[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18864-18880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2006

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

                               H.R. 6095

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Law Enforcement 
     Act of 2006''.

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

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

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

                TITLE II--ALIEN SMUGGLER PROSECUTION ACT

     SEC. 201. EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF ALIEN SMUGGLERS.

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

            TITLE III--ENDING CATCH AND RELEASE ACT OF 2006

     SEC. 301. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR IMMIGRATION LITIGATION.

       (a) Requirements for an Order Granting Prospective Relief 
     Against the Government.--
       (1) In general.--If a court determines that prospective 
     relief should be ordered against the Government in any civil 
     action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the 
     immigration laws of the United States, the court shall--
       (A) limit the relief to the minimum necessary to correct 
     the violation of law;
       (B) adopt the least intrusive means to correct the 
     violation of law;

[[Page 18865]]

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

     SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6095 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law 
Enforcement Act of 2006, which will allow Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officers to more effectively enforce our immigration laws 
along the border and in the interior of the United States.
  Title I of the legislation is based on an amendment to H.R. 4437 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). The title 
reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to 
voluntarily, and I emphasize the word ``voluntarily,'' assist in the 
enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Many local and State law 
enforcement officers are eager to assist in the enforcement of our 
immigration laws to protect their communities and serve as a valuable 
force multiplier to overburdened Department of Homeland Security 
officers. We should provide them with the clear authority they seek 
rather than placing obstacles in their way.
  Title II of the bill contains the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act. 
Currently, the various United States Attorney offices do not use 
uniform guidelines to prosecute smuggling offenses. While border area 
U.S. Attorneys face a heavy workload, a lack of sufficient smuggling 
prosecutions in some areas has become a serious problem. This has 
encouraged additional smuggling and demoralized Border Patrol and DHS 
agents who have seen many of the smugglers they have apprehended 
released.
  This title contains a sense of Congress that the Attorney General 
should adopt uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling 
offenses by each U.S. Attorney's office and authorizes an increase in 
the number of attorneys in U.S. Attorneys' offices to prosecute such 
cases. The bill requires an increase of not less than 20 new attorneys 
over the previous years' level in each of fiscal years 2008 to 2013, to 
affirm the urgency of prosecuting the alien smugglers who prey on the 
most vulnerable.
  Title III provides for ending the Catch and Release Act. DHS is 
subject to Federal court injunctions entered as much as 30 years ago 
that impact its

[[Page 18866]]

ability to enforce immigration laws. For instance, one injunction 
dating from the El Salvadoran civil war of the 1980s effectively 
prevents DHS from placing Salvadorans in expedited removal proceedings. 
DHS is using expedited removal to expeditiously remove other non-
Mexican illegal immigrants who are apprehended along the southern 
border in order to end the policy of catch and release, but not 
Salvadorans.
  Under the catch and release policy, non-Mexican illegal aliens picked 
up by the Border Patrol were simply released into our communities and 
told to show up months later for removal hearings. They almost never 
attended. Catch and release made a mockery of border enforcement and 
has terribly demoralized Border Patrol agents.
  Mr. Speaker, this provides law enforcement agencies at all levels of 
government with the clear authority to help ensure the integrity and 
enforceability of our Nation's immigration laws.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, my colleagues, we are going through an exercise to convince 
the American people that now is the time for comprehensive reform, a 
week before recess, with continued disagreement between the House, the 
Senate, and the administration, and with narrowly repackaged bills.
  These bills, and this one before us introduced just 2 days ago, are 
substantively flawed and do not provide for comprehensive reform.

                              {time}  1430

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

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


              LAw ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS

       International Association of Chiefs of Police, President 
     Joseph Estey--``Many leaders in the law enforcement community 
     have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure 
     of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens 
     reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal 
     investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the 
     ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively 
     their communities and protect the public they serve.'' (IACP 
     press release, 12/1/2004)
       International Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislative 
     Counsel Gene Voegtlin--``A key concern is that state and 
     local enforcement involvement in immigration can have a 
     chilling effect on the relationship with the immigrant 
     community in their jurisdiction.'' (``Cities and States Take 
     on Difficult Duty of Handling Undocumented Workers,'' The 
     Wall Street Journal, 2/2/2006)
       Major Cities Chiefs Association--``Such a divide between 
     the local police and immigrant groups would result in 
     increased crime against immigrants and in the broader 
     community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the 
     potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or 
     preventing future terroristic acts.'' (Immigration Committee 
     Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws By Local 
     Police Agencies, adopted June 2006)
       California State Sheriffs' Association, President Bruce 
     Mix--``CSSA is concerned that the proposed CLEAR Act will 
     undermine our primary mission of protecting the public. In 
     order for local and state law enforcement associations to be 
     effective partners with their communities, we believe it is 
     imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining 
     and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their 
     immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 3/10/
     2004)
       California Police Chiefs Association, President Rick 
     TerBorch--``It is the strong opinion of the California Police 
     Chiefs'' Association that in order for local and state law 
     enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their 
     communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the 
     role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a 
     change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator 
     Feinstein, 9/19/2003)
       Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association, President James 
     Strillacci--``We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce 
     the law in those communities. With this [legislation], 
     there's no protection for them.'' (``Mayor asks for federal 
     help,'' Danbury News-Times, 3/26/2004)
       El Paso (TX) Municipal Police Officers' Association, 
     President Chris McGill--``From a law-enforcement point of 
     view, I don't know how productive it would be to have police 
     officers ask for green cards. It's more important that people 
     feel confident calling the police.'' (``Immigration proposal 
     puts burden on police,'' El Paso Times, 10/9/2003)
       Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive 
     Director Dana Schrad--``There's a real concern among [the 
     immigrant community] that [a new Virginia law] means police 
     are going to sweep through neighborhoods and pick up anyone 
     with immigration violations and deport them; that isn't true. 
     We are concerned we'll loose cooperation of law-abiding 
     residents who have helped solve crimes.'' (``Some Immigrants 
     Can Be Held For Up To Three Days,'' Daily News-Record, 6/30/
     2004)
       Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, 
     National President Elvin Crespo--``The CLEAR Act jeopardizes 
     public safety, it undermines local police roles in enhancing 
     national security, it undermines federal law Enforcement 
     priorities, it piles more onto state and local police 
     officers' already full platters, it bullies and burdens state 
     and local governments, it is unnecessary law-making and most 
     significantly, it forgets the important fact that you can't 
     tell by looking who is legal and who isn't.'' (letter to 
     National Council of La Raza, 10/21/2003)
       National Latino Peace Officers Association, Founder Vicente 
     Calderon--``The role of police is to protect and serve. Clear 
     Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR Act] will 
     greatly contribute toward hindering police from accomplishing 
     these goals.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/16/
     2003)
       Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, 
     National President Sandalio Gonzalez--``The CLEAR Act bullies 
     and burdens State and Local governments by coercing them into 
     participating, even though it means burdensome new reporting 
     and custody requirements, because failure to do so means 
     further loss of already scarce federal dollars.'' (letter to 
     President Bush and Congress, 9/30/2003)
       Costa Mesa (CA) Police Department, Chief John Hensley--
     ``We're not going to be doing sweeps. We're not going to be 
     squeezing employers. We do not want to be the enemy of the 
     immigrant community.'' (``City puts itself on immigration 
     watch,'' USA Today, 1/26/2006)
       West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department, Officer Freddy 
     Naranjo--``The major thing is to come out and report these 
     crimes, not hold back.'' (``Here Illegally, Guatemalans Are 
     Prime Targets of Crime,'' New York Times, 8/27/2006)
       Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Sergeant Andy Hill--``As we 
     move out deeper into the community, especially with reaching 
     out to the Spanish-speaking community, we believe there may 
     be other victims out there that haven't come forward,'' Hill 
     said. ``We want that information. We need that information. 
     There will not be sanctions to victims who

