
to contemplate the role that immigrant labor plays in the area of
agriculture, fast food, tourism, the hotel industry, the tourist
industry and the like. I think it is a mistake that the underlying bill
does not deal with that issue.
I do agree, however, that the gentlewoman's amendment really calling
on our two governments to coordinate, to fight this horrendous crime of
rape is well intentioned, it is something I can support; and I hope it
does some good.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2030
Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Mr. Hunter of California:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE IX--FENCING AND OTHER BORDER SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 901. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Hundreds of people die crossing our international
border with Mexico every year.
(2) Illegal narcotic smuggling along the Southwest border
of the United States is both dangerous and prolific.
(3) Over 155,000 non-Mexican individuals were apprehended
trying to enter the United States along the Southwest border
in fiscal year 2005.
[[Page H11853]]
(4) The number of illegal entrants into the United States
through the Southwest border is estimated to exceed one
million people a year.
SEC. 902. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS
IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF
MEXICO.
Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8
U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Near San Diego,
California''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Security features.--
``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2
layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional
physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--
``(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate,
California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate,
California, port of entry;
``(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico,
California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas,
Arizona, port of entry;
``(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New
Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;
``(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio,
Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass,
Texas, port of entry; and
``(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas,
port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.
``(B) Priority areas.--With respect to the border
described--
``(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure
that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed
along such area by May 30, 2006 and that fence construction
is completed by May 30, 2007; and
``(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure
that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the
Laredo, Texas port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo,
Texas port of entry is completed by December 31, 2006.
``(C) Exception.--If the topography of a specific area has
an elevation grade that exceeds 10%, the Secretary may use
other means to secure such area, including the use of
surveillance and barrier tools. ''.
SEC. 903. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study on the construction of a state-of-the-art
barrier system along the northern international land and
maritime border of the United States and shall include in the
study--
(1) the necessity of constructing such a system; and
(2) the feasibility of constructing the system.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall report to the Congress on the study described in
subsection (a).
SEC. 904. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall take all necessary steps to secure
the Southwest international border for the purpose of saving
lives, stopping illegal drug trafficking, and halting the
flow of illegal entrants into the United States.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, in fact in 1994, we mandated the
construction of a fence in San Diego California, a triple fence. And
that fence, with a basic fence on the border, a Border Patrol road,
then a secondary higher fence with an overhang, a second Border Patrol
road and then a third fence were designed to stop the massive drug
trade and the smuggling of narcotics and people across what was the
most prolific smugglers' corridor in America, that between Tijuana and
San Diego.
At that time we had some 10 border murders a year. We had gangs that
roamed that area that they called a ``no man's land'' to the point
where Joseph Wambaugh wrote the best seller ``Lines and Shadows'' about
the no man's land that existed between Tijuana and San Diego. We had
some 300 drug trucks a month crashing that border and running up with
cocaine for our children.
We built that fence, Mr. Chairman, and in doing that we knocked down
the murders from 10 a year to zero. We knocked down the border drive-
throughs from 300 a month to zero. We knocked down the smuggling of
both illegal aliens and narcotics to almost zero where that fence was.
I might say that the great Border Patrol chief, Mr. Sylvester Reyes,
stood in testimony, even adversely to his administration, and testified
to the sufficiency of that fence.
This proposal, Mr. Chairman, is 700 additional miles of fence, and it
has a great humanitarian aspect. The first piece of this fence, 361
miles from Calexico to Douglas, Arizona, is the area through which most
of the people come who have represented those 400 deaths a year by
dehydration in the deserts of Arizona.
If we had 400 college kids or high school kids or neighborhood kids a
year dying in a lake in a city, we would immediately fence it. By
fencing that area we are going to prevent those deaths. We cannot fence
it by the next hot season, which will start in the end of May this
coming year, but we have in this legislation directed interlocking
cameras so we can see people when they come across the border while we
are building the fence and we can respond. We can both deport them, and
we can also save their lives, Mr. Chairman.
