Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6880-H6894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2006

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1018, I
call up the bill (H.R. 6095) to affirm the inherent authority of State
and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of immigration
laws, to provide for effective prosecution of alien smugglers, and to
reform immigration litigation procedures, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6095

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 ``Immigration Law Enforcement
Act of 2006''.

TITLE I--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF IMMIGRATION LAW ACT

SEC. 101. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF ASSISTANCE IN IMMIGRATION
LAW ENFORCEMENT BY STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and reaffirming the existing inherent authority of States,
law enforcement personnel of a State or a political
subdivision of a State have the inherent authority of a
sovereign entity to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest,
detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United
States (including the transportation of such aliens across
State lines to detention centers), for the purposes of
assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States in the course of carrying out routine duties.
This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by
Congress.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to require law enforcement personnel of a State or political
subdivision of a State to--
(1) report the identity of a victim of, or a witness to, a
criminal offense to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
immigration enforcement purposes; or
(2) arrest such victim or witness for a violation of the
immigration laws of the United States.

TITLE II--ALIEN SMUGGLER PROSECUTION ACT

SEC. 201. EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF ALIEN SMUGGLERS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Recent experience shows that alien smuggling is
flourishing, is increasingly violent, and is highly
profitable.
(2) Alien smuggling operations also present terrorist and
criminal organizations with opportunities for smuggling their
members into the United States practically at will.
(3) Alien smuggling is a lucrative business. Each year,
criminal organizations that smuggle or traffic in persons are
estimated to generate $9,500,000,000 in revenue worldwide.
(4) Alien smuggling frequently involves dangerous and
inhumane conditions for smuggled aliens. Migrants are
frequently abused or exploited, both during their journey and
upon reaching the United States. Consequently, aliens
smuggled into the United States are at significant risk of
physical injury, abuse, and death.
(5) Notwithstanding that alien smuggling poses a risk to
the United States as a whole, uniform guidelines for the
prosecution of smuggling offenses are not employed by the
various United States attorneys. Understanding that border-
area United States attorneys face an overwhelming workload, a
lack of sufficient prosecutions by certain United States
attorneys has encouraged additional smuggling, and
demoralized Border Patrol officers charged with enforcing our
anti-smuggling laws.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the Attorney General should adopt, not later than 3
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, uniform
guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses to be
followed by each United States attorney in the United States.
(c) Additional Personnel.--In each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2013, the Attorney General shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, increase by not less than 20
the number of attorneys in the offices of United States
attorneys employed to prosecute cases under section 274 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324), as
compared to the previous fiscal year.

TITLE III--ENDING CATCH AND RELEASE ACT OF 2006

SEC. 301. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR IMMIGRATION LITIGATION.

(a) Requirements for an Order Granting Prospective Relief
Against the Government.--
(1) In general.--If a court determines that prospective
relief should be ordered against the Government in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, the court shall--
(A) limit the relief to the minimum necessary to correct
the violation of law;
(B) adopt the least intrusive means to correct the
violation of law;
(C) minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the
adverse impact on national security, border security,
immigration administration and enforcement, and public
safety; and
(D) provide for the expiration of the relief on a specific
date, which is not later than the earliest date necessary for
the Government to remedy the violation.
(2) Written explanation.--The requirements described in
paragraph (1) shall be discussed and explained in writing in
the order granting prospective relief and must be
sufficiently detailed to allow review by another court.
(3) Expiration of preliminary injunctive relief.--
Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on
the date that is 90 days after the date on which such relief
is entered, unless the court--
(A) makes the findings required under paragraph (1) for the
entry of permanent prospective relief; and
(B) makes the order final before expiration of such 90-day
period.
(4) Requirements for order denying motion.--This subsection
shall apply to any order denying the Government's motion to
vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise terminate an order
granting prospective relief in any civil action pertaining to
the administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of
the United States.
(b) Procedure for Motion Affecting Order Granting
Prospective Relief Against the Government.--
(1) In general.--A court shall promptly rule on the
Government's motion to vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise
terminate an order granting prospective relief in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States.
(2) Automatic stays.--
(A) In general.--The Government's motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve, or otherwise terminate an order granting
prospective relief made in any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States shall automatically, and without further order
of the court, stay the order granting prospective relief on
the date that is 15 days after the date on which such motion
is filed unless the court previously has granted or denied
the Government's motion.
(B) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay under
subparagraph (A) shall continue until the court enters an
order granting or denying the Government's motion.
(C) Postponement.--The court, for good cause, may postpone
an automatic stay under subparagraph (A) for not longer than
15 days.
(D) Orders blocking automatic stays.--Any order staying,
suspending, delaying, or otherwise barring the effective date
of the automatic stay described in subparagraph (A), other
than an order to postpone the effective date of the automatic
stay for not longer than 15 days under subparagraph (C),
shall be--
(i) treated as an order refusing to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an injunction; and
(ii) immediately appealable under section 1292(a)(1) of
title 28, United States Code.
(c) Settlements.--
(1) Consent decrees.--In any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States, the court may not enter, approve, or continue
a consent decree that does not comply with subsection (a).
(2) Private settlement agreements.--Nothing in this section
shall preclude parties from entering into a private
settlement agreement that does not comply with subsection (a)
if the terms of that agreement are not subject to court
enforcement other than reinstatement of the civil proceedings
that the agreement settled.
(d) Expedited Proceedings.--It shall be the duty of every
court to advance on the docket and to expedite the
disposition of any civil action or motion considered under
this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Consent decree.--The term ``consent decree''--

[[Page H6881]]

(A) means any relief entered by the court that is based in
whole or in part on the consent or acquiescence of the
parties; and
(B) does not include private settlements.
(2) Good cause.--The term ``good cause'' does not include
discovery or congestion of the court's calendar.
(3) Government.--The term ``Government'' means the United
States, any Federal department or agency, or any Federal
agent or official acting within the scope of official duties.
(4) Permanent relief.--The term ``permanent relief'' means
relief issued in connection with a final decision of a court.
(5) Private settlement agreement.--The term ``private
settlement agreement'' means an agreement entered into among
the parties that is not subject to judicial enforcement other
than the reinstatement of the civil action that the agreement
settled.
(6) Prospective relief.--The term ``prospective relief''
means temporary, preliminary, or permanent relief other than
compensatory monetary damages.

SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--This title shall apply with respect to all
orders granting prospective relief in any civil action
pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, whether such relief
was ordered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Pending Motions.--Every motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an order granting prospective
relief in any such action, which motion is pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall be treated as if it
had been filed on such date of enactment.
(c) Automatic Stay for Pending Motions.--
(1) In general.--An automatic stay with respect to the
prospective relief that is the subject of a motion described
in subsection (b) shall take effect without further order of
the court on the date which is 10 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act if the motion--
(A) was pending for 45 days as of the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(B) is still pending on the date which is 10 days after
such date of enactment.
(2) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay that
takes effect under paragraph (1) shall continue until the
court enters an order granting or denying the Government's
motion under section 301(b). There shall be no further
postponement of the automatic stay with respect to any such
pending motion under section 301(b)(2). Any order, staying,
suspending, delaying or otherwise barring the effective date
of this automatic stay with respect to pending motions
described in subsection (b) shall be an order blocking an
automatic stay subject to immediate appeal under section
301(b)(2)(D).

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.

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6095 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law
Enforcement Act of 2006, which will allow Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers to more effectively enforce our immigration laws
along the border and in the interior of the United States.
Title I of the legislation is based on an amendment to H.R. 4437
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). The title
reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to
voluntarily, and I emphasize the word ``voluntarily,'' assist in the
enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Many local and State law
enforcement officers are eager to assist in the enforcement of our
immigration laws to protect their communities and serve as a valuable
force multiplier to overburdened Department of Homeland Security
officers. We should provide them with the clear authority they seek
rather than placing obstacles in their way.
Title II of the bill contains the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act.
Currently, the various United States Attorney offices do not use
uniform guidelines to prosecute smuggling offenses. While border area
U.S. Attorneys face a heavy workload, a lack of sufficient smuggling
prosecutions in some areas has become a serious problem. This has
encouraged additional smuggling and demoralized Border Patrol and DHS
agents who have seen many of the smugglers they have apprehended
released.
This title contains a sense of Congress that the Attorney General
should adopt uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling
offenses by each U.S. Attorney's office and authorizes an increase in
the number of attorneys in U.S. Attorneys' offices to prosecute such
cases. The bill requires an increase of not less than 20 new attorneys
over the previous years' level in each of fiscal years 2008 to 2013, to
affirm the urgency of prosecuting the alien smugglers who prey on the
most vulnerable.
Title III provides for ending the Catch and Release Act. DHS is
subject to Federal court injunctions entered as much as 30 years ago
that impact its ability to enforce immigration laws. For instance, one
injunction dating from the El Salvadoran civil war of the 1980s
effectively prevents DHS from placing Salvadorans in expedited removal
proceedings. DHS is using expedited removal to expeditiously remove
other non-Mexican illegal immigrants who are apprehended along the
southern border in order to end the policy of catch and release, but
not Salvadorans.
Under the catch and release policy, non-Mexican illegal aliens picked
up by the Border Patrol were simply released into our communities and
told to show up months later for removal hearings. They almost never
attended. Catch and release made a mockery of border enforcement and
has terribly demoralized Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Speaker, this provides law enforcement agencies at all levels of
government with the clear authority to help ensure the integrity and
enforceability of our Nation's immigration laws.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, my colleagues, we are going through an exercise to convince
the American people that now is the time for comprehensive reform, a
week before recess, with continued disagreement between the House, the
Senate, and the administration, and with narrowly repackaged bills.
These bills, and this one before us introduced just 2 days ago, are
substantively flawed and do not provide for comprehensive reform.