[[Page 18867]]

     come forward as far as their status in this community other 
     than the fact that they are victims.'' (``Police want Spanish 
     speakers' help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 
     7/27/2006)
       Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Chief Jack Harris--``There 
     are a lot of folks here in the Valley that may have limited 
     English skills, and they can still very much be witnesses or 
     know something about these crimes, so we want to step forward 
     and go out to that community and seek their assistance.'' 
     (``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer 
     search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)
       Fresno (CA) Police Department, Captain Pat Farmer--
     ``Sometimes folks are here illegally, and they're the victim 
     of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness, 
     we want them to trust us. [A month earlier, after a shooting 
     outside a convenience store] there were numerous witnesses, a 
     lot of folks who were probably illegal. It was critical that 
     they talk to our detectives.'' (``Shift Work: Should policing 
     illegal immigration fall to nurses and teachers?'' Washington 
     Monthly, April 2006)
       Fairfax County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Jon 
     Fleischman--``Our job is to protect people. And I'm concerned 
     that people who are victims of a crime, whether citizens or 
     not, are not calling us because they're afraid we're going to 
     check [legal] status only.'' (``Va. Police Back off 
     Immigration Enforcement,'' Washington Post, 6/6/2005)
       Gilroy (CA) Police Department, Assistant Chief Lanny 
     Brown--``We're not going out and doing sweeps for illegal 
     immigrants or anything like that, because we don't believe 
     that's the right thing to do. But it sure makes sense to us 
     if people are here--committing crimes, convicted of crimes, 
     and are here illegally--to turn them over to ICE so they can 
     be deported.'' (``Immigration Officials Ask for Police 
     Assistance,'' The Gilroy Dispatch (CA), 9/12/2005)
       Princeton (NJ) Police Department, Chief Anthony V. 
     Federico--``Local police agencies depend on the cooperation 
     of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of 
     crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without 
     assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration 
     investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with 
     critical information would not come forward, even when 
     heinous crimes are committed against them or their 
     families.'' (``State orders cops to help U.S. immigration 
     agents,'' The Record, 9/20/2005)
       El Paso (TX) Police Department, Chief Richard Wiles--
     ``There is no way that we would be able to take any time away 
     from an officer's busy day to enforce immigration laws.'' 
     (``EP chief opposes bill to let police go after immigrants,'' 
     El Paso Times, 10/6/2005)
       San Diego (CA) Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne--
     ``The only time we work with the Border Patrol is if there is 
     a criminal nexus.'' (Police Chief William Lansdowne, ``Local 
     Police, U.S. Agents Differ on Raids,'' Los Angeles Times, 6/
     6/2005)
       Muscatine (IA) Police Department, Chief Gary Coderoni--
     ``These proposals are unnecessary, and counterproductive to 
     the public safety of our city residents. They will place an 
     added burden in our department and instill fear and non-
     cooperation in the community.'' (letter to Congress, 6/2004)
       Nashville (TN) Metropolitan Police Department, Chief Ronal 
     Serpas--``With great respect and deference to our federal 
     partners, we are not the INS (Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service). As long as I am chief of the Nashville police 
     department, I'm going to be steadfastly against police being 
     INS agents. It's just not our job.'' (``Hispanics press 
     police for more help,'' Tennessean, 2/24/2004)
       Boston (MA) Police Department, Commissioner Paul Evans--
     ``The Boston Police Department, as well as state and local 
     police departments across the nation have worked diligently 
     to gain the trust of immigrant residents and convince them 
     that it is safe to contact and work with police. By turning 
     all police officers into immigration agents, the CLEAR Act 
     will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report 
     crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe 
     as a result.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 9/30/2003)
       Arlington County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Matt 
     Martin--``[A] very likely outcome of local enforcement of 
     immigration laws is] an entire segment of the population 
     shutting down because they are afraid of you. And what you 
     create is a group of people who's ripe for additional 
     victimization.'' (``Some Laborers Arrested In Va. Face 
     Deportation,'' Washington Post, 10/27/2004)
       Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Chief Timothy Strutz--``In 
     my opinion, the best way to fight criminals of all types, 
     including terrorists, would be to have an excellent, 
     trusting, working relationship with the community, with them 
     being your eyes and ears. I think much of that important 
     information would be stifled [if the CLEAR Act passed].'' 
     (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' 
     Detroit News, 5/11/2004)
       Seattle (WA) Police Department, Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske--
     ``Traditionally we have seen that reporting of crime is much 
     lower in immigrant communities because many are leaving 
     countries where the police cannot be trusted for good reason. 
     Adding the fear of arrest or deportation to this could have a 
     tremendous impact on the rate of reporting. At a time when 
     trusting relationships between immigrant communities and the 
     police are vital, the CLEAR Act would have just the opposite 
     effect.'' (letter, 3/4/2004)
       Clearwater (FL) Police Department, Chief Sid Klein--``It 
     doesn't take very long for that open door of communication to 
     be slammed shut. Then we in local law enforcement (pay the 
     price).'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. 
     Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)
       Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Leroy 
     Baca--``I am responsible for the safety of one of the largest 
     immigrant communities in this country. My Department prides 
     itself in having a cooperative and open relationship with our 
     immigrant community. [The CLEAR] act would undermine this 
     relationship.'' (letter to Los Angeles County Neighborhood 
     Legal Services, 10/6/2003)
       Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Chief Ronald Miller--
     ``Our Police Department has taken the lead in establishing a 
     meaningful relationship with our minority communities, 
     especially the Hispanic community. If the CLEAR Act becomes 
     law, it will have a devastating effect on how we provide law 
     enforcement/police service.'' (letter to Senators Brownback 
     and Roberts, 11/19/2003)
       Hillsborough (FL) Sheriff's Office, Spokesman Rod Reder--
     ``We obviously need [immigrants] to trust us. Our main focus 
     is on the crime itself. We're not immigration experts.'' 
     (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg 
     Times, 7/19/2004)
       Montgomery County (MD) Police Department, Captain John 
     Fitzgerald--``We absolutely do not enforce any immigration 
     law. We encourage our residents to trust their police 
     department regardless of their immigration status. We want 
     them to know that if they are victims, we'll help them, and 
     if they're witnesses, we need their help.'' (``Groups Fret 
     Over Giving Police Immigration Control,'' Fox News Channel, 
     10/29/2003)
       Tampa Police Department, Officer Brenda Canino-Fumero--
     ``[If the CLEAR Act passes], (immigrants) are not going to 
     come to police and report anything.'' (``Immigration duty a 
     burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)
       Lowell (MA) Police Department, Police Superintendent Edward 
     Davis III--``If the CLEAR Act were passed into law, residents 
     would be less likely to approach local law enforcement for 
     fear of exposing themselves or their immigrant family members 
     to deportation. This would make state and local law 
     enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible.'' (letter to 
     Senator Kennedy, 3/9/2004)
       Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Corporal Daniel Saab--
     ``[If the CLEAR Act passed] people would not work with us. It 
     would make it very hard for us to do our job.'' (``Metro 
     police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit 
     News, 5/11/2004)
       Ann Arbor (MI) Police Department, Chief Dan Oates--``I have 
     a great deal of concern about altering hard-won relationships 
     with immigrant communities. Having those communities think we 
     are agents of the federal government--that can do real 
     harm.'' (``Police could get more power,'' Detroit Free Press, 
     6/1/2004)
       San Jose Police Department, Chief Rob Davis--``We have been 
     fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the 
     willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if 
     they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't 
     know if they'd do that anymore. That would affect our 
     mission, which I thought was to protect and serve our 
     community.'' (``CLEAR Act puts cuffs on police; Giving them 
     another duty, immigration enforcement, would make us all less 
     safe,'' San Jose Mercury News editorial, 4/15/2004)
       Hamtramck (MI) Police Department, Chief Jim Doyle--``It is 
     important that people learn to trust us without looking over 
     their shoulders and thinking, These are the guys that are 
     going to deport us.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt 
     illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004)
       Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Office, Assistant Sheriff 
     George Jaramillo--``We wouldn't be interested in pulling 
     people over and trying to figure out what their status is.'' 
     (``Police May Join Hunt for Illegal Migrants; Advocates see a 
     way to boost enforcement, but officers and civil rights 
     groups fear abuses,'' Los Angeles Times, 11/11/2003)
       Bexar County (TX) Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ralph Lopez-- 
     ``I'm totally against [the CLEAR Act]. It plays the race 
     card, and from that perspective it is just a bad act. We will 
     not go out and create probable cause just because we think 
     this person, who is dark-completed or speaks with an accent 
     or dresses different, should be automatically questioned 
     about their legal status. That is a total violation of due 
     process.'' (``Politicians are using fear to push through the 
     CLEAR Act, one of the most sinister changes in immigration 
     policy,'' The San Antonio Current, 12/11/2003)
       Overland Park (KS) Police Department, Chief John Douglass--
     ``The CLEAR Act would be a detriment to all who live, work, 
     and visit Overland Park. We want all to know that the police 
     are available to protect

