[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6869-H6879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1018,
I call up the bill (H.R. 6094) to restore the Secretary of Homeland
Security's authority to detain dangerous aliens, to ensure the removal
of deportable criminal aliens, and combat alien gang crime, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6094
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Community Protection Act of
2006''.
TITLE I--DANGEROUS ALIEN DETENTION ACT OF 2006
SEC. 101. DETENTION OF DANGEROUS ALIENS.
Section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1231(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears,
except for the first reference in paragraph (4)(B)(i), and
inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end of subparagraph
(B) the following:
``If, at that time, the alien is not in the custody of the
Secretary of Homeland Security (under the authority of this
Act), the Secretary shall take the alien into custody for
removal, and the removal period shall not begin until the
alien is taken into such custody. If the Secretary transfers
custody of the alien during the removal period pursuant to
law to another Federal agency or a State or local government
agency in connection with the official duties of such agency,
the removal period shall be tolled, and shall begin anew on
the date of the alien's return to the custody of the
Secretary, subject to clause (ii).'';
(3) by amending clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(B) to read as
follows:
``(ii) If a court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an
immigration judge orders a stay of the removal of the alien,
the date the stay of removal is no longer in effect.'';
(4) by amending paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) Suspension of period.--The removal period shall be
extended beyond a period of 90 days and the alien may remain
in detention during such extended period if the alien fails
or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the
removal order, or to fully cooperate with the Secretary of
Homeland Security's efforts to establish the alien's identity
and carry out the removal order, including making timely
application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to the alien's departure, or conspires or acts to
prevent the alien's removal subject to an order of
removal.'';
(5) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``If a court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an
immigration judge orders a stay of removal of an alien who is
subject to an administratively final order of removal, the
Secretary, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, may
detain the alien during the pendency of such stay of
removal.'';
(6) by amending paragraph (3)(D) to read as follows:
``(D) to obey reasonable restrictions on the alien's
conduct or activities, or perform affirmative acts, that the
Secretary of Homeland Security prescribes for the alien, in
order to prevent the alien from absconding, or for the
protection of the community, or for other purposes related to
the enforcement of the immigration laws.'';
(7) in paragraph (6), by striking ``removal period and, if
released,'' and inserting ``removal period, in the discretion
of the Secretary of Homeland Security, without any
limitations other than those specified in this section, until
the alien is removed. If an alien is released, the alien'';
and
(8) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (10) and
inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) Parole.--If an alien detained pursuant to paragraph
(6) is an applicant for admission, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the Secretary's discretion, may parole the alien
under section 212(d)(5) and may provide, notwithstanding such
section, that the alien shall not be returned to custody
unless either the alien violates the conditions of the
alien's parole or the alien's removal becomes reasonably
foreseeable, but in no circumstance shall such alien be
considered admitted.
``(8) Additional rules for detention or release of certain
aliens who have made an entry.--The following procedures
apply only with respect to an alien who has effected an entry
into the United States. These procedures do not apply to any
other alien detained pursuant to paragraph (6):
``(A) Establishment of a detention review process for
aliens who fully cooperate with removal.--For an alien who
has made all reasonable efforts to comply with a removal
order and to cooperate fully with the Secretary of Homeland
Security's efforts to establish the alien's identity and
carry out the removal order, including making timely
application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to the alien's departure, and has not conspired or
acted to prevent removal, the Secretary shall establish an
administrative review process to determine whether the alien
should be detained or released on conditions. The Secretary
shall make a determination whether to release an alien after
the removal period in accordance with subparagraph (B). The
determination shall include consideration of any evidence
submitted by the alien, and may include consideration of any
other evidence, including any information or assistance
provided by the Secretary of State or other Federal official
and any other information available to the Secretary of
Homeland Security pertaining to the ability to remove the
alien.
``(B) Authority to detain beyond the removal period.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, without any
limitations other than those specified in this section, may
continue to detain an alien for 90 days beyond the removal
period (including any extension of the removal period as
provided in paragraph (1)(C)).
``(ii) Specific circumstances.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion,
without any limitations other than those specified in this
section, may continue to detain an alien beyond the 90 days
authorized in clause (i)--
``(I) until the alien is removed, if the Secretary
determines that there is a significant likelihood that the
alien--
``(aa) will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable
future; or
[[Page H6870]]
``(bb) would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable
future, or would have been removed, but for the alien's
failure or refusal to make all reasonable efforts to comply
with the removal order, or to cooperate fully with the
Secretary's efforts to establish the aliens' identity and
carry out the removal order, including making timely
application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to the alien's departure, or conspiracies or acts
to prevent removal;
``(II) until the alien is removed, if the Secretary of
Homeland Security certifies in writing--
``(aa) in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, that the alien has a highly contagious
disease that poses a threat to public safety;
``(bb) after receipt of a written recommendation from the
Secretary of State, that release of the alien is likely to
have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the
United States;
``(cc) based on information available to the Secretary of
Homeland Security (including classified, sensitive, or
national security information, and without regard to the
grounds upon which the alien was ordered removed), that there
is reason to believe that the release of the alien would
threaten the national security of the United States; or
``(dd) that the release of the alien will threaten the
safety of the community or any person, conditions of release
cannot reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the
community or any person, and either (AA) the alien has been
convicted of one or more aggravated felonies (as defined in
section 101(a)(43)(A)) or of one or more crimes identified by
the Secretary of Homeland Security by regulation, or of one
or more attempts or conspiracies to commit any such
aggravated felonies or such identified crimes, if the
aggregate term of imprisonment for such attempts or
conspiracies is at least 5 years; or (BB) the alien has
committed one or more crimes of violence (as defined in
section 16 of title 18, United States Code, but not including
a purely political offense) and, because of a mental
condition or personality disorder and behavior associated
with that condition or disorder, the alien is likely to
engage in acts of violence in the future; or
``(ee) that the release of the alien will threaten the
safety of the community or any person, conditions of release
cannot reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the
community or any person, and the alien has been convicted of
at least one aggravated felony (as defined in section
101(a)(43)); or
``(III) pending a determination under subclause (II), so
long as the Secretary of Homeland Security has initiated the
administrative review process not later than 30 days after
the expiration of the removal period (including any extension
of the removal period, as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C)).
