[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22718-22726]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 2845, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM 
                              ACT OF 2004

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gutierrez moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the bill S. 2845 be 
     instructed to recede from its amendment to the bill 
     (particularly sections 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3032, 
     3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, and 3056 of its amendment) and 
     concur therein.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on 
H.R. 10 with instructions that the House recede to the Senate and 
strike provisions 3005, 3007, 3009 and 3032 from the bill. These 
provisions are poison pills that will slow the process of reforming our 
Nation's intelligence agencies and do nothing to make us safer.
  My motion further instructs House conferees to recede to the Senate 
by striking sections 3051 through 3056 from H.R. 10 relating to 
driver's licenses, identification cards and accepting the corresponding 
driver's licenses provisions from the Senate-passed bill.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of making us safer, enactment of these 
provisions would impose severe hardship on aliens by subjecting at 
least 1 million immigrants to deportation without any administrative 
hearing or due process, no review; permit the United States to 
outsource torture by sending an individual to a country where he or she 
is likely to be tortured; install a number of new barriers to winning 
asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from 
receiving the protection of asylum in the United States; and prohibit 
habeas corpus review.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind my colleagues of the very 
relevant details. None of these provisions were included in the 
recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and they are 
extremely divisive. Insistence on these provisions could greatly 
complicate the task of conferencing with the Senate and producing a 
bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Speaking on section 3005, it is very problematic, Mr. Speaker. Among 
other things, it would bar the use of matricula consular identification 
cards, a policy that the Bush administration has opposed. Not only 
would this affect undocumented immigrants, it would also affect 
Canadians. Section 3005 makes it impossible for Canadians, who 
currently do not have a passport to be legally in the United States, to 
establish their identity when encountered by Federal employees.
  Last month, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly rejected an 
attempt to overturn the Department of Treasury regulations that permit 
matricula consular identification cards to be used in banking 
transactions. The House stripped the provision from the bill by 
adopting an amendment to H.R. 5025 that was offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House Committee on Financial Services 
chairman. The House adopted the Oxley amendment on September 14 by a 
vote of 222 to 177. Clearly, we should not revisit this. It has been 
visited not once, but at least on three occasions.
  Section 3006. This section greatly expands the use of expedited 
removal in the United States. It would be especially harmful for women 
and children who are escaping a range of gender-related persecutions 
such as rape, sexual slavery, trafficking, honor killings, since 
persons scarred by such trauma often require time before they can step 
forward to express their claim.
  I would like to think that most people in this Chamber would agree 
that this would cause untold grief to women and children who will no 
longer be able to obtain the relief to which Congress believes they are 
entitled, victimizing them once they are raped, victimizing them once 
again. This amendment in the Committee of the Whole was carried on the 
Smith amendment, and then we unfortunately had to revisit it for 
political purposes where it was defeated or it would not even be in my 
motion.
  Furthermore, this section would reverse several decades of policy 
with respect to persons fleeing the tyranny in Cuba, eviscerating 
protections that currently are available to Cubans arriving in the 
United States. Section 3006 would mean that any Cuban who sets foot on 
United States soil would have to be placed in expedited removal. Like 
all others, they would be subject to mandatory detention and swift 
removal from the United States. This will mean that many Cubans would 
be returned to the dictatorship of Fidel Castro without so much as a 
hearing.
  Section 3007 is nothing short of an assault on asylum. It would make 
sweeping changes to asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend 
would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. Section 3007 would 
create new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent 
bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the 
United States. This, in turn, would result in bona fide refugees being 
returned to their persecutors.
  It ignores the fact that asylum applicants, particularly survivors of 
torture, rape or forced abortion or sterilization, may not be 
comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspector 
officer at an airport.
  Section 3009 is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If this section 
is enacted, the constitutionally compelled remedy of habeas corpus will 
be eliminated, and a plainly inadequate court of appeals review will be 
substituted that will leave many noncitizens without any forum to raise 
legitimate claims of governmental error and misconduct. At the same 
time, the section creates an extremely high burden for obtaining a stay 
of deportation, inviting government to race to deport noncitizens 
before a Federal court can rule on the merits of the case.
  Section 3032. Supporters of section 3032 falsely contend that it 
would prevent the United States from deporting persons to countries 
where they are likely to be tortured. However, nothing could be further 
from the truth. In fact, under this section, as it was amended in the 
Committee of the Whole by the Hostettler amendment, the United States 
still could outsource torture by sending individuals to countries where 
they are likely to be tortured.
  It merely provides that in order to do so the United States 
Government would be required to seek what amounts to a note from the 
torturing government, that torturing government to promise us that they 
will not torture that individual anymore before we send them back.
  Who among our colleagues will be willing to stake their lives or the 
lives of their loved ones on the promise of the Government of Sudan or 
the Government of Syria or the People's Republic of China or North 
Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia that they will not torture someone if we 
send them back after they try to get asylum here?
  Mr. Speaker, our country is far better than this. This provision is 
unacceptable. The administration expressed

[[Page 22719]]

the President's opposition to permitting the government to outsource 
torture to foreign governments in the administration's statement of 
administration policy on H.R. 10. The President of the United States is 
against this provision. Members should know that a vote against this 
motion to instruct would be a vote against the very wishes of the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I, at this point, would like to end my comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion on H.R. 10, the 
legislation that has been considered by the House over the last several 
days, and this motion to instruct would strike several provisions in 
the legislation that are vitally important to securing the American 
people. But, Mr. Speaker, I would offer into the Record a letter by a 
group called the 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
  The letter was written to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is made up of 
a group of families who lost loved ones or were victimized on September 
11 as a result of the attacks on our country. No one could speak more 
eloquently than they about the need for change to our immigration 
policy in that they write:
  ``We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families 
for a Secure America for the provisions in title 3 of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act,'' and those are the provisions that 
this motion to instruct would seek to eliminate.
  Reading further, ``These provisions would go a long way toward 
closing the loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists, all of whom had 
violated our immigration laws in one way or another, to enter and move 
freely around our country while they honed their plot to murder our 
loved ones.
  ``We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions that 
require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their identity upon 
entry with secure, verifiable documents, preclude acceptance by Federal 
employees of consular ID cards, insist that DHS, Department of Homeland 
Security, expand its use of expedited removal and prevent illegal 
aliens from abusing our judicial process to delay deportation and 
increase the number of the Border Patrol and ICE, or Immigrations and 
Customs Enforcement, agents.