[[Page 18868]]

     them no matter whom they are or where they come from.'' 
     (letter to Representative Moore, 10/29/2003)
       Portland (ME) Police Department, Chief Michael Chitwood--
     ``As Police Chief of Portland, Maine and someone who has been 
     involved in law enforcement for nearly forty years, I can 
     tell you with certainty that the CLEAR Act is a bad idea.'' 
     (letter to Congress, 11/11/2003)
       St. Paul (MN) Police Department, Chief William Finney--
     ``How am I supposed to decide as a police officer who I 
     should ask for papers? `Well can't you look at them and tell 
     you should be asking them for papers?' No, I can't! . . . . 
     So I'd just have to ask everybody. All the `real Americans' 
     would be very offended, because they've got First Amendment 
     rights. But people that are brand new here don't. Well, 
     that's not what the Constitution says; everybody in this 
     country's got First Amendment rights.'' (``This is your 
     ministry,'' Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, 12/11/2003)
       Los Angeles Police Commission, President David S. 
     Cunningham III--``There are safety mechanisms in place for 
     deporting people who are criminally inclined. In the end, the 
     policy position on Special Order 40 is that we are a nation 
     of immigrants and we don't want to dissuade them from having 
     contact with police.'' (``Is L.A. soft on illegals?'' Los 
     Angeles Daily News, 11/15/2003)
       Lenexa (KS) Police Department, Chief Ellen T. Hanson--``We 
     are, like many jurisdictions across the country, short on 
     resources and manpower and struggling to meet our citizen's 
     service demands. This mandate will magnify that problem and 
     force us to make cuts in other areas to comply with the CLEAR 
     Act. . . . The most troubling aspect of this act is that it 
     would cause members of certain groups to not report crimes or 
     come forward with information about crimes for fear of being 
     deported.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 8/26/2003)
       South Tucson (AZ) Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina--
     ``We don't have the time and the personnel to be immigration 
     agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers 
     present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.'' 
     (Tucson Citizen editorial, ``Immigration role not for local 
     police,'' 10/15/2003)
       Des Moines (IA) Police Department, Chief William McCarthy--
     ``When we don't acknowledge the reality of who is here, we 
     create our own problems, and we are a better society than 
     that, frankly. They (illegal immigrants) are family-oriented 
     people and underpin our churches and society in many ways. 
     Plus they are human beings. They are here. And we ought to 
     deal with them as human beings.'' (``Cops shouldn't be INS 
     agents,'' Des Moines Register editorial, 10/13/2003)