``(C) Renewal and delegation of certification.--
``(i) Renewal.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may
renew a certification under subparagraph (B)(ii)(II) every 6
months without limitation, after providing an opportunity for
the alien to request reconsideration of the certification and
to submit documents or other evidence in support of that
request. If the Secretary does not renew a certification, the
Secretary may not continue to detain the alien under
subparagraph (B)(ii)(II).
``(ii) Delegation.--Notwithstanding section 103, the
Secretary of Homeland Security may not delegate the authority
to make or renew a certification described in item (bb),
(cc), or (ee) of subparagraph (B)(ii)(II) below the level of
the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
``(iii) Hearing.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may
request that the Attorney General or the Attorney General's
designee provide for a hearing to make the determination
described in item (dd)(BB) of subparagraph (B)(ii)(II).
``(D) Release on conditions.--If it is determined that an
alien should be released from detention, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's
discretion, may impose conditions on release as provided in
paragraph (3).
``(E) Redetention.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, without any
limitations other than those specified in this section, may
again detain any alien subject to a final removal order who
is released from custody if the alien fails to comply with
the conditions of release, or to continue to satisfy the
conditions described in subparagraph (A), or if, upon
reconsideration, the Secretary determines that the alien can
be detained under subparagraph (B). Paragraphs (6) through
(8) shall apply to any alien returned to custody pursuant to
this subparagraph, as if the removal period terminated on the
day of the redetention.
``(F) Certain aliens who effected entry.--If an alien has
effected an entry, but has neither been lawfully admitted nor
has been physically present in the United States continuously
for the 2-year period immediately prior to the commencement
of removal proceedings under this Act or deportation
proceedings against the alien, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, may
decide not to apply paragraph (8) and detain the alien
without any limitations except those which the Secretary
shall adopt by regulation.
``(9) Judicial review.--Without regard to the place of
confinement, judicial review of any action or decision
pursuant to paragraphs (6), (7), or (8) shall be available
exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings instituted in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
and only if the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies (statutory and regulatory) available to the alien as
of right.''.
SEC. 102. DETENTION OF ALIENS DURING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
(a) Detention Authority.--Section 235 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(e) Length of Detention.--
``(1) In general.--With regard to length of detention, an
alien may be detained under this section, without limitation,
until the alien is subject to an administratively final order
of removal.
``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this
section shall not affect the validity of any detention under
section 241.
``(f) Judicial Review.--Without regard to the place of
confinement, judicial review of any action or decision made
pursuant to subsection (e) shall be available exclusively in
a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia and only if the
alien has exhausted all administrative remedies (statutory
and nonstatutory) available to the alien as of right.''.
(b) Judicial Review.--Section 236(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1226(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Without regard to the place of confinement, judicial review
of any action or decision made pursuant to subsection (f)
shall be available exclusively in a habeas corpus proceeding
instituted in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and only if the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies (statutory and nonstatutory)
available to the alien as of right.''.
(c) Length of Detention.--Section 236 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1226) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Length of Detention.--
``(1) In general.--With regard to length of detention, an
alien may be detained under this section, without limitation,
until the alien is subject to an administratively final order
of removal.
``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this
section shall not affect the validity of any detention under
section 241 of this Act.''.
SEC. 103. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, or any amendment made by
this title, or the application of any such provision to any
person or circumstance, is held to be invalid for any reason,
the remainder of this title, and of the amendments made by
this title, and the application of the provisions and of the
amendments made by this title to any other person or
circumstance, shall not be affected by such holding.
SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) Section 101.--The amendments made by section 101 shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and
section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended, shall apply to--
(1) all aliens subject to a final administrative removal,
deportation, or exclusion order that was issued before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) acts and conditions occurring or existing before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Section 102.--The amendments made by section 102 shall
take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act, and
sections 235 and 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
as amended, shall apply to any alien in detention under
provisions of such sections on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVAL ACT
SEC. 201. EXPEDITED REMOVAL FOR ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON
CRIMINAL GROUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 238(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1228(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting
``Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of
discretion''; and
(B) by striking ``set forth in this subsection or'' and
inserting ``set forth in this subsection, in lieu of removal
proceedings under'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraph (1) until 14
calendar days'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (3) until 7
calendar days'';
(3) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears
in paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting ``Secretary of
Homeland Security'';
(4) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``described in this section'' and inserting
``described in paragraph (1) or (2)''; and
(B) by striking ``the Attorney General may grant in the
Attorney General's discretion'' and inserting ``the Secretary
of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant, in
the discretion of the Secretary or Attorney General, in any
proceeding'';
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of
discretion may determine inadmissibility under section
212(a)(2) (relating to criminal offenses) and issue an order
of removal pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
subsection, in lieu of removal
[[Page H6871]]
proceedings under section 240, with respect to an alien who--
``(A) has not been admitted or paroled;
``(B) has not been found to have a credible fear of
persecution pursuant to the procedures set forth in section
235(b)(1)(B); and
``(C) is not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or
relief from removal.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
but shall not apply to aliens who are in removal proceedings
under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as
of such date.
TITLE III--ALIEN GANG REMOVAL ACT OF 2006
SEC. 301. RENDERING INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS
PARTICIPATING IN CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.
(a) Inadmissible.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(J) Criminal street gang participation.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien is inadmissible if--
``(I) the alien has been removed under section
237(a)(2)(F); or
``(II) the consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland
Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe that the
alien--
``(aa) is a member of a criminal street gang and has
committed, conspired, or threatened to commit, or seeks to
enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or
incidentally in, a gang crime or any other unlawful activity;
or
``(bb) is a member of a criminal street gang designated
under section 219A.
``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph:
``(I) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street
gang' means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or
more individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of
which is a crime of violence, as defined in section 16 of
title 18, United States Code) in 2 or more separate criminal
episodes in relation to the group or association.
``(II) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means conduct
constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by
imprisonment for one year or more, in any of the following
categories:
``(aa) A crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of
title 18, United States Code).
``(bb) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering
with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant,
or burglary.