                              {time}  1600

  ``All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations and so should be enacted and implemented 
as quickly as possible.
  ``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to 
recognize and address the current immigration crisis have taught us 
that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals 
languish in Congress because our elected leaders are either blinded by 
special interests or afraid of being vilified by them. We commend you 
and the House Republican leadership for your willingness to address 
immigration reform in H.R. 10 while the sponsors of every other so-
called 9/11 bill completely ignored it.
  ``It is incomprehensible to us that any reasonable person could 
believe that immigration reform plays no legitimate role in our 
response to the attacks. We are outraged that terrorists and murderers 
are able to frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will 
be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they have 
committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily 
prosecutable here in America, their use of the Convention Against 
Torture allows them to escape justice.
  ``We are strongly supportive of section 3031 and section 3032 of H.R. 
10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws. 
Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last 3 years 
that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered 3 years ago by 
enacting reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the 
same horror. We hope you will honor those promises by supporting the 
immigration provisions already in the bill and by opposing any efforts 
to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our 
families on September 11, 2001.
  ``Sincerely, the Board of Directors of 9/11 Families For a Secure 
America.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone who can more eloquently speak to 
the importance of maintaining these provisions in the House bill in 
H.R. 10, when in other proposals, as the families would say themselves, 
that every other so-called 9/11 bill has completely ignored the central 
focus of the 9/11 tragedy, which is that individuals from outside our 
country came into our country, abused the process, and murdered our 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I read earlier for the Record.

                                               9/11 Families for a


                                               Secure America,

                                 New York, NY, September 28, 2004.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: We are writing to express the 
     support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for 
     the provisions in Title III of H.R. 10, the 9/11 
     Recommendations Implementation Act. These provisions would go 
     a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19 
     terrorists--all of whom had violated our immigration laws in 
     one way or another--to enter and move freely around our 
     country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones.
       We strongly urge the Members of the Judiciary Committee to 
     retain the immigration provisions included in H.R. 10. We 
     believe that implementation of Title III would improve 
     homeland security dramatically and help to ensure that no 
     other American families have to experience the devastating 
     grief, the debilitating loss, and the overwhelming rage that 
     we have known every day for more than three years now.
       We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions 
     that: require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their 
     identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents; 
     preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID 
     cards; insist that DHS expand its use of expedited removal 
     and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process 
     to delay deportation; and increase the numbers of Border 
     Patrol and ICE agents.
       All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 
     9/11 Commission's recommendations, and so should be enacted 
     and implemented as quickly as possible. Our efforts over the 
     past three years to get elected officials to recognize and 
     address the current immigration crisis have taught us that 
     even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform 
     proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders 
     are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being 
     vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican 
     Leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform 
     in H.R. 10, while the sponsors of every other so-called ``9/
     11 bill'' completely ignored it. It is incomprehensible to us 
     that any reasonable person could believe that immigration 
     reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the 
     attacks.
       We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to 
     frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will 
     be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they 
     have committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not 
     easily prosecutable here in America, their use of the 
     Convention Against Torture allows them to escape justice. We 
     are strongly supportive of sections 3031 and sections 3032 of 
     H.R. 10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our 
     immigration laws.
       There is, however, one glaring omission in H.R. 10. The 9/
     11 Commission specifically recommended enhanced cooperation 
     with and training of state and local law enforcement officers 
     on immigration law, yet H.R. 10 includes no mention of this 
     recommendation. We hope you will bring up the CLEAR Act, H.R. 
     2671, for a full committee markup as soon as possible in 
     order to complete the 9/11 Commission's work.
       Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the 
     last three years that they would honor our loved ones who 
     were murdered three years ago by enacting reforms to ensure 
     that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope 
     you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration 
     provisions already in the bill and by opposing any effort to 
     protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart 
     our families on September 11, 2001.
           Sincerely,
     Board of Directors,
     9/11 Families for a Secure America.
       Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age 
     23, WTC, North Tower, 103rd Floor.
       Monica Gabrielle, North Haven, CT, Wife of Rich Gabrielle, 
     WTC, South Tower.
       Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, Sunnyside, 
     NY, Father of Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor.

[[Page 22720]]

       Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart.
       Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph.
       Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Detective Sergeant, NYPD, 
     Retired), Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, Bronx, 
     NY.
       Bruce DeCell, Staten Island, NY, Father in law of Mark 
     Petrocelli, age 29, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor.
       Grace Godshalk, Yardley, PA, Mother of William R. Godshalk, 
     age 35, WTC, South Tower, 89th Floor.
       April D. Gallop, Virginia, Pentagon Survivor.
       Lynn Faulkner, Ohio, Husband of Wendy Faulkner, South 
     Tower.
       Joan Molinaro, Staten Island, NY, Mother of Firefighter 
     Carl Molinaro.
       Colette Lafuente, Poughkeepsie, NY, Wife of Juan LaFuente, 
     WTC visitor.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how much time do the proponents have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Illinois has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, instead of passing one strong bill to make 
our country safer, the House bill has two divergent parts: the first 
part is the core bill, which includes a watered-down version of the 
intelligence reform provisions in the 9/11 Commission report. The 
second part is a campaign bill, which has some useful features, but 
also contains partisan controversial provisions, such as expanded 
deportation, unlimited detention, unnecessary environmental waivers, 
and unchecked databases designed to paint Democrats as weak on 
terrorism in the weeks before an election.
  Several of these egregious provisions were eliminated on the House 
floor, but the re-vote on the Smith amendment persuaded me that the 
bill's sponsors were not seeking common ground, but were making 30-
second attack ads. I voted in committee to report the bill in order to 
move the process forward, and I will work my heart out in conference to 
strengthen the intelligence reform provisions and conform the other 
provisions to what the 9/11 Commission recommended.
  Let me focus on what strengthening the intelligence provisions means. 
Our first priority in the conference report should be to strengthen the 
National Intelligence Director, called the NID. I agree with the 
statement of administration policy on H.R. 10 that ``H.R. 10 does not 
provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the intelligence 
community effectively.''
  H.R. 10's budget authorities are weaker than S. 2845; and, 
stunningly, they are weaker than current statutes and executive orders 
which allow for the transfer and reprogramming of funds by the Director 
of Central Intelligence. Under H.R. 10, money is simply passed through 
the NID to the various intelligence agencies. Unless the NID has the 
power to manage and control the budgets of these agencies, he or she 
will not be able to integrate our intelligence capabilities 
effectively.
  Moreover, the President is not the NID's only customer. We must 
ensure that the NID addresses the needs of the Departments of Defense, 
State, Homeland Security, and the war fighters when budgets are built 
and executed. Our efforts must not lead to the dismemberment of the 
National Foreign Intelligence Program, the NFIP, or we will end up with 
less integration than we presently have.
  To be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, neither bill, let me underscore 
this, neither bill includes the budgets for tactical intelligence. And 
no one is recommending that they be included. To repeat: no one has 
recommended that the budgets of our tactical intelligence agencies be 
included in the structure we are building under this legislation.
  The NID also needs greater personnel management authorities. S. 2845 
provides this authority, but H.R. 10 does not. The leaders of the 
intelligence community must believe they work for the NID in addition 
to their Department Secretaries. Consultation on appointments, which is 
what H.R. 10 includes, is insufficient. The NID must at least have the 
power to concur in key appointments. To enable the NID to create a 
joint culture, he or she must also be able to transfer people to 
centers and other multidisciplinary teams.
  Congress solved the problem of a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff 20 years ago by mandating joint assignments for promotion and 
creating a joint career track. The same must be done for the NID. After 
all, the NID is our attempt to create Goldwater-Nichols jointness for 
the intelligence community, just as we have done for the military.
  Third, the director of the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism 
Center, must have significant stature. Presidential appointment and 
Senate confirmation of the NCTC director is critical to give that post 
the stature and accountability that it requires. The President and the 
Senate overwhelmingly support this.
  Fourth, the conference report should include the provision of S. 2845 
to create a trusted information-sharing network so government agencies 
can connect the dots about the terrorists. Simply declaring the need, 
as H.R. 10 does, is woefully insufficient.
  And finally, it is imperative to develop mechanisms to ensure that 
actions of the NID and NCTC do not encroach upon our civil liberties. 
We must create an independent privacy and civil liberties board, which 
was supported on a bipartisan basis in the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and then stripped in the Committee on Rules, 
recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in S. 2845. These 
intelligence provisions began here in the House with H.R. 4104, but 
they stalled here because our leadership pursued a partisan path and 
because the President's endorsement of S. 2845 was not followed up with 
constructive effort in the House.
  We know how to do this right, Mr. Speaker, and we must. We can never 
replace the loved ones we lost on September 11, but we can honor them 
and the bravery of those who came to their rescue by uniting in this 
conference in the next several weeks to enact real reform. I pledge to 
do my part.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip of the House.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time. I also want to thank all my colleagues, many of 
whom voted for this bill just moments ago on both sides of the aisle, 
for the work they put into this, to the time they have spent on this, 
to the important discussion of how we secure our borders more 
carefully, how we maintain our security in a greater way, and how we 
look at intelligence-gathering and -sharing differently than we needed 
two generations ago, in the late 1940s, when this was done the last 
time. This makes our work very important as we move forward.
  The work of the conferees will be challenging. We have given them a 
strong product with a strong vote. I think this motion to reinstruct in 
several areas just simply reaches too far. I spoke earlier today about 
the importance of what do we do, what do we do with people who come to 
this country and have criminal backgrounds from another country.
  These are not people we think are criminals or might have been 
criminals. These are people who we know are criminals or we know are 
terrorists. These people may come from countries that are not very 
great countries. What we did today was change the bill so that we would 
not be forced to send them back to that country, if in fact we can 
figure out how to detain them in an appropriate way here.
  I gave the example this morning of a person, and this is an absolute 
case of someone who, in Jordan, was convicted of conspiring to bomb an 
American school. That person came to America. He then sought sanctuary 
on the basis that he should not be sent back to Jordan because they use 
punishments we would find inappropriate. And we all agree on that. But 
under our current law, the only thing to do was to let him then go to 
an American community to live.
  Well, an American community is full of American schools. So here we 
have

[[Page 22721]]

someone who is guilty of conspiring to kill American kids in a school 
in Jordan, and our only current remedy appears to be, according to the 
courts, to send him to a community in America to live, which is full of 
schools that have American kids.
  This motion to instruct says we should eliminate that language and go 
back to the current environment, where the only choice is for that 
person to go into the American community. In this case, that was a 
terrorist, Mr. Speaker. In other cases we know of someone who was a 
murderer, or a pedophile, or a rapist. We need better ways to deal with 
people who abuse the open arms that America has traditionally had.
  That is just one area of many that this motion to instruct 
specifically addresses. So if in fact you vote for this motion, you are 
voting to maintain the status quo. And I think my friends would almost 
all agree the status quo, in that instance, as I described it, is not 
an acceptable alternative for us to have.
  We are searching for alternatives here that work better. I hope we 
let this process go on. I hope we let our conferees work on this hard 
job in the best way they can. I hope we defeat this motion to instruct.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time and for 
his leadership.
  I am delighted the majority whip was just on the floor, because I 
really want to make the point that when we look at the questions of 
immigration, and I think a lot of these points on the motion to 
instruct the gentleman has offered refer to immigration issues, but 
they also refer to issues of asylum and refugees. When we sit with our 
constituents and we explain what America has stood for over the years, 
its principles based upon not only immigration but the questions of 
allowing people to come and seek refuge and allowing people to seek 
asylum in the course of running away from persecution and torture and 
the devastation of a despotic government, you find commonality.
  That is, I think, what we are trying to do with the motion to 
instruct as the conferees move forward. We are trying to find the kind 
of commonality that, frankly, the White House has asked us to find, and 
I might be very straightforward and say the families of the 9/11 
victims have asked us to state and to find. We know that immigration 
concerns raise their ugly head all the time. H.R. 10 is, frankly, not 
the vehicle to engage in that discussion without the proper hearings 
and understanding what would work best.
  I just want to refer again to the administration's position on H.R. 
10. It clearly says that the administration strongly opposes the 
overbroad expansion of expedited removal authorities. The 
administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification 
standards that are proposed by the bill and believes they are unrelated 
to security concerns.