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of why this bill is necessary. 
Again, there is a differentiation between what Republicans and 
Democrats are saying here. The Democrats want to have a victim first 
before somebody is deported. Republicans want to make sure that there 
isn't a victim by making them excludable and, if they are caught, 
kicking them out.
  So let's talk about domestic violence. On Monday, 2 days ago, the 
strangled and battered body of an as yet unidentified woman was found 
in a subdivision about 20 miles south of Denver. An orange tow rope was 
found around her neck, and her face was unrecognizable. Preliminary 
autopsy results indicated that the woman died of asphyxiation and head 
injuries after being dragged along a road for more than a mile.
  A suspect was arrested Tuesday night in that case. Jose Luis Rubi-
Nava, age 36, is being held without bail on a first degree murder 
charge at the Douglas County, Colorado, jail. The New York Times 
reported this morning that Mr. Rubi-Nava is an illegal immigrant. News 
reports suggest that the victim was his girlfriend.
  Records obtained by KUSA-TV, the Denver NBC affiliate, showed that 
Rubi-Nava was arrested on April 1 and charged with false identification 
and driving without a driver's license and proof of insurance, but was 
let go.
  If local law enforcement had detained this illegal immigrant for ICE, 
he could have been removed from the United States. He was not, and now 
there is a woman that is dead. If this bill had been law and there had 
been a voluntary agreement between local law enforcement and the 
Federal Government, this horrible crime could have been avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Michigan colleague 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise to oppose H.R. 6095, but let me follow up on what the chairman 
of the committee talked about. If somebody committed a crime, and they 
were here legally or illegally, the standard practice for local law 
enforcement is to pick that person up, arrest them, and then they will 
be punished. Then they will be turned over to ICE, Immigration Control 
and Enforcement.
  What this bill would do is allow for our local police and sheriffs 
and constables to actually be standing in the place of immigration 
officers. I support strong law enforcement of our immigration laws, but 
we shouldn't burden our local law enforcement officers to enforce 
Federal immigration laws.
  This Congress and this administration has cut the COPS program since 
2001. Asking our local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal 
immigration law without any commitment of funds is unfair and takes 
officers out of our neighborhoods and off our streets. The role of 
local law enforcement is to protect our property and our families. Most 
local police departments are already stretched thin as it is. In 
Houston, our officers have had the challenge of protecting an 
additional 100,000 people who evacuated to Houston from New Orleans 
over a year ago. Adding immigration enforcement to their duties would 
make their jobs tougher and our neighborhoods less safe.
  Currently if law enforcement officers catch someone committing a 
crime that is here illegally or legally, they are turned over to 
Immigration Control and Enforcement, and they are deported. Now, they 
need to pay their debt to our own county or State, but they will be 
deported. If someone breaks into my home, either the Houston Police 
Department, the sheriff's department or the county constables will show 
up, not the Border Patrol, not Immigration Customs Enforcement 
officers. They don't come to protect my home.
  Securing our borders is a Federal responsibility. This body is 
responsible for ensuring that there is enough funding for detention 
beds and Border Patrol officers. We shouldn't put the responsibility on 
our local law enforcement officers to fill the gaps, and we should be 
doing our own part to ensure the security of our borders and interior 
enforcement. The cuts in funds for local police make it hard to protect 
our lives and property. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6095.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095. Let 
me say as somebody who was involved in local law enforcement as a 
county supervisor, mayor, and city council member, it is astonishing to 
me when it comes down to enforcing our immigration laws how individuals 
in this institution can find every excuse in the world to not enforce 
the laws or not wanting the laws enforced.
  Now, in all fairness, you want to talk about the cost of law 
enforcement. Mr. Speaker, in my County of San Diego, the cost of 
illegal immigration to our law enforcement agencies is $50 million a 
year, just identified from the County of San Diego. The fact is that 
there should be involvement in local law enforcement to have the 
option. But actively there are groups here and groups in California 
that are telling local law enforcement officers they can't get involved 
in the illegal immigration issue until there has been a major crime 
such as murder, rape or mayhem. That is absolutely absurd.
  The frustration in law enforcement is being pulled both ways on these 
issues. Anyone who is sworn to enforce the law knows the impact of 
illegal immigration, and every law enforcement officer in the long run 
wants to do everything they can to participate.
  I just cringe to think about what our drug policy and drug 
enforcement policy would be in this country if we took the same 
attitude, that if a San Diego police officer saw a drug smuggler coming 
across the border, somehow he or

[[Page 18869]]

she could not intervene because that is a Federal drug law that is 
being addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we stop finding excuses on not allowing our 
local law enforcement to get involved.
  Let me throw this out. If we want to talk about the money issue, 
let's ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with 
us, and why don't we talk about doing fines and forfeiture allocations 
like we do with drug interdiction. Let's allow the local law 
enforcement to be able to keep a large percentage of the assets if they 
catch someone smuggling or is caught. Maybe that is something we can 
talk about, but not today find an excuse for not giving the authority 
to our local law enforcement to do what they know is right, and that is 
fight illegal immigration.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a 
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman) for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body of what we have here. We 
have a bill with three sections, the first of which, in the chairman's 
own words, reinforms the authority of the local governments to do 
something that he apparently believes and we all accept that they would 
have the authority to do anyway.
  I call that one the let's use the Iraq model for dealing with the 
issue of illegal immigration; subcontract large functions of it, but 
unlike in Iraq where we overpay the subcontractors, here tell the local 
law enforcement people we are giving up at the Federal level trying to 
deal with this problem, we are not going to give you a penny for more 
jail cells or a penny for more resources, we are not going to give you 
a single dime to do anything about it, but we are here to tell you if 
you want to, you have the authority to arrest and detain people who are 
in this country illegally without regard to whatever acts they may have 
committed.
  The second section of the bill is alien smuggling. It has a bunch of 
findings, it has a sense of Congress, and then says we authorize, but 
no funding, 20 more people to do something about alien smuggling.
  And the third one is designed to deal with catch and release, the 
practice whereby non-Mexicans who are caught in this country in the 
past have been released rather than returned immediately to the country 
they came from because Mexico is not the country that they are from.
  According to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, we 
are currently detaining all El Salvadorans, or virtually all, because 
we now have enough beds, and we have enough to significantly reduce the 
total number of non-Mexicans. Catch and release is over. This bill 
won't make it. It is over. No one should be under the illusion that we 
are doing anything about the program catch and release by this bill 
because that program has ended.
  What this bill in the larger context is, it is another one-House 
bill. Let me quote from the September 21 Washington Post. ``With little 
more than a week left before the September 29 start of the Congress's 
scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of 
the bills to must-pass spending measures before they leave town. But 
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) appeared 
to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any 
legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their 
progress in the final days before the coming recess.''
  Another one-House bill. And then what will happen, a week from now we 
will recess, and the Republicans and the majority hope that the 
American people will be conned into thinking they have done something 
about one of the most serious national crises we have, and that is the 
crisis of inability to enforce our borders. There are 12 million people 
in this country using false identifiers, the absence of any employer 
verification system.
  But in reality, none of that will have happened. The Republican 
Congress will have recessed for the elections with the mere hope that 
maybe when we come back with the lame duck, or maybe if you reelect us 
next year, we will get serious about this problem.
  There is nothing in this bill or other bills that are being sent over 
to a House that will not take them up and not consider them that will 
make this crisis better.
  And what do we have to do to do something serious? Back in June or 
July or in the beginning of September, a motion to go to conference on 
the two larger bills that the Senate and the House passed. This won't 
work. This bill is nothing. It doesn't do anything for anybody. It 
won't become law.
  So you can have the meaningless gesture act that this bill 
represents. You can pass some of these other bills that are being 
brought up at the last minute to go into that vacuum on the other side; 
but one day I would like to understand how the majority explains the 
fact that they were not willing to make a motion to go to conference to 
reconcile the differences between the two bills, because in 1 week we 
will have done nothing to implement an employer verification system. We 
will have done nothing about 12 million people who are here under false 
identifiers, some portion of whom might be actual threats to our own 
national security. We will have done nothing to provide the meaningful, 
comprehensive approach, which is the only way to deal with the problem 
of illegal immigration in this country.