``(cc) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing,
distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or
otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed
chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
``(dd) Any conduct punishable under section 844 of title
18, United States Code (relating to explosive materials),
subsection (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a
violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of such
title) or is a serious drug offense (as defined in section
924(e)(2)(A)), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of
section 922 of such title (relating to unlawful acts), or
subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of
section 924 of such title (relating to penalties), section
930 of such title (relating to possession of firearms and
dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 of such
title (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body
armor by violent felons), sections 1028 and 1029 of such
title (relating to fraud and related activity in connection
with identification documents or access devices), section
1952 of such title (relating to interstate and foreign travel
or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises),
section 1956 of such title (relating to the laundering of
monetary instruments), section 1957 of such title (relating
to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from
specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315
of such title (relating to interstate transportation of
stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).
``(ee) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating
to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277
(relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the
United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of
alien for immoral purpose) of this Act.''.
(b) Deportable.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(F) Criminal street gang participation.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien is deportable who--
``(I) is a member of a criminal street gang and is
convicted of committing, or conspiring, threatening, or
attempting to commit, a gang crime; or
``(II) is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security
to be a member of a criminal street gang designated under
section 219A.
``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the
terms `criminal street gang' and `gang crime' have the
meaning given such terms in section 212(a)(2)(J)(ii).''.
(c) Designation of Criminal Street Gangs.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``DESIGNATION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANGS
``Sec. 219A. (a) Designation.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to
designate a group or association as a criminal street gang in
accordance with this subsection if the Attorney General finds
that the group or association meets the criteria described in
section 212(a)(2)(J)(ii)(I).
``(2) Procedure.--
``(A) Notice.--
``(i) To congressional leaders.--Seven days before making a
designation under this subsection, the Attorney General
shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the
President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader
of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of
the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of
the intent to designate a group or association under this
subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph
(1) with respect to that group or association, and the
factual basis therefor.
``(ii) Publication in federal register.--The Attorney shall
publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days
after providing the notification under clause (i).
``(B) Effect of designation.--
``(i) A designation under this subsection shall take effect
upon publication under subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(ii) Any designation under this subsection shall cease to
have effect upon an Act of Congress disapproving such
designation.
``(3) Record.--In making a designation under this
subsection, the Attorney General shall create an
administrative record.
``(4) Period of designation.--
``(A) In general.--A designation under this subsection
shall be effective for all purposes until revoked under
paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (b).
``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall review the
designation of a criminal street gang under the procedures
set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated gang or
association files a petition for revocation within the
petition period described in clause (ii).
``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--
``(I) if the designated gang or association has not
previously filed a petition for revocation under this
subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the
date on which the designation was made; or
``(II) if the designated gang or association has previously
filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the
petition period begins 2 years after the date of the
determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.
``(iii) Procedures.--Any criminal street gang that submits
a petition for revocation under this subparagraph must
provide evidence in that petition that the relevant
circumstances described in paragraph (1) are sufficiently
different from the circumstances that were the basis for the
designation such that a revocation with respect to the gang
is warranted.
``(iv) Determination.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving
a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph,
the Attorney General shall make a determination as to such
revocation.
``(II) Publication of determination.--A determination made
by the Attorney General under this clause shall be published
in the Federal Register.
``(III) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Attorney General
shall be made in accordance with paragraph (6).
``(C) Other review of designation.--
``(i) In general.--If in a 5-year period no review has
taken place under subparagraph (B), the Attorney General
shall review the designation of the criminal street gang in
order to determine whether such designation should be revoked
pursuant to paragraph (6).
``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place
pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for
revocation that is filed in accordance with that
subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to
procedures established by the Attorney General. The results
of such review and the applicable procedures shall not be
reviewable in any court.
``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Attorney
General shall publish any determination made pursuant to this
subparagraph in the Federal Register.
``(5) Revocation by act of congress.--The Congress, by an
Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under
paragraph (1).
``(6) Revocation based on change in circumstances.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General may revoke a
designation made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall
revoke a designation upon completion of a review conducted
pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the
Attorney General finds that--
``(i) the circumstances that were the basis for the
designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant
revocation; or
``(ii) the national security of the United States warrants
a revocation.
``(B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements of paragraphs
(2) and (3) shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph.
Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the
revocation or upon publication in
[[Page H6872]]
the Federal Register if no effective date is specified.
``(7) Effect of revocation.--The revocation of a
designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any
action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the
effective date of such revocation.
``(8) Use of designation in hearing.--If a designation
under this subsection has become effective under paragraph
(2)(B) an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be
permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of
the issuance of such designation as a defense or an objection
at any hearing.
``(b) Judicial Review of Designation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after publication
of the designation in the Federal Register, a group or
association designated as a criminal street gang may seek
judicial review of the designation in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
``(2) Basis of review.--Review under this subsection shall
be based solely upon the administrative record.
``(3) Scope of review.--The Court shall hold unlawful and
set aside a designation the court finds to be--
``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
``(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege,
or immunity;
``(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitation, or short of statutory right;
``(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative
record taken as a whole; or
``(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
``(4) Judicial review invoked.--The pendency of an action
for judicial review of a designation shall not affect the
application of this section, unless the court issues a final
order setting aside the designation.
``(c) Relevant Committee Defined.--As used in this section,
the term `relevant committees' means the Committees on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the
Senate.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 219
the following:
``Sec. 219A. Designation of criminal street gangs.''.
SEC. 302. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED CRIMINAL STREET
GANG MEMBERS.
(a) In General.--Section 236(c)(1)(D) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(D)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or 212(a)(2)(J)'' after
``212(a)(3)(B)''; and
(2) by inserting ``or 237(a)(2)(F)'' before
``237(a)(4)(B)''.
(b) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year
(beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation
with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit a report
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate on the number of aliens
detained under the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 303. INELIGIBILITY FROM PROTECTION FROM REMOVAL AND
ASYLUM.
(a) Inapplicability of Restriction on Removal to Certain
Countries.--Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3)(B)) is amended, in the
matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``who is described
in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) or who
is'' after ``to an alien''.
(b) Ineligibility for Asylum.--Section 208(b)(2)(A) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) the alien is described in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or
section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) (relating to participation in
criminal street gangs); or''.
(c) Denial of Review of Determination of Ineligibility for
Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244(c)(2) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1254(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Limitation on judicial review.--There shall be no
judicial review of any finding under subparagraph (B) that an
alien is in described in section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1018, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6094 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the Community
Protection Act, which consists of 3 crucial provisions to ensure the
safety of all Americans:
Title I includes the Dangerous Alien Detention Act which contains
provisions similar to those passed by the House last December as a part
of H.R. 4437.