{time} 1430

H.R. 6095 is touted as a law enforcement bill, but it is opposed by
our State and local law enforcement officials.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the comments of law enforcement
associations and departments, police chiefs, sheriff associations,
department heads across this country, and other law enforcement
individuals to demonstrate how the policy is considered dangerous in
this proposal.
This bill, opposed by State and local law enforcement raises the
question: Why would they be opposed to a bill in which they are being
invited in to take over some national law enforcement responsibilities?
Well, it is because it will strain the relationship between the
police and immigrants and citizens. It will obstruct police in their
mission of keeping our streets safe. Essentially the bill is asking the
State and local police to pick up the slack for the Federal Government.
Now, title II of this same measure, the Alien Smuggler Prosecution
Act, should really be examined carefully. Increasing resources for
alien smuggling prosecution is quite appropriate; however, this bill
will not decrease immigrant smuggling, and it will not resolve any of
the fundamental flaws in our immigration system. The bill has nothing
to do with the practice known as ``catch and release'' which has been
referred to already. This proposal does little more than tie the hands
of courts in immigration cases. Judges will be burdened with new
requirements, and other civil cases will be denied their day in court.
Just like the field hearings between the bills passed in the House
and the immigration bills passed in the Senate, today's bills are
clearly meant to distract the American public. Too bad, though, this
country has already gotten wise to the smoke-and-mirrors show.
Americans want comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders, and
once again this body is failing to deliver.

[[Page H6882]]

Proposals To Expand the Immigration Authority of State and Local
Police--Dangerous Public Policy According to Law Enforcement,
Governments, Opinion Leaders, and Communities

LAw ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS

International Association of Chiefs of Police, President
Joseph Estey--``Many leaders in the law enforcement community
have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure
of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens
reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal
investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the
ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively
their communities and protect the public they serve.'' (IACP
press release, 12/1/2004)
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislative
Counsel Gene Voegtlin--``A key concern is that state and
local enforcement involvement in immigration can have a
chilling effect on the relationship with the immigrant
community in their jurisdiction.'' (``Cities and States Take
on Difficult Duty of Handling Undocumented Workers,'' The
Wall Street Journal, 2/2/2006)
Major Cities Chiefs Association--``Such a divide between
the local police and immigrant groups would result in
increased crime against immigrants and in the broader
community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the
potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or
preventing future terroristic acts.'' (Immigration Committee
Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws By Local
Police Agencies, adopted June 2006)
California State Sheriffs' Association, President Bruce
Mix--``CSSA is concerned that the proposed CLEAR Act will
undermine our primary mission of protecting the public. In
order for local and state law enforcement associations to be
effective partners with their communities, we believe it is
imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining
and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their
immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 3/10/
2004)
California Police Chiefs Association, President Rick
TerBorch--``It is the strong opinion of the California Police
Chiefs'' Association that in order for local and state law
enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their
communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the
role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a
change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator
Feinstein, 9/19/2003)
Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association, President James
Strillacci--``We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce
the law in those communities. With this [legislation],
there's no protection for them.'' (``Mayor asks for federal
help,'' Danbury News-Times, 3/26/2004)
El Paso (TX) Municipal Police Officers' Association,
President Chris McGill--``From a law-enforcement point of
view, I don't know how productive it would be to have police
officers ask for green cards. It's more important that people
feel confident calling the police.'' (``Immigration proposal
puts burden on police,'' El Paso Times, 10/9/2003)
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive
Director Dana Schrad--``There's a real concern among [the
immigrant community] that [a new Virginia law] means police
are going to sweep through neighborhoods and pick up anyone
with immigration violations and deport them; that isn't true.
We are concerned we'll loose cooperation of law-abiding
residents who have helped solve crimes.'' (``Some Immigrants
Can Be Held For Up To Three Days,'' Daily News-Record, 6/30/
2004)
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association,
National President Elvin Crespo--``The CLEAR Act jeopardizes
public safety, it undermines local police roles in enhancing
national security, it undermines federal law Enforcement
priorities, it piles more onto state and local police
officers' already full platters, it bullies and burdens state
and local governments, it is unnecessary law-making and most
significantly, it forgets the important fact that you can't
tell by looking who is legal and who isn't.'' (letter to
National Council of La Raza, 10/21/2003)
National Latino Peace Officers Association, Founder Vicente
Calderon--``The role of police is to protect and serve. Clear
Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR Act] will
greatly contribute toward hindering police from accomplishing
these goals.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/16/
2003)
Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association,
National President Sandalio Gonzalez--``The CLEAR Act bullies
and burdens State and Local governments by coercing them into
participating, even though it means burdensome new reporting
and custody requirements, because failure to do so means
further loss of already scarce federal dollars.'' (letter to
President Bush and Congress, 9/30/2003)
Costa Mesa (CA) Police Department, Chief John Hensley--
``We're not going to be doing sweeps. We're not going to be
squeezing employers. We do not want to be the enemy of the
immigrant community.'' (``City puts itself on immigration
watch,'' USA Today, 1/26/2006)
West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department, Officer Freddy
Naranjo--``The major thing is to come out and report these
crimes, not hold back.'' (``Here Illegally, Guatemalans Are
Prime Targets of Crime,'' New York Times, 8/27/2006)
Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Sergeant Andy Hill--``As we
move out deeper into the community, especially with reaching
out to the Spanish-speaking community, we believe there may
be other victims out there that haven't come forward,'' Hill
said. ``We want that information. We need that information.
There will not be sanctions to victims who come forward as
far as their status in this community other than the fact
that they are victims.'' (``Police want Spanish speakers'
help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)
Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Chief Jack Harris--``There
are a lot of folks here in the Valley that may have limited
English skills, and they can still very much be witnesses or
know something about these crimes, so we want to step forward
and go out to that community and seek their assistance.''
(``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer
search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)
Fresno (CA) Police Department, Captain Pat Farmer--
``Sometimes folks are here illegally, and they're the victim
of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness,
we want them to trust us. [A month earlier, after a shooting
outside a convenience store] there were numerous witnesses, a
lot of folks who were probably illegal. It was critical that
they talk to our detectives.'' (``Shift Work: Should policing
illegal immigration fall to nurses and teachers?'' Washington
Monthly, April 2006)
Fairfax County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Jon
Fleischman--``Our job is to protect people. And I'm concerned
that people who are victims of a crime, whether citizens or
not, are not calling us because they're afraid we're going to
check [legal] status only.'' (``Va. Police Back off
Immigration Enforcement,'' Washington Post, 6/6/2005)
Gilroy (CA) Police Department, Assistant Chief Lanny
Brown--``We're not going out and doing sweeps for illegal
immigrants or anything like that, because we don't believe
that's the right thing to do. But it sure makes sense to us
if people are here--committing crimes, convicted of crimes,
and are here illegally--to turn them over to ICE so they can
be deported.'' (``Immigration Officials Ask for Police
Assistance,'' The Gilroy Dispatch (CA), 9/12/2005)
Princeton (NJ) Police Department, Chief Anthony V.
Federico--``Local police agencies depend on the cooperation
of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of
crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without
assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration
investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with
critical information would not come forward, even when
heinous crimes are committed against them or their
families.'' (``State orders cops to help U.S. immigration
agents,'' The Record, 9/20/2005)
El Paso (TX) Police Department, Chief Richard Wiles--
``There is no way that we would be able to take any time away
from an officer's busy day to enforce immigration laws.''
(``EP chief opposes bill to let police go after immigrants,''
El Paso Times, 10/6/2005)
San Diego (CA) Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne--
``The only time we work with the Border Patrol is if there is
a criminal nexus.'' (Police Chief William Lansdowne, ``Local
Police, U.S. Agents Differ on Raids,'' Los Angeles Times, 6/
6/2005)
Muscatine (IA) Police Department, Chief Gary Coderoni--
``These proposals are unnecessary, and counterproductive to
the public safety of our city residents. They will place an
added burden in our department and instill fear and non-
cooperation in the community.'' (letter to Congress, 6/2004)
Nashville (TN) Metropolitan Police Department, Chief Ronal
Serpas--``With great respect and deference to our federal
partners, we are not the INS (Immigration and Naturalization
Service). As long as I am chief of the Nashville police
department, I'm going to be steadfastly against police being
INS agents. It's just not our job.'' (``Hispanics press
police for more help,'' Tennessean, 2/24/2004)
Boston (MA) Police Department, Commissioner Paul Evans--
``The Boston Police Department, as well as state and local
police departments across the nation have worked diligently
to gain the trust of immigrant residents and convince them
that it is safe to contact and work with police. By turning
all police officers into immigration agents, the CLEAR Act
will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report
crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe
as a result.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 9/30/2003)
Arlington County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Matt
Martin--``[A] very likely outcome of local enforcement of
immigration laws is] an entire segment of the population
shutting down because they are afraid of you. And what you
create is a group of people who's ripe for additional
victimization.'' (``Some Laborers Arrested In Va. Face
Deportation,'' Washington Post, 10/27/2004)
Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Chief Timothy Strutz--``In
my opinion, the best way to fight criminals of all types,
including terrorists, would be to have an excellent,
trusting, working relationship with the community, with them
being your eyes and ears. I think much of that important
information would be stifled [if the CLEAR Act passed].''
(``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,''
Detroit News, 5/11/2004)
Seattle (WA) Police Department, Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske--
``Traditionally we have seen that reporting of crime is much
lower in