                              {time}  1445

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

                              Department of Homeland Security,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your support of critical 
     injunction reform legislation, which will significantly 
     support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts 
     to maintain ``catch and remove'' of non-Mexican illegal 
     aliens apprehended along our Nation's borders. DHS urgently 
     needs Congress to approve this legislation to ensure that 
     long-outdated court decisions do not frustrate efforts to 
     secure the border.
       DHS has made great strides in increasing the number of non-
     Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the 
     Nation's borders. In fact, DHS now detains all eligible 
     individuals for prompt removal upon apprehension along both 
     the Southwest and Northern borders. However, I am concerned 
     that DHS will not be able to maintain this success because of 
     a 1988 court order that impedes its ability to quickly remove 
     Salvadorans caught after illegally crossing the Nation's 
     borders.
       The 1988 court decision hinders DHS's ability to place 
     aliens subject to the injunction into expedited removal 
     proceedings--proceedings that allow for quicker immigration 
     processing. Instead, these aliens must be placed into full 
     administrative immigration proceedings. Consequently, they 
     are detained for an average of 48 days prior to removal in 
     contrast to those aliens apprehended on the Southwest border 
     for illegal entry and placed into expedited removal who are 
     detained for an average of only 19 days prior to removal. At 
     an average cost of $95 per day for detention, the inability 
     to fully utilize expedited removal for this population costs 
     the taxpayer approximately $2,755 per alien.
       In addition, the injunction requires that unrepresented 
     aliens subject to the court decision be detained in the same 
     geographic

[[Page 18870]]

     area in which they are apprehended for seven days prior to 
     transfer in order to afford them the opportunity to obtain 
     counsel. DHS acquires detention space based on current 
     migration trends. If aliens shift migration routes to a 
     jurisdiction outside of the current area where extra bed 
     space is available, this injunction could have serious 
     repercussions on DHS's ability to detain such aliens due to 
     the restriction on transferring them to areas of higher 
     detention capacity. If the shift is sudden and large, the 
     injunction could place enormous strain on available detention 
     space, potentially forcing a return to the recently ended 
     practice of ``catch and release'' until additional resources 
     could be obtained, if available, in appropriate locations.
       This decision was issued at a time when El Salvador was in 
     the midst of a civil war and when immigration was governed by 
     very different statutes. Yet, the decision continues to 
     dictate the processing of Salvadorans almost 20 years later. 
     On November 17, 2005, DHS fully explained to the district 
     court the dramatic changes in the facts and the law that have 
     occurred since the entry of its perpetual injunction in 1988. 
     DHS asked the district court to lift its order; but, I have 
     no firm date for when this process will reach its conclusion 
     in the district court or upon appeal.
       There are additional longstanding civil injunctions that 
     impede DHS' s ability to effectively enforce the Nation's 
     immigration laws. These district court decisions have created 
     onerous operating procedures that require the commitment of 
     vast amounts of government resources. They detrimentally 
     impact immigration enforcement on a daily basis, often 
     frustrating DHS's efforts. One such order has resulted in the 
     creation of extra procedures requiring substantial additional 
     resources for routine visa processing. Another such 
     injunction has resulted in certain Freedom of Information Act 
     requests being given priority over other pressing work.
       For all practical purposes, such invasive court-ordered 
     requirements hamstring the President and the Congress's 
     authority over the borders even when the conditions that gave 
     rise to such requirements may have changed. Under current law 
     and court procedures, it can be extremely time-consuming and 
     difficult to end these injunctions. With this legislation, 
     Congress will be taking significant steps to ensure that DHS 
     is no longer held hostage by these antiquated court orders.
       Thank you again for your support of DHS's immigration 
     enforcement efforts. I look forward to continuing to work 
     with you on this and other measures to ensure that this issue 
     is fully resolved.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff.

  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
certainly thank him for his leadership on a variety of issues to help 
strengthen our border.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6095. But before I 
address the specific provisions of this legislation, I think it is 
important to put this bill in the larger context because, Mr. Speaker, 
we are having a debate that has been ongoing for a number of months in 
this body; and, Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who believe that 
border security is national security. We ignore our borders at our own 
peril.
  Iraqis have been caught trying to infiltrate our southern border. 
Jordanians have been captured. Iranians have been captured, having 
infiltrated our border. Areas of the world where al Qaeda recruits, 
these people have crossed our border. Al Qaeda has made contact with 
human smugglers in Mexico. Every evening thousands are attempting to 
cross our borders, and only some are apprehended.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that many are good folks who are merely 
trying to feed their families and mean us no harm. Yet some also come 
here because they seek free education and free health care and welfare. 
Some are coming here because they are bringing violence and pushing 
drugs to our children and grandchildren. And, unfortunately, there may 
be a few who are coming here to try to bring down our airlines.
  Again, we ignore border security at our own peril. Yet Democrats are 
holding our border security hostage for their views on amnesty, their 
views on giving government benefits and welfare to those who are here 
illegally. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable.
  Now, this bill will help, help eliminate the catch and release 
program. At least in my part of Texas when constituents hear ``catch 
and release,'' they think it has something to do with bass. They have 
no idea that we have been apprehending illegal immigrants and letting 
them back on this side of the border. That is unacceptable. And 
contrary to what some of our friends have said on the other side of the 
aisle, this does not mandate that local law enforcement get involved in 
this battle, but it helps empower them. And we are fighting a global 
war on terror, and shoring up porous borders is a critical part of that 
war. Why can't we come together as Republicans and Democrats and 
Independents and secure our border first?
  I understand there are many legitimate issues, but at the end of the 
day, Mr. Speaker, we are not debating immigration, yes or no; but we 
are debating immigration, legal or illegal, and we allow illegal 
immigration at our own peril.
  Let's secure our borders, and let's support H.R. 6095.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
  There is only one response to my friend the chairman. If the issue is 
about papers and the only reason we haven't gone to conference 
committee is because the papers haven't been delivered, I do have 
Senator Frist's phone number, and I am happy to provide it. I cannot 
conceive that it is a matter of paperwork and process that is keeping 
us from going to conference committee on one of the most serious 
domestic issues this country has faced.
  Secondly, in response to the following speaker, the reason we cannot 
quite unite to do something here, apparently, is because we are not 
going to unite on a fool's errand. Everyone on your side of the aisle, 
from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to the chairman to 
others, has acknowledged over and over again we are not going to deport 
12 million people. You are not going to have local law enforcement pick 
up the task for you of deporting 12 million people.
  A meaningful response is border security, because there are people 
there who are national security issues and there are people who are 
aiming to hurt us who want to cross this border illegally, and dealing 
with 12 million people who are operating under false identifiers, some 
of whom are bad people, and finding some system to either isolate and 
narrow that group or have them come forward, and most important of all, 
to get an employer verification system in place. None of these bills 
does anything about it. We are going to leave here in a week doing 
nothing about it. I don't understand how you are going to explain to 
your constituents and the people who are understandably upset about 
this issue that this Congress has addressed a very serious, urgent 
issue in a serious and coherent fashion. We haven't.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is right. This is an issue 
about papers. It is about a pretty important paper that has served our 
country well called the Constitution of the United States. Article I, 
section 7 says: ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the 
House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with 
amendments as on other bills.
  The ``comprehensive amnesty immigration bill'' that the Senate passed 
and didn't message contains $50 billion in new taxes. They ignore this 
sacred paper that has been the foundation of our government, and are we 
supposed to ignore that and thus subject anything they do to endless 
litigation because they deliberately violated the Constitution? I think 
not.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise very much in support of this bill.
  Is it exactly like I want? No. Obviously, it is not like what Mr. 
Berman wants either. And if you don't like the bill, just vote ``no,'' 
as you have on many immigration bills. But this is what we have today, 
and the American people want to see us proceed.