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Clark v. Martinez (2005), the Supreme
Court decided that under current law, immigrants under orders of
removal can almost never be detained for more than 6 months if for some
reason they cannot be removed from the country within that time. As a
result, the Department of Homeland Security has had no choice but to
release hundreds of criminal aliens back into our communities.
The Department of Justice has testified that the government is now
required to release numerous rapists, child molesters, murderers, and
other dangerous illegal aliens into our streets. ``Vicious criminal
aliens are now being set free within the United States.'' One of the
aliens released was subsequently arrested for shooting a New York state
trooper in the head.
This bill will end this perilous practice by allowing the Department
of Homeland Security to detain certain dangerous aliens beyond 6 months
when they cannot successfully be removed. This would include immigrants
whose release would have serious adverse foreign policy considerations
or threaten the national security or community safety. Such aliens may
be detained for periods of 6 months at a time and the period of
detention can be renewed.
The title also provides for appropriate judicial review of detention
decisions.
Title II, the Criminal Alien Removal Act, was also passed as a part
of H.R. 4437. It would allow the Department of Homeland Security to use
the same expedited procedures available for the removal of aggravated
felons to remove other inadmissible criminal aliens who are not
permanent residents and otherwise are ineligible for release. At the
present time, these aliens must be placed in lengthy removal
proceedings before an immigration judge, despite the fact that they are
not eligible for any relief.
{time} 1245
This title permits removal of criminal aliens as expeditiously as
possible.
Title III of the bill contains the ``Alien Gang Removal Act''
authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), which was also
included in H.R. 4437. Crime by alien members of criminal street gangs
is a growing menace. Moreover, while criminal alien gangs are spreading
throughout the country, they often terrorize immigrant communities and
subvert the qualities of honesty and hard work that typify most of
these communities.
Despite the clear threat that the violent street gangs pose to our
neighborhoods and communities, immigrants who are members of these
gangs are not deportable or inadmissible, and can receive asylum and
temporary protected status. DHS must wait until they are caught and
convicted of a specific criminal act before it can act to remove them.
One of the most violent and fastest-growing gangs, MS-13, was formed
by Salvadorans who entered the U.S. during the civil war in El Salvador
in the 1980s, and has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in 31
States.
This bill renders alien gang members deportable and inadmissible,
mandates their detention, and bars them from receiving asylum or
temporary protected status. The bill adopts procedures similar to those
used by the State Department to designate foreign terrorist
organizations in order to enable the Attorney General to designate
gangs as criminal street gangs.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to make
America's streets safer for all.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H6873]]
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not
focusing our attention on proposals that would actually make our
Nation's borders more secure, but I think we find ourselves once again
on the floor of the House engaging in a kind of a political
gamesmanship that forecasts an election some 48 days from now.
By now many people in our country have lost their patience for
political theater and expect movement toward comprehensive immigration
reform. I used that phrase earlier, and it was rejected by a Member on
the other side of the aisle as not being pragmatic.
The House and the Senate have passed bills on immigration reform and
border security a number of months ago. Under regular order we should
have had conferees appointed and been engaged in the process of
reconciling the two bills. As a matter of fact, the chairman of this
committee and myself as ranking member would undoubtedly have been two
of the conferees.
However, in a substantial deviation from what is normal practice in
the House, the leadership decided to launch a traveling road show of
committee hearings in the States across the country in an attempt to
make citizens believe that they were being active on this subject of
comprehensive immigration reform. But most Americans, or at least many
of them, saw through the charade and the hearings were condemned in the
media across the country as both a waste of taxpayers' money and a
waste of congressional time when we should have been focused on
resolving the immigration differences that we have between the two
committees.
Now here we are at the end of September. The nationwide hearings are
over, some 21 hearings covering more than a dozen States, and we still
have no notice of when we are going to have a conference on the two
measures concerning immigration that have been already passed months
ago by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Now, by bringing parts of these provisions to the floor again, I
don't think is going to give much encouragement to the citizens who are
quickly losing confidence in the Congress. I think our ratings are down
to 25 percent support. That's as of today. We may fall lower after
these hearings because people are tired of theater, and they would like
to have a little show, a little progress, a little action.
So here we are reworking many provisions that were already passed in
H.R. 4437 last December. I think very few people are going to be fooled
by what it is that is going on here.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The border security bill that was passed by the House of
Representatives is being criticized by the Democrats. But our hearings
were not condemned by the media. Far from it, because at our hearings
we heard from the border agents, the sheriffs, the investigators, the
men and women whose task it is to enforce border security. They called
for the border fence that the Democrats opposed.
Now the Democrats are referring to their motion to recommit our bill,
H.R. 4437. Well, their motion would have gutted this critical
immigration enforcement bill. If the Democrat motion had passed, there
would have been no provision to crack down on violent alien gang
members. There would have been no provision to allow for the detention
of dangerous aliens. There would be no provision to crack down on
employees hiring those here illegally.
Their motion to recommit was meaningless and ineffectual. Only the
Appropriations Committee can actually allocate funds. The Democrats
know this, and they know that our appropriators over this year and next
have increased Border Patrol strength by 2,700 agents. This is the
maximum number of new agents who can realistically be recruited and
adequately trained in that time span.
But in the meantime we have the question of the broader border
security issue of whether you are going to erect that fence, whether
you are going to allow State and local law enforcement to assist our
ICE agents, whether or not you are going to crack down on criminal
gangs. Those are the provisions that we are bringing up today and
passing over into the Senate.
Our hope is that the Senate leadership, Republican leadership, can
get past the Democratic opposition this time and get past the argument
that all we should do is a blanket amnesty. We tried a blanket amnesty
in 1986. It didn't work. It did not work. And the concept that the
answer to all of this is open borders and another blanket amnesty is
simply wrong. It is a wrongheaded notion. I urge passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member
of the Committee on the Judiciary and a member on the Immigration
Subcommittee, such time as she may consume.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, as the ranking member
has mentioned, I am a member of the Immigration Subcommittee and also
the Homeland Security Committee. As a consequence, I had an opportunity
to participate in some of these so-called immigration hearings in the
last several months.