                              {time}  1615

  This is the same administration that signed into law the Department 
of Homeland Security and has as its head Secretary Tommy Ridge. The 
President goes on to say, signed by my good friend Alberto Gonzalez, 
the counsel to the President as relates to the issue of torture. 
Unfortunately, the two Smith amendments did not succeed. And so I think 
it is important for the conferees to hear again what the President said 
and the President said in this letter by way of his counsel, ``The 
President did not propose and does not support this provision and a 
provision that would permit the deportation of certain foreign 
nationals to countries where they are likely to be tortured.''
  Some would say that that has been corrected. It has not. Because what 
the Hostettler language says, with all due respect to my good friend, 
is that we will ask the countries not to torture this individual, but 
it is to be asked by the Secretary of State when, in fact, that is not 
a true protection because we know that we have asked many things, and 
we have received none.
  I frankly believe that we are losing the focus that the 9/11 families 
would offer to us. As I look at the language in the 9/11 Commission 
report on the immigration and law enforcement issues, they have 
indicated that this is an important concept and that we should begin 
looking at securing identification in the United States. But the 
fundamental question that was asked by the families on H.R. 10 to be 
adopted by this commission, by a bipartisan commission, Chairman Kean 
and Vice Chairman Hamilton, was to fix the intelligence system to give 
us one director of intelligence with budgetary authority.
  I would only say that some of the provisions that the gentleman is 
asking us to consider striking or a motion to instruct in order for 
intelligent decisions to be made really go to the full understanding of 
the American public, their compassion, their sensitivity, their belief 
in the Statue of Liberty's principles of people coming over. This is 
not to say that we do not deport terrorists. It is not to say that we 
do not detain them. It simply suggests that we should not water down 
the protections that we have that undermine the values of this 
particular Nation as well as the legal principles that we have of 
judicial review and as well as the protections we have had for those 
seeking asylum and those who are seeking to be a refugee.
  The expedited procedures, Mr. Speaker, are not procedures that 
provide any security. I will say this as I close. All of these 
provisions are subject to mistake, a mistake that can cost someone 
their liberty, can cost someone their possible life, and certainly 
mistaken identity is rampant as we try to fix this security system. I 
need not speak about Yusuf Islam, Cat Stevens, who came to this country 
just a few months ago and met with White House officials on the faith-
based initiative. Lo and behold, he was deplaned in Maine, his daughter 
sent on, he was sent back because of a mistake.
  I would ask my colleagues to look seriously at this motion to 
instruct. It will not undermine the conferees. It will give them 
guidance for what may be a consensus position on H.R. 10 for all of us 
to vote on.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to talk specifically about one of the sections that are being 
considered for removal as a result of the motion to instruct, section 
3005, which addresses the importance of verifiable documentation for 
aliens and their identification.
  First of all, we need to understand what the section does not do. It 
does not prevent aliens from presenting other foreign documents to open 
bank accounts in this country. And it does not prevent aliens from 
presenting other documents in addition to the documents listed. Thus, 
an alien could also present a driver's license so long as the alien 
presents a designated document.
  What the section does do, however, it requires aliens to present 
secure documents. It prevents the aliens from using consular 
identification cards, as we have heard about earlier, issued by foreign 
agents to aliens present in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that those foreign agents in the 
United States issue them only to their nationals, but we will learn 
later that that is in fact not the case, and that they will issue them 
for purposes of getting into the secure sections of airports or onto 
Federal facilities. Those documents should be secure, and they should 
be safe from fraud.
  The FBI has told our Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, 
and Claims that the most commonly issued of those documents is the 
Mexican matricula consular. The matricula consular has been accepted in 
this country for over 100 years, documentation that would allow a 
Mexican citizen while legally present in the United States to have 
contact information with their government, namely, a consular office in 
the United States. That has happened for, as I said, a long time in 
this country.
  But the concern that we have is the newly issued Mexican matricula 
consular is not reliable. It is vulnerable to

[[Page 22722]]