[[Page 18871]]

  This bill reasserts that State and law enforcement can and should 
help Federal officers on immigration law whenever they reasonably can 
and if they choose to. What a weird thought. We might get help from our 
local law enforcement as they do in drug enforcement.
  It is a policy that our law enforcement community has conducted 
successfully for decades in helping this government, the Federal 
Government, enforce Federal drug and racketeering laws. This is not 
new.
  Why then the outrage and the mass lobbying against it by the pro-
illegal immigration crowd, or should I say open border crowd?
  Because this bill goes to the heart of our enforcement problem, that 
is, simply a lack of enforcement. That has been our problem. Across the 
board, from the borders to the workplace to illegal immigrant crime, we 
have allowed the odds to become hopelessly stacked against enforcement.
  In regards to rounding up criminal illegal aliens, we currently have 
roughly 5,000 Federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens 
with court orders against them. Eighty thousand of them are serious 
felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists. 
Vote against this bill if you want those people to stay out on the 
street. That is all right.
  These odds, obviously, are impossible. There is no way we are going 
to have 5,000 Feds catch 500,000 violent criminals. But if we allow our 
700,000 State and local police to volunteer to help, and they are 
American citizens too, the odds get a lot better. That might start an 
epidemic of looking at other ways to improve our odds, Mr. Speaker, in 
fighting overall illegal immigration.
  And that undermines the illegal immigration lobby's theme song, which 
is the lie that we cannot stop illegal immigration. So, well, let's 
just give up. Let's just give in.
  Well, we can stop all these problems if we only have the will. This 
body needs to have the will. The Senate has to do what it has to do, 
but we are the people's House. We need to show the gumption to get this 
done. This legislation proves how using commonsense partnerships 
between State and Federal authorities to multiply manpower will get the 
job done.
  We are not talking about going after illegal aliens who are otherwise 
obeying our laws and are just here to work. This bill is targeted only 
on criminal aliens. Ironically, most of their fellow victims are their 
fellow immigrants.
  Let's make one point absolutely clear. There is nothing in this bill 
that prevents local police from granting immunity from being reported 
for deportation to any illegal immigrant crime victim who comes to them 
for help.
  Mr. Speaker, this short bill is the key component in the CLEAR Act 
that I introduced 3 years ago. It has already passed this House twice 
as a part of larger legislation. I think my friend from California 
didn't vote for it, but it did pass this House. Let's send this over to 
the Senate as a clean, short bill and see what they have got to say 
about that.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Becerra, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  I always like to hear the gentleman from Georgia describe these 
bills. He says it only targets violent felons, and I would love to find 
that place in the bill where that is the case.
  Nothing in this bill says that State and local law enforcement are 
authorized to enforce immigration law but only to focus their efforts 
on immigrants who are serious felons. In a news release, the gentleman 
from Georgia said that this bill would provide funding for training and 
resources for State and local enforcement agencies to voluntarily 
enforce immigration laws. Nothing in the bill provides any money for 
training or resources for State and local law enforcement. Not a dime. 
And that is why I have 25 pages of law enforcement officers that are 
opposed to the bill. Chiefs of police, mayors, sheriffs are all opposed 
to this bill. Republicans and Democrats, I might add.
  And, of course, I should remind everyone in the body that we can 
already detain criminals or anyone that commits a criminal act, whether 
they are an immigrant or a citizen, but the problem is that only the 
Federal Government can deport anyone. So anybody committing a crime is 
subject to being detained.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill isn't about immigration reform. It is further evidence of a 
failure of leadership for us to have this body connect with the other 
body to get a conference going.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) offered to make a phone 
call. I would offer to bring the news of the passage of the immigration 
bill in the House to the majority leader of the Senate myself. I will 
deliver it if that would help them get the news that there ought to be 
a conference.
  I think that patently it is obvious that they know about this, and 
somewhere in the Republican leadership there is a huge desire not to 
have a conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, with 5 days left in this session, with the failure of 
this House to pass comprehensive immigration reform to accept the 
challenge posed by the Senate which did pass comprehensive immigration 
reform, we are now left with a campaign stunt to try to pass something 
out of this House so that it can appear that as Members of Congress go 
home to campaign that we have done something on the issue of our broken 
immigration system.
  Unfortunately, this legislation, like the previous bills that we are 
debating on this floor, fail to do one very important thing, and that 
was, ask the very people who this bill would impact most. And that is 
our local and State law enforcement officers what they think about 
this.
  Because if you would have talked to them, they would tell you, please 
do not do this. We have had sufficient experience with what the Federal 
Government wishes to do when it comes to its Federal laws on 
immigration, and that is, it passes the buck without passing the money. 
This bill is no different. This passes the buck, but offers not a 
single cent to enforce the immigration laws that are a Federal 
responsibility.
  For years our State and local governments have been asking Congress 
to fix the broken immigration laws that we have. Instead, this bill 
asks State and local police officers to pick up the tab, pick up the 
slack where the Feds have failed.
  Mr. Speaker, you do not need to look very far for proof of that. Take 
a look at the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. That is the 
Federal Government's effort to try to help States deal with the 
incarceration of criminal aliens.
  The President's budget included not a single dime of funding to help 
States offset the cost of having to incarcerate criminal aliens. The 
Congress did a little bit better, but still is funding that program for 
all 50 States at less than one-third of what they are currently 
spending to incarcerate aliens who should be deported but committed 
crimes in our country.
  What else? Take a look at the Federal Government's enforcement of our 
laws that prohibit individuals in this country from fraudulently hiring 
people who do not have permission to work in this country. How many 
enforcement actions did this government, this Federal Government, take 
against people who are abusing the laws and taking advantage of the 
fact that American citizens would like to take those jobs? Three 
enforcement actions in all of 2004.
  State and local law enforcement officers know what happens when those 
bills are passed: the buck gets passed with it, and no money gets 
passed along. Mr. Speaker, police officers are also telling us why 
would we want to have to enforce Federal immigration laws when we have 
to enforce the local laws to protect our citizenry.