I must say that the impression that one receives, the inevitable
impression, is that there has been a lot of talk, but as they say in
the South, not much walk. Unfortunately, I think today is more of the
same.
Since 1995, when the Senate and House gained their Republican
majorities, 5.3 million undocumented immigrants have come into the
United States. Since 2001, when President Bush assumed the Presidency,
over 2 million undocumented immigrants came into the United States. We
have seen 12 years, basically, 12 years of Republican rule in the House
and Senate, their power, and basically nothing has happened. Nothing
has happened.
And now with 5 legislative days left before we adjourn and go out to
meet our voters, there are these bills that are being brought to the
floor that haven't had hearings, that don't scratch the issues of the
real security issues that face us. Interesting enough, these bills
don't even come close to what several of the witnesses at what
Congressman Flake termed the ``faux'' hearings in August, what those
witnesses told us.
For example, Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County, I think the
largest sheriff's jurisdiction in the country, said he supported
comprehensive reform, not piecemeal reform and sets of bills that
failed to address the full border security issue.
I think if we take a look at the substance of these bills, and I
don't think that is even what is intended here, but if we do, we will
see how little these proposals would actually accomplish.
No one is going to stick up for criminal alien gangs, not me, not
anybody. But the provisions in the act are not going to be effective.
The State and local cooperation, the enforcement of the Immigration
Law Act, does not require police to report immigration status of crime
victims, and it really is not going to do what I think the authors
suggest.
Title II, is a provision, it is a sense of the Congress that the
Attorney General should adopt guidelines for the prosecution of
smuggling offenses. That should have been done quite some time ago. It
reminds me of the bill that we passed earlier this week, and I was
unable to be on the floor, where we urge that the Attorney General and
the Department of Homeland Security gain control of our borders in 18
months' time. What about now? What about the last 12 years?
So again, we are going through pretty much a charade here. Meanwhile,
the President zeroed out funding for the State criminal alien
assistance program. Really every year since 2001 he has zeroed it out,
and the Republican-controlled Congress barely funded it at half of what
was authorized. In fiscal year 2006, Congress only appropriated $405
million even though $750 million was authorized.
The list of failures goes on and on, but the truth or the proof is in
the pudding. And I think as voters take a look at a situation that is
not a good one, the border is not orderly, at millions of illegal
aliens who have come in under the watch of the Republican Congress and
see here today the scrambling around to look like we are doing
something, I think they will understand that they are being played for
fools.
[[Page H6874]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, what we have heard from the other side of the aisle I
think basically falls into the category of the perfect being the enemy
of the good. When the perfect defeats the good, then bad prevails.
The way checks and balances were set up, it is really hard to pass a
perfect bill. I think one has been passed since 1789 in this House of
Representatives.
What we are doing at the end of the session is some good stuff.
Criminal alien gangs and all of the other things that I described in my
opening statements, I think they are good. If they are good, we ought
to vote for them. If it isn't good to deal with criminal alien gangs
that are poisoning and terrorizing our streets, then vote ``no.''
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman
Sensenbrenner for taking up this fight and for not giving up on this
fight and continuing to work hard to get some of these provisions
through.
I guess the longer I am here, I should not be surprised by anything
that I hear on the floor, but I still am shocked. I am shocked this
afternoon as I hear statements like, ``There has been a lot of talk,
but not much walk,'' and then that bringing part of these provisions
certainly will not give any confidence to our citizens.
Madam Speaker, I say that because I want to talk about just one part
of these provisions today, and that is violent criminal gangs. When we
began talking about violent criminal gangs and trying to do something
about it, our friends on the other side of the aisle first suggested to
us in the committees that we didn't even have a problem with violent
criminal gangs in the United States.
{time} 1300
But today they have backed off of that because they know that as we
are sitting here talking today, there are over 850,000 criminal gang
members in this country.
A lot of talk, but not much walk. They have fought us on every single
aspect of trying to do something to stop those violent criminal gangs.
And, Madam Speaker, I would just tell you that of those 850,000 violent
criminal gang members, if you look at the most violent gangs, all of
our testimony in the Judiciary Committee suggested that between 60 and
85 percent of them were here illegally.
When they come into our country, we don't even ask them today if they
are a member of a violent criminal gang; and what is worse is once they
get here, we actually cloak them in protections, either by giving
temporary protected status or by giving them political asylum, which
basically means this: they can stand outside our schools, stand outside
our neighborhoods with a placard that says: I am a member of the most
violent criminal gang in the world. I am here illegally, and our law
enforcement people cannot do anything at all to touch them.
And the common sense of this provision is simply this: it says, first
of all, when they come into the country, we are going to treat them
like we do terrorists, and we are going to say if you are a member of a
violent criminal gang, we are not letting you in. If you get into the
country and you are here as our guest and we let you in and you join a
violent criminal gang, we don't believe there is any socially redeeming
value at all in being a member of a violent criminal gang.
So if you join that gang, we are going to send you out of this
country, and we are not going to just set up some hearing date that is
30, 60, 90 days away that you won't show up at, but we are going to
stop you. We are going to detain you, and we are going to send you out
before we have a victim of a violent crime.
Madam Speaker, I would just close by saying we had testimony of one
situation in Massachusetts where we had a young girl who was deaf and
she had a mental illness. She was in a wheelchair, and she and another
handicapped child were taken out and raped by six gang members, and two
of them were here, one protected by temporary protected status and the
other one who had applied for it.
Madam Speaker, I think it is time for us to use some common sense
when dealing with violent criminal gangs and to say that we are going
to do something about them. We are not going to just talk about them,
but we are going to get some action done.
I thank the chairman for continuing this fight, and I hope we will
pass this measure.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, really, we are talking
a lot, but if we had acted in the last 12 years, we would be in a lot
better situation.
It has been mentioned that violent gang members should not be
admitted to the United States and that somehow we need to change the
law in order to accomplish that. I would note, however, that under
section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, gang members are
already inadmissible to the United States; and if we had adequate
personnel, they would have been turned away at the border. And thinking
about what we could have done, we could have voted the resources over
the years to do that. I will just mention a few votes that every
Republican on the floor voted against.
