[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18852-18863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1018, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 6094) to restore the Secretary of Homeland 
Security's authority to detain dangerous aliens, to ensure the removal 
of deportable criminal aliens, and combat alien gang crime, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6094

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Protection Act of 
     2006''.

             TITLE I--DANGEROUS ALIEN DETENTION ACT OF 2006

     SEC. 101. DETENTION OF DANGEROUS ALIENS.

       Section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1231(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears, 
     except for the first reference in paragraph (4)(B)(i), and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) the following:

     ``If, at that time, the alien is not in the custody of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (under the authority of this 
     Act), the Secretary shall take the alien into custody for 
     removal, and the removal period shall not begin until the 
     alien is taken into such custody. If the Secretary transfers 
     custody of the alien during the removal period pursuant to 
     law to another Federal agency or a State or local government 
     agency in connection with the official duties of such agency, 
     the removal period shall be tolled, and shall begin anew on 
     the date of the alien's return to the custody of the 
     Secretary, subject to clause (ii).'';
       (3) by amending clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(B) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) If a court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an 
     immigration judge orders a stay of the removal of the alien, 
     the date the stay of removal is no longer in effect.'';
       (4) by amending paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Suspension of period.--The removal period shall be 
     extended beyond a period of 90 days and the alien may remain 
     in detention during such extended period if the alien fails 
     or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the 
     removal order, or to fully cooperate with the Secretary of 
     Homeland

[[Page 18853]]

     Security's efforts to establish the alien's identity and 
     carry out the removal order, including making timely 
     application in good faith for travel or other documents 
     necessary to the alien's departure, or conspires or acts to 
     prevent the alien's removal subject to an order of 
     removal.'';
       (5) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``If a court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an 
     immigration judge orders a stay of removal of an alien who is 
     subject to an administratively final order of removal, the 
     Secretary, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, may 
     detain the alien during the pendency of such stay of 
     removal.'';
       (6) by amending paragraph (3)(D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) to obey reasonable restrictions on the alien's 
     conduct or activities, or perform affirmative acts, that the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security prescribes for the alien, in 
     order to prevent the alien from absconding, or for the 
     protection of the community, or for other purposes related to 
     the enforcement of the immigration laws.'';
       (7) in paragraph (6), by striking ``removal period and, if 
     released,'' and inserting ``removal period, in the discretion 
     of the Secretary of Homeland Security, without any 
     limitations other than those specified in this section, until 
     the alien is removed. If an alien is released, the alien''; 
     and
       (8) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (10) and 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Parole.--If an alien detained pursuant to paragraph 
     (6) is an applicant for admission, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in the Secretary's discretion, may parole the alien 
     under section 212(d)(5) and may provide, notwithstanding such 
     section, that the alien shall not be returned to custody 
     unless either the alien violates the conditions of the 
     alien's parole or the alien's removal becomes reasonably 
     foreseeable, but in no circumstance shall such alien be 
     considered admitted.
       ``(8) Additional rules for detention or release of certain 
     aliens who have made an entry.--The following procedures 
     apply only with respect to an alien who has effected an entry 
     into the United States. These procedures do not apply to any 
     other alien detained pursuant to paragraph (6):
       ``(A) Establishment of a detention review process for 
     aliens who fully cooperate with removal.--For an alien who 
     has made all reasonable efforts to comply with a removal 
     order and to cooperate fully with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security's efforts to establish the alien's identity and 
     carry out the removal order, including making timely 
     application in good faith for travel or other documents 
     necessary to the alien's departure, and has not conspired or 
     acted to prevent removal, the Secretary shall establish an 
     administrative review process to determine whether the alien 
     should be detained or released on conditions. The Secretary 
     shall make a determination whether to release an alien after 
     the removal period in accordance with subparagraph (B). The 
     determination shall include consideration of any evidence 
     submitted by the alien, and may include consideration of any 
     other evidence, including any information or assistance 
     provided by the Secretary of State or other Federal official 
     and any other information available to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security pertaining to the ability to remove the 
     alien.
       ``(B) Authority to detain beyond the removal period.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, without any 
     limitations other than those specified in this section, may 
     continue to detain an alien for 90 days beyond the removal 
     period (including any extension of the removal period as 
     provided in paragraph (1)(C)).
       ``(ii) Specific circumstances.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, 
     without any limitations other than those specified in this 
     section, may continue to detain an alien beyond the 90 days 
     authorized in clause (i)--

       ``(I) until the alien is removed, if the Secretary 
     determines that there is a significant likelihood that the 
     alien--

       ``(aa) will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
     future; or
       ``(bb) would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
     future, or would have been removed, but for the alien's 
     failure or refusal to make all reasonable efforts to comply 
     with the removal order, or to cooperate fully with the 
     Secretary's efforts to establish the aliens' identity and 
     carry out the removal order, including making timely 
     application in good faith for travel or other documents 
     necessary to the alien's departure, or conspiracies or acts 
     to prevent removal;

       ``(II) until the alien is removed, if the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security certifies in writing--

       ``(aa) in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, that the alien has a highly contagious 
     disease that poses a threat to public safety;
       ``(bb) after receipt of a written recommendation from the 
     Secretary of State, that release of the alien is likely to 
     have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the 
     United States;
       ``(cc) based on information available to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security (including classified, sensitive, or 
     national security information, and without regard to the 
     grounds upon which the alien was ordered removed), that there 
     is reason to believe that the release of the alien would 
     threaten the national security of the United States; or
       ``(dd) that the release of the alien will threaten the 
     safety of the community or any person, conditions of release 
     cannot reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the 
     community or any person, and either (AA) the alien has been 
     convicted of one or more aggravated felonies (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(43)(A)) or of one or more crimes identified by 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security by regulation, or of one 
     or more attempts or conspiracies to commit any such 
     aggravated felonies or such identified crimes, if the 
     aggregate term of imprisonment for such attempts or 
     conspiracies is at least 5 years; or (BB) the alien has 
     committed one or more crimes of violence (as defined in 
     section 16 of title 18, United States Code, but not including 
     a purely political offense) and, because of a mental 
     condition or personality disorder and behavior associated 
     with that condition or disorder, the alien is likely to 
     engage in acts of violence in the future; or
       ``(ee) that the release of the alien will threaten the 
     safety of the community or any person, conditions of release 
     cannot reasonably be expected to ensure the safety of the 
     community or any person, and the alien has been convicted of 
     at least one aggravated felony (as defined in section 
     101(a)(43)); or

       ``(III) pending a determination under subclause (II), so 
     long as the Secretary of Homeland Security has initiated the 
     administrative review process not later than 30 days after 
     the expiration of the removal period (including any extension 
     of the removal period, as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C)).