forgery and, most significantly, poses a terrorist threat. We had then 
Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence Steve McCraw 
testify before our committee. He concluded that domestic acceptance of 
the matricula cards in the United States poses a law enforcement and 
national security risk. He stated that the criminal threat stems from 
the fact that the matriculas can be a perfect breeder document for 
establishing a false identity which can facilitate a wide range of 
crimes, including money laundering. He told of individuals who were 
arrested with multiple matriculas, each with the same photo but 
different names, and some of whom had matching driver's licenses to go 
with the identities proposed on the matricula cards. He concluded that 
the terrorist threat posed by these cards is the ``most worrisome'' to 
the FBI.
  He went on to say, ``The ability of foreign nationals to use foreign 
cards to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United 
States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the 
United States without triggering name-based watch lists, those watch 
lists that we think are going to save us from the next round of 9/11 
attacks. But these kind of cards will actually keep individuals from 
being cross-referenced on these lists. These lists are disseminated to 
local police officers.'' Nor is the danger posed by those documents 
only as breeder documents. For other documentation, notwithstanding 
their vulnerability to fraud and abuse, consular ID cards can be 
presented to board an airliner. We know of cases like that.
  I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it is suggested that these cards, 
especially the matricula consular, they are the most prevalent of the 
consular ID cards, but quite honestly, there are several foreign 
governments who are witnessing, observing the success of the issuance 
and acceptance of these consular identification cards by Mexico, the 
matricula consular, and they seek to follow them in issuing their own. 
They are supposed to go to individuals who are nationals of these 
particular respective foreign governments. But we know that these cards 
have been issued to non-Mexican nationals in the United States, 
including at least one Iranian.
  Mr. Speaker, at the U.S. Air Force Academy, during a particular set 
of arrests, employees with matricula cards were found to be employees 
of the Air Force Academy, but they were not Mexican nationals. They 
were Guatemalans. The Mexican government had either issued a matricula 
consular to a non-national or these cards had been so easily created by 
fraudulent means that they were able to obtain cards very similar to 
the real cards.
  It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that these insecure documents not be 
accepted for identification purposes to enter secure areas, such as 
boarding an airplane. That is why we cannot strip out any of the 
provisions in title III and especially section 3005.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I heard the distinguished 
gentleman reading and listing a litany of speculative uses of the 
matricula card that he is speaking of. Let me just say that one of the 
things that he also said is that the card has been used for 100 years, 
and there has been no evidence over the 100 years of that kind of use.
  But we are not in disagreement over the underlying principle that we 
can ultimately provide ways of securing and standardizing any card. I 
have spoken to law enforcement officers in my own community that have 
not seen any abuse of the use of such cards, and I think the opposition 
of the White House for these extraneous immigration provisions is just 
that. We have seen no evidence, we have had no hearings and we have no 
standards that can be set by adding these provisions on without more 
study.
  I would just simply ask my colleagues to support the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me, first of all, read from the 9/11 Commission because I think 
it is pertinent at this point. In section 3051 through 3056, in 
paragraph 3, it says, ``Far from calling for sweeping anti-immigration 
legislation, the commission understood that we should reach out to 
immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing 
so that is valuable in every way, including intelligence-gathering. 
Congress needs to pass meaningful reforms proposed by the 9/11 
Commission and not insist,'' and I hope the gentleman from Indiana read 
the 9/11 report; it says ``not insist on a divisive anti-immigrant 
agenda that the commission rejected and has nothing to do with 
preventing another attack.''
  Not one of those individuals that committed the heinous act on 9/11 
had a matricula consular. As a matter of fact, they were issued by the 
government of the United States of America, and they either entered 
this country illegally through borders, not south of here but through 
the Canadian border, and through other means, legally and illegally, 
into this country. So let us stop trying to confuse one thing with the 
other.
  Anyone listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think that the 
government of Mexico issues a matricula consular, and all of a sudden 
you skip and jump and you are in the United States of America, and you 
get a Social Security card, you get all of the benefits of being here, 
and you have got a passport, and you are free. If an INS agent, and I 
would like the gentleman from Indiana to answer that, if an INS agent 
stops someone with a matricula consular and says, I want identification 
from you, prove you are legally here in the United States of America, 
and gives them a matricula consular, answer the question, will that 
person not or will that person be deported? He knows that person will 
be immediately deported from the United States of America because we do 
not recognize that as a legal means of staying in the United States. It 
is not a passport. It is not a visa. It does not entitle that person to 
legally be in the United States of America, and the gentleman from 
Indiana knows that. He is too smart. He knows too much about this issue 
to be fuzzy or wary on this issue. You cannot stay in this country with 
a matricula consular.
  What does it allow us to do? It allows an immigrant to open up a bank 
account so they can send money back, hopefully in a good way, back to 
their loved ones in their countries. That is what it allows them to do. 
It allows them to take their American citizen children and enroll them 
in school. It allows them to communicate.
  Anybody listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think the Los 
Angeles Police Department have lost their minds, the New York Police 
Department have lost their minds, the Chicago Police Department have 
lost their minds. They like the matricula consular, as do hundreds of 
police departments across this country, because it ensures the safety 
and allows them to gather intelligence and information and allows 
people to cooperate with them. That is safety on our streets and 
intelligence-gathering. Let me just say, because this matricula 
consular, anybody thinks you get one, and it is magic. I go to a job, I 
say: Here, I have got my matricula consular, give me a job. You know, 
you cannot get a job with a matricula consular.
  Lastly, let me say this. He skips over one important part. You have 
got to be in the United States of America to have a matricula consular, 
so you must have evaded something. Why do you want a matricula consular 
if you are already legally in the United States of America? To open up 
a banking account. That is the purpose. Let me just say that people, 
hundreds, and the gentleman knows this, hundreds of people die crossing 
the border between Mexico and the United States. They drown in the Rio 
Grande, or they die in the desert. The terrorists know, come through 
Canada. If we put 90 percent of our resources, that is why they are not 
going to come through. They are going to find other means. We should 
look for every possible way to stop them, but this is not going to stop 
them.

[[Page 22723]]

  As the commission says in their own report, don't use a divisive, 
anti-immigrant agenda the commission rejected and has nothing to do 
with preventing. This is the 9/11 Commission report. We should not do 
that, because it has nothing to do with preventing.
  Lastly, you want to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. You 
and I will both agree and sign on a piece of paper, and we will have 
the Justice Department notarize it. There are 10 million undocumented 
workers in the United States of America. This Congress has not shown 
the political will nor has it put forward the requisite resources to 
deport them, nor will it ever.

