[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5774-H5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     STRENGTHENING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECURE MAIL 
                             INITIATIVE ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4712) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to provide for an option under the Secure Mail Initiative under which a 
person to whom a document is sent under that initiative may require 
that the United States Postal Service obtain a signature from that 
person in order to deliver the document, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4712

       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 ``Strengthening the Department 
     of Homeland Security Secure Mail Initiative Act''.

     SEC. 2. OPTION FOR SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE SECURE 
                   MAIL INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Beginning not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall provide for an option under the 
     Secure Mail Initiative (or any successor program) under which 
     a person to whom a document is sent under that initiative may 
     require that the United States Postal Service obtain a 
     signature from that person in order to deliver the document.
       (b) Fee.--The Secretary shall require the payment of a fee 
     from a person requiring a signature under subsection (a). 
     Such fee may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of 
     the full costs of providing all such services. Such fee may 
     also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs 
     associated with the administration of the fees collected.

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     Congress a report which includes--
       (1) the implementation of the requirements under section 2;
       (2) the fee imposed under section 2(b); and
       (3) the number of times during the previous year that a 
     person required a signature under section 2(a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bishop) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4712, currently under 
consideration.

[[Page H5775]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4712, the Strengthening the Department of 
Homeland Security Secure Mail Initiative Act of 2016.
  The bill is short, but it will have a great impact in the lives of 
many aliens seeking to play by the rules and legally live and work in 
the United States.
  H.R. 4712 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allow 
immigration benefits recipients to elect to pay a fee and have their 
immigration documents sent to them via U.S. mail, signature required.
  Currently, immigration documents are delivered via priority mail 
through the U.S. Postal Service. And while delivery can be monitored 
through use of a tracking number, there are numerous incidents of 
individuals not, in fact, receiving the documents that the U.S. Postal 
Service notes as delivered.
  One obvious concern in such a case is that the document was 
intercepted by an unscrupulous individual who will fraudulently use it. 
Another concern is the cost and time it takes for the individual to 
reapply for the document, which, at this point, is the only recourse if 
a document has gone missing.
  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ombudsman discussed 
this problem in its FY16 report, noting that delays in receipt of 
immigration documents can adversely affect the ability of aliens to 
work or prove lawful immigration status.
  H.R. 4712 imposes no cost to the United States taxpayer, since if an 
alien elects for their document to be delivered via signature required, 
the immigrant must first pay a fee set by USCIS that covers the cost of 
such delivery, as well as any administrative costs for the agency.
  H.R. 4712 is a needed antifraud and good government measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 4712, a narrow and commonsense measure 
that requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide an 
option for green cards and employment authorization documents to be 
delivered via U.S. mail with a signature confirmation.
  I congratulate and thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) 
for offering this important legislation.