       ``(C) Renewal and delegation of certification.--
       ``(i) Renewal.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     renew a certification under subparagraph (B)(ii)(II) every 6 
     months without limitation, after providing an opportunity for 
     the alien to request reconsideration of the certification and 
     to submit documents or other evidence in support of that 
     request. If the Secretary does not renew a certification, the 
     Secretary may not continue to detain the alien under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii)(II).
       ``(ii) Delegation.--Notwithstanding section 103, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may not delegate the authority 
     to make or renew a certification described in item (bb), 
     (cc), or (ee) of subparagraph (B)(ii)(II) below the level of 
     the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement.
       ``(iii) Hearing.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     request that the Attorney General or the Attorney General's 
     designee provide for a hearing to make the determination 
     described in item (dd)(BB) of subparagraph (B)(ii)(II).
       ``(D) Release on conditions.--If it is determined that an 
     alien should be released from detention, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's 
     discretion, may impose conditions on release as provided in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(E) Redetention.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, without any 
     limitations other than those specified in this section, may 
     again detain any alien subject to a final removal order who 
     is released from custody if the alien fails to comply with 
     the conditions of release, or to continue to satisfy the 
     conditions described in subparagraph (A), or if, upon 
     reconsideration, the Secretary determines that the alien can 
     be detained under subparagraph (B). Paragraphs (6) through 
     (8) shall apply to any alien returned to custody pursuant to 
     this subparagraph, as if the removal period terminated on the 
     day of the redetention.
       ``(F) Certain aliens who effected entry.--If an alien has 
     effected an entry, but has neither been lawfully admitted nor 
     has been physically present in the United States continuously 
     for the 2-year period immediately prior to the commencement 
     of removal proceedings under this Act or deportation 
     proceedings against the alien, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in the exercise of the Secretary's discretion, may 
     decide not to apply paragraph (8) and detain the alien 
     without any limitations except those which the Secretary 
     shall adopt by regulation.
       ``(9) Judicial review.--Without regard to the place of 
     confinement, judicial review of any action or decision 
     pursuant to paragraphs (6), (7), or (8) shall be available 
     exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings instituted in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
     and only if the alien has exhausted all administrative 
     remedies (statutory and regulatory) available to the alien as 
     of right.''.

     SEC. 102. DETENTION OF ALIENS DURING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Detention Authority.--Section 235 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(e) Length of Detention.--
       ``(1) In general.--With regard to length of detention, an 
     alien may be detained under this section, without limitation, 
     until the alien is subject to an administratively final order 
     of removal.

[[Page 18854]]

       ``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this 
     section shall not affect the validity of any detention under 
     section 241.
       ``(f) Judicial Review.--Without regard to the place of 
     confinement, judicial review of any action or decision made 
     pursuant to subsection (e) shall be available exclusively in 
     a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia and only if the 
     alien has exhausted all administrative remedies (statutory 
     and nonstatutory) available to the alien as of right.''.
       (b) Judicial Review.--Section 236(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1226(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Without regard to the place of confinement, judicial review 
     of any action or decision made pursuant to subsection (f) 
     shall be available exclusively in a habeas corpus proceeding 
     instituted in the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia and only if the alien has exhausted all 
     administrative remedies (statutory and nonstatutory) 
     available to the alien as of right.''.
       (c) Length of Detention.--Section 236 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1226) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Length of Detention.--
       ``(1) In general.--With regard to length of detention, an 
     alien may be detained under this section, without limitation, 
     until the alien is subject to an administratively final order 
     of removal.
       ``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this 
     section shall not affect the validity of any detention under 
     section 241 of this Act.''.

     SEC. 103. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, or any amendment made by 
     this title, or the application of any such provision to any 
     person or circumstance, is held to be invalid for any reason, 
     the remainder of this title, and of the amendments made by 
     this title, and the application of the provisions and of the 
     amendments made by this title to any other person or 
     circumstance, shall not be affected by such holding.

     SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) Section 101.--The amendments made by section 101 shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended, shall apply to--
       (1) all aliens subject to a final administrative removal, 
     deportation, or exclusion order that was issued before, on, 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) acts and conditions occurring or existing before, on, 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Section 102.--The amendments made by section 102 shall 
     take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     sections 235 and 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     as amended, shall apply to any alien in detention under 
     provisions of such sections on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE II--CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVAL ACT

     SEC. 201. EXPEDITED REMOVAL FOR ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON 
                   CRIMINAL GROUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 238(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1228(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of 
     discretion''; and
       (B) by striking ``set forth in this subsection or'' and 
     inserting ``set forth in this subsection, in lieu of removal 
     proceedings under'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraph (1) until 14 
     calendar days'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (3) until 7 
     calendar days'';
       (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears 
     in paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Homeland Security'';
       (4) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``described in this section'' and inserting 
     ``described in paragraph (1) or (2)''; and
       (B) by striking ``the Attorney General may grant in the 
     Attorney General's discretion'' and inserting ``the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant, in 
     the discretion of the Secretary or Attorney General, in any 
     proceeding'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security in the exercise of 
     discretion may determine inadmissibility under section 
     212(a)(2) (relating to criminal offenses) and issue an order 
     of removal pursuant to the procedures set forth in this 
     subsection, in lieu of removal proceedings under section 240, 
     with respect to an alien who--
       ``(A) has not been admitted or paroled;
       ``(B) has not been found to have a credible fear of 
     persecution pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 
     235(b)(1)(B); and
       ``(C) is not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or 
     relief from removal.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     but shall not apply to aliens who are in removal proceedings 
     under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
     of such date.

               TITLE III--ALIEN GANG REMOVAL ACT OF 2006

     SEC. 301. RENDERING INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS 
                   PARTICIPATING IN CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

       (a) Inadmissible.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(J) Criminal street gang participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is inadmissible if--

       ``(I) the alien has been removed under section 
     237(a)(2)(F); or
       ``(II) the consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe that the 
     alien--

       ``(aa) is a member of a criminal street gang and has 
     committed, conspired, or threatened to commit, or seeks to 
     enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or 
     incidentally in, a gang crime or any other unlawful activity; 
     or
       ``(bb) is a member of a criminal street gang designated 
     under section 219A.
       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph:

       ``(I) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street 
     gang' means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or 
     more individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of 
     which is a crime of violence, as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code) in 2 or more separate criminal 
     episodes in relation to the group or association.
       ``(II) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means conduct 
     constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by 
     imprisonment for one year or more, in any of the following 
     categories:

       ``(aa) A crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code).
       ``(bb) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering 
     with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, 
     or burglary.
       ``(cc) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, 
     distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or 
     otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed 
     chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       ``(dd) Any conduct punishable under section 844 of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to explosive materials), 
     subsection (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a 
     violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of such 
     title) or is a serious drug offense (as defined in section 
     924(e)(2)(A)), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of 
     section 922 of such title (relating to unlawful acts), or 
     subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of 
     section 924 of such title (relating to penalties), section 
     930 of such title (relating to possession of firearms and 
     dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 of such 
     title (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body 
     armor by violent felons), sections 1028 and 1029 of such 
     title (relating to fraud and related activity in connection 
     with identification documents or access devices), section 
     1952 of such title (relating to interstate and foreign travel 
     or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), 
     section 1956 of such title (relating to the laundering of 
     monetary instruments), section 1957 of such title (relating 
     to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from 
     specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 
     of such title (relating to interstate transportation of 
     stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).
       ``(ee) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating 
     to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 
     (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 
     United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 
     alien for immoral purpose) of this Act.''.
       (b) Deportable.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(F) Criminal street gang participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is deportable who--

       ``(I) is a member of a criminal street gang and is 
     convicted of committing, or conspiring, threatening, or 
     attempting to commit, a gang crime; or
       ``(II) is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     to be a member of a criminal street gang designated under 
     section 219A.