[[Page H6883]]

immigrant communities because many are leaving countries
where the police cannot be trusted for good reason. Adding
the fear of arrest or deportation to this could have a
tremendous impact on the rate of reporting. At a time when
trusting relationships between immigrant communities and the
police are vital, the CLEAR Act would have just the opposite
effect.'' (letter, 3/4/2004)
Clearwater (FL) Police Department, Chief Sid Klein--``It
doesn't take very long for that open door of communication to
be slammed shut. Then we in local law enforcement (pay the
price).'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St.
Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Leroy
Baca--``I am responsible for the safety of one of the largest
immigrant communities in this country. My Department prides
itself in having a cooperative and open relationship with our
immigrant community. [The CLEAR] act would undermine this
relationship.'' (letter to Los Angeles County Neighborhood
Legal Services, 10/6/2003)
Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Chief Ronald Miller--
``Our Police Department has taken the lead in establishing a
meaningful relationship with our minority communities,
especially the Hispanic community. If the CLEAR Act becomes
law, it will have a devastating effect on how we provide law
enforcement/police service.'' (letter to Senators Brownback
and Roberts, 11/19/2003)
Hillsborough (FL) Sheriff's Office, Spokesman Rod Reder--
``We obviously need [immigrants] to trust us. Our main focus
is on the crime itself. We're not immigration experts.''
(``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg
Times, 7/19/2004)
Montgomery County (MD) Police Department, Captain John
Fitzgerald--``We absolutely do not enforce any immigration
law. We encourage our residents to trust their police
department regardless of their immigration status. We want
them to know that if they are victims, we'll help them, and
if they're witnesses, we need their help.'' (``Groups Fret
Over Giving Police Immigration Control,'' Fox News Channel,
10/29/2003)
Tampa Police Department, Officer Brenda Canino-Fumero--
``[If the CLEAR Act passes], (immigrants) are not going to
come to police and report anything.'' (``Immigration duty a
burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)
Lowell (MA) Police Department, Police Superintendent Edward
Davis III--``If the CLEAR Act were passed into law, residents
would be less likely to approach local law enforcement for
fear of exposing themselves or their immigrant family members
to deportation. This would make state and local law
enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible.'' (letter to
Senator Kennedy, 3/9/2004)
Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Corporal Daniel Saab--
``[If the CLEAR Act passed] people would not work with us. It
would make it very hard for us to do our job.'' (``Metro
police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit
News, 5/11/2004)
Ann Arbor (MI) Police Department, Chief Dan Oates--``I have
a great deal of concern about altering hard-won relationships
with immigrant communities. Having those communities think we
are agents of the federal government--that can do real
harm.'' (``Police could get more power,'' Detroit Free Press,
6/1/2004)
San Jose Police Department, Chief Rob Davis--``We have been
fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the
willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if
they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't
know if they'd do that anymore. That would affect our
mission, which I thought was to protect and serve our
community.'' (``CLEAR Act puts cuffs on police; Giving them
another duty, immigration enforcement, would make us all less
safe,'' San Jose Mercury News editorial, 4/15/2004)
Hamtramck (MI) Police Department, Chief Jim Doyle--``It is
important that people learn to trust us without looking over
their shoulders and thinking, These are the guys that are
going to deport us.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt
illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004)
Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Office, Assistant Sheriff
George Jaramillo--``We wouldn't be interested in pulling
people over and trying to figure out what their status is.''
(``Police May Join Hunt for Illegal Migrants; Advocates see a
way to boost enforcement, but officers and civil rights
groups fear abuses,'' Los Angeles Times, 11/11/2003)
Bexar County (TX) Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ralph Lopez--
``I'm totally against [the CLEAR Act]. It plays the race
card, and from that perspective it is just a bad act. We will
not go out and create probable cause just because we think
this person, who is dark-completed or speaks with an accent
or dresses different, should be automatically questioned
about their legal status. That is a total violation of due
process.'' (``Politicians are using fear to push through the
CLEAR Act, one of the most sinister changes in immigration
policy,'' The San Antonio Current, 12/11/2003)
Overland Park (KS) Police Department, Chief John Douglass--
``The CLEAR Act would be a detriment to all who live, work,
and visit Overland Park. We want all to know that the police
are available to protect them no matter whom they are or
where they come from.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 10/
29/2003)
Portland (ME) Police Department, Chief Michael Chitwood--
``As Police Chief of Portland, Maine and someone who has been
involved in law enforcement for nearly forty years, I can
tell you with certainty that the CLEAR Act is a bad idea.''
(letter to Congress, 11/11/2003)
St. Paul (MN) Police Department, Chief William Finney--
``How am I supposed to decide as a police officer who I
should ask for papers? `Well can't you look at them and tell
you should be asking them for papers?' No, I can't! . . . .
So I'd just have to ask everybody. All the `real Americans'
would be very offended, because they've got First Amendment
rights. But people that are brand new here don't. Well,
that's not what the Constitution says; everybody in this
country's got First Amendment rights.'' (``This is your
ministry,'' Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, 12/11/2003)
Los Angeles Police Commission, President David S.
Cunningham III--``There are safety mechanisms in place for
deporting people who are criminally inclined. In the end, the
policy position on Special Order 40 is that we are a nation
of immigrants and we don't want to dissuade them from having
contact with police.'' (``Is L.A. soft on illegals?'' Los
Angeles Daily News, 11/15/2003)
Lenexa (KS) Police Department, Chief Ellen T. Hanson--``We
are, like many jurisdictions across the country, short on
resources and manpower and struggling to meet our citizen's
service demands. This mandate will magnify that problem and
force us to make cuts in other areas to comply with the CLEAR
Act. . . . The most troubling aspect of this act is that it
would cause members of certain groups to not report crimes or
come forward with information about crimes for fear of being
deported.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 8/26/2003)
South Tucson (AZ) Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina--
``We don't have the time and the personnel to be immigration
agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers
present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.''
(Tucson Citizen editorial, ``Immigration role not for local
police,'' 10/15/2003)
Des Moines (IA) Police Department, Chief William McCarthy--
``When we don't acknowledge the reality of who is here, we
create our own problems, and we are a better society than
that, frankly. They (illegal immigrants) are family-oriented
people and underpin our churches and society in many ways.
Plus they are human beings. They are here. And we ought to
deal with them as human beings.'' (``Cops shouldn't be INS
agents,'' Des Moines Register editorial, 10/13/2003)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of why this bill is necessary.
Again, there is a differentiation between what Republicans and
Democrats are saying here. The Democrats want to have a victim first
before somebody is deported. Republicans want to make sure that there
isn't a victim by making them excludable and, if they are caught,
kicking them out.
So let's talk about domestic violence. On Monday, 2 days ago, the
strangled and battered body of an as yet unidentified woman was found
in a subdivision about 20 miles south of Denver. An orange tow rope was
found around her neck, and her face was unrecognizable. Preliminary
autopsy results indicated that the woman died of asphyxiation and head
injuries after being dragged along a road for more than a mile.
A suspect was arrested Tuesday night in that case. Jose Luis Rubi-
Nava, age 36, is being held without bail on a first degree murder
charge at the Douglas County, Colorado, jail. The New York Times
reported this morning that Mr. Rubi-Nava is an illegal immigrant. News
reports suggest that the victim was his girlfriend.
Records obtained by KUSA-TV, the Denver NBC affiliate, showed that
Rubi-Nava was arrested on April 1 and charged with false identification
and driving without a driver's license and proof of insurance, but was
let go.
If local law enforcement had detained this illegal immigrant for ICE,
he could have been removed from the United States. He was not, and now
there is a woman that is dead. If this bill had been law and there had
been a voluntary agreement between local law enforcement and the
Federal Government, this horrible crime could have been avoided.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Michigan colleague
for yielding me this time.
I rise to oppose H.R. 6095, but let me follow up on what the chairman
of the committee talked about. If somebody

[[Page H6884]]

committed a crime, and they were here legally or illegally, the
standard practice for local law enforcement is to pick that person up,
arrest them, and then they will be punished. Then they will be turned
over to ICE, Immigration Control and Enforcement.
What this bill would do is allow for our local police and sheriffs
and constables to actually be standing in the place of immigration
officers. I support strong law enforcement of our immigration laws, but
we shouldn't burden our local law enforcement officers to enforce
Federal immigration laws.
This Congress and this administration has cut the COPS program since
2001. Asking our local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal
immigration law without any commitment of funds is unfair and takes
officers out of our neighborhoods and off our streets. The role of
local law enforcement is to protect our property and our families. Most
local police departments are already stretched thin as it is. In
Houston, our officers have had the challenge of protecting an
additional 100,000 people who evacuated to Houston from New Orleans
over a year ago. Adding immigration enforcement to their duties would
make their jobs tougher and our neighborhoods less safe.
Currently if law enforcement officers catch someone committing a
crime that is here illegally or legally, they are turned over to
Immigration Control and Enforcement, and they are deported. Now, they
need to pay their debt to our own county or State, but they will be
deported. If someone breaks into my home, either the Houston Police
Department, the sheriff's department or the county constables will show
up, not the Border Patrol, not Immigration Customs Enforcement
officers. They don't come to protect my home.
Securing our borders is a Federal responsibility. This body is
responsible for ensuring that there is enough funding for detention
beds and Border Patrol officers. We shouldn't put the responsibility on
our local law enforcement officers to fill the gaps, and we should be
doing our own part to ensure the security of our borders and interior
enforcement. The cuts in funds for local police make it hard to protect
our lives and property. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6095.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095. Let
me say as somebody who was involved in local law enforcement as a
county supervisor, mayor, and city council member, it is astonishing to
me when it comes down to enforcing our immigration laws how individuals
in this institution can find every excuse in the world to not enforce
the laws or not wanting the laws enforced.
Now, in all fairness, you want to talk about the cost of law
enforcement. Mr. Speaker, in my County of San Diego, the cost of
illegal immigration to our law enforcement agencies is $50 million a
year, just identified from the County of San Diego. The fact is that
there should be involvement in local law enforcement to have the
option. But actively there are groups here and groups in California
that are telling local law enforcement officers they can't get involved
in the illegal immigration issue until there has been a major crime
such as murder, rape or mayhem. That is absolutely absurd.
The frustration in law enforcement is being pulled both ways on these
issues. Anyone who is sworn to enforce the law knows the impact of
illegal immigration, and every law enforcement officer in the long run
wants to do everything they can to participate.
I just cringe to think about what our drug policy and drug
enforcement policy would be in this country if we took the same
attitude, that if a San Diego police officer saw a drug smuggler coming
across the border, somehow he or she could not intervene because that
is a Federal drug law that is being addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we stop finding excuses on not allowing our
local law enforcement to get involved.
Let me throw this out. If we want to talk about the money issue,
let's ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with
us, and why don't we talk about doing fines and forfeiture allocations
like we do with drug interdiction. Let's allow the local law
enforcement to be able to keep a large percentage of the assets if they
catch someone smuggling or is caught. Maybe that is something we can
talk about, but not today find an excuse for not giving the authority
to our local law enforcement to do what they know is right, and that is
fight illegal immigration.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Berman) for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body of what we have here. We
have a bill with three sections, the first of which, in the chairman's
own words, reinforms the authority of the local governments to do
something that he apparently believes and we all accept that they would
have the authority to do anyway.
I call that one the let's use the Iraq model for dealing with the
issue of illegal immigration; subcontract large functions of it, but
unlike in Iraq where we overpay the subcontractors, here tell the local
law enforcement people we are giving up at the Federal level trying to
deal with this problem, we are not going to give you a penny for more
jail cells or a penny for more resources, we are not going to give you
a single dime to do anything about it, but we are here to tell you if
you want to, you have the authority to arrest and detain people who are
in this country illegally without regard to whatever acts they may have
committed.
The second section of the bill is alien smuggling. It has a bunch of
findings, it has a sense of Congress, and then says we authorize, but
no funding, 20 more people to do something about alien smuggling.
And the third one is designed to deal with catch and release, the
practice whereby non-Mexicans who are caught in this country in the
past have been released rather than returned immediately to the country
they came from because Mexico is not the country that they are from.
According to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, we
are currently detaining all El Salvadorans, or virtually all, because
we now have enough beds, and we have enough to significantly reduce the
total number of non-Mexicans. Catch and release is over. This bill
won't make it. It is over. No one should be under the illusion that we
are doing anything about the program catch and release by this bill
because that program has ended.
What this bill in the larger context is, it is another one-House
bill. Let me quote from the September 21 Washington Post. ``With little
more than a week left before the September 29 start of the Congress's
scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of
the bills to must-pass spending measures before they leave town. But
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) appeared
to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any
legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their
progress in the final days before the coming recess.''
Another one-House bill. And then what will happen, a week from now we
will recess, and the Republicans and the majority hope that the
American people will be conned into thinking they have done something
about one of the most serious national crises we have, and that is the
crisis of inability to enforce our borders. There are 12 million people
in this country using false identifiers, the absence of any employer
verification system.
But in reality, none of that will have happened. The Republican
Congress will have recessed for the elections with the mere hope that
maybe when we come back with the lame duck, or maybe if you reelect us
next year, we will get serious about this problem.
There is nothing in this bill or other bills that are being sent over
to a House that will not take them up and not consider them that will
make this crisis better.
And what do we have to do to do something serious? Back in June or
July or in the beginning of September, a motion to go to conference on
the two larger bills that the Senate and the House passed. This won't
work. This bill is nothing. It doesn't do anything for anybody. It
won't become law.