In 2001, rollcall vote No. 454 in November of 2001, Democrats
suggested that we add $223 million for border security to help meet the
promises of the PATRIOT Act on border staffing and what the 9/11
Commission recommended. What happened? On a party-line vote, that
additional resources to keep gang members out was defeated.
In 2003, rollcall vote No. 301 in June of 2003, Republicans voted
against consideration of an amendment that would have added $300
million for border security, including making a further down payment on
the promise of the Congress in the 2001 PATRIOT Act to triple the
number of border agents and inspectors along the northern border, and
all the Republicans on the floor here today voted against that.
Vote No. 305 in 2003 was additional appropriations that Democrats
were recommending, $300 million, again to enhance border security and
keep gang members and others out of the United States. And again
Republicans all voted against it; the Democrats voted for it.
Rollcall vote No. 243 in 2004, again Republicans voted against
consideration of an amendment that would have added $750 million for
border security.
In 2005, rollcall vote No. 160, Democrats tried again, and
Republicans voted against a motion to report back to conference with
instructions to add $284 million for additional border security
measures. That $284 million would have included funding for an
additional 550 Border Patrol agents, 200 additional immigration agents,
and additional border aerial vehicles.
In 2005, rollcall vote 174, once again Republicans voted against
consideration of amendments that would have added $400 million to
border security. And later in 2005, rollcall vote No. 187, Republicans
voted against a Democratic substitute that would have added 800
additional immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds,
helping to meet the promise of the 9/11 Commission.
In 2005, rollcall vote 188, again Republicans voted against a motion
to recommit the Homeland Security Authorization bill with instructions
so that we could add 800 additional immigration agents and 8,000
additional detention beds.
And, of course, rollcall vote 56 in 2006, Republicans defeated an
amendment to H.R. 4939, the supplemental approps that would have added
$600 million for border security measures in the bill, including $400
million for installation, 1,500 radiation portal monitors and air
patrols and the like.
Again, rollcall vote 210 this year, Republicans voted against
consideration of an amendment that would have added $2.1 billion for
border security, helping us to meet our commitments by adding
additional Border Patrol agents, immigration agents, and detention
beds.
Now, in the face of all of this negativism, we have here in the last
6 days of this Congress fluff. Fluff. I don't think the American people
are going to buy it.
[[Page H6875]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California has recited a litany of
rollcalls, and all of those rollcalls, from what I heard, deal with
appropriations legislation.
We have a budget. We cannot fully fund every request that comes down
in the budget; otherwise, the deficit would balloon to even higher
levels. But the fact is that the most generous parts of the budget have
been for defense and homeland security since 9/11, and there have been
some pretty large increases in that.
Then the gentlewoman from California says that this bill is
unnecessary because we already can refuse to admit gang members into
this country. And she is not correct on that. In order to refuse to
admit a gang member into this country under the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, that gang member had to have been convicted of a
crime. And the difference between her side of the argument and our side
of the argument is pretty simple:
They require there to be a victim first. Somebody has to be a victim
of a crime that has been committed by a gang member who serves time in
an American prison and then is deported and attempts to come back.
We don't think that a gang member should have to be convicted first
to keep him out of our country. That is a big difference between the
Democrats and the Republicans.
Now, we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric on this floor about the
fact that we have to have a comprehensive immigration bill. We passed a
comprehensive immigration bill in 1986, and the failure of that bill
has caused the problems that this country faces today with 11 to 12
million illegal immigrants in this country and the number growing by
over half a million ever year.
The 1986 bill was triggered by a commission that was appointed by
President Carter which was headed by the then-President of Notre Dame
University, Father Theodore Hesburgh. Let me quote a little bit from
the commission report, and, remember, this was the Hesburgh Commission.
Five years before the 1986 bill was passed, the Hesburgh Commission
said: ``We do not believe that the United States should begin the
process of legalization until new enforcement measures have been
instituted to make it clear that the United States is determined to
curtail new flows of undocumented/illegal aliens. Without more
effective enforcement than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization
could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry. The select
commission is opposed to any program that would precipitate such
movement.''
That was true 25 years ago when Father Hesburgh and his commission
penned those words. It is true today, particularly in the light of the
failure of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
The legislation we have before us now attempts to fulfill the
admonition that Father Hesburgh and his commission gave to the country
in 1981. That is why it should pass.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.R. 6064, the Community Protection Act of 2006. The Nation has been
calling for comprehensive immigration reform. By focusing only on
enforcement, the majority would have us ignore our Nation's economic
dependence on immigrant labor and does nothing to address the millions
of undocumented individuals already living and working in the country
today.
H.R. 6064 will have the effect of restricting the rights of
immigrants to due process protections, like judicial review and
immigration hearings, and could have serious, possibly life-endangering
consequences for immigrants and asylum-seekers. Permitting the
indefinite detention of an individual, even a non-citizen, is a
practice one would associate with oppressive regimes. Applying that
decision retroactively is a direct violation of due process; due
process is essential when you consider the number of documented
failures in custody review procedures and administrative delays.
The measure grants Department of Homeland Security officials, rather
than immigration officials or other courts, the authority to determine
whether expedited removal of individuals is admissible. The language
does not specify that an individual be convicted of any crime; it
instead allows low-level officers to play judge and jury deciding
whether an individual poses a threat to public safety. In doing so it
denies individuals the rights to safeguards provided by judicial
review, which has been so important to protecting civil liberties in
our Nation.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this measure and instead
move forward with negotiations for comprehensive immigration reform
that responsibly addresses all aspects of this critical issue.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to all three
of these bills.
We should be passing real immigration reform today not these mean-
spirited, divisive bills.
Real immigration reform should include a clear path to citizenship
not targeting people who don't fit the Republican majority's conception
of what a citizen should look like. Under the provisions of H.R. 6094,
they want to be able to single out two or three minorities walking down
the street, call them a gang, and have an easy route to deport them by
classifying them as a ``criminal street gang.'' Not only is that an
infringement on the constitutional guarantee to right of a assembly,
it's indicative of the xenophobic sentiment shrouding the Republican's
version of immigration reform.
Real immigration reform should take meaningful steps at securing our
borders like investing in infrastructure at our ports and airports. We
shouldn't be deputizing local law enforcement as border police.