       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     terms `criminal street gang' and `gang crime' have the 
     meaning given such terms in section 212(a)(2)(J)(ii).''.
       (c) Designation of Criminal Street Gangs.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:


                 ``DESIGNATION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

       ``Sec. 219A.  (a) Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     designate a group or association as a criminal street gang in 
     accordance with this subsection if the Attorney General finds 
     that the group or association meets the criteria described in 
     section 212(a)(2)(J)(ii)(I).
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) Notice.--

[[Page 18855]]

       ``(i) To congressional leaders.--Seven days before making a 
     designation under this subsection, the Attorney General 
     shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the 
     President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader 
     of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of 
     the intent to designate a group or association under this 
     subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to that group or association, and the 
     factual basis therefor.
       ``(ii) Publication in federal register.--The Attorney shall 
     publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days 
     after providing the notification under clause (i).
       ``(B) Effect of designation.--
       ``(i) A designation under this subsection shall take effect 
     upon publication under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(ii) Any designation under this subsection shall cease to 
     have effect upon an Act of Congress disapproving such 
     designation.
       ``(3) Record.--In making a designation under this 
     subsection, the Attorney General shall create an 
     administrative record.
       ``(4) Period of designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A designation under this subsection 
     shall be effective for all purposes until revoked under 
     paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall review the 
     designation of a criminal street gang under the procedures 
     set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated gang or 
     association files a petition for revocation within the 
     petition period described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--

       ``(I) if the designated gang or association has not 
     previously filed a petition for revocation under this 
     subparagraph, the petition period begins 2 years after the 
     date on which the designation was made; or
       ``(II) if the designated gang or association has previously 
     filed a petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the 
     petition period begins 2 years after the date of the 
     determination made under clause (iv) on that petition.

       ``(iii) Procedures.--Any criminal street gang that submits 
     a petition for revocation under this subparagraph must 
     provide evidence in that petition that the relevant 
     circumstances described in paragraph (1) are sufficiently 
     different from the circumstances that were the basis for the 
     designation such that a revocation with respect to the gang 
     is warranted.
       ``(iv) Determination.--

       ``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving 
     a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph, 
     the Attorney General shall make a determination as to such 
     revocation.
       ``(II) Publication of determination.--A determination made 
     by the Attorney General under this clause shall be published 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(III) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Attorney General 
     shall be made in accordance with paragraph (6).

       ``(C) Other review of designation.--
       ``(i) In general.--If in a 5-year period no review has 
     taken place under subparagraph (B), the Attorney General 
     shall review the designation of the criminal street gang in 
     order to determine whether such designation should be revoked 
     pursuant to paragraph (6).
       ``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for 
     revocation that is filed in accordance with that 
     subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to 
     procedures established by the Attorney General. The results 
     of such review and the applicable procedures shall not be 
     reviewable in any court.
       ``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Attorney 
     General shall publish any determination made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register.
       ``(5) Revocation by act of congress.--The Congress, by an 
     Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(6) Revocation based on change in circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Attorney General may revoke a 
     designation made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall 
     revoke a designation upon completion of a review conducted 
     pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the 
     Attorney General finds that--
       ``(i) the circumstances that were the basis for the 
     designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant 
     revocation; or
       ``(ii) the national security of the United States warrants 
     a revocation.
       ``(B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements of paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph. 
     Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the 
     revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no 
     effective date is specified.
       ``(7) Effect of revocation.--The revocation of a 
     designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any 
     action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the 
     effective date of such revocation.
       ``(8) Use of designation in hearing.--If a designation 
     under this subsection has become effective under paragraph 
     (2)(B) an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be 
     permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of 
     the issuance of such designation as a defense or an objection 
     at any hearing.
       ``(b) Judicial Review of Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after publication 
     of the designation in the Federal Register, a group or 
     association designated as a criminal street gang may seek 
     judicial review of the designation in the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       ``(2) Basis of review.--Review under this subsection shall 
     be based solely upon the administrative record.
       ``(3) Scope of review.--The Court shall hold unlawful and 
     set aside a designation the court finds to be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law;
       ``(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, 
     or immunity;
       ``(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or 
     limitation, or short of statutory right;
       ``(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative 
     record taken as a whole; or
       ``(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
       ``(4) Judicial review invoked.--The pendency of an action 
     for judicial review of a designation shall not affect the 
     application of this section, unless the court issues a final 
     order setting aside the designation.
       ``(c) Relevant Committee Defined.--As used in this section, 
     the term `relevant committees' means the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Senate.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 219 
     the following:

``Sec. 219A. Designation of criminal street gangs.''.

     SEC. 302. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED CRIMINAL STREET 
                   GANG MEMBERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(c)(1)(D) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or 212(a)(2)(J)'' after 
     ``212(a)(3)(B)''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or 237(a)(2)(F)'' before 
     ``237(a)(4)(B)''.
       (b) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     (beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 
     with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit a report 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate on the number of aliens 
     detained under the amendments made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 303. INELIGIBILITY FROM PROTECTION FROM REMOVAL AND 
                   ASYLUM.

       (a) Inapplicability of Restriction on Removal to Certain 
     Countries.--Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3)(B)) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``who is described 
     in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) or who 
     is'' after ``to an alien''.
       (b) Ineligibility for Asylum.--Section 208(b)(2)(A) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) the alien is described in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or 
     section 237(a)(2)(F)(i) (relating to participation in 
     criminal street gangs); or''.
       (c) Denial of Review of Determination of Ineligibility for 
     Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244(c)(2) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Limitation on judicial review.--There shall be no 
     judicial review of any finding under subparagraph (B) that an 
     alien is in described in section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1018, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6094 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?

[[Page 18856]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the Community 
Protection Act, which consists of 3 crucial provisions to ensure the 
safety of all Americans:
  Title I includes the Dangerous Alien Detention Act which contains 
provisions similar to those passed by the House last December as a part 
of H.R. 4437.
  In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Clark v. Martinez (2005), the Supreme 
Court decided that under current law, immigrants under orders of 
removal can almost never be detained for more than 6 months if for some 
reason they cannot be removed from the country within that time. As a 
result, the Department of Homeland Security has had no choice but to 
release hundreds of criminal aliens back into our communities.
  The Department of Justice has testified that the government is now 
required to release numerous rapists, child molesters, murderers, and 
other dangerous illegal aliens into our streets. ``Vicious criminal 
aliens are now being set free within the United States.'' One of the 
aliens released was subsequently arrested for shooting a New York state 
trooper in the head.
  This bill will end this perilous practice by allowing the Department 
of Homeland Security to detain certain dangerous aliens beyond 6 months 
when they cannot successfully be removed. This would include immigrants 
whose release would have serious adverse foreign policy considerations 
or threaten the national security or community safety. Such aliens may 
be detained for periods of 6 months at a time and the period of 
detention can be renewed.
  The title also provides for appropriate judicial review of detention 
decisions.
  Title II, the Criminal Alien Removal Act, was also passed as a part 
of H.R. 4437. It would allow the Department of Homeland Security to use 
the same expedited procedures available for the removal of aggravated 
felons to remove other inadmissible criminal aliens who are not 
permanent residents and otherwise are ineligible for release. At the 
present time, these aliens must be placed in lengthy removal 
proceedings before an immigration judge, despite the fact that they are 
not eligible for any relief.