[[Page H6885]]

So you can have the meaningless gesture act that this bill
represents. You can pass some of these other bills that are being
brought up at the last minute to go into that vacuum on the other side;
but one day I would like to understand how the majority explains the
fact that they were not willing to make a motion to go to conference to
reconcile the differences between the two bills, because in 1 week we
will have done nothing to implement an employer verification system. We
will have done nothing about 12 million people who are here under false
identifiers, some portion of whom might be actual threats to our own
national security. We will have done nothing to provide the meaningful,
comprehensive approach, which is the only way to deal with the problem
of illegal immigration in this country.

{time} 1445

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from California repeats the
same old refrain that it is the fault of this House that a conference
has not been set up.
That is not the case. The Senate never messaged their bill to the
House when they passed it in May. The only place where a conference can
be set up is in the other body, and they can take up the House-passed
bill and strike out all after the enacting clause and set up a
conference. And only they can explain why that has not been done.
Secondly, the gentleman from California says that the catch and
release change is meaningless. The Secretary of Homeland Security
disagrees. I have a letter supporting the changes, specifically stating
that the injunction that was issued against expedited removal of
Salvadorans is costing the taxpayers money. This bill changes that.
And I will include the letter sent to me by Secretary of Homeland
Security Michael Chertoff on September 20 in the Record at this point.

Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your support of critical
injunction reform legislation, which will significantly
support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts
to maintain ``catch and remove'' of non-Mexican illegal
aliens apprehended along our Nation's borders. DHS urgently
needs Congress to approve this legislation to ensure that
long-outdated court decisions do not frustrate efforts to
secure the border.
DHS has made great strides in increasing the number of non-
Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the
Nation's borders. In fact, DHS now detains all eligible
individuals for prompt removal upon apprehension along both
the Southwest and Northern borders. However, I am concerned
that DHS will not be able to maintain this success because of
a 1988 court order that impedes its ability to quickly remove
Salvadorans caught after illegally crossing the Nation's
borders.
The 1988 court decision hinders DHS's ability to place
aliens subject to the injunction into expedited removal
proceedings--proceedings that allow for quicker immigration
processing. Instead, these aliens must be placed into full
administrative immigration proceedings. Consequently, they
are detained for an average of 48 days prior to removal in
contrast to those aliens apprehended on the Southwest border
for illegal entry and placed into expedited removal who are
detained for an average of only 19 days prior to removal. At
an average cost of $95 per day for detention, the inability
to fully utilize expedited removal for this population costs
the taxpayer approximately $2,755 per alien.
In addition, the injunction requires that unrepresented
aliens subject to the court decision be detained in the same
geographic area in which they are apprehended for seven days
prior to transfer in order to afford them the opportunity to
obtain counsel. DHS acquires detention space based on current
migration trends. If aliens shift migration routes to a
jurisdiction outside of the current area where extra bed
space is available, this injunction could have serious
repercussions on DHS's ability to detain such aliens due to
the restriction on transferring them to areas of higher
detention capacity. If the shift is sudden and large, the
injunction could place enormous strain on available detention
space, potentially forcing a return to the recently ended
practice of ``catch and release'' until additional resources
could be obtained, if available, in appropriate locations.
This decision was issued at a time when El Salvador was in
the midst of a civil war and when immigration was governed by
very different statutes. Yet, the decision continues to
dictate the processing of Salvadorans almost 20 years later.
On November 17, 2005, DHS fully explained to the district
court the dramatic changes in the facts and the law that have
occurred since the entry of its perpetual injunction in 1988.
DHS asked the district court to lift its order; but, I have
no firm date for when this process will reach its conclusion
in the district court or upon appeal.
There are additional longstanding civil injunctions that
impede DHS' s ability to effectively enforce the Nation's
immigration laws. These district court decisions have created
onerous operating procedures that require the commitment of
vast amounts of government resources. They detrimentally
impact immigration enforcement on a daily basis, often
frustrating DHS's efforts. One such order has resulted in the
creation of extra procedures requiring substantial additional
resources for routine visa processing. Another such
injunction has resulted in certain Freedom of Information Act
requests being given priority over other pressing work.
For all practical purposes, such invasive court-ordered
requirements hamstring the President and the Congress's
authority over the borders even when the conditions that gave
rise to such requirements may have changed. Under current law
and court procedures, it can be extremely time-consuming and
difficult to end these injunctions. With this legislation,
Congress will be taking significant steps to ensure that DHS
is no longer held hostage by these antiquated court orders.
Thank you again for your support of DHS's immigration
enforcement efforts. I look forward to continuing to work
with you on this and other measures to ensure that this issue
is fully resolved.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
certainly thank him for his leadership on a variety of issues to help
strengthen our border.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6095. But before I
address the specific provisions of this legislation, I think it is
important to put this bill in the larger context because, Mr. Speaker,
we are having a debate that has been ongoing for a number of months in
this body; and, Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who believe that
border security is national security. We ignore our borders at our own
peril.
Iraqis have been caught trying to infiltrate our southern border.
Jordanians have been captured. Iranians have been captured, having
infiltrated our border. Areas of the world where al Qaeda recruits,
these people have crossed our border. Al Qaeda has made contact with
human smugglers in Mexico. Every evening thousands are attempting to
cross our borders, and only some are apprehended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that many are good folks who are merely
trying to feed their families and mean us no harm. Yet some also come
here because they seek free education and free health care and welfare.
Some are coming here because they are bringing violence and pushing
drugs to our children and grandchildren. And, unfortunately, there may
be a few who are coming here to try to bring down our airlines.
Again, we ignore border security at our own peril. Yet Democrats are
holding our border security hostage for their views on amnesty, their
views on giving government benefits and welfare to those who are here
illegally. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable.
Now, this bill will help, help eliminate the catch and release
program. At least in my part of Texas when constituents hear ``catch
and release,'' they think it has something to do with bass. They have
no idea that we have been apprehending illegal immigrants and letting
them back on this side of the border. That is unacceptable. And
contrary to what some of our friends have said on the other side of the
aisle, this does not mandate that local law enforcement get involved in
this battle, but it helps empower them. And we are fighting a global
war on terror, and shoring up porous borders is a critical part of that
war. Why can't we come together as Republicans and Democrats and
Independents and secure our border first?
I understand there are many legitimate issues, but at the end of the
day, Mr. Speaker, we are not debating immigration, yes or no; but we
are debating immigration, legal or illegal, and we allow illegal
immigration at our own peril.
Let's secure our borders, and let's support H.R. 6095.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

[[Page H6886]]