[[Page 18872]]

  If a crime is committed, why would an immigrant who is already living 
in the shadows come out of the shadows to report a crime that he or she 
witnessed, if he or she knows that now we will pick them up on an 
immigration infraction? This is crazy. But this is what we are left 
with these last final days.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate 
did it. It is a shame that the House has not decided to follow suit. I 
would urge Members to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What we are witnessing in the last few days is an effort to make sure 
somebody believes that we have sincerely worked on immigration rather 
than going to conference with the two major bills left.
  We tried during the recent recess by holding a series of hearings 
across 13 States, to make sure people thought that we were working and 
concerned about immigration. As the newspaper reports show, it failed 
dismally.
  So what we are doing now is to say let's keep the immigrants out. 
Let's keep them out. Let's keep them out. But let's let them in through 
the back door. Republicans do not prosecute employers, but then they 
blame Democrats for talking about other ways to deal with those who are 
already working here. We all know that letting immigrants in helps 
corporations and businesses that are using immigrants as the cheapest 
labor that they can find to benefit their activities.
  And the reason we are not at conference is because many in our 
business world need immigrant labor, and the companies that support the 
Republican Party that says, get tough on immigrants, are the same ones 
that then turn their back and do nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, during the debate on this bill and the debate on the two 
previous border security and law enforcement bills, we have heard time 
and time again why there not a conference between the Senate and the 
House on the differing bills that we passed, and that this is just 
merely a matter of papers, and this can be solved with a couple of 
phone calls over to the other body.
  Well, the constitutional problem cannot be solved with a couple of 
phone calls. Because the Constitution's mandate that revenue-raising 
bills originate in the House of Representatives is pretty clear, and it 
has been there since 1789.
  Frankly, the other body has not passed a bill that can be sent to 
conference because of the revenue-raising provisions that were 
contained in their bill. They chose to do that; we did not. And it is 
unfair and probably unconstitutional to blame this House for not 
rolling over and playing dead over the fact that the Senate bill 
violates article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States.
  Having said that, let's get down to the nub of this bill. The nub of 
this bill specifically authorizes voluntary agreements between the 
Federal Government and local law enforcement to help in the assistance 
and enforcement of our immigration laws. Let me say again what we are 
dealing with is voluntary.
  No local government agency or local law enforcement agency is forced 
to do anything under this piece of legislation in helping the Federal 
Government enforce our immigration laws.
  But if they do do it, they should have statutory authorization. And 
where are the benefits going to be if there is cooperation between the 
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement in helping 
enforce our immigration laws? It is going to be in the immigrant 
communities themselves. Because most of the crimes that are committed 
by illegal immigrants in our country are against other immigrants, both 
legal and illegal.
  As a result of the current system, which this bill hopes to encourage 
to change, we will be able to make those immigrant communities safer. 
Now, the bill specifically states that nothing in it may be construed 
to require State or local law enforcement personnel to report the 
identity of a victim or a witness to a criminal offense to the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  So if one of the bad guys hits an illegal immigrant over the head, 
the local law enforcement that investigates this does not have to 
report to DHS the fact that the victim is an illegal immigrant, and nor 
does that illegal immigrant victim have to be arrested because that 
person is a victim or a witness, and the arrest would be for an 
immigration law violation.
  State and local law enforcement are not going to be reporting victims 
of crime. And they know best how to integrate immigration law 
enforcement into their duties in a way that will increase the safety 
and well-being of immigrant communities.
  Now, many immigrant communities are held hostage by violent alien 
gangs. Many of those gang members have already been deported for 
criminal activity and have returned to this country illegally. If State 
and local law enforcement officers identify such aliens, they can 
either turn a blind eye or wait until the aliens commit new crimes, or 
they can apprehend the gang members and turn them over to the 
Department of Homeland Security to get them out of this country.
  Clearly, immigration communities will be safer if those vicious 
criminals are taken off the streets before they can kill or rob again. 
And what other circumstances are State and local law enforcement likely 
to report to DHS? As an example, they may report on illegal aliens they 
come across in the normal course of carrying out their duties, such as 
after stopping for speeding a smuggling van carrying illegal 
immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps leverage the assets that 
we have. I am for increasing the number of ICE agents and Border Patrol 
agents and increasing the number of detention beds, but passing this 
bill is something that we can do now to increase the effectiveness of 
law enforcement in dealing with these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again that the communities that will 
be safer will be the immigrant communities, both the legal immigrants 
that are present there as well as those that are not legal. Pass the 
bill.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095, the 
``Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.'' This legislation takes an 
important step toward greater prosecution of human smugglers, known as 
``coyotes,'' and I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner 
for bringing this legislation before us. This legislation also 
authorizes State and local cooperation with Federal immigration 
enforcement efforts, as well as helping to end the catch-and-release of 
criminal aliens.
  I have spoken about the need for increased prosecution of coyotes 
many times. I have corresponded numerous times with the Attorney 
General on the subject imploring increased prosecution. Last year I 
introduced the Criminal Alien Accountability Act that would stiffen the 
penalties for coyotes and other criminal aliens. My legislation was 
incorporated in large part into H.R. 4437, the ``Border Protection, 
Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,'' which 
passed the House last December. However, major roadblocks impeding the 
prosecution of coyotes remain, and they are the lack of acceptance of 
these cases by U.S. Attorneys and a lack of uniform prosecution 
guidelines among the U.S. Attorney offices along the southern border.
  The U.S. Attorney's Office has stated in the past that it does not 
have the resources needed to fully prosecute arrested coyotes. For 
example, the Border Patrol was instructed to release known coyote 
Antonio Amparo-Lopez, an individual with 21 aliases and 20 arrests. 
Releasing a criminal such as this is completely unacceptable, and is 
demoralizing to the Border Patrol agents who work so hard to make the 
arrests in the first place.
  I, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, recently met with U.S. Border 
Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffin and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San 
Diego to discuss these problems. Our meetings demonstrated the 
differences in opinion between those who arrest human smugglers and 
those who prosecute them. Importantly, we learned that U.S. Attorney 
offices have varying prosecution guidelines for human smugglers 
depending on where the office is