                              {time}  1245

  This title permits removal of criminal aliens as expeditiously as 
possible.
  Title III of the bill contains the ``Alien Gang Removal Act'' 
authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), which was also 
included in H.R. 4437. Crime by alien members of criminal street gangs 
is a growing menace. Moreover, while criminal alien gangs are spreading 
throughout the country, they often terrorize immigrant communities and 
subvert the qualities of honesty and hard work that typify most of 
these communities.
  Despite the clear threat that the violent street gangs pose to our 
neighborhoods and communities, immigrants who are members of these 
gangs are not deportable or inadmissible, and can receive asylum and 
temporary protected status. DHS must wait until they are caught and 
convicted of a specific criminal act before it can act to remove them.
  One of the most violent and fastest-growing gangs, MS-13, was formed 
by Salvadorans who entered the U.S. during the civil war in El Salvador 
in the 1980s, and has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in 31 
States.
  This bill renders alien gang members deportable and inadmissible, 
mandates their detention, and bars them from receiving asylum or 
temporary protected status. The bill adopts procedures similar to those 
used by the State Department to designate foreign terrorist 
organizations in order to enable the Attorney General to designate 
gangs as criminal street gangs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to make 
America's streets safer for all.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not focusing our 
attention on proposals that would actually make our Nation's borders 
more secure, but I think we find ourselves once again on the floor of 
the House engaging in a kind of a political gamesmanship that forecasts 
an election some 48 days from now.
  By now many people in our country have lost their patience for 
political theater and expect movement toward comprehensive immigration 
reform. I used that phrase earlier, and it was rejected by a Member on 
the other side of the aisle as not being pragmatic.
  The House and the Senate have passed bills on immigration reform and 
border security a number of months ago. Under regular order we should 
have had conferees appointed and been engaged in the process of 
reconciling the two bills. As a matter of fact, the chairman of this 
committee and myself as ranking member would undoubtedly have been two 
of the conferees.
  However, in a substantial deviation from what is normal practice in 
the House, the leadership decided to launch a traveling road show of 
committee hearings in the States across the country in an attempt to 
make citizens believe that they were being active on this subject of 
comprehensive immigration reform. But most Americans, or at least many 
of them, saw through the charade and the hearings were condemned in the 
media across the country as both a waste of taxpayers' money and a 
waste of congressional time when we should have been focused on 
resolving the immigration differences that we have between the two 
committees.
  Now here we are at the end of September. The nationwide hearings are 
over, some 21 hearings covering more than a dozen States, and we still 
have no notice of when we are going to have a conference on the two 
measures concerning immigration that have been already passed months 
ago by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  Now, by bringing parts of these provisions to the floor again, I 
don't think is going to give much encouragement to the citizens who are 
quickly losing confidence in the Congress. I think our ratings are down 
to 25 percent support. That's as of today. We may fall lower after 
these hearings because people are tired of theater, and they would like 
to have a little show, a little progress, a little action.
  So here we are reworking many provisions that were already passed in 
H.R. 4437 last December. I think very few people are going to be fooled 
by what it is that is going on here.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The border security bill that was passed by the House of 
Representatives is being criticized by the Democrats. But our hearings 
were not condemned by the media. Far from it, because at our hearings 
we heard from the border agents, the sheriffs, the investigators, the 
men and women whose task it is to enforce border security. They called 
for the border fence that the Democrats opposed.
  Now the Democrats are referring to their motion to recommit our bill, 
H.R. 4437. Well, their motion would have gutted this critical 
immigration enforcement bill. If the Democrat motion had passed, there 
would have been no provision to crack down on violent alien gang 
members. There would have been no provision to allow for the detention 
of dangerous aliens. There would be no provision to crack down on 
employees hiring those here illegally.
  Their motion to recommit was meaningless and ineffectual. Only the 
Appropriations Committee can actually allocate funds. The Democrats 
know this, and they know that our appropriators over this year and next 
have increased Border Patrol strength by 2,700 agents. This is the 
maximum number of new agents who can realistically be

[[Page 18857]]