The second piece that is mandatory here is the 15 miles on each side
of Laredo. Across the river from Laredo is Nuevo Laredo where the drug
lords reign, where they kill the local law enforcement officers within,
some cases, a few hours of their taking office. If we can dry up that
massive land smuggling with backpacks full of cocaine coming across
that smugglers' jump-off point in Nuevo Laredo by fencing both sides
with a double fence, 10 miles on each side of Nuevo Laredo, and we want
to have it done and it is mandated by this bill by the end of the year
this next year, we will have done great things for the people of
America and the good citizens of Nuevo Laredo.
This has a great humanitarian aspect to it, and we costed it out. It
is roughly $2.2 billion. That is a fraction of what we spend each year
to incarcerate the criminal aliens whom we currently have in massive
numbers in our Federal penitentiaries and in our local jails.
That is the essence of this.
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 time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will control 10 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
what it says about the United States of America.
I wish this debate had been held in committee and that something more
than just the last-minute long list of amendments could be debated
right here tonight, because I think most of the Members of this House
have not read this amendment nor understand the implications.
This amendment allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to not only
build a wall between Mexico and the United States but to study building
a wall across Canada, across our U.S. borders. In so doing, it gives
the political appointee the authority to waive all laws, not only all
environment laws but also notwithstanding any other provision of the
law, child labor laws, laws to protect workers from ensuring safe and
healthy workplaces, Davis-Bacon laws, civil rights provisions, ethics
laws for clean contracting and procurement policy, laws and statutes
that give small businesses a fighting chance for winning contracts for
construction.
There is no recourse to the abuse of power and certainly no good will
come as demonstrated in this manner in safeguarding our national
borders.
I urge all my colleagues to be rational lawmakers and avoid
overreacting in the hysteria of a few.
Mexico is California's number one trading partner. Our border with
Mexico is the busiest in the world. More people and commerce
legitimately cross that border than any other border in the world. Why
would the Government of the United States at a time when we are
advocating support for enforcement of law, why would the government now
want to forbid the use of a law to finish the fence? Not even the
importance of securing our border can justify placing a government
official above the law.
[[Page H11854]]
How can we celebrate tearing down the Berlin Wall, fight undemocratic
regions around the world, and build respect for law here at home with
this kind of message?
Allowing a political appointee to waive the law and to prohibit legal
appeals is not winning the war on terrorism; it is supporting it.
Ronald Reagan said, ``General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace,
if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you
seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this
gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
Unfortunately, someone will have to say that about this wall some day
because an America with walls between Canada and Mexico is not an
America that reaches out for the people of this world to come here
legally.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention that Ronald Reagan
closed down the border when our agent Kiki Camarena was murdered and
the killer was not produced forthrightly by Mexican authorities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who is a co-author
of this legislation and a tireless worker for the border fence in San
Diego.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from California (Mr.
Farr). We look forward to when we can tear this down. We want to be
able to tear this down when we see an end to illegal drug trafficking,
when we see an end to illegal crossings of our border, when we see
economies of scale because of trade. But until that time, because of
the success that we have seen with the 14-mile border fence from the
Pacific Ocean to the Otay Mesa, it is absolutely essential that we
build on that success.
We are in the midst of completing that 3\1/2\ mile gap, and Mr.
Hunter has just referred to the diminution that we have seen in cars
running across the border and people running across the border at that
fence.
This is a humanitarian issue as well. It is humanitarian because when
we look at the 1,500 people, fellow human beings, who have died in the
desert because of the fact that they have crossed illegally into our
country, the existence of these fences at the most dangerous spots
along our 2,000-mile border will go a long way toward saving the lives
of our fellow human beings.
It is absolutely essential that we do all that we can to strengthen
our relationship in trade, to strengthen our relationship in working
with the Mexican Government; but when we have a problem that is killing
people, literally killing people, and costing the United States of
America billions of dollars, the existence of this fence is the right
thing to do. And I do anxiously look forward when we see things
improved to our saying that we can completely tear down this wall.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my good friend knows that the
fence is no substitute for good intelligence.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and
the Transportation Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, they are proposing here to build an
extensive triple-wall fence along the Mexican border, ostensibly
building on the success of a very short section of fence, and they are
also proposing that we should study building a fence along the entire
2,000-plus-mile Canadian border. They are not talking much about that.