                              {time}  1630

  This country needs and thrives on their work, and we all know it. So 
if we really want to deal with the immigration problem, then let us get 
an immigration bill, at least start with what the President, George 
Bush, said on January 7. Let us begin a national debate and an honest 
discussion of the undocumented workers that live in this country and 
let us integrate them so that the FBI, the CIA, our police departments 
have their fingerprints where they work, where they bank. And then, 
after we have eliminated those 10 million, because we know who they are 
and where they work and where they bank and where their children go to 
school and where they live, then we can reduce the number of people 
down to maybe the real terrorists that hide among them.
  Let us do that honestly. But let us not use another anti-immigrant 
attack within a bill, H.R. 10, which does such a disservice to the 
families of the lost ones of 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I can just speak briefly about the gentleman's comments with 
regard to an individual who is in this country that presents only a 
matricula consular card for identification, according to former 
intelligence director for the FBI, Steve McCraw, his testimony before 
our subcommittee said that really the only people that need to use a 
matricula consular exclusively for identification purposes are illegal 
aliens, simply because those that are in the country, that are present 
in the country legally, have other forms of secured documentation such 
as a passport or a visa or the like.
  But the gentleman suggested in his comments that if a person supplies 
exclusively a matricula consular card to a law enforcement agent that 
they will be immediately deported. Mr. Speaker, they will not be 
immediately deported if the gentleman's other provisions in this motion 
to instruct are taken out, and that is portion 3006, which calls for 
expedited removal.
  If the gentleman is saying that he wants those people immediately 
deported that only supply a matricula consular card for identification, 
I would accept, under unanimous consent, to have section 3006 stripped 
out of his motion to instruct. I do not think that is going to happen 
because the gentleman does wish to remove expedited removal provision 
from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to step back for a moment and just talk briefly about 
the situation we find ourselves in. In the months after 9/11, in fact, 
in the days after 9/11, we instantly heard certain names of terrorists, 
Osama bin Laden, obviously, and a few others. And I think we were 
misled into believing that somehow these were the only problems that we 
had, that these individuals were the extent of our terrorist problem.
  What we have learned in the months since then and what we have 
learned through the 9/11 Commission's work and its predecessor, the 
Joint Committee of Inquiry here in Congress, is that any terrorist 
operation is built upon a network. It is not one individual or even a 
couple of individuals, but there is a whole network of individuals who 
each plays a specific role, has a specific job, whether it be identity 
documents or scoping out buildings or providing training or providing 
intelligence or recruiting or whatever it may be.
  What we have learned, I think, in these months since the tragic days 
of September 11 is that if we are going to be successful in protecting 
this Nation, we cannot focus solely on the trigger man or the guy who 
plants the bomb or the guy who drives that rigged truck, because we can 
remove those individuals and more may pop up.
  Instead, we have to go over every link in the chain. We have to go 
after those who provide material support, who provide the shadows in 
which terrorists hide, who scope out the building and provide the 
intelligence and the diagrams, who provide the transportation, who 
provide the forged documents, who put the trigger men in place to do 
their terrible deeds.
  The 9/11 Commission was very clear in saying that its report was not 
legislation. It understood that its report would need to go through the 
legislative process, and it has. And I believe the legislation that 
this body produced, H.R. 10, not only carries the spirit and concepts 
of the 9/11 report, but based upon the experience that we have all had 
and all that we have learned, I think it adds a lot to it.
  It is only the House version of this bill that goes after every part 
in that network. It is only the House version of the bill and, in 
particular, the provisions that came out of the Committee on the 
Judiciary that are aimed at breaking each of the links in making sure 
that we go after the recruiters of terrorists, those who provide the 
military training, those who recruit and, as well, the ranks of 
terrorist organizations.
  We have to go after them as surely as we go after those who have 
placed that bomb. If we do not, we cannot win.
  And I think we also recognize that by the very nature of terrorist 
operations, we cannot wait until after the terrible act has occurred. 
We have to disrupt it. We have to prevent it. We have to break that 
chain. We have to disrupt that network. We have to find those who give 
material support to terrorism, whether it be the military training or 
the logistics. We have to remove them. Unless we remove those 
individuals, we cannot succeed.
  So the question I think we have before us today with this motion to 
instruct is whether or not we are going to take a very narrow approach, 
which is what some would suggest, and I would argue the Senate bill 
would do, which is incomplete, which does not get after every link in 
the chain, which does not really go after the network, which does not 
have the material support provisions in it; or whether or not we are 
going to be serious, whether or not we are going to take that 
comprehensive approach that I can, as a young father, be proud of 
because I know that it makes this country a safer place for my kids to 
grow up in.
  Make no mistake, when this legislation is signed by the President, 
there will be some time that passes before we are able to take up some 
of the new steps that the other side would have us remove. The clock is 
ticking. We have heard a number of terrorism experts refer to this as a 
race against time. I agree, it is. We have to get this right. We have 
to be bold. We have to go after that network. We have to go after every 
link in the chain. We have to remove them. We have to prevent them from 
coming into place.
  We have to send a signal to those who would recruit terrorists. We 
have to send a signal to those who would become recruits. They are our 
enemy just as surely as the man or the woman that pulls the trigger. 
That is the experience, I think, that this world has had in the sad 
months since September 11.
  I urge my colleagues to avoid the motion to instruct because it falls 
short. It does not do the job. It does not go after the network. It 
will not break the links in the chain.
  I have said it before. I think, as we all look back on the years 
leading up

[[Page 22724]]

to 9/11, I think we have to agree that a storm was gathering in the 
terrorist world and too many of our leaders, and this is not a partisan 
comment, too many of our leaders looked the other way. The question is 
now whether, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, whether or not our 
successors will look back at this Congress and say either they did the 
right thing, they took a bold comprehensive approach, or, let us hope 
not, they looked the other way and they fell short.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman for the 
excellent work he has done this session as we have looked at 
immigration issues and have worked hard to be certain that we address 
the things that are of great concern to the American people and to our 
constituents.
  And it is of concern that we have this motion to instruct to strip 
apart H.R. 10. And, of course, our opponents of H.R. 10 and our 
colleagues across the aisle are using impassioned talk to generate 
emotion on this issue, but what we have contained in H.R. 10 and in the 
provisions that they are wanting to lift out of that bill, wanting to 
move away, are just good, solid, common-sense legislation.
  I disagree with my colleague across the aisle. He was talking about 
law enforcement officials and asking if they had lost their minds. I do 
not think they have. The ones in my district definitely have not.
  They are very concerned about this, and I have been working with them 
since my days in the Tennessee Senate, working to address the driver's 
license issue and how that affects the American people. And they would 
choose to remove that from H.R. 10, and it is important.
  We have got to be certain, as we look at our Nation's security, that 
we take very careful steps not to reward individuals who are going to 
choose to break the law to get here. We have to have great respect for 
the rule of law and be certain that we continue to have policies that 
require and reward those that respect the law.
  Section 3052 that they are wanting to pull out does address the 
driver's license situation, having legal documents for driver's 
licenses. It is not a mandate. It does not set up a national database, 
and this section has been worked on very carefully. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) out of the Committee on Government Reform, and 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who was secretary of 
state, have worked diligently on this issue to be certain that we know 
that the people who are getting a driver's license, a valid government 
I.D., are here in this country lawfully, that they have an official 
passport to be here lawfully. And it gives guidance to our States so 
that States can continue to have reciprocity for the use of those 
driver's licenses.
  The provisions that are contained in 3052 are good, solid, common-
sense provisions. It is something that our States, every single State 
in this great Nation, will know that they can depend on, that other 
citizens will know that they can depend on, that the individuals that 
work the TSA, that are looking at driver's licenses, that are allowing 
people to get on planes, they will know that this is a valid document 
and that the person who holds that document in their hand is who they 
say they are and that they are here and having presence in this country 
legally.
  I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct. I 
would encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 10, the provisions that 
have been worked on, the provisions we have worked on with our State 
legislators so that we help them, help them to have the assurance that 
the documentation that is before them is real, it is valid; and so that 
the immigrant community knows that we are honoring those that choose to 
obey our laws, to work hard and to come here seeking hope, opportunity, 
and freedom.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First of all, I will insert into the Record, since obviously the 
majority has not read it, a statement of administration policy dated 
October 7, 2004, from the White House, George Bush's White House. In 
it, it says on page 2, paragraph 3: ``The administration strongly 
opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal . . . The 
administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification 
standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security 
concerns.''