recruited and adequately trained in that time span.
  But in the meantime we have the question of the broader border 
security issue of whether you are going to erect that fence, whether 
you are going to allow State and local law enforcement to assist our 
ICE agents, whether or not you are going to crack down on criminal 
gangs. Those are the provisions that we are bringing up today and 
passing over into the Senate.
  Our hope is that the Senate leadership, Republican leadership, can 
get past the Democratic opposition this time and get past the argument 
that all we should do is a blanket amnesty. We tried a blanket amnesty 
in 1986. It didn't work. It did not work. And the concept that the 
answer to all of this is open borders and another blanket amnesty is 
simply wrong. It is a wrongheaded notion. I urge passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary and a member on the Immigration 
Subcommittee, such time as she may consume.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, as the ranking member 
has mentioned, I am a member of the Immigration Subcommittee and also 
the Homeland Security Committee. As a consequence, I had an opportunity 
to participate in some of these so-called immigration hearings in the 
last several months.
  I must say that the impression that one receives, the inevitable 
impression, is that there has been a lot of talk, but as they say in 
the South, not much walk. Unfortunately, I think today is more of the 
same.
  Since 1995, when the Senate and House gained their Republican 
majorities, 5.3 million undocumented immigrants have come into the 
United States. Since 2001, when President Bush assumed the Presidency, 
over 2 million undocumented immigrants came into the United States. We 
have seen 12 years, basically, 12 years of Republican rule in the House 
and Senate, their power, and basically nothing has happened. Nothing 
has happened.
  And now with 5 legislative days left before we adjourn and go out to 
meet our voters, there are these bills that are being brought to the 
floor that haven't had hearings, that don't scratch the issues of the 
real security issues that face us. Interesting enough, these bills 
don't even come close to what several of the witnesses at what 
Congressman Flake termed the ``faux'' hearings in August, what those 
witnesses told us.
  For example, Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County, I think the 
largest sheriff's jurisdiction in the country, said he supported 
comprehensive reform, not piecemeal reform and sets of bills that 
failed to address the full border security issue.
  I think if we take a look at the substance of these bills, and I 
don't think that is even what is intended here, but if we do, we will 
see how little these proposals would actually accomplish.
  No one is going to stick up for criminal alien gangs, not me, not 
anybody. But the provisions in the act are not going to be effective.
  The State and local cooperation, the enforcement of the Immigration 
Law Act, does not require police to report immigration status of crime 
victims, and it really is not going to do what I think the authors 
suggest.
  Title II, is a provision, it is a sense of the Congress that the 
Attorney General should adopt guidelines for the prosecution of 
smuggling offenses. That should have been done quite some time ago. It 
reminds me of the bill that we passed earlier this week, and I was 
unable to be on the floor, where we urge that the Attorney General and 
the Department of Homeland Security gain control of our borders in 18 
months' time. What about now? What about the last 12 years?
  So again, we are going through pretty much a charade here. Meanwhile, 
the President zeroed out funding for the State criminal alien 
assistance program. Really every year since 2001 he has zeroed it out, 
and the Republican-controlled Congress barely funded it at half of what 
was authorized. In fiscal year 2006, Congress only appropriated $405 
million even though $750 million was authorized.
  The list of failures goes on and on, but the truth or the proof is in 
the pudding. And I think as voters take a look at a situation that is 
not a good one, the border is not orderly, at millions of illegal 
aliens who have come in under the watch of the Republican Congress and 
see here today the scrambling around to look like we are doing 
something, I think they will understand that they are being played for 
fools.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, what we have heard from the other side of the aisle I 
think basically falls into the category of the perfect being the enemy 
of the good. When the perfect defeats the good, then bad prevails.
  The way checks and balances were set up, it is really hard to pass a 
perfect bill. I think one has been passed since 1789 in this House of 
Representatives.
  What we are doing at the end of the session is some good stuff. 
Criminal alien gangs and all of the other things that I described in my 
opening statements, I think they are good. If they are good, we ought 
to vote for them. If it isn't good to deal with criminal alien gangs 
that are poisoning and terrorizing our streets, then vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for taking up this fight and for not giving up on this 
fight and continuing to work hard to get some of these provisions 
through.
  I guess the longer I am here, I should not be surprised by anything 
that I hear on the floor, but I still am shocked. I am shocked this 
afternoon as I hear statements like, ``There has been a lot of talk, 
but not much walk,'' and then that bringing part of these provisions 
certainly will not give any confidence to our citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I say that because I want to talk about just one part 
of these provisions today, and that is violent criminal gangs. When we 
began talking about violent criminal gangs and trying to do something 
about it, our friends on the other side of the aisle first suggested to 
us in the committees that we didn't even have a problem with violent 
criminal gangs in the United States.

                              {time}  1300

  But today they have backed off of that because they know that as we 
are sitting here talking today, there are over 850,000 criminal gang 
members in this country.
  A lot of talk, but not much walk. They have fought us on every single 
aspect of trying to do something to stop those violent criminal gangs. 
And, Madam Speaker, I would just tell you that of those 850,000 violent 
criminal gang members, if you look at the most violent gangs, all of 
our testimony in the Judiciary Committee suggested that between 60 and 
85 percent of them were here illegally.
  When they come into our country, we don't even ask them today if they 
are a member of a violent criminal gang; and what is worse is once they 
get here, we actually cloak them in protections, either by giving 
temporary protected status or by giving them political asylum, which 
basically means this: they can stand outside our schools, stand outside 
our neighborhoods with a placard that says: I am a member of the most 
violent criminal gang in the world. I am here illegally, and our law 
enforcement people cannot do anything at all to touch them.
  And the common sense of this provision is simply this: it says, first 
of all, when they come into the country, we are going to treat them 
like we do terrorists, and we are going to say if you are a member of a 
violent criminal gang, we are not letting you in. If you get into the 
country and you are here as our guest and we let you in and you join a 
violent criminal gang, we don't believe there is any socially redeeming 
value at all in being a member of a violent criminal gang.
  So if you join that gang, we are going to send you out of this 
country, and we are not going to just set up some hearing date that is 
30, 60, 90 days away

[[Page 18858]]

that you won't show up at, but we are going to stop you. We are going 
to detain you, and we are going to send you out before we have a victim 
of a violent crime.
  Madam Speaker, I would just close by saying we had testimony of one 
situation in Massachusetts where we had a young girl who was deaf and 
she had a mental illness. She was in a wheelchair, and she and another 
handicapped child were taken out and raped by six gang members, and two 
of them were here, one protected by temporary protected status and the 
other one who had applied for it.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is time for us to use some common sense 
when dealing with violent criminal gangs and to say that we are going 
to do something about them. We are not going to just talk about them, 
but we are going to get some action done.
  I thank the chairman for continuing this fight, and I hope we will 
pass this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
Ms. Lofgren.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, really, we are talking 
a lot, but if we had acted in the last 12 years, we would be in a lot 
better situation.
  It has been mentioned that violent gang members should not be 
admitted to the United States and that somehow we need to change the 
law in order to accomplish that. I would note, however, that under 
section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, gang members are 
already inadmissible to the United States; and if we had adequate 
personnel, they would have been turned away at the border. And thinking 
about what we could have done, we could have voted the resources over 
the years to do that. I will just mention a few votes that every 
Republican on the floor voted against.
  In 2001, rollcall vote No. 454 in November of 2001, Democrats 
suggested that we add $223 million for border security to help meet the 
promises of the PATRIOT Act on border staffing and what the 9/11 
Commission recommended. What happened? On a party-line vote, that 
additional resources to keep gang members out was defeated.
  In 2003, rollcall vote No. 301 in June of 2003, Republicans voted 
against consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 
million for border security, including making a further down payment on 
the promise of the Congress in the 2001 PATRIOT Act to triple the 
number of border agents and inspectors along the northern border, and 
all the Republicans on the floor here today voted against that.
  Vote No. 305 in 2003 was additional appropriations that Democrats 
were recommending, $300 million, again to enhance border security and 
keep gang members and others out of the United States. And again 
Republicans all voted against it; the Democrats voted for it.
  Rollcall vote No. 243 in 2004, again Republicans voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $750 million for 
border security.
  In 2005, rollcall vote No. 160, Democrats tried again, and 
Republicans voted against a motion to report back to conference with 
instructions to add $284 million for additional border security 
measures. That $284 million would have included funding for an 
additional 550 Border Patrol agents, 200 additional immigration agents, 
and additional border aerial vehicles.
  In 2005, rollcall vote 174, once again Republicans voted against 
consideration of amendments that would have added $400 million to 
border security. And later in 2005, rollcall vote No. 187, Republicans 
voted against a Democratic substitute that would have added 800 
additional immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds, 
helping to meet the promise of the 9/11 Commission.
  In 2005, rollcall vote 188, again Republicans voted against a motion 
to recommit the Homeland Security Authorization bill with instructions 
so that we could add 800 additional immigration agents and 8,000 
additional detention beds.
  And, of course, rollcall vote 56 in 2006, Republicans defeated an 
amendment to H.R. 4939, the supplemental approps that would have added 
$600 million for border security measures in the bill, including $400 
million for installation, 1,500 radiation portal monitors and air 
patrols and the like.
  Again, rollcall vote 210 this year, Republicans voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $2.1 billion for 
border security, helping us to meet our commitments by adding 
additional Border Patrol agents, immigration agents, and detention 
beds.
  Now, in the face of all of this negativism, we have here in the last 
6 days of this Congress fluff. Fluff. I don't think the American people 
are going to buy it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California has recited a litany of 
rollcalls, and all of those rollcalls, from what I heard, deal with 
appropriations legislation.
  We have a budget. We cannot fully fund every request that comes down 
in the budget; otherwise, the deficit would balloon to even higher 
levels. But the fact is that the most generous parts of the budget have 
been for defense and homeland security since 9/11, and there have been 
some pretty large increases in that.
  Then the gentlewoman from California says that this bill is 
unnecessary because we already can refuse to admit gang members into 
this country. And she is not correct on that. In order to refuse to 
admit a gang member into this country under the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act, that gang member had to have been convicted of a 
crime. And the difference between her side of the argument and our side 
of the argument is pretty simple:
  They require there to be a victim first. Somebody has to be a victim 
of a crime that has been committed by a gang member who serves time in 
an American prison and then is deported and attempts to come back.
  We don't think that a gang member should have to be convicted first 
to keep him out of our country. That is a big difference between the 
Democrats and the Republicans.
  Now, we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric on this floor about the 
fact that we have to have a comprehensive immigration bill. We passed a 
comprehensive immigration bill in 1986, and the failure of that bill 
has caused the problems that this country faces today with 11 to 12 
million illegal immigrants in this country and the number growing by 
over half a million ever year.
  The 1986 bill was triggered by a commission that was appointed by 
President Carter which was headed by the then-President of Notre Dame 
University, Father Theodore Hesburgh. Let me quote a little bit from 
the commission report, and, remember, this was the Hesburgh Commission.
  Five years before the 1986 bill was passed, the Hesburgh Commission 
said: ``We do not believe that the United States should begin the 
process of legalization until new enforcement measures have been 
instituted to make it clear that the United States is determined to 
curtail new flows of undocumented/illegal aliens. Without more 
effective enforcement than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization 
could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry. The select 
commission is opposed to any program that would precipitate such 
movement.''
  That was true 25 years ago when Father Hesburgh and his commission 
penned those words. It is true today, particularly in the light of the 
failure of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
  The legislation we have before us now attempts to fulfill the 
admonition that Father Hesburgh and his commission gave to the country 
in 1981. That is why it should pass.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act of 2006. The Nation has been 
calling for comprehensive immigration reform. By focusing only on 
enforcement,