                              {time}  1945

  Each year, the USCIS sends millions of secure documents to applicants 
through the U.S. Postal Service, including green cards, employment 
authorization documents, and travel documents. Currently, the delivery 
status of these documents is monitored solely through tracking numbers. 
While we know when a document is delivered to the address on file, we 
have no way of knowing if the immigration applicant actually received 
the document; and if we don't know if the secure documents reach the 
intended recipient, we also don't know if they have fallen into the 
wrong--possibly criminal--hands. Although specific data is not 
available, conservative estimates indicate that, every year, thousands 
of documents--perhaps tens of thousands--are lost in the mail or, worse 
yet, are stolen.
  According to USCIS policy, if the U.S. Postal Service does not return 
a document or a notice and if there has been no change of address, the 
USCIS will consider the document as having been properly delivered, and 
the applicant must refile and again pay the filing fee in order to 
obtain a replacement document. For green cards, the fee is $450 even if 
the failure to receive the document was no fault of the individual's. 
This is not only unfair to the immigration applicant, but a lost or a 
stolen document also raises national security, identity theft, and 
other fraud concerns.
  Today's bill makes just one simple but important change in that it 
requires the USCIS to allow immigration applicants to elect to pay a 
fee and have their documents mailed with an added level of security by 
requiring a signature from the person who accepts delivery. The cost 
will be borne by the applicant; so immigrants can be assured that the 
document won't be delivered without there being a signature from the 
recipient.
  I urge the USCIS to consider other options to address these basic 
mailing issues, such as holding documents at USCIS facilities for 
direct pickup by the applicant. But, for today, I am pleased that we 
have agreement on this bill, which will help ameliorate document 
mailing and receipt problems and will strengthen the security and 
reliability of the immigration document delivery.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier), the author of the legislation.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for giving me the 
opportunity to speak about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, we get complaints, questions from 
constituents, and we actually can try and fix them. This is one of 
those situations.
  For the longest time, I was getting complaints from residents in my 
district who had not received their immigration documentation. For the 
most part, I was not able to tell them that we could do anything, 
because we would call the Postal Service, and they would say there was 
really nothing we could do for them. I realized this was a serious 
problem.
  There are some 50,000 green cards every year that go temporarily 
displaced or permanently displaced due to loss in delivery. That is 
about 5 percent of all green cards. With 50,000 green cards over 435 
districts, you can see that we are talking about 10, 15, 20 complaints 
that we get every year. In my case, frankly, we stopped even logging 
them in because there was nothing that we could do about them. This 
idea came to be, and I thought why not try it. I am really very 
grateful that we are taking it up today.
  My most recent constituent with this problem is from San Francisco. 
He has gone through the lawful process of getting his green card, only 
to have it lost. It has been over a year that he has been waiting for 
this document now. That means he can't travel, that he can't change 
jobs, that he can't get financial aid for college, that he can't open a 
retirement account, that he can't buy a house or anything else that 
most of us take for granted. This case shows that, when these documents 
are not properly delivered, the only solution is to reapply and pay 
another $425. It is a small fix, but it carries a big wallop. That is 
why I am so grateful that we are taking it up.
  The other issue is one of identity theft. You can also see how it 
could be used in a way that could create a national security risk. A 
stolen card could be used to travel or to purchase a firearm. We could 
easily fix this problem, as my colleagues have noted, by giving the 
applicant the option of paying an additional $3 to require a signature 
at the time it is delivered.
  I thank the committee, and especially my colleague Representative 
Woodall from Georgia, for joining me in this effort. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the 
time, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, I stuck around tonight because we are doing two of my 
favorite things in this institution. We are taking ideas that came from 
constituents with problems who trusted us enough to bring us those 
problems. We are putting those things into action, and we are doing it 
not with a lot of shouting and not with a lot of pomp and circumstance. 
We are doing it just the way the process was supposed to work by which 
the gentlewoman from California crafts an idea, and she goes out and 
she solicits cosponsors, and the team on the Judiciary Committee works 
it through the process. Then it comes down here to the House floor, Mr. 
Speaker, where it is going to make real differences for real people.
  Imagine you have done everything the right way--you have stood in 
line; you have played by the rules. You have done everything the way 
citizen and

[[Page H5776]]

American law has asked you to do it. Finally, your green card is ready 
to be delivered, and you are waiting at the post office for it to 
come--right there by the mailbox, waiting for it to come. You check 
online. Online, it says it was delivered yesterday, but you don't have 
it. You call your Congressman for help, and your Congressman says, 
``There is nothing we can do,'' and there hasn't been until this Speier 
legislation today.

  For the first time, we give constituents who have played by the rules 
an opportunity to pay, at their expense, in order to guarantee that 
this document that will allow them to work, that will allow them to 
feed their families, that will allow them to pursue that American Dream 
is going to end up in their hands. Golly, it sounds small when you read 
the legislation, but if you are that family, Mr. Speaker, there is 
nothing bigger in your life.
  I am grateful for the partnership of all of my colleagues who made 
this possible tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, let me again congratulate Congresswoman Speier and 
Congressman Woodall. I am equally grateful when we have the opportunity 
to work together. I see this as an opportunity on many, many issues.
  For example, this legislation, albeit simple in context, has a broad 
influence and impact. It means that anyone who is intending to do harm 
by either having stolen mail or by having taken a document that does 
not belong to them now can be thwarted. In this climate in which we 
must be particularly sensitive in protecting the Nation against 
terrorism, domestic terrorism, people misusing documents, or identity 
theft, this is a very important contribution to thwarting that effort. 
As has been indicated, it gives individuals who work very hard and who 
desire the American Dream the opportunity to be documented.
  I think it fits very well in what I hope will be an ongoing 
commitment to improving the immigration system to the extent of passing 
comprehensive immigration reform, because it does recognize that there 
are people who are desiring to do good who come to this country.
  For that reason, I ask my colleagues to support this important 
contribution to those who work hard, who choose to support the values 
of this Nation, and who work hard as new immigrants and as potential 
citizens of this Nation. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4712.
  I also thank the Judiciary Committee for its work on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4712, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________