Real immigration reform should recognize the intrinsic value that
diversity through immigration has brought to our Nation and not seek to
divide us as these three bills do. Unfortunately, this debate is no
longer about border security, jobs, or the economy--it has become about
spewing hateful, rhetoric. These bills will contribute to the
incitement of attacks against the immigrant community, such as the
recent arson on a Mexican restaurant in California, or the attack on
the young Latino student in Texas earlier this year.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are nothing but a cynical attempt 7 weeks
before an election to score political points. That's not only
irresponsible it's reprehensible.
I urge my colleagues to reject these hateful bills.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Community Protection Act of 2006, H.R. 6094. H.R. 6094 will not protect
United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the
Nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on
H.R. 6094 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis,
we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the
House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed.
The Community Protection Act would permit indefinite detention of
aliens who are considered dangerous and are waiting for the execution
of a final order of deportation. The most common reason for a delay in
executing the order is difficult in obtaining travel documents that
authorize the alien's admission to another country.
I object to the practice of indefinite detention for a number of
reasons, but the one that concerns me most is the possibility that
people will spend the rest of their lives in detention simply because
they are viewed as being dangerous.
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a
statute permitting indefinite detention would raise serious
constitutional problems because the due process clause of the fifth
amendment prohibits depriving any person, including aliens, of liberty
without due process of law.
The Community Protection Act would allow expedited removal of aliens
who have not been inspected or paroled into the United States, are
inadmissible on the basis of a criminal ground, a conviction would not
be required, do not have a credible fear of persecution, and are not
eligible for a waiver or relief from removal.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, already has provisions for
the expedited removal of criminal aliens, but it applies to aliens who
have been convicted of an aggravated felony. As a practical matter,
relief from deportation is not available to an alien who has been
convicted of an aggravated felony. Only two issues are involved in
these cases, is the person an alien and has he been convicted of an
aggravated felony.
In contrast, H.R. 6089 would establish expedited removal proceedings
for aliens who do not have a credible fear of persecution and are
inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the INA on the basis of a crime
involving moral turpitude, a controlled substance violation, two or
more offenses for which the aggregate sentence was 5 years or more,
prostitution or commercialized vice, trafficking in persons, money
laundering, and other criminal offenses.
These cases would raise complicated legal issues and difficult
questions of fact, such as whether the alien is removable under any of
the numerous grounds of inadmissibility in
[[Page H6876]]
section 212(a)(2) of the INA, and, if so, whether he eligible for a
waiver of inadmissibility. These issues cannot properly be adjudicated
in expedited removal proceedings.
H.R. 6094 addresses the problem of gang violence in the United
States. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, but
H.R. 6094 does not take the right approach. It would cast a broad net
that would ensnare innocent children along with the dangerous
criminals.
H.R. 6094 would establish new grounds of inadmissibility, which would
include the belief of an immigration inspector that the alien is a gang
member entering to engage in unlawful activity. It also would make
someone removable solely on the basis of membership in a group that has
been designated by the Attorney General as ``a criminal street gang.''
In addition, members of designated criminal street gangs would be
ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Temporary Protected
Status; and they would be subject to the criminal alien detention
provisions.
This approach might be less objectionable if every youth in a gang
was a violent criminal, but that is not the case.
I urge you to vote against the Effective Immigration Enforcement and
Community Protection Act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection
Act of 2006, will fix a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has
inadvertently put us in danger.
The bill allows the Federal Government to detain illegal immigrants
convicted of serious crimes for 6-month periods beyond their
incarceration, as long as at the end of each 6-month period the
detention is renewed by the Department of Justice.
Current law states that if a convicted illegal immigrant is ordered
deported, but can't be deported because their home country refuses to
take them back, the U.S. Government can only detain them for a 6-month
period.
After that, the Government is forced to release the criminal
immigrant knowing they may be a danger to the community.
We have a responsibility to make sure the laws of this land protect
Americans rather than endanger them.
Under this bill convicted illegal immigrants will be detained until
arrangements can be made to have them deported.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1018, the bill is considered read and
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. In its present form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gutierrez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6094 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 34, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 304. PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO APPREHEND
CRIMINAL ALIENS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) In the 9/11 Act of 2004, the Republican Congress
promised to provide 8,000 additional detention beds and 800
additional immigration agents per year from fiscal year 2006
through fiscal year 2010. Over the last two years, the
Republican Congress has left our Nation short 5,000 detention
beds, and nearly 500 immigration agents short of the promises
they made in the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004,
to the detriment of efforts to apprehend criminal aliens.
(2) Criminal aliens continue to be a problem in part
because the Committee on the Judiciary and other relevant
committees have not engaged the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary in discussion on resolving the differences between
the House and Senate on immigration legislation that the
House of Representatives or the Senate have already passed
during the 109th Congress and has not reported the same back
to the House in a form agreed to by the two committees, in
consultation with other relevant committees, that protects
United States borders, strengthens our national security, and
addresses the Nation's immigration problem comprehensively.
(b) Additional Resources to Apprehend Criminal Aliens by
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act.--In each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2010, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase--
(1) by 2,000 the number of immigration agents;
(2) by 250 the number of detention officers;
(3) by 250 the number of U.S. Marshals;
(4) by 25,000 the number of detention beds; and
(5) by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent
schemes and documents that violate sections 274A, 274C, and
274D of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a,
1324c, 1324d).
Mr. GUTIERREZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, has
the minority provided our side of the aisle with a copy of this motion?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, we do not have it. I object. I ask that the motion be read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue reading.
The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
objection to waive the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the reading is suspended.
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. More piecemeal
proposals. More tired, old, narrow, short-sighted policies of the past.
I think we should let the people around the country who are watching
and listening to this debate know that they are not watching a rerun.
This is, in fact, original programming. Yes, the plot lines are the
same. We even have many of the same characters, many of the same
arguments; and if the issues weren't so serious to our national
security, it would almost be humorous.
{time} 1315
But it is not, Mr. Speaker. It is unforgivable. It is unforgivable
that instead of rolling up our sleeves and getting a real immigration
bill to the President's desk, we are revisiting issues that this body
has already addressed.
Why? Why are we doing this again if similar language has already
passed? Could it be that there are less than 7 weeks to the next
election? We have so much work to get done. Why are we going back and
repassing provisions and addressing issues that have already passed
this body?