                              {time}  1645

  This is the President of the United States of America, the leader of 
your party that you went to New York and nominated, who is going to 
debate Senator John Kerry tonight.
  So if you are right, Senator John Kerry could say tonight to 
President Bush, You have standards that are less secure because you 
believe that people should be expedited and should not be expedited.
  You believe they should not be, that the matricula consular somehow 
allows illegal criminals, murderers, rapists and others to roam around 
our country; that you oppose their quick and immediate deportation; 
that you are giving harbor to terrorists in the United States of 
America.
  If we are to believe what the Republican majority has just said, and 
President Bush has contradicted your position in his letter of official 
policy, then somebody is wrong and somebody is right here. But I do not 
think your colleague, the President of the United States, is weak on 
national defense. I do not think the Republican majority is saying to 
the President of the United States that he thinks it is a good idea to 
have murderers and rapists and other criminal elements freely being 
able to roam the United States of America. Yet, indeed, if you are 
right, that is what the President supports, because we have his 
official document of the administration policy, and he says remove this 
kind of language from the document, that we support it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Illinois with 
regard to his support of the President. It looks like Illinois this 
year may be in fact in play, the electoral college.
  But I do want to remind the gentleman that we do have three branches 
of government, and we have all been sent here to represent our various 
constituencies with regard to these very important issues of national 
security.
  Going back to the letter that I have submitted for the Record from 
the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I know that the gentleman is 
very impassioned about his support for immigration, and I very much 
appreciate it. We are a Nation of immigrants. But I think it is 
important for us to refocus on what actually took place on 9/11 and 
what the American people are asking us to do.
  The 9/11 Families for a Secure America said, ``Our efforts over the 
past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and to address the 
current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable 
and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress.'' They 
do not languish in the House of Representatives, after we defeat this 
motion to instruct ``because our elected leaders are either blinded by 
special interests or afraid of being vilified by them.''
  Mr. Speaker, if 9/11 repeats itself, and I have said this to our 
neighbors to the north in Canada who have had representatives from 
their government, from their legislative bodies, come and speak to us 
about issues important to immigration, issues important to both of our 
countries, if the tragedy of 9/11 repeats itself in this country, then 
my colleague from Illinois and others from Canada and Mexico will long 
for, will yearn for, the good-old-days when we considered what will 
then be considered minimalist reforms to our immigration policy.
  To not require that anyone receive relief under the Convention 
Against Torture, the gentleman talks about expedited removal and the 
concern that he has with regard for that. Our

[[Page 22725]]

amendment changed the underlying bill to allow for Convention Against 
Torture and asylum claims to go ahead unimpeded by the new provision 
that calls for expedited removal. So we will not be sending individuals 
who have a very reasonable fear of being tortured and abused in their 
home countries if they are returned. Those that really do have a reason 
to fear for their safety in another country and for their abuse there 
will be able to obtain relief in this country.
  But for those that abuse the immigration process, as the 19 did who 
perpetrated 9/11, we must maintain these immigration provisions in the 
bill so that we deal with that very important problem and we do not 
allow 9/11 to repeat itself and do not come to a point in the future 
where the American people require us to do much more difficult things, 
make much more difficult decisions, and cause us to greatly restrict 
the influx of immigrants into our country.
  In the words of families affected most directly by 9/11, these are 
reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals. They should not 
be stripped out. I beg my colleagues not to vote for the motion to 
instruct, but in fact vote against the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say the following. In the same letter from 
the George Bush administration, it states: ``The administration has 
concerns with overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the 
bill and unrelated security concerns, and believes that the States, as 
in the Senate bill, should work these things out.'' So there are 
provisions for securing driver's licenses and making sure that they are 
secure. We have that in the Senate bill.
  The gentleman keeps speaking about the 9/11 families. I have an open 
letter from the 9/11 families, the same families that came to testify 
before the Congress of the United States, in which they say 
``recommendations.'' ``We have heard that the House bill to implement 
9/11 Commission recommendations also includes provisions to expand the 
U.S. PATRIOT Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by 
the commission and which we are against.'' This is the 9/11 families.
  Look, anybody listening to this debate would think that if tomorrow 
somebody who works in Washington State picking apples, and I think the 
gentleman from Indiana and I would agree that most of the workers in 
the field of agriculture in Washington State are undocumented here in 
this country, without legal documentation, picking our apples, let us 
use that as one example, do you think if you do not give them a 
driver's license, they are going to stop coming? Do you think if you 
take away the matricula consular and they cannot get a bank account, 
they are not coming? Do you think if we pass every other kind of ID 
requirement, they will stop coming?
  They are going to keep coming, as long as in this country there are 
apple growers who need their work and Americans like you and I that 
were born here who will not do the work. So let us face it, these are 
obscuring the real issues we have before us.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that he says that maybe the State of 
Illinois is in play in the electoral college. We just elected a 
Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois and the former Republican, 
how ironic, the former Republican Governor of the State of Illinois is 
currently under indictment by the Federal Government. Do you want to 
know why? For issuing bogus driver's licenses and taking bribes for 
them. That is a fact.
  Unfortunately, let us have a debate on immigration policy that is 
really about immigration and security concerns that are really about 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the statement of administration 
policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 10 and 
     appreciates the efforts of the House Leadership and 
     Committees to bring this legislation quickly to the Floor. 
     The Administration looks forward to working with the House 
     and Senate in conference as they resolve their differences on 
     intelligence reform legislation so that it can be enacted as 
     soon as possible The Administration looks forward to working 
     with Congress to address its concerns with the bill, 
     including those described below, and to ensure prompt 
     enactment of necessary legislation to create a strong 
     National Intelligence Director (NID) with full budget 
     authority and other authorities to manage the Intelligence 
     Community, and to provide statutory authority for the newly 
     created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
       The Administration appreciates that H.R. 10 has been 
     revised to clarify the authorities of the NCTC and the 
     definition of national intelligence. The Administration is 
     also pleased that H.R. 10 would prevent disclosure of 
     sensitive information about the intelligence budget. 
     Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during 
     wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provide 
     by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence 
     activities would be a mistake.
       Legislation proposed by the President provides the NID with 
     full budget authority, including clear authority to determine 
     the national intelligence budget, strong transfer and 
     reprogramming authorities, explicit authority to allocate 
     appropriations, and the ability to influence the execution of 
     funds by national intelligence agencies. The Administration 
     is concerned that H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient 
     authorities to manage the Intelligence Community effectively.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the House 
     to improve a number of provisions relating to appointments. 
     In particular, the Director of the NCTC should be appointed 
     by the President, and the appointment of certain other 
     officers as proposed in H.R. 10 may raise constitutional 
     issues.
       The Administration remains concerned about other provisions 
     that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the 
     office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help, 
     the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and 
     preserve constitutional rights.
       The Administration commends and supports provisions of H.R. 
     10 that promote the development of a secure information 
     sharing environment under the direction of the NID while also 
     providing flexibility concerning its design and 
     implementation. We look forward to working with Congress to 
     address some concerns with the degree of specificity of 
     provisions concerning interoperable law enforcement and 
     intelligence data systems.
       In addition to provisions concerning the NID, the NCTC, and 
     other core issues responsive to the Administration's 
     proposal, H.R. 10 contains a number of additional provisions, 
     some of which are discussed below.
       The Administration strongly supports those provisions of 
     Title II that ensure the Intelligence Community and others in 
     the war on terror have all the necessary tools to prevent 
     terrorist attacks--including provisions to prevent attack by 
     ``lone wolf'' terrorists and enhanced provisions to deny 
     material support to terrorists, prevent attacks using weapons 
     of mass destruction, and further dry up sources of terrorist 
     financing. These and other additional antiterrorism tools 
     would help keep America safer.
       The Administration also supports those provisions of Titles 
     II and III that will better protect our borders from 
     terrorists, while still maintaining our traditions as a 
     welcoming Nation. In particular, the Administration supports 
     efforts to allow visa revocations as a basis for deportation 
     and provisions concerning the judicial review of immigration 
     orders, as in Section 3009. The Administration strongly 
     opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal 
     authorities. The Administration has concerns with the 
     overboard alien identification standards proposed by the bill 
     that are unrelated to security concerns. The Administration 
     welcomes efforts in Congress to address the 9/11 Commission's 
     recommendations concerning uniform standards for preventing 
     counterfeiting of and tampering with drivers licenses and 
     birth certificates, but believes that additional consultation 
     with the States is necessary to address important concerns 
     about flexibility, privacy, and unfunded mandates.
       Section 3001 acts to close a security gap by eliminating 
     the Western Hemisphere exception for U.S. citizens. The 
     Administration intends to work with the Congress to ensure 
     that these new requirements are implemented in a way that 
     does not create unintended, adverse consequences.
       The Administration strongly opposes section 3032 of the 
     bill. The Administration remains committed to upholding the 
     United States' obligations under the Convention Against 
     Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States 
     does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries 
     where the United States believes it is more likely than not 
     they will be tortured. The Administration is willing to work 
     with the Congress on ways to address the Supreme Court's 
     decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), insofar 
     as it may constrain the detention of criminal aliens, while 
     they are awaiting removal, or limit the government's 
     authority to detain