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
There is only one response to my friend the chairman. If the issue is
about papers and the only reason we haven't gone to conference
committee is because the papers haven't been delivered, I do have
Senator Frist's phone number, and I am happy to provide it. I cannot
conceive that it is a matter of paperwork and process that is keeping
us from going to conference committee on one of the most serious
domestic issues this country has faced.
Secondly, in response to the following speaker, the reason we cannot
quite unite to do something here, apparently, is because we are not
going to unite on a fool's errand. Everyone on your side of the aisle,
from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to the chairman to
others, has acknowledged over and over again we are not going to deport
12 million people. You are not going to have local law enforcement pick
up the task for you of deporting 12 million people.
A meaningful response is border security, because there are people
there who are national security issues and there are people who are
aiming to hurt us who want to cross this border illegally, and dealing
with 12 million people who are operating under false identifiers, some
of whom are bad people, and finding some system to either isolate and
narrow that group or have them come forward, and most important of all,
to get an employer verification system in place. None of these bills
does anything about it. We are going to leave here in a week doing
nothing about it. I don't understand how you are going to explain to
your constituents and the people who are understandably upset about
this issue that this Congress has addressed a very serious, urgent
issue in a serious and coherent fashion. We haven't.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is right. This is an issue
about papers. It is about a pretty important paper that has served our
country well called the Constitution of the United States. Article I,
section 7 says: ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments as on other bills.
The ``comprehensive amnesty immigration bill'' that the Senate passed
and didn't message contains $50 billion in new taxes. They ignore this
sacred paper that has been the foundation of our government, and are we
supposed to ignore that and thus subject anything they do to endless
litigation because they deliberately violated the Constitution? I think
not.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise very much in support of this bill.
Is it exactly like I want? No. Obviously, it is not like what Mr.
Berman wants either. And if you don't like the bill, just vote ``no,''
as you have on many immigration bills. But this is what we have today,
and the American people want to see us proceed.
This bill reasserts that State and law enforcement can and should
help Federal officers on immigration law whenever they reasonably can
and if they choose to. What a weird thought. We might get help from our
local law enforcement as they do in drug enforcement.
It is a policy that our law enforcement community has conducted
successfully for decades in helping this government, the Federal
Government, enforce Federal drug and racketeering laws. This is not
new.
Why then the outrage and the mass lobbying against it by the pro-
illegal immigration crowd, or should I say open border crowd?
Because this bill goes to the heart of our enforcement problem, that
is, simply a lack of enforcement. That has been our problem. Across the
board, from the borders to the workplace to illegal immigrant crime, we
have allowed the odds to become hopelessly stacked against enforcement.
In regards to rounding up criminal illegal aliens, we currently have
roughly 5,000 Federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens
with court orders against them. Eighty thousand of them are serious
felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists.
Vote against this bill if you want those people to stay out on the
street. That is all right.
These odds, obviously, are impossible. There is no way we are going
to have 5,000 Feds catch 500,000 violent criminals. But if we allow our
700,000 State and local police to volunteer to help, and they are
American citizens too, the odds get a lot better. That might start an
epidemic of looking at other ways to improve our odds, Mr. Speaker, in
fighting overall illegal immigration.
And that undermines the illegal immigration lobby's theme song, which
is the lie that we cannot stop illegal immigration. So, well, let's
just give up. Let's just give in.
Well, we can stop all these problems if we only have the will. This
body needs to have the will. The Senate has to do what it has to do,
but we are the people's House. We need to show the gumption to get this
done. This legislation proves how using commonsense partnerships
between State and Federal authorities to multiply manpower will get the
job done.
We are not talking about going after illegal aliens who are otherwise
obeying our laws and are just here to work. This bill is targeted only
on criminal aliens. Ironically, most of their fellow victims are their
fellow immigrants.
Let's make one point absolutely clear. There is nothing in this bill
that prevents local police from granting immunity from being reported
for deportation to any illegal immigrant crime victim who comes to them
for help.
Mr. Speaker, this short bill is the key component in the CLEAR Act
that I introduced 3 years ago. It has already passed this House twice
as a part of larger legislation. I think my friend from California
didn't vote for it, but it did pass this House. Let's send this over to
the Senate as a clean, short bill and see what they have got to say
about that.
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Becerra, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
I always like to hear the gentleman from Georgia describe these
bills. He says it only targets violent felons, and I would love to find
that place in the bill where that is the case.
Nothing in this bill says that State and local law enforcement are
authorized to enforce immigration law but only to focus their efforts
on immigrants who are serious felons. In a news release, the gentleman
from Georgia said that this bill would provide funding for training and
resources for State and local enforcement agencies to voluntarily
enforce immigration laws. Nothing in the bill provides any money for
training or resources for State and local law enforcement. Not a dime.
And that is why I have 25 pages of law enforcement officers that are
opposed to the bill. Chiefs of police, mayors, sheriffs are all opposed
to this bill. Republicans and Democrats, I might add.
And, of course, I should remind everyone in the body that we can
already detain criminals or anyone that commits a criminal act, whether
they are an immigrant or a citizen, but the problem is that only the
Federal Government can deport anyone. So anybody committing a crime is
subject to being detained.

{time} 1500

This bill isn't about immigration reform. It is further evidence of a
failure of leadership for us to have this body connect with the other
body to get a conference going.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) offered to make a phone
call. I would offer to bring the news of the passage of the immigration
bill in the House to the majority leader of the Senate myself. I will
deliver it if that would help them get the news that there ought to be
a conference.
I think that patently it is obvious that they know about this, and
somewhere in the Republican leadership there is a huge desire not to
have a conference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, with 5 days left in this session, with the failure of
this House to pass comprehensive immigration reform to accept the
challenge posed by

[[Page H6887]]

the Senate which did pass comprehensive immigration reform, we are now
left with a campaign stunt to try to pass something out of this House
so that it can appear that as Members of Congress go home to campaign
that we have done something on the issue of our broken immigration
system.
Unfortunately, this legislation, like the previous bills that we are
debating on this floor, fail to do one very important thing, and that
was, ask the very people who this bill would impact most. And that is
our local and State law enforcement officers what they think about
this.
Because if you would have talked to them, they would tell you, please
do not do this. We have had sufficient experience with what the Federal
Government wishes to do when it comes to its Federal laws on
immigration, and that is, it passes the buck without passing the money.
This bill is no different. This passes the buck, but offers not a
single cent to enforce the immigration laws that are a Federal
responsibility.
For years our State and local governments have been asking Congress
to fix the broken immigration laws that we have. Instead, this bill
asks State and local police officers to pick up the tab, pick up the
slack where the Feds have failed.
Mr. Speaker, you do not need to look very far for proof of that. Take
a look at the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. That is the
Federal Government's effort to try to help States deal with the
incarceration of criminal aliens.
The President's budget included not a single dime of funding to help
States offset the cost of having to incarcerate criminal aliens. The
Congress did a little bit better, but still is funding that program for
all 50 States at less than one-third of what they are currently
spending to incarcerate aliens who should be deported but committed
crimes in our country.
What else? Take a look at the Federal Government's enforcement of our
laws that prohibit individuals in this country from fraudulently hiring
people who do not have permission to work in this country. How many
enforcement actions did this government, this Federal Government, take
against people who are abusing the laws and taking advantage of the
fact that American citizens would like to take those jobs? Three
enforcement actions in all of 2004.
State and local law enforcement officers know what happens when those
bills are passed: the buck gets passed with it, and no money gets
passed along. Mr. Speaker, police officers are also telling us why
would we want to have to enforce Federal immigration laws when we have
to enforce the local laws to protect our citizenry.
If a crime is committed, why would an immigrant who is already living
in the shadows come out of the shadows to report a crime that he or she
witnessed, if he or she knows that now we will pick them up on an
immigration infraction? This is crazy. But this is what we are left
with these last final days.
Mr. Speaker, we can have comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate
did it. It is a shame that the House has not decided to follow suit. I
would urge Members to vote against this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What we are witnessing in the last few days is an effort to make sure
somebody believes that we have sincerely worked on immigration rather
than going to conference with the two major bills left.
We tried during the recent recess by holding a series of hearings
across 13 States, to make sure people thought that we were working and
concerned about immigration. As the newspaper reports show, it failed
dismally.
So what we are doing now is to say let's keep the immigrants out.
Let's keep them out. Let's keep them out. But let's let them in through
the back door. Republicans do not prosecute employers, but then they
blame Democrats for talking about other ways to deal with those who are
already working here. We all know that letting immigrants in helps
corporations and businesses that are using immigrants as the cheapest
labor that they can find to benefit their activities.
And the reason we are not at conference is because many in our
business world need immigrant labor, and the companies that support the
Republican Party that says, get tough on immigrants, are the same ones
that then turn their back and do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on this bill and the debate on the two
previous border security and law enforcement bills, we have heard time
and time again why there not a conference between the Senate and the
House on the differing bills that we passed, and that this is just
merely a matter of papers, and this can be solved with a couple of
phone calls over to the other body.
Well, the constitutional problem cannot be solved with a couple of
phone calls. Because the Constitution's mandate that revenue-raising
bills originate in the House of Representatives is pretty clear, and it
has been there since 1789.
Frankly, the other body has not passed a bill that can be sent to
conference because of the revenue-raising provisions that were
contained in their bill. They chose to do that; we did not. And it is
unfair and probably unconstitutional to blame this House for not
rolling over and playing dead over the fact that the Senate bill
violates article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States.
Having said that, let's get down to the nub of this bill. The nub of
this bill specifically authorizes voluntary agreements between the
Federal Government and local law enforcement to help in the assistance
and enforcement of our immigration laws. Let me say again what we are
dealing with is voluntary.
No local government agency or local law enforcement agency is forced
to do anything under this piece of legislation in helping the Federal
Government enforce our immigration laws.
But if they do do it, they should have statutory authorization. And
where are the benefits going to be if there is cooperation between the
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement in helping
enforce our immigration laws? It is going to be in the immigrant
communities themselves. Because most of the crimes that are committed
by illegal immigrants in our country are against other immigrants, both
legal and illegal.
As a result of the current system, which this bill hopes to encourage
to change, we will be able to make those immigrant communities safer.
Now, the bill specifically states that nothing in it may be construed
to require State or local law enforcement personnel to report the
identity of a victim or a witness to a criminal offense to the
Department of Homeland Security.
So if one of the bad guys hits an illegal immigrant over the head,
the local law enforcement that investigates this does not have to
report to DHS the fact that the victim is an illegal immigrant, and nor
does that illegal immigrant victim have to be arrested because that
person is a victim or a witness, and the arrest would be for an
immigration law violation.
State and local law enforcement are not going to be reporting victims
of crime. And they know best how to integrate immigration law
enforcement into their duties in a way that will increase the safety
and well-being of immigrant communities.
Now, many immigrant communities are held hostage by violent alien
gangs. Many of those gang members have already been deported for
criminal activity and have returned to this country illegally. If State
and local law enforcement officers identify such aliens, they can
either turn a blind eye or wait until the aliens commit new crimes, or
they can apprehend the gang members and turn them over to the
Department of Homeland Security to get them out of this country.
Clearly, immigration communities will be safer if those vicious
criminals are taken off the streets before they can kill or rob again.
And what other circumstances are State and local law enforcement likely
to report to DHS? As an example, they may report on illegal aliens they
come across in the normal course of carrying out their duties, such as
after stopping for speeding a smuggling van carrying illegal
immigrants.