A poll out today by CBS and the New York Times showed that only 25
percent, 25 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress
is doing. And two-thirds said they believe Congress accomplished less
than it typically does in a 2-year session.
Maybe that is because the majority is bringing up the same bills over
and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I know that the men and women of
this Chamber are good people, I know they are compassionate, and they
are serious about addressing the needs of our Nation. So let's show the
American people that we care about their families, that we care about
husbands, American citizen husbands and wives being separated by our
bad immigration policy.
We care about defenseless children who are being punished for
decisions that they have no control over. We care about workers who are
being exploited, about the father who is fighting to remain with his
wife and daughter in America.
Mr. Speaker, rather than just talking about family values, we have
the opportunity today to show the American people that we really,
really believe in family values. We have that ability today. Mr.
Speaker, the motion to recommit I am offering is really simple. The
House has already passed an immigration bill. I do not like it, but
that is how the process works. The Senate passed its own immigration
bill. Some on the other side do not like that version. That is the way
democracy works.
[[Page H6877]]
But let's get into conference in regular order and reconcile the
differences between the two bills. Let's allow the legislative process
to work. Let's make this not about politics, but about enacting good
policy.
My motion to recommit will also ensure that we enact the
recommendations laid out by the 9/11 Commission and increase the number
of detention beds and immigration agents. Mr. Speaker, the American
people want action, they do not want more talk. They do not want more
excuses, they certainly do not want more debate. They want solutions,
and that is why they sent us here.
At the end of the day, if these bills pass, what have those who
support them really done to address the issue of our broken immigration
system? They have done nothing. Because, as former Secretary of
Homeland Security Tom Ridge wrote just last week, he said, ``Trying to
gain operational control of the borders is impossible unless our
enhanced enforcement efforts are coupled with a robust temporary guest
worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of
the shadows into some type of legal status.''
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said, ``It is impossible.'' Mr.
Speaker, impossible. For the sake of our national security, for the
sake of millions of families adversely affected by our immigration
laws, for the sake of our economy, let's work together to make
comprehensive immigration reform a reality. Let's name the conferees
and allow them the time to work it out. Let's ensure that the important
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are fulfilled, because each day
that goes by with silence and inaction on this issue means the
potential for another dead body turning up in the desert, another child
separated from her parents, another worker exploited, another dream
denied. The current system is failing our Nation, Mr. Speaker. It hurts
families, it hampers business, it harms the United States of America,
it makes us less safe.
The status quo is simply unacceptable to the needs of our Nation and
unworthy of our Nation's proud history of welcoming newcomers seeking a
better life. So let's work together to create an immigration that works
for families, works for businesses, and works to keep our Nation truly
safe. The time to do so is now, and the time for excuses is over.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my motion to recommit, so that we can
show the American people that this Congress is truly serious about
protecting our borders, bolstering our national security, and fixing
our broken immigration system.
Point of Order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not
germane, because clause 7 of rule XVI precludes an amendment on a
subject matter different from that under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may be heard on the point of
order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094 restores the Secretary of
Homeland Security's authority to detain certain dangerous aliens, to
ensure the removal of the deportable criminal aliens and to combat
alien gang crime.
The legislation provides DHS authority to detain beyond 6 months
aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed in a number of
situations, such as if an alien has a highly contagious disease,
release would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, release
would threaten national security, or release would threaten the safety
of the community and the alien is either an aggravated felon or is
mentally ill and has committed a crime of violence.
The legislation also provides DHS with expedited procedures for the
removal of inadmissible criminal aliens and provides new tools to
prosecute criminal alien gang members.
The motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from
that contained in the legislation under consideration. Specifically on
page 2, line 18 of the motion to recommit, it increases the number of
United States marshals.
United States marshals do not do immigration enforcement, and thus it
expands the bill beyond the scope of the bill and is nongermane. And as
a result, the motion fails the test of germaneness contained in clause
7 of rule XVI and thus is not in order.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order that the proposed
subsection 3 that I would add to section 210(a) of the bill is not
germane.
I would argue that this paragraph is germane to the bill. When the
subject matter of the whole bill is taken into consideration, H.R. 6094
presents a number of different immigration reform proposals that my
subsection 3 addresses, related legislation that addresses the same
exact subject matter.
All day today, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the proponents of
this bill argue that the various immigration reform proposals included
in the bill are a valuable alternative to a more comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that is stalled in the 109th Congress.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is
related to the many other immigration reform proposals this House has
considered over the past 2 years.
Republicans are trying to pretend that the 109th Congress has not
debated the immigration issue on many other occasions other than today.
That is simply not the case and is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This House has
debated the subject matter of this bill many times. My motion simply
suggests a better way to handle the subject matter of this bill, which
is to go to conference with the comprehensive bills the two Houses have
already passed, and that is why I consider it germane.
Look, we all agree the drug dealers, gang members have no place in
our society. Alien smugglers who live out of the hopes and aspirations
of this who wish to come, but rape and rob and murder people should be
thrown into jail, and we should throw away the key.
There are 11 to 12 million people walking around this country, and we
do not know who they are. We do not have an address, an employer. We
believe that they should have a place in this society if they have
followed the rules.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman
from Illinois must confine his remarks to the point of order before the
House
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I will. I believe I have. I want to do
exactly the same thing. Members on this side of the aisle want to do
exactly the same things, and we can agree on them. Let's sit down at a
table. Let's do it in a comprehensive manner.
Mr Speaker, that is why think the point of order is not good on this
particular issue, I think it is germane.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The bill is
confined to immigration matters. As argued by gentleman from Wisconsin,
the motion to recommit addresses U.S. marshals beyond their work in an
immigration context.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal
the ruling of the Chair on the point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
[[Page H6878]]
minute vote on the motion to lay the appeal on the table may be
followed by a 5-minute vote on passage, if arising without further
debate or proceedings in recommittal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 464]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
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
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
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
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Case
Cubin
Harris
Hyde
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Moore (KS)
Ney
Strickland
Sullivan
Thomas
Whitfield
{time} 1352
Mr. MEEKS of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 328,
nays 95, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--328
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
[[Page H6879]]
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--95
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Cleaver
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Solis
Stark
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Case
Cubin
Eshoo
Harris
Hyde
Meehan
Moore (KS)
Ney
Strickland
{time} 1402
Mr. ISRAEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________