Here is a picture of one of the world's existing fences that
completely surrounds an area. It is in Melilla; and like Ceuta, which
is attempting to keep Africans from getting into the Spanish parts of
Morocco, they do not work.
The EU paid for these double fences. They use deadly force. They kill
people there, and people still go over it, around it, and through it.
It is 10 feet high with concertina wire on top. They will make it 20
feet high with concertina wire on top. It does not work.
When Hong Kong was walled off by the Communist Chinese, again, a
fairly extensive piece of land, and they could use deadly force,
businesses were set up on the Communist Chinese side of the border, the
entrepreneurs there, to guarantee to get people through in less than a
minute. And they did. And it did not work.
They say it is only $2.2 billion. We could do a lot more with $2.2
billion. We could do some interior enforcement to keep illegal people
from working here. We could hire more Border Patrol agents. There are a
lot of things we could do with $2.2 billion, but to build or extend
this fence, yeah, it will make someone rich like Bechtel or Halliburton
or whoever is going to build the fence, they will get a pile of money
out of it; but it is not going to work. It does not work in Africa. It
did not work in Communist China, again, where they are using deadly
force. Are we going to use deadly force?
How about some enforcement on the Mexican side of the border? Well,
they do not want to go there because they all voted for NAFTA. They do
not want to say let us withdraw from NAFTA unless the Mexicans put
enforcement on their side of the border. Right now people line up on
the border at night and the Mexican police say, hi, how you doing?
Okay. And then they run across.
How about a little bit of international cooperation? There are a lot
of things we could do here, but the things we could do that are
effective offend big business who are the patrons of the Republican
Party. That is interior enforcement, employer enforcement. People do
not come here to go on vacation. They come here to go to work. If they
could not get work, they would not sneak across the border. If we force
the Mexican Government to do something on their side by threatening to
withdraw from NAFTA, which we can do with 6 months' notice, again, big
business would not allow the Republicans to do that or George Bush
certainly would not do it because he is for open borders. But they can
pretend here they are doing something.
They are wasting $2.2 billion of taxpayer money to do something that
has not worked anywhere else in the world even where they are willing
to shoot the people that go through the fence, Communist China,
Morocco. It is not going to work here either.
And what about Canada? Come on, guys, talk about the Canada part.
Tell us about the 2,000-plus-mile fence along the Canadian border. That
is going to be a real piece of work.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce) who has been a major proponent for this
fence.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Of
course, the circumstance is that in San Diego this fence has worked. In
San Diego those crossing and apprehended where we have erected this
fence have dropped from 202,000 a year in 1992 to less than 9,000 by
2004. So, yes, people still find a way around the fence, but not many.
And if we are going to be serious, the establishment of a border fence
project like this is probably going to have the same impact on these
other communities that it has on San Diego, which is to say crime rates
have fallen to a fraction of what they were.
San Diego is no longer one of the most prolific drug smuggling
corridors. So where is the fence needed? On these corridors you see
here. This is where we can have the maximum impact.
Why is it important? Partly because this has become post-9/11 a
national security concern. If we do nothing to stop people attempting
to enter illegally off our southern borders, when we know that al Qaeda
has already indicated that its intention is to send agents over the
southern border of the United States with the intent of carrying out an
attack on the United States, we are not doing our jobs under the
Constitution of the United Nations to protect the American public.
Now, will we catch everyone? Maybe not, but 3,000 people from state
sponsors of terrorism have been stopped to date, and this is a chance
to make certain that al Qaeda operatives do not have an easier chance
of getting into the United States.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the 9/11 Commission announced to
America as one of the key elements of the disaster and tragedy of 9/11.
Even the families of the 9/11 victims who insisted on such a commission
acknowledged that it was faulty and failed intelligence.