[[Page H6888]]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps leverage the assets that
we have. I am for increasing the number of ICE agents and Border Patrol
agents and increasing the number of detention beds, but passing this
bill is something that we can do now to increase the effectiveness of
law enforcement in dealing with these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again that the communities that will
be safer will be the immigrant communities, both the legal immigrants
that are present there as well as those that are not legal. Pass the
bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095, the
``Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.'' This legislation takes an
important step toward greater prosecution of human smugglers, known as
``coyotes,'' and I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner
for bringing this legislation before us. This legislation also
authorizes State and local cooperation with Federal immigration
enforcement efforts, as well as helping to end the catch-and-release of
criminal aliens.
I have spoken about the need for increased prosecution of coyotes
many times. I have corresponded numerous times with the Attorney
General on the subject imploring increased prosecution. Last year I
introduced the Criminal Alien Accountability Act that would stiffen the
penalties for coyotes and other criminal aliens. My legislation was
incorporated in large part into H.R. 4437, the ``Border Protection,
Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,'' which
passed the House last December. However, major roadblocks impeding the
prosecution of coyotes remain, and they are the lack of acceptance of
these cases by U.S. Attorneys and a lack of uniform prosecution
guidelines among the U.S. Attorney offices along the southern border.
The U.S. Attorney's Office has stated in the past that it does not
have the resources needed to fully prosecute arrested coyotes. For
example, the Border Patrol was instructed to release known coyote
Antonio Amparo-Lopez, an individual with 21 aliases and 20 arrests.
Releasing a criminal such as this is completely unacceptable, and is
demoralizing to the Border Patrol agents who work so hard to make the
arrests in the first place.
I, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, recently met with U.S. Border
Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffin and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San
Diego to discuss these problems. Our meetings demonstrated the
differences in opinion between those who arrest human smugglers and
those who prosecute them. Importantly, we learned that U.S. Attorney
offices have varying prosecution guidelines for human smugglers
depending on where the office is located. This causes smugglers to use
access points in states with weaker prosecution standards, increasing
the criminal element in those communities.
H.R. 6095 calls on the Attorney General to adopt uniform guidelines
for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. This change could help
lessen the burden on borders areas within the United States that
currently are overrun by coyote operations, in addition to reducing
smuggling in total. Additionally, H.R. 6095 authorizes 20 new U.S.
attorneys for each year from FY 2008 through FY 2013 to help prosecute
human smuggling offenses.
I will continue to work with others in Congress, the Administration,
and the public at large to ensure the prosecution and removal of every
criminal alien that is apprehended.
Mr. BACA. I rise today to express strong opposition to the majority's
failure to seriously address the important issue of immigration reform.
Congress has had a real opportunity this year to produce meaningful
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. But instead Republican
leaders have decided to play election year politics and cater to their
base with bills like these. These bills are further proof that
Republicans are not serious about real reform on immigration.
On the other hand, Democrats are serious about immigration reform and
border security. If our amendments had been adopted over the last five
years, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol Agents and 2,700 more
immigration enforcement agents along our borders.
Republicans instead have held ``sham'' hearings that produced no
results--nothing, zero. Second, they have not moved forward with a
House-Senate conference on border security/immigration reform
legislation. Finally, they are trying to fool our American public by
bringing up these token bills that will not be even considered in the
Senate.
These narrow-minded bills would have little impact on closing the
numerous security gaps along our borders. Let's not confuse, again and
again, the real concern here.
After five years Republicans have nothing to show except for a few
votes on band-aid attempts to address a complex issue.
It's time for a new direction.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply offensive for this House to
continue on a piecemeal approach to the border security and immigration
problem.
The fact is this Congress has not done any heavy lifting to
effectively solve our border security crisis.
That's an awful record for the majority party to carry into the
election season, so we are forced to deal again with redundant
legislation so the majority party can seem to be accomplishing
something.
But we aren't accomplishing a single thing.
What we're doing today--in all these bills--is blowing more hot air
at voters who are angry that we say we're doing things to improve our
border security--but we never pay for them.
Each year since 2001, Democrats have tried to add amendments to
defense, homeland security, and emergency supplemental appropriations
bills.
Not a single one was passed--if they were, we'd have 6,600 more
Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more
immigration agents.
On the border, our not funding our promises brings local law
enforcement a very large bill--yet another unfunded mandate.
When Border Patrol finds an immigrant lawbreaker--mostly small drug
possessions--they take them to the local jail where the local taxpayers
foot the bill to hold them.
The same local taxpayers then have to pay for the prosecutors and
there aren't enough judges. This is a cycle that won't end.
Now the House Leadership is cutting up legislation we've already
passed into many different bills to make it seem like we are working on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to be angry with
this Congress.
Let's use the 9-11 legislation they were embarrassed into passing in
December 04 as an example.
Not only did we not fund most of that bill, breaking many of our
promises in it we passed virtually the same bill but added extreme
provisions to criminalize those here.
In May of 2006, when the Senate passed an astonishingly better bill,
the House closed down the process--refused to negotiate a final bill.
Instead, they passed an awful bill last December then spent the
summer stalling any negotiation with deceptive ``hearings.''
If the House Republicans were serious about border security, they
would have moved forward with a House-Senate conference on border
security and actual immigration reform legislation.
Today--in an effort to appear to have accomplished something,
anything related to immigration and border security--we are considering
the same bill we passed twice already, just chopped into smaller
pieces.
This is what it means to fool people.
So, let us remember the old wisdom: you can fool some of the people
some of the time, but thank God, you can't fool all the people all the
time.
That, I suppose, is the bad news for the crowd that thinks passing
the same bills over and over is good politics.
Good politics these days means paying for the Nation's protection and
none of these bills take care of that business.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that today Congress will pass
vital legislation based upon legislation I drafted, the Fairness in
Immigration Litigation Act of 2006, to close an egregious loophole that
allows thousands of illegal aliens to remain in our country every week.
Passage of this legislation will result in safer communities across our
nation.
Currently, the Orantes injunction mandates that the U.S. Government
afford all Salvadoran immigrants the benefit of full deportation
proceedings and undermines the authority of the Department of Homeland
Security to apply expedited removal procedures. The court order was
issued in 1988 when EI Salvador was in the midst of a bloody civil war
and was designed to protect those seeking refuge in the United States.
However, on January 16, 1992, a peace accord was signed ending 11 years
of civil war and implementing strict human rights restrictions. Today
EI Salvador enjoys a democratically elected government and a developing
economy.
Illegal aliens stream across our border by the hundreds on a daily
basis. They present an immediate danger to the lives of people in every
Texas community and across the United States of America. For over 14
years I have worked to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the crisis
facing our border communities. I have met with law enforcement
officials along the border and discussed this critical issue with my
colleagues in Congress, providing those in Washington with a first-hand
perspective on how to increase our border security.

[[Page H6889]]

However, gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha, otherwise known as MS-13,
and members of drug cartels now exploit this loophole in our legal
system to thwart our immigration laws and obtain release into our
communities. This legislation removes obstacles that prevent our
government from effectively enforcing the immigration laws that
Congress intended.
The threat of terrorism is real. Each day our border communities
witness violence and fear created by ruthless members of drug cartels.
We must not allow terrorists and criminals from around the world to
abuse loopholes in our legal system, turning our southwest border into
a revolving door. The efforts of our law enforcement officials to
catch, detain, and deport those who enter illegally must not be
obstructed by those looking to abuse the system. I am proud that today
Congress will overturn the outdated and obsolete Orantes injunction to
protect the integrity of our legal immigration process.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6095, the Immigration
Law Enforcement Act of 2006.
It's important to Americans that local law enforcement officials are
doing everything possible to arrest and prosecute criminals.
And it's important that law enforcement officials know under exactly
what circumstances they can lawfully arrest or detain a suspected
criminal.
Take for instance the situation in which a police officer has
reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and finds out that
individual is in the United States in violation of our immigration
laws. It's contrary to common sense that the police officer would not
be able to arrest that person simply because immigration is a Federal
responsibility. But this is the argument of those who oppose this bill.
H.R. 6095 affirms the authority of State and local law enforcement
officials to investigate, apprehend, and arrest illegal immigrants.
Several Federal Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth and Fifth
Circuits, have agreed that State and local law enforcement officials
have the authority to do so.
Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation believe that if a police
officer comes in contact with a suspected criminal who has violated
immigration law, they should simply let the person go.
This situation was addressed in the 1996 immigration legislation that
I authored. Because of that law, the Immigration and Nationality Act
contains section 287(g), which allows the Attorney General to enter
into written agreements with States and localities to set out
provisions under which State and local law enforcement officers can
help enforce Federal immigration laws.
But the law does not mean that just because there is no such written
agreement, the police don't have the authority to arrest illegal
immigrants.
Law enforcement officers should arrest anyone who breaks the law.
This bill is necessary to settle the debate once and for all.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, H.R. 6095. It will not protect
United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the
nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on
H.R. 6095 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.
H.R. 6095 presents a sense of Congress that the Attorney General
should adopt, not later than three months after the date of the
enactment, uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses
to be followed by each United States attorney in the United States. It
also requires the hiring of additional personnel for prosecuting alien
smuggling cases. For each year from FY2008 through FY2013, subject to
the availability of appropriations, the Justice Department would be
required to increase by not less than 20 the number of attorneys in the
offices of United States attorneys employed to prosecute alien
smuggling cases.
I find nothing objectionable about these provisions, but I do not
believe that they will substantially improve our ability to deal with
the alien smuggling problem. It would be more productive to consider an
alien smuggling bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Commercial
Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2003, the CASE Act. It would
establish a three-point program that was drafted with assistance from
government officials who are involved in the investigation, disruption,
and prosecution of commercial alien smugglers.