[[Page 18859]]

the majority would have us ignore our Nation's economic dependence on 
immigrant labor and does nothing to address the millions of 
undocumented individuals already living and working in the country 
today.
  H.R. 6094 will have the effect of restricting the rights of 
immigrants to due process protections, like judicial review and 
immigration hearings, and could have serious, possibly life-endangering 
consequences for immigrants and asylum-seekers. Permitting the 
indefinite detention of an individual, even a non-citizen, is a 
practice one would associate with oppressive regimes. Applying that 
decision retroactively is a direct violation of due process; due 
process is essential when you consider the number of documented 
failures in custody review procedures and administrative delays.
  The measure grants Department of Homeland Security officials, rather 
than immigration officials or other courts, the authority to determine 
whether expedited removal of individuals is admissible. The language 
does not specify that an individual be convicted of any crime; it 
instead allows low-level officers to play judge and jury deciding 
whether an individual poses a threat to public safety. In doing so it 
denies individuals the rights to safeguards provided by judicial 
review, which has been so important to protecting civil liberties in 
our Nation.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this measure and instead 
move forward with negotiations for comprehensive immigration reform 
that responsibly addresses all aspects of this critical issue.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to all three 
of these bills.
  We should be passing real immigration reform today not these mean-
spirited, divisive bills.
  Real immigration reform should include a clear path to citizenship 
not targeting people who don't fit the Republican majority's conception 
of what a citizen should look like. Under the provisions of H.R. 6094, 
they want to be able to single out two or three minorities walking down 
the street, call them a gang, and have an easy route to deport them by 
classifying them as a ``criminal street gang.'' Not only is that an 
infringement on the constitutional guarantee to right of a assembly, 
it's indicative of the xenophobic sentiment shrouding the Republican's 
version of immigration reform.
  Real immigration reform should take meaningful steps at securing our 
borders like investing in infrastructure at our ports and airports. We 
shouldn't be deputizing local law enforcement as border police.
  Real immigration reform should recognize the intrinsic value that 
diversity through immigration has brought to our Nation and not seek to 
divide us as these three bills do. Unfortunately, this debate is no 
longer about border security, jobs, or the economy--it has become about 
spewing hateful, rhetoric. These bills will contribute to the 
incitement of attacks against the immigrant community, such as the 
recent arson on a Mexican restaurant in California, or the attack on 
the young Latino student in Texas earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are nothing but a cynical attempt 7 weeks 
before an election to score political points. That's not only 
irresponsible it's reprehensible.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these hateful bills.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Community Protection Act of 2006, H.R. 6094. H.R. 6094 will not protect 
United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the 
Nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on 
H.R. 6094 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, 
we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the 
House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed.
  The Community Protection Act would permit indefinite detention of 
aliens who are considered dangerous and are waiting for the execution 
of a final order of deportation. The most common reason for a delay in 
executing the order is difficult in obtaining travel documents that 
authorize the alien's admission to another country.
  I object to the practice of indefinite detention for a number of 
reasons, but the one that concerns me most is the possibility that 
people will spend the rest of their lives in detention simply because 
they are viewed as being dangerous.
  In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a 
statute permitting indefinite detention would raise serious 
constitutional problems because the due process clause of the fifth 
amendment prohibits depriving any person, including aliens, of liberty 
without due process of law.
  The Community Protection Act would allow expedited removal of aliens 
who have not been inspected or paroled into the United States, are 
inadmissible on the basis of a criminal ground, a conviction would not 
be required, do not have a credible fear of persecution, and are not 
eligible for a waiver or relief from removal.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, already has provisions for 
the expedited removal of criminal aliens, but it applies to aliens who 
have been convicted of an aggravated felony. As a practical matter, 
relief from deportation is not available to an alien who has been 
convicted of an aggravated felony. Only two issues are involved in 
these cases, is the person an alien and has he been convicted of an 
aggravated felony.
  In contrast, H.R. 6089 would establish expedited removal proceedings 
for aliens who do not have a credible fear of persecution and are 
inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the INA on the basis of a crime 
involving moral turpitude, a controlled substance violation, two or 
more offenses for which the aggregate sentence was 5 years or more, 
prostitution or commercialized vice, trafficking in persons, money 
laundering, and other criminal offenses.
  These cases would raise complicated legal issues and difficult 
questions of fact, such as whether the alien is removable under any of 
the numerous grounds of inadmissibility in section 212(a)(2) of the 
INA, and, if so, whether he eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility. 
These issues cannot properly be adjudicated in expedited removal 
proceedings.
  H.R. 6094 addresses the problem of gang violence in the United 
States. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, but 
H.R. 6094 does not take the right approach. It would cast a broad net 
that would ensnare innocent children along with the dangerous 
criminals.
  H.R. 6094 would establish new grounds of inadmissibility, which would 
include the belief of an immigration inspector that the alien is a gang 
member entering to engage in unlawful activity. It also would make 
someone removable solely on the basis of membership in a group that has 
been designated by the Attorney General as ``a criminal street gang.''
  In addition, members of designated criminal street gangs would be 
ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Temporary Protected 
Status; and they would be subject to the criminal alien detention 
provisions.
  This approach might be less objectionable if every youth in a gang 
was a violent criminal, but that is not the case.
  I urge you to vote against the Effective Immigration Enforcement and 
Community Protection Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection 
Act of 2006, will fix a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has 
inadvertently put us in danger.
  The bill allows the Federal Government to detain illegal immigrants 
convicted of serious crimes for 6-month periods beyond their 
incarceration, as long as at the end of each 6-month period the 
detention is renewed by the Department of Justice.
  Current law states that if a convicted illegal immigrant is ordered 
deported, but can't be deported because their home country refuses to 
take them back, the U.S. Government can only detain them for a 6-month 
period.
  After that, the Government is forced to release the criminal 
immigrant knowing they may be a danger to the community.
  We have a responsibility to make sure the laws of this land protect 
Americans rather than endanger them.
  Under this bill convicted illegal immigrants will be detained until 
arrangements can be made to have them deported.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the 
Community Protection Act of 2006. Right now, the government is 
releasing numerous rapists, child molesters, murders and other 
dangerous illegal aliens onto our streets. The Department of Homeland 
Security's Inspector General said that in the first six months of 2005, 
more than 696 high-risk aliens were released.
  This act will ensure that these dangerous illegal immigrants will not 
be released back into society. If we are to address the public safety 
concerns created by our Nation's lax illegal immigration policies, then 
we must adopt new procedures to will expedite the removal of dangerous 
criminals.
  Of the 55,322 illegal alien criminals found in 2005, about 24 percent 
were arrested on drug offenses, 15 percent for property-related 
offenses and about 12 percent were arrested for more serious crimes 
such as murder, robbery, assault, and sexually related crimes. Even 
more troubling is the fact that the 55,322 illegal alien criminals 
committed a total of 700,000 crimes or 13 crimes each. These repeat 
offenders pose a serious threat to the safety and security of our 
country.