[[Page H11855]]
{time} 2045
In this time of 21st century technology, my good friends and
colleagues, who I have great respect for on the other side of the
aisle, want to put into place the old Berlin Wall, again the same wall
that Ronald Reagan had torn down, the same wall that will be as inept
and ineffective and destructive as the Berlin Wall.
I think it is important to note for those who are talking about the
area of Laredo, part of the State of Texas, and many of my colleagues
from Texas have been champions on this issue, but my friends should
realize that the reason for the drug cartels in Nuevo Laredo is because
we busted the Colombian drug cartels in Colombia, and they simply moved
to Mexico.
So, rather than the old Berlin Wall, again, what we really need is an
effective law enforcement at the border. We are going to put the Berlin
Wall up, but we are not going to have 15,000 extra Border Patrol
agents.
I would offer to say that the Berlin Wall, without law enforcement,
is misleading the American people into false security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode), my great cosponsor on this.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hunter, Chairman
Dreier and all of the supporters of this amendment.
Will this wall, will this fence make America absolutely safe,
absolutely secure, and will it stop every illegal alien? No, it will
not, but it will make us more secure. It will make us safer, and it
will surely cut down the horrific numbers that flood into this country.
Vote to help save America. Vote yes on Hunter.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman
from Texas has the right to close.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
I just want to make a comment to my colleagues from California. Yes,
the fence they showed was a fence that has been built without waiving
any laws, a fence that is in existence. It did not need to do this
Draconian kind of legislation here where you are going to an appointed
official and giving them the authority to waive every law.
What really bothers me, and nobody has seen this, is one section. In
your section 903, ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a
study on the construction of a state-of-the-art barrier system along
the northern international land and maritime border of the United
States and shall include in the study,'' a whole bunch of studies.
That northern international border, as I know it, is called the
Canadian border. This bill is not just about building a fence across
the Mexican border. It is also about studying and building a fence
across the Canadian border. It is a meat-axe approach, giving all these
waivers, and it should be rejected.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues in
cosponsoring this important amendment.
In many ways, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005 is a return to basics for a complete
overhaul of our system of immigration. An integral component of the
basics is the long overdue need for securing the most populous areas of
our southern border with physical barriers. Like locking the door to
your house before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin
enforcement of our border with physical barriers.
My colleagues, Chairman Hunter, Chairman Dreier and Mr. Royce, have
attested to the success of the border fence in California. I believe we
can apply this success to other parts of our borders using additional
fencing and 21st century technology.
We need to stop the fluidness of our border before we consider any
other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need to stop the
bleeding before we can stitch the wound, and constructing barriers on
our borders is a critical first step toward curing this patient who has
long suffered from inadequate therapy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just briefly bring to the attention of my colleagues again the
point that we are trying to make.
We started out by saying that border security has no divide among
Democrats and Republicans. It has no divide among Americans, but there
is a right way to do and to enhance border security.
In this legislation, are going to offer the old Berlin Wall, again
separating the north from the south, separating us from our Canadian
neighbors.
It is interesting, however, that when we ask for 15,000 more border
patrol agents, increased recruitment and training of those agents,
adding more equipment to those agents, we get a resounding no.
We need to do sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, not one
that simply feels good, because the American people need real security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
the time.
I rise in support tonight of the Hunter amendment. Nine years ago,
Congress decided to build a 14-mile fence along the San Diego-Mexico
border to curb drug trafficking and illegal immigration. As a result,
the number of people caught crossing the border illegally along this
area dropped by nearly 200,000 in 12 years.
Mr. Chairman, Americans are upset. They understand that too much of
our border is still vulnerable. The world's a different place than it
was 9 years ago, and illegal entry has grown well beyond that 14-mile
stretch of land.
By mandating construction of a security fence along the five most
dangerous areas of the southern border, this amendment seeks to take
the next step in making our Nation safer.
Additionally, I would like to thank Chairman Hunter for working with
me to include language requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to
conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the northern
border.
I urge my colleagues to support the Hunter amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney
General of the State of California, who understands border control.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the
references to the Berlin Wall. There is only one problem: The Berlin
Wall was built to keep people in, not keep people out. I do not recall
in searching my memory a single example of people trying to jump over
the Berlin Wall to get into East Germany.