H.R. 6095 would give State and local police officers the authority to
enforce civil immigration laws. I do not want local police forces to
enforce immigration law. Immigration violations are different from the
typical criminal offenses that police officers normally face. The
typical law enforcement activities of local police officers involve
crimes such as murders, assaults, narcotics, robberies, burglaries,
domestic violence, and traffic violations. It would require extensive
training to prepare them to enforce civil immigration provisions.
If police act as immigration agents, undocumented immigrants are
likely to be afraid to contact the police when a crime has been
committed. If they as victims, witnesses, or concerned residents
contact the police, they or their family members could risk
deportation. Experience shows that this fear would extend not only to
contact with local police, but also to the fire department, hospitals,
and the public school system.
H.R. 6095 also would undermine local police's role in enhancing
national security. National security experts and State and local law
enforcement officers agree that good intelligence and strong community
relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets safe.
Undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be helpful to security
investigators would be reluctant to come forward for fear of
immigration consequences.
H.R. 6095 has an ``Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006,'' title, but
the provisions under that title deal with injunctions in federal
immigration litigation. ``Catch and release'' is a reference to the
practice of apprehending aliens in the vicinity of the border and then
releasing them pending removal proceedings. Apparently, the connection
is the permanent injunction in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, No. 82-
1107KN (C.D.Cal. 1982). Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has
claimed that the Orantes injunction interferes with efforts to end the
catch and release practice.

I am not aware of any provision in the Orantes injunction that would
interfere with efforts to end the catch and release practice. In
issuing the injunction, the court found that the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service had engaged in a pattern and practice of
coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive
their rights to a deportation hearing and to seek asylum as a defense
to deportation.
H.R. 6095 appears to be an attempt to terminate the Orantes
injunction through legislation, but its reach goes beyond the
injunction. Among other things, a judge would not be permitted to
provide relief in any immigration case without attaching a written
explanation of the impact the relief would have on national security,
border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public
safety. It also would impose arbitrary, unreasonable time limits on
courts attempting to provide prospective relief.
DHS has filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. Wilfredo v.
Gonzales, No. CV 82-1107MM (C.D.Cal. 2005).
I urge you to vote against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of
2006.

August 14, 2006.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security, Sub-Committee on Immigration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sub-Committee Members: I am writing to respond to your
invitation to testify before your sub-committee hearing on
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Civil
Courthouse 201 Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say
as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as
President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that I
appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege
of putting into the official congressional record Law
Enforcement's comments and concerns on Immigration prior to
the full enactment of any legislation on this important
subject. I will be submitting as an attachment to my
testimony today the MCC's Immigration Committee
Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local
Police Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E.
Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted on June 7th by the MCC for
inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have
additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due
to their length I have been told they can not be part of the
written record.
Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal
legislative amendment aimed at eliminating federal law
enforcement funding to local police. In short, both myself
and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by
any legislative action aimed at excluding the City of Houston
and/or other local jurisdictions from receiving needed
federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put
more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our
neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes,
assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland
security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and
the public fervently believe local police should become
involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Given
these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent
legislative amendments were not written to provide increased
federal funding to local police to support such enforcement.
Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding and
penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris
County, and other local and national jurisdictions, which
will be negatively effected by this amendment. The end result
of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is
applied to Houston and

[[Page H6890]]

other communities like Houston would be to make our local
communities less safe. In other words these amendments would
have the opposite effect of their purported purpose.
Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and
in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this
complex issue differ greatly and emotions run high. Extremes
exist on either side of the debate as represented by the
recent mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their
supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the
referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in
Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing
first responders to over fifty (50) million residents
respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate federal
law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded
mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our
nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the
federal level with securing the borders and increasing
enforcement by federal agencies.
Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal,
logistical and resource issues for local communities and
their police agencies. The City of Houston's policies and
those of most major cities across America reflect the
challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency
that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse
community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal
residents, visitors and undocumented immigrants. The City's
policies seek to best protect and serve this diverse
community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality
that the City does not have unlimited resources; its officers
are prohibited by state law from racial profiling and
arresting persons without warrants and without well
established probable cause; is subject to civil liability for
violating such laws; and has the clear need to foster
assistance and cooperation from the public including those
persons who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to
clarify the City's reasoned and model approach to this issue
I have provided the following statements regarding the City's
policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the
federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens'
referendum.
City does not have a sanctuary policy
Currently, the police department is operating under General
Order 500-5 [See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500-5 was
implemented in 1992 by then Chief Nuchia, who is currently
serving as a Justice in the Texas Judiciary's First Court of
Appeals. The General Order includes the following provisions:
Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend
individuals solely on the belief that they are in this
country illegally.
Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship
status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest
persons solely on the belief that they are in the country
illegally.
Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities]
regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a
separate criminal charge (other than Class C misdemeanor) and
the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.''
The department has issued clarifications of our
``immigration'' policies and implemented changes to the
department's enforcement policies to increase cooperation
between the department and federal agencies on immigration
matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the
summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant Chief Thaler,
Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel
Craig Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the
U.S. Attorney's office and I.C.E. to discuss the department's
response to immigration detainers. Based on those
discussions, the department developed procedures to accept
and act upon criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E.
The police department further clarified that our officers are
allowed to take into custody any person who the federal
authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they
will authorize detention directly into a federal detention
facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person
in custody on other criminal charges, the department will not
release the person from custody for up to 24 hours after we
have received formal notice from federal authorities that
they are wanted for criminal violations.
The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other
federal agency wherever possible and reasonable to enforce
against criminal violations and address criminal matters. The
Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws
relative to criminal violations and criminal matters,
accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and
assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of whether
they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of
federal or state laws. Our officers are currently involved in
various federal task forces addressing criminal matters
including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will
continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations
against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration
status, the department and thus the City does not have a
``sanctuary policy'' as opponents of our policies have
alleged. This is not only the City's or the police
department's opinion but also that of Robert Rutt the Deputy
Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he
stated that ``Houston is not a sanctuary City . . .'' In the
same article he further acknowledged the police department's
significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3]
Concerns with local enforcement of federal immigration law
Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many
daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues
for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves.
Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must
recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative
consequences to local policing that would be caused by
immigration enforcement at the local level.

* * * * *

were detained by the police were later determined to be
either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in
the country. The Katy police department faced suits from
these individuals and eventually settled their claims out of
court.
Because local police officers currently lack clear
authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their
ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from
racial profiling and lack the training and experience to
enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely
the City/police department will face the risk of civil
liability and litigation if we actively enforced federal
immigration laws.

UNDERMINES TRUST AND COOPERATION OF IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES

Major urban areas throughout the nation are comprised of
significant immigrant communities. In some areas the
immigrant community reaches 50-60 percent of the local
population. Local agencies are charged with providing law
enforcement services to these diverse populations with
communities of both legal and illegal immigrants. The reality
is that undocumented immigrants are a significant part of the
local populations major police agencies must protect, serve
and police. The City of Houston faces the same challenges.
Local officers have worked very hard to build trust and a
spirit of cooperation with immigrant groups through community
based policing and outreach programs and specialized officers
who work with immigrant groups. We have a clear need to
foster trust and cooperation with everyone in these immigrant
communities. Assistance and cooperation from immigrant
communities is especially important when an immigrant,
whether documented or undocumented, is the victim of or
witness to a crime. These persons must be encouraged to file
reports and come forward with information. Their cooperation
is needed to prevent and solve crimes and maintain public
order, safety, and security in the whole community. Local
police contacts in immigrant communities are important as
well in the area of intelligence gathering to prevent future
terroristic attacks and strengthen homeland security.
Immigration enforcement by local police would likely
negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and
cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.
If the undocumented immigrant's primary concern is that they
will be deported or subjected to an immigration status
investigation, then they will not come forward and provide
needed assistance and cooperation. Distrust and fear of
contacting or assisting the police would develop among legal
immigrants as well. Undoubtedly legal immigrants would avoid
contact with the police for fear that they themselves or
undocumented family members or friends may become subject to
immigration enforcement. Without assurances that contact with
the police would not result in purely civil immigration
enforcement action, the hard won trust, communication and
cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear.
Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups
would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the
broader community, create a class of silent victims and
eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in
solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6095,
the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 and to affirm the inherent
authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the
implementation of our immigration laws.
This year, I had the privilege to participate in two Government
Reform Subcommittee field hearings in North Carolina on this very
subject, one of which took place in my district.
Illegal immigration has consistently been the No. 1 topic prompting
my constituents to write and call my office. It is also the No. 1
problem expressed to me by many of the local officials I represent.
In recent years, State and local governments have had to make
extraordinary adjustments to accommodate illegal immigration. Over
300,000 illegal aliens are estimated to reside in North Carolina, and
that number is increasing. As a whole, our counties and communities,
now saturated with illegal aliens, are spending billions of dollars on
public health, public education, law enforcement and social services
for people who are residing here illegally. Every dollar spent on an
illegal alien is a dollar diverted away from a law abiding, tax-paying
citizen. Illegal immigration affects virtually every aspect of life in
America.
Few States have had to struggle with this burden as much as North
Carolina, where the

[[Page H6891]]

illegal immigration population is rapidly approaching half a million.
North Carolina is currently one of the six major destination States for
illegal aliens and has one of the five highest ratios of illegal
immigrants to legal immigrants. During the 90s, the immigrant
population of Forsyth County alone exploded by 515 percent, meaning
that two-thirds of the county's foreign-born population had entered in
just 10 years.
My State's government estimates that Medicaid costs due to illegal
immigration have doubled in 5 years. The State is spending over $200
million annually to educate the children of illegal aliens, more than a
2,000 percent increase in 10 years. Across the State, the criminal
justice system is disrupted as courts and law enforcement struggle,
particularly in rural counties, to find translators to assist in
investigations and court proceedings for foreign-speaking defendants.
Too many stresses and strains are being put on State and local
governments at once and there is a clear need for government officials
at all levels to decisively reverse these trends.
It is in cities like Winston-Salem, as well as smaller communities,
that the presence of illegal aliens who've committed other crimes is
most keenly felt. One solution to these dilemmas that has been growing
in use since it was first tried in 2002 is known as the ``287(g) cross-
designation training'' program. By the authority of section 287(g) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland
Security can enter into assistance agreements with State and local
agencies. The 287(g) training and certification gives local law
enforcement a vital tool in combating the growing problems from illegal
immigration. Many illegal aliens who've committed crimes in America can
now be held and processed for deportation or Federal prosecution
through use of the 287(g) program. State and local officers can even
interview suspects and prison inmates to determine if immigration laws
have been violated; they can process and fingerprint them for such
violations; and they can prepare documents for deportation and refer
criminal aliens to ICE for potential Federal prosecution.
It is the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to
protect the borders and enforce our laws. Given the scope of the
problem of illegal immigration, the Federal Government should move
quickly to provide authority to State and local law enforcement to
combat illegal immigration. We will never get a handle on this growing
problem if we don't.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the three
bills being considered today in House. The rush to bring these bills to
the floor for a vote makes it clear that the majority has one thing on
its mind, election year political concerns. As far as I can tell, these
bills were not given hearings or marked up in committee. In fact, two
of these bills were just introduced this week. Members have had very
little time to look at these bills, and to consider the ramifications
should these bills be enacted into law. This is no way to craft good,
solid legislation.
These bills represent a half-hearted attempt at beefing up
immigration enforcement and border security. Instead of taking a rifle
shot approach to the immigration issue, the House and Senate should
have went to conference on the immigration bills that passed each
chamber. Unfortunately, rather than coming together and hashing out
differences, the two Chambers began holding field hearings about why
their Chamber's bill was better than the other Chamber's bill. It is
time to stop these antics and appoint conferees so we can create a good
bill.
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we have had very little time to
consider this legislation, and that we cannot even offer amendments on
the floor to try and do what the committees could not, I will vote
``no'' and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). 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. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a
point of order.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gutierrez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6095 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
(2) 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 fisal 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 combat alien smuggling.
(3) Alien smuggling continues 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.
Page 3, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 3, line 17, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 3, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 4, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
(d) Additional Resources To Protect Against Alien Smuggling
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;
(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?
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit for the same reason that I made a point of order
against the gentleman from Illinois' previous motion to recommit.
Clause 7 of rule XVI precludes amendments on a subject different from
that under consideration.