[[Page 18860]]

  H.R. 6094 will give the Department of Homeland Security the authority 
to get these criminals off of our streets and out of our country. One 
of the key provisions of this bill addresses the problems created by 
illegal immigrants who belong to violent gangs. In the last decade, the 
U.S. has experienced a dramatic increase in the number and size of 
transnational street gangs. These gangs have held entire communities 
hostage with their violence and our current laws don't do enough to 
stop these gang members from crossing our border.
  The Community Protection Act designates these violent gang members as 
an inadmissible class--expanding the authority of Homeland Security 
officials to detain and deport alien gang members. These are common 
sense provisions that should have adopted years ago. We now have the 
opportunity to do the right thing and pass this bill that will help 
combat the violence created from criminal aliens.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call on my colleagues in 
Congress to refocus their efforts on comprehensive immigration reform. 
What we need is not to debate and pass a bunch of bills that duplicate 
legislation already passed by the House--legislation that has little 
chance of passage in the Senate. What we need is to get back on track 
with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called for--
comprehensive immigration reform. Only when we enact comprehensive 
reform will we be truly effective in securing our Nation's borders.
  Today we are considering three bills, which do little to fix our 
Nation's illegal immigration problems. We need to do more, and we need 
to do it in a sensible, bipartisan and comprehensive fashion. The 
American people expect Congress to secure our borders, and that extends 
to understanding who currently resides in our country and why they are 
here. Just as importantly, in considering border security legislation, 
we need to focus on securing weapons of mass destruction to ensure they 
do not make their way through our ports of entry. I find it redundant 
and unnecessary that we are going back to consider legislation that has 
already been passed by this body when there is so much unfinished 
business we ought to be focusing on.
  We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a comprehensive 
plan. I continue to support the Kolbe-Flake-Gutierrez bill, which is a 
broad and multi-faceted approach to securing our borders. Under this 
legislation, we would hire and train more border patrol agents to 
secure our borders, improve our surveillance technology, and require 
employers to verify the status of their employees. This proactive 
approach ensures we keep those wishing to harm us out of our country 
and allows us to ascertain precisely who is in our country and why they 
are here.
  We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring exactly which 
materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the 
Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I 
have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at 
designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological 
or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important 
technology at every entry point.
  However, instead of addressing these real problems, the Republican 
leadership has chosen to bring up legislation that we have already 
passed--not because they want a solution to our immigration problem, 
but because they need to distract the American public from their 
inability to accomplish any real reforms. My Democratic colleagues and 
I have fought for increased funding for more border patrol agents, 
detention beds, and immigration and customs agents, but Republicans 
have voted against those efforts 10 times.
  I call on my colleagues to refocus their efforts to enact a 
comprehensive immigration plan. Time in the 109th Congress is quickly 
running out, and we are doing our country a disservice when we focus on 
political rhetoric instead of real solutions. It is time to get back on 
track with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has tasked us with--
comprehensive reform.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1018, the bill is considered read and 
the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gutierrez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6094 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 34, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 304. PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO APPREHEND 
                   CRIMINAL ALIENS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) In the 9/11 Act of 2004, the Republican Congress 
     promised to provide 8,000 additional detention beds and 800 
     additional immigration agents per year from fiscal year 2006 
     through fiscal year 2010. Over the last two years, the 
     Republican Congress has left our Nation short 5,000 detention 
     beds, and nearly 500 immigration agents short of the promises 
     they made in the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004, 
     to the detriment of efforts to apprehend criminal aliens.
       (2) Criminal aliens continue to be a problem in part 
     because the Committee on the Judiciary and other relevant 
     committees have not engaged the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary in discussion on resolving the differences between 
     the House and Senate on immigration legislation that the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate have already passed 
     during the 109th Congress and has not reported the same back 
     to the House in a form agreed to by the two committees, in 
     consultation with other relevant committees, that protects 
     United States borders, strengthens our national security, and 
     addresses the Nation's immigration problem comprehensively.
       (b) Additional Resources to Apprehend Criminal Aliens by 
     Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act.--In each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2010, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase--
       (1) by 2,000 the number of immigration agents;
       (2) by 250 the number of detention officers;
       (3) by 250 the number of U.S. Marshals;
       (4) by 25,000 the number of detention beds; and
       (5) by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent 
     schemes and documents that violate sections 274A, 274C, and 
     274D of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a, 
     1324c, 1324d).

  Mr. GUTIERREZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, has 
the minority provided our side of the aisle with a copy of this motion?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, we do not have it. I object. I ask that the motion be read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading.
  The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
objection to waive the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the reading is suspended.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. More piecemeal 
proposals. More tired, old, narrow, short-sighted policies of the past.
  I think we should let the people around the country who are watching 
and listening to this debate know that they are not watching a rerun. 
This is, in fact, original programming. Yes, the plot lines are the 
same. We even have many of the same characters, many of the same 
arguments; and if the issues weren't so serious to our national 
security, it would almost be humorous.