This is for a different purpose. It is a different thing, and your
suggestion that this is a Berlin Wall is only off by about 180 degrees.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining
time.
I thank the distinguished gentleman for his recharacterization of the
Berlin Wall. It kept people out, and it kept people in, and that is
what we are saying about the largest gated community in the western
hemisphere. It will keep the good people of Canada, the good people of
the southern border out, the trade and commerce, the friendship that we
have developed, and it will cause no extra security to the American
people.
Might I suggest to you that the 9/11 Commission reinforced the fact
that it is intelligence, good intelligence, that keeps Americans
secure. It is good equipment, good resources, good Border Patrol agents
that are trained, professionally developed, not the falsehood of a
security fence that cannot provide any security.
Might I remind my friends that the Berlin Wall allowed people to jump
out
[[Page H11856]]
and to jump in. The Berlin Wall was not a secure wall for the East
Germans. People escaped from East Germany. People will escape from
Mexico and the southern border.
This will only injure the relationships and cause no greater
security. I believe this amendment is doomed to fail, and it should
fail because the falseness of a security fence will not allow any
Americans to sleep good at night.
Let us reinforce the intelligence community of America. Let us
reinforce our Border Patrol agents, and let us reinforce friendship.
Together, we can fight against terrorists, and we can fight against
those who would come into the United States, undocumented, with real
immigration reform and a comprehensive immigration plan as offered by
many of our colleagues, such as Gutierrez, Kolbe, McCain and Kennedy.
Let us talk about comprehensive reform.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) will be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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. 12 printed in House Report 109-347
offered by Mr. DeFazio:
At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE __--PRESCREENING OF AIR PASSENGERS
SEC. __. IMMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER PRESCREENING PILOT
PROGRAM.
(a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall initiate a pilot program to evaluate the use of
automated systems for the immediate prescreening of
passengers on flights in foreign air transportation, as
defined by section 40102 of title 49, United States Code,
that are bound for the United States.
(b) Requirements.--At a minimum, with respect to a
passenger on a flight described in subsection (a) operated by
an air carrier or foreign air carrier, the automated systems
evaluated under the pilot program shall--
(1) compare the passenger's information against the
integrated and consolidated terrorist watchlist maintained by
the Federal Government and provide the results of the
comparison to the air carrier or foreign air carrier before
the passenger is permitted to board the flight;
(2) provide functions similar to the advanced passenger
information system established under section 431 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431); and
(3) make use of machine-readable data elements on passports
and other travel and entry documents in a manner consistent
with international standards.
(c) Operation.--The pilot program shall be conducted--
(1) in not fewer than 2 foreign airports; and
(2) in collaboration with not fewer than one air carrier at
each airport participating in the pilot program.
(d) Evaluation of Automated Systems.--In conducting the
pilot program, the Secretary shall evaluate not more than 3
automated systems. One or more of such systems shall be
commercially available and currently in use to prescreen
passengers.
(e) Privacy Protection.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the passenger data is collected under the pilot program in a
manner consistent with the standards established under
section 552a of title 5, United States Code.
(f) Duration.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot
program for not fewer than 90 days.
(g) Passenger Defined.--In this section, the term
``passenger'' includes members of the flight crew.
(h) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
completion of the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report containing the
following:
(1) An assessment of the technical performance of each of
the tested systems, including the system's accuracy,
scalability, and effectiveness with respect to measurable
factors, including, at a minimum, passenger throughput, the
rate of flight diversions, and the rate of false negatives
and positives.
(2) A description of the provisions of each tested system
to protect the civil liberties and privacy rights of
passengers, as well as a description of the adequacy of an
immediate redress or appeals process for passengers denied
authorization to travel.
(3) Cost projections for implementation of each tested
system, including--
(A) projected costs to the Department of Homeland Security;
and
(B) projected costs of compliance to air carriers operating
flights described in subsection (a).
(4) A determination as to which tested system is the best-
performing and most efficient system to ensure immediate
prescreening of international passengers. Such determination
shall be made after consultation with individuals in the
private sector having expertise in airline industry, travel,
tourism, privacy, national security, and computer security
issues.