{time} 1515

H.R. 6095 reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law
enforcement to voluntarily investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest,
detain or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States in
order to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, and clarifies
guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. It also ends the
practice of catch and release by DHS to ensure that immigration laws
are enforced in the manner in which they were intended.
This motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from
the legislation under consideration. It is the same motion to recommit
that the gentleman from Illinois made to the previous bill by
increasing the number of U.S. marshals by 250, which is on page 2, line
15 of the motion to recommit.
The U.S. marshals do not have a role in enforcing the immigration
law. Thus, the motion to recommit expands the scope of the bill and is
nongermane, and it fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 7
of rule XVI.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Do other Members wish to be heard on the
point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it is germane to the
bill. When you take the whole bill subject to consideration, and we
look at

[[Page H6892]]

representing a number of different immigration reform proposals, and my
sections address those same exact matters. All day, Mr. Speaker, we
have been hearing from the proponents of this and other immigration
bills argue that the various immigration reform proposals included in
this bill are viable alternatives to much more comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that has stalled in the 109th Congress.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is
related to 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 issues on many
other occasions other than today. That is simply wrong. This House has
debated the subject matter of this bill many times.
My motion certainly suggests a better way to handle the subject
matter on this bill, which is to go to conference with the
comprehensive bills that the two Houses have already passed. The
subject matter of this bill is immigration reform. The subject matter
of my motion to recommit is also immigration reform. The only
difference is that my proposal would actually require Congress to do
something.
Republicans are addressing the immigration issue with press releases.
I am saying the more responsible way to address the subject matter of
this bill is to go to conference and actually pass a law.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments are not
addressing the point of order which I have raised.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois must confine his
remarks to the point of order.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, it seems to me that it is germane, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard on repeated occasions that what we are considering is the
first step. We have heard that repeatedly here today. We have other
bills, and simply what my motion to recommit instructs us that we go to
conference to take it into consideration into the totality.
We agree, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I, if we were actually to sit around
a table and use regular order, we would find that we have much
agreement on securing our borders, on a number of the issues that have
been raised here today. No one on this side of the aisle is pretending
to stand up for gang members and drug dealers. We want them out of the
country also.
But we also understand that like Mr. Tom Ridge, of Homeland Security,
and Congressman Sensenbrenner referred to the current Homeland
Secretary in his statement, we have statements from the former Director
of Homeland Security that we need to deal with. So I think it is
germane, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The bill is confined to matters of immigration. The motion to
recommit addresses matters unrelated to immigration. For the reasons
stated by the Chair earlier today, the motion is not germane.
The point of order is sustained

Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Reyes

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. REYES. Yes, I am.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on his
motion to recommit as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a
point of order.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Reyes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6095 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
(2) Alien smuggling is a continuing threat to our Nation's
security, leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorist
attacks.
(3) Alien smuggling continues to be a threat to the
security of the United States because of, among other things,
the following:
(A) The 9/11 Act of 2004 provided for 8,000 additional
detention beds and 800 additional immigration agents per year
from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010, which
provision has not been implemented. Over the last two years,
the Nation has been left short 5,000 detention beds, and
nearly 500 immigration agents short of the authorized amount
in the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004, to the
detriment of efforts to combat alien smuggling.
(B) From 1993 to 2000, there were added, on average, 642
new immigration agents per year. Despite the fact that 9/11
highlighted the heightened need for these resources, from
2001 to 2006, there were added, on average, only 411 new
immigration agents, to the detriment of efforts to combat
alien smuggling.
(4) Since 2001, the Congress has not enacted legislation to
address the 9/11 Commission recommendations to combat alien
smuggling.
Page 3, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 3, line 17, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 3, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Page 4, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(8)''.
Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
(d) Additional Resources to Protect Against Alien Smuggling
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 to assist the courts
in immigration matters;
(4) by 25,000 the number of detention beds;
(5) by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent
schemes and documents which violate sections 274A, 274C, 274D
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a,
1324c, 1324d).

Mr. REYES (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 Texas?
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit. It is the same point of order that I made on the
previous motion to recommit. The motion to recommit violates clause 7
of rule XVI and on page 3, lines 1 and 2, it has the same defect of
increasing the number of U.S. marshals who do not have jurisdiction
over immigration violations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit states that the assets
would go to the immigration matters that are in the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee. It has no reference at all about going to
conference. I think those are very germane differences.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point of order?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent a border
district in Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States
Border Patrol, including 13 years as sector chief in McAllen and El
Paso, Texas. I have years of experience of patrolling the tough terrain
of the U.S.-Mexico border region, supervising thousands of dedicated
Border Patrol agents and working to do everything in our power to
strengthen America's borders and to reduce illegal immigration. So I
know from firsthand personal experience what works and what doesn't
when it comes to border security and to immigration law enforcement.
Given my background, Mr. Speaker, I attended many of the hearings on
the border security and immigration that were called by the majority
this summer, along with my Republican colleagues. It is obvious from
the bill before us today, however, that though the Republicans held
these hearings, they did not actually do very much listening. Rather
than charging our already overburdened local law enforcement agencies
with enforcing immigration law, which is, I might point out, a Federal
responsibility, we need to give the

[[Page H6893]]

Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to do
their job.
With this motion to recommit, we help rectify the failure of the
Republican leadership to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is 5 years overdue.
Specifically, over the next 4 years, we would authorize a total of
8,000 new Border Patrol immigration agents, 1,000 additional
immigration detention officers, 1,000 more U.S. marshals and 100,000
new detention beds.
The idea that we have here, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If we are really
serious about helping to stop illegal immigration, we have to give the
Department of Homeland Security the personnel and the detention space
that they so desperately need today.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that there are some
Members of this House who either have no idea what Congress really
needs to do to help keep Americans safe, or they are more interested in
scoring cheap political points with the voters back home this election
season than in actually protecting our country.
It is now 5 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the
Republican leadership is still wasting our precious time. We need real
action now. We don't need more rhetoric. The American people are
counting on us, and we cannot fail them yet again. Let's finally give
the Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to
keep this great country of ours safe.
I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit guts the
bill. There is no question about the fact. My friends on the other side
of the aisle do not want to have cooperative agreements between the
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement to help enforce
the immigration laws.
The bill that was never messaged by the other body prohibits such a
practice, and that means that our State and local law enforcement
officials have their hands tied behind their back when they see
violations of immigration laws. They have to see a crime actually
committed, which means that if the other side has their way, you are
going to have victims, and we don't want that. We want to make sure
that the immigration laws are enforced, and we need the help,
voluntarily, of State and local law enforcement to be able to do that.
The motion to recommit also guts the ability to ensure vigorous
enforcement against alien smugglers, and it also guts the ability to
end the catch and release of illegal immigrants caught along our
borders. Now, in the letter from Secretary Chertoff of the Department
of Homeland Security that I introduced into the Record earlier in this
debate, clearly shows the problem that has occurred as a result of an
injunction against expedited removal of Salvadorans.
Now, what nationality are the people in the MS-13 gangs? Largely
Salvadorans. So to get rid of MS-13, we have got to pass this bill and
vote down the motion to recommit.
Now, this motion is ineffectual, because only the Appropriations
Committee can actually fund increases in any account, whether it is the
Department of Homeland Security or anyplace else.
Led by Republicans, the House and Senate Appropriations Committee
have done a stellar job in increasing the funding for new agents. Over
this year and next, our appropriators will increase Border Patrol
strength by 2,700 agents. This is close to the maximum number of new
agents who can realistically be recruited and adequately trained in
this time span.
Now, the other side can have a pie-in-the-sky number, thousands or
hundreds of thousands and the like, but we have a limited capacity to
recruit and train new agents, and the appropriators are very close to
the max in doing this.
Vote down this pernicious motion; pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
2-minute votes on passage of the bill, passage of H.R. 4830, and motion
to suspend the rules on S. 2832, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196,
nays 226, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 467]

YEAS--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
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
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
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
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
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)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--226

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
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
Edwards
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
Hyde
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
McCaul (TX)

[[Page H6894]]

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
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Boehlert
Case
Cubin
Evans
Harris
Moore (KS)
Ney
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Walsh

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Acting SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1552

Messrs. BRADY of Texas, DENT, SAXTON, BROWN of South Carolina, Mrs.
MYRICK, Mr. HALL, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. GRANGER and Mrs. EMERSON changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CLAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277,
nays 140, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 468]

YEAS--277

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
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
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--140

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--15

Boehlert
Carter
Case
Cubin
Evans
Harris
Moore (KS)
Ney
Pitts
Rehberg
Reynolds
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Walsh
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

{time} 1556

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________