                              {time}  1315

  But it is not, Mr. Speaker. It is unforgivable. It is unforgivable 
that instead of rolling up our sleeves and getting a real immigration 
bill to the President's desk, we are revisiting

[[Page 18861]]

issues that this body has already addressed.
  Why? Why are we doing this again if similar language has already 
passed? Could it be that there are less than 7 weeks to the next 
election? We have so much work to get done. Why are we going back and 
repassing provisions and addressing issues that have already passed 
this body?
  A poll out today by CBS and the New York Times showed that only 25 
percent, 25 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress 
is doing. And two-thirds said they believe Congress accomplished less 
than it typically does in a 2-year session.
  Maybe that is because the majority is bringing up the same bills over 
and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I know that the men and women of 
this Chamber are good people, I know they are compassionate, and they 
are serious about addressing the needs of our Nation. So let's show the 
American people that we care about their families, that we care about 
husbands, American citizen husbands and wives being separated by our 
bad immigration policy.
  We care about defenseless children who are being punished for 
decisions that they have no control over. We care about workers who are 
being exploited, about the father who is fighting to remain with his 
wife and daughter in America.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than just talking about family values, we have 
the opportunity today to show the American people that we really, 
really believe in family values. We have that ability today. Mr. 
Speaker, the motion to recommit I am offering is really simple. The 
House has already passed an immigration bill. I do not like it, but 
that is how the process works. The Senate passed its own immigration 
bill. Some on the other side do not like that version. That is the way 
democracy works.
  But let's get into conference in regular order and reconcile the 
differences between the two bills. Let's allow the legislative process 
to work. Let's make this not about politics, but about enacting good 
policy.
  My motion to recommit will also ensure that we enact the 
recommendations laid out by the 9/11 Commission and increase the number 
of detention beds and immigration agents. Mr. Speaker, the American 
people want action, they do not want more talk. They do not want more 
excuses, they certainly do not want more debate. They want solutions, 
and that is why they sent us here.
  At the end of the day, if these bills pass, what have those who 
support them really done to address the issue of our broken immigration 
system? They have done nothing. Because, as former Secretary of 
Homeland Security Tom Ridge wrote just last week, he said, ``Trying to 
gain operational control of the borders is impossible unless our 
enhanced enforcement efforts are coupled with a robust temporary guest 
worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of 
the shadows into some type of legal status.''
  Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said, ``It is impossible.'' Mr. 
Speaker, impossible. For the sake of our national security, for the 
sake of millions of families adversely affected by our immigration 
laws, for the sake of our economy, let's work together to make 
comprehensive immigration reform a reality. Let's name the conferees 
and allow them the time to work it out. Let's ensure that the important 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are fulfilled, because each day 
that goes by with silence and inaction on this issue means the 
potential for another dead body turning up in the desert, another child 
separated from her parents, another worker exploited, another dream 
denied. The current system is failing our Nation, Mr. Speaker. It hurts 
families, it hampers business, it harms the United States of America, 
it makes us less safe.
  The status quo is simply unacceptable to the needs of our Nation and 
unworthy of our Nation's proud history of welcoming newcomers seeking a 
better life. So let's work together to create an immigration that works 
for families, works for businesses, and works to keep our Nation truly 
safe. The time to do so is now, and the time for excuses is over.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my motion to recommit, so that we can 
show the American people that this Congress is truly serious about 
protecting our borders, bolstering our national security, and fixing 
our broken immigration system.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not 
germane, because clause 7 of rule XVI precludes an amendment on a 
subject matter different from that under consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094 restores the Secretary of 
Homeland Security's authority to detain certain dangerous aliens, to 
ensure the removal of the deportable criminal aliens and to combat 
alien gang crime.
  The legislation provides DHS authority to detain beyond 6 months 
aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed in a number of 
situations, such as if an alien has a highly contagious disease, 
release would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, release 
would threaten national security, or release would threaten the safety 
of the community and the alien is either an aggravated felon or is 
mentally ill and has committed a crime of violence.
  The legislation also provides DHS with expedited procedures for the 
removal of inadmissible criminal aliens and provides new tools to 
prosecute criminal alien gang members.
  The motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from 
that contained in the legislation under consideration. Specifically on 
page 2, line 18 of the motion to recommit, it increases the number of 
United States marshals.
  United States marshals do not do immigration enforcement, and thus it 
expands the bill beyond the scope of the bill and is nongermane. And as 
a result, the motion fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 
7 of rule XVI and thus is not in order.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order that the proposed 
subsection 3 that I would add to section 210(a) of the bill is not 
germane.
  I would argue that this paragraph is germane to the bill. When the 
subject matter of the whole bill is taken into consideration, H.R. 6094 
presents a number of different immigration reform proposals that my 
subsection 3 addresses, related legislation that addresses the same 
exact subject matter.
  All day today, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the proponents of 
this bill argue that the various immigration reform proposals included 
in the bill are a valuable alternative to a more comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation that is stalled in the 109th Congress.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is 
related to the many other immigration reform proposals this House has 
considered over the past 2 years.
  Republicans are trying to pretend that the 109th Congress has not 
debated the immigration issue on many other occasions other than today. 
That is simply not the case and is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This House has 
debated the subject matter of this bill many times. My motion simply 
suggests a better way to handle the subject matter of this bill, which 
is to go to conference with the comprehensive bills the two Houses have 
already passed, and that is why I consider it germane.
  Look, we all agree the drug dealers, gang members have no place in 
our society. Alien smugglers who live out of the hopes and aspirations 
of this who wish to come, but rape and rob and

[[Page 18862]]

murder people should be thrown into jail, and we should throw away the 
key.
  There are 11 to 12 million people walking around this country, and we 
do not know who they are. We do not have an address, an employer. We 
believe that they should have a place in this society if they have 
followed the rules.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
from Illinois must confine his remarks to the point of order before the 
House
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I will. I believe I have. I want to do 
exactly the same thing. Members on this side of the aisle want to do 
exactly the same things, and we can agree on them. Let's sit down at a 
table. Let's do it in a comprehensive manner.
  Mr Speaker, that is why think the point of order is not good on this 
particular issue, I think it is germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The bill is 
confined to immigration matters. As argued by gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the motion to recommit addresses U.S. marshals beyond their work in an 
immigration context.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal 
the ruling of the Chair on the point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


              MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- 
minute vote on the motion to lay the appeal on the table may be 
followed by a 5-minute vote on passage, if arising without further 
debate or proceedings in recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Case
     Cubin
     Harris
     Hyde
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Thomas
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1352

  Mr. MEEKS of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 328, 
nays 95, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               YEAS--328

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page 18863]]


     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--95

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Solis
     Stark
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Case
     Cubin
     Eshoo
     Harris
     Hyde
     Meehan
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Strickland

                              {time}  1402

  Mr. ISRAEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________