[[Page 22726]]

     dangerous aliens who would be removed from the United States 
     but for the fact that they are afforded protection under the 
     Convention Against Torture.
       Title IV contains a number of provisions that purport to 
     establish the policy of the United States on foreign policy 
     issues, require the Executive branch to negotiate certain 
     international agreements, direct how the President will use 
     the voice and vote of the United States in international 
     institutions, direct the content of diplomatic communications 
     with foreign governments, direct the make-up of U.S. 
     delegations to multilateral meetings and negotiations, and 
     require that plans and strategies to achieve specified 
     foreign policy objectives be submitted to the Congress. These 
     provisions are inconsistent with the President's 
     constitutional authority with respect to foreign relations, 
     diplomacy, and international negotiations. Therefore, these 
     provisions should be eliminated or cast in precatory rather 
     than mandatory terms.
       In Title V, the Administration commends the provisions that 
     add to the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility in 
     providing first responder grant funds to certain high-risk 
     areas, but has concerns about border state funding mandates 
     which reduce that flexibility. The Administration opposes 
     provisions in Title V that would create inequities in 
     personnel policy between the FBI and other law enforcement 
     agencies, and looks forward to working with the Congress on a 
     separate and comprehensive reform of law enforcement pay and 
     benefits. The Administration also opposes provisions that 
     would encumber the Federal rulemaking process with 
     duplicative and burdensome new requirements.
       The Administration opposes Section 5043 of the bill, which 
     would eliminate the level playing field established for all 
     three branches of government by the Government-Wide Ethics 
     Reform Act of 1989, creating a new regime of non-uniform 
     ethics laws. The financial disclosure process should be 
     modernized to reflect changed circumstances. The 
     Administration urges Congress to adopt the bill to modernize 
     government-wide financial disclosure submitted by the Office 
     of Government Ethics to the Speaker on July 16, 2003.
       The Administration is also very concerned about the dozens 
     of new reporting requirements contained in the bill. The 
     Administration will continue to work with the Congress to 
     eliminate or reduce the burden created by unnecessary or 
     duplicative statutory reporting requirements, while 
     respecting the responsibilities of the Congress.
       The Administration is also concerned about provisions in 
     Title V that would, taken together, construct a cumbersome 
     new bureaucracy, duplicate existing legal requirements, and 
     risk unnecessary litigation. The Administration urges the 
     House to delete or significantly revise these problematic 
     provisions.
       The Administration notes that the Committee bill did not 
     include Section 6 (``Preservation of Authority and 
     Accountability'') of the Administration's proposal; the 
     Administration strongly supports inclusion of this provision 
     in the House bill. The Administration's proposal also 
     provides necessary additional authorities for the NID to be 
     able to effectively operate the Office of NID; however, H.R. 
     10 does not provide the NID with these additional 
     authorities. The legislation should also recognize that its 
     provisions would be executed to the extent consistent with 
     the constitutional authority of the President: to conduct the 
     foreign affairs of the United States; to withhold information 
     the disclosure of which could impair the foreign relations, 
     the national security, deliberative processes of the 
     Executive, or the performance of the Executive's 
     constitutional duties; to recommend for congressional 
     consideration such measures as the President may judge 
     necessary or expedient; and to supervise the unitary 
     executive.
       Finally, the Administration has concerns with a number of 
     other provisions in the bill and looks forward to working 
     with Congress to address them as the bill proceeds.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak about Representative Gutierrez's motion to instruct on H.R. 10, I 
must oppose this motion to instruct.
  This motion specifically instructs the conferees to remove sections 
3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3032, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, and 
3056, something I agree with. However, his motion to instruct also 
calls conferees to recede from the entire House amendment and thus 
accept Senate bill, S. 2845, which has some very unacceptable 
provisions. One such provision exposes the funds we spend on the 
intelligence community.
  Even though he references immigration provisions, which forced me to 
vote against the House bill, his motion to instruct has the purpose of 
accepting the entire Senate bill. This is something I cannot agree to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on this motion are postponed.

                          ____________________