(5) A plan to fully deploy the best-performing and most
efficient system tested by not later than January 1, 2007.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Hopefully, this will be a relatively noncontroversial amendment,
unlike the preceding.
We are doing something nonsensical today. We have, post-9/11,
required that manifests be submitted to the United States of America to
our law enforcement intelligence authorities for incoming flights for
all passengers on board. That is good. That was only voluntarily before
9/11.
Unfortunately, we do not require that this be done until the flight
has left, and we have all seen that a number of times flights have been
turned back. They have had to land in Canada or Maine. People have had
to be off-loaded. It would be a lot more sensible to have a program
where we could vet the manifest before the plane leaves.
So this amendment would set up a pilot program. The technology
exists. It is being done in Australia and elsewhere very successfully,
to have a pilot program so that we could show that this will work so
that we can both make America more secure and facilitate international
air travel.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do claim it;
although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great
pleasure to be involved in this bipartisan amendment with my friend
from Oregon.
The amendment addresses a dangerous flaw in our current system.
Under current practices, Customs and Border Protection does not
receive the names of passengers on board international flights bound
for the U.S. until after the flight is in the air, as the gentleman
explained.
When CBP finally gets the passenger manifest, it sends it over to the
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, so they can compare it
against the terrorist databases. At that point, if they find a name
match, there is no way to reconcile the situation.
This has resulted in numerous high-profile instances where a plane
was forced to divert from its intended destination, I believe in almost
every case while over the Atlantic. This inconveniences passengers and
costs the airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident. There
have been, as I understand, seven diversions this year alone.
What is worse, since CBP and TSA have been operating this program,
there have been two occasions on which the individuals flagged turned
out to be the dangerous individuals on the watch list.
Fortunately, there is a commercially available system in use for
flights to Australia that provides the airlines with a cleared or not
cleared decision for each passenger in real-time, not 4 hours before or
not 2 hours after they have taken off, but in real-time, at the time of
check-in.
The system has been offered free of charge to CBP on a pilot basis.
They have declined the offer and have yet to conduct any tests.
Instead, they have been trying to internally develop a new system for
over a year now. I believe we are wasting valuable time.
[[Page H11857]]
This amendment, at a minimum, will force CBP to conduct a test of the
commercially available systems within 90 days of the date of enactment.
If CBP can complete the development of its own proprietary system, we
will also get a real apples-to-apples comparison of the various
products.
Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will speed implementation of
this vital program to ensure that the airlines will know who can board
the plane safely and who cannot long before the plane leaves the
ground.
I believe everyone agrees that is the best possible situation. We
have, on a bipartisan basis I think, been frustrated by the responses
we have received as to why they cannot develop their own program and
why they then resist conducting a pilot program utilizing something
that has already been done in another country.
The only question it seems to me is scaleability: Can they scale up
to the volumes we have in the United States because obviously Australia
is a smaller country with a smaller number of people? But in this
computerized era in which we live today, I do not believe that
scaleability is a problem. That is the reason for this pilot project.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his efforts and
his willingness to work with me on this language. I would urge all
Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has spoken so eloquently that
I don't think I can improve upon that.
{time} 2100
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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 Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
109-347 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Hunter of California.
This will entail a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote.
Part B Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 252, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 639]
AYES--162
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--252
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Barton (TX)
Cantor
Clay
Davis (FL)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, M.
Emanuel
Feeney
Hyde
LaHood
Lynch
McCarthy
Meeks (NY)
Rogers (MI)
Saxton
Sweeney
Thomas
Waters
Young (AK)
{time} 2122
Messrs. CARTER, LOBIONDO, HALL, LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA, MANZULLO, AND
TANNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hunter
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H11858]]
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 159, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 640]
AYES--260
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--159
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Barton (TX)
Cannon
Clay
Davis (FL)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Emanuel
Hyde
LaHood
Lynch
McCarthy
Meeks (NY)
Sweeney
Waters
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2130
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
the Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________