[[Page 18873]]

located. This causes smugglers to use access points in states with 
weaker prosecution standards, increasing the criminal element in those 
communities.
  H.R. 6095 calls on the Attorney General to adopt uniform guidelines 
for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. This change could help 
lessen the burden on borders areas within the United States that 
currently are overrun by coyote operations, in addition to reducing 
smuggling in total. Additionally, H.R. 6095 authorizes 20 new U.S. 
attorneys for each year from FY 2008 through FY 2013 to help prosecute 
human smuggling offenses.
  I will continue to work with others in Congress, the Administration, 
and the public at large to ensure the prosecution and removal of every 
criminal alien that is apprehended.
  Mr. BACA. I rise today to express strong opposition to the majority's 
failure to seriously address the important issue of immigration reform.
  Congress has had a real opportunity this year to produce meaningful 
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. But instead Republican 
leaders have decided to play election year politics and cater to their 
base with bills like these. These bills are further proof that 
Republicans are not serious about real reform on immigration.
  On the other hand, Democrats are serious about immigration reform and 
border security. If our amendments had been adopted over the last five 
years, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol Agents and 2,700 more 
immigration enforcement agents along our borders.
  Republicans instead have held ``sham'' hearings that produced no 
results--nothing, zero. Second, they have not moved forward with a 
House-Senate conference on border security/immigration reform 
legislation. Finally, they are trying to fool our American public by 
bringing up these token bills that will not be even considered in the 
Senate.
  These narrow-minded bills would have little impact on closing the 
numerous security gaps along our borders. Let's not confuse, again and 
again, the real concern here.
  After five years Republicans have nothing to show except for a few 
votes on band-aid attempts to address a complex issue.
  It's time for a new direction.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply offensive for this House to 
continue on a piecemeal approach to the border security and immigration 
problem.
  The fact is this Congress has not done any heavy lifting to 
effectively solve our border security crisis.
  That's an awful record for the majority party to carry into the 
election season, so we are forced to deal again with redundant 
legislation so the majority party can seem to be accomplishing 
something.
  But we aren't accomplishing a single thing.
  What we're doing today--in all these bills--is blowing more hot air 
at voters who are angry that we say we're doing things to improve our 
border security--but we never pay for them.
  Each year since 2001, Democrats have tried to add amendments to 
defense, homeland security, and emergency supplemental appropriations 
bills.
  Not a single one was passed--if they were, we'd have 6,600 more 
Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more 
immigration agents.
  On the border, our not funding our promises brings local law 
enforcement a very large bill--yet another unfunded mandate.
  When Border Patrol finds an immigrant lawbreaker--mostly small drug 
possessions--they take them to the local jail where the local taxpayers 
foot the bill to hold them.
  The same local taxpayers then have to pay for the prosecutors and 
there aren't enough judges. This is a cycle that won't end.
  Now the House Leadership is cutting up legislation we've already 
passed into many different bills to make it seem like we are working on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to be angry with 
this Congress.
  Let's use the 9-11 legislation they were embarrassed into passing in 
December 04 as an example.
  Not only did we not fund most of that bill, breaking many of our 
promises in it, we passed virtually the same bill but added extreme 
provisions to criminalize those here.
  In May of 2006, when the Senate passed an astonishingly better bill, 
the House closed down the process--refused to negotiate a final bill.
  Instead, they passed an awful bill last December then spent the 
summer stalling any negotiation with deceptive ``hearings.''
  If the House Republicans were serious about border security, they 
would have moved forward with a House-Senate conference on border 
security and actual immigration reform legislation.
  Today--in an effort to appear to have accomplished something, 
anything related to immigration and border security--we are considering 
the same bill we passed twice already, just chopped into smaller 
pieces.
  This is what it means to fool people.
  So, let us remember the old wisdom: you can fool some of the people 
some of the time, but thank God, you can't fool all the people all the 
time.
  That, I suppose, is the bad news for the crowd that thinks passing 
the same bills over and over is good politics.
  Good politics these days means paying for the Nation's protection and 
none of these bills take care of that business.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that today Congress will pass 
vital legislation based upon legislation I drafted, the Fairness in 
Immigration Litigation Act of 2006, to close an egregious loophole that 
allows thousands of illegal aliens to remain in our country every week. 
Passage of this legislation will result in safer communities across our 
nation.
  Currently, the Orantes injunction mandates that the U.S. Government 
afford all Salvadoran immigrants the benefit of full deportation 
proceedings and undermines the authority of the Department of Homeland 
Security to apply expedited removal procedures. The court order was 
issued in 1988 when EI Salvador was in the midst of a bloody civil war 
and was designed to protect those seeking refuge in the United States. 
However, on January 16, 1992, a peace accord was signed ending 11 years 
of civil war and implementing strict human rights restrictions. Today 
EI Salvador enjoys a democratically elected government and a developing 
economy.
  Illegal aliens stream across our border by the hundreds on a daily 
basis. They present an immediate danger to the lives of people in every 
Texas community and across the United States of America. For over 14 
years I have worked to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the crisis 
facing our border communities. I have met with law enforcement 
officials along the border and discussed this critical issue with my 
colleagues in Congress, providing those in Washington with a first-hand 
perspective on how to increase our border security.
  However, gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha, otherwise known as MS-13, 
and members of drug cartels now exploit this loophole in our legal 
system to thwart our immigration laws and obtain release into our 
communities. This legislation removes obstacles that prevent our 
government from effectively enforcing the immigration laws that 
Congress intended.
  The threat of terrorism is real. Each day our border communities 
witness violence and fear created by ruthless members of drug cartels. 
We must not allow terrorists and criminals from around the world to 
abuse loopholes in our legal system, turning our southwest border into 
a revolving door. The efforts of our law enforcement officials to 
catch, detain, and deport those who enter illegally must not be 
obstructed by those looking to abuse the system. I am proud that today 
Congress will overturn the outdated and obsolete Orantes injunction to 
protect the integrity of our legal immigration process.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6095, the Immigration 
Law Enforcement Act of 2006.
  It's important to Americans that local law enforcement officials are 
doing everything possible to arrest and prosecute criminals.
  And it's important that law enforcement officials know under exactly 
what circumstances they can lawfully arrest or detain a suspected 
criminal.
  Take for instance the situation in which a police officer has 
reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and finds out that 
individual is in the United States in violation of our immigration 
laws. It's contrary to common sense that the police officer would not 
be able to arrest that person simply because immigration is a Federal 
responsibility. But this is the argument of those who oppose this bill.
  H.R. 6095 affirms the authority of State and local law enforcement 
officials to investigate, apprehend, and arrest illegal immigrants.
  Several Federal Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth and Fifth 
Circuits, have agreed that State and local law enforcement officials 
have the authority to do so.
  Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation believe that if a police 
officer comes in contact with a suspected criminal who has violated 
immigration law, they should simply let the person go.
  This situation was addressed in the 1996 immigration legislation that 
I authored. Because of that law, the Immigration and Nationality Act 
contains section 287(g), which allows the Attorney General to enter 
into written agreements with States and localities to set out 
provisions under which State and local law enforcement officers can 
help enforce Federal immigration laws.

[[Page 18874]]

  But the law does not mean that just because there is no such written 
agreement, the police don't have the authority to arrest illegal 
immigrants.
  Law enforcement officers should arrest anyone who breaks the law. 
This bill is necessary to settle the debate once and for all.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, H.R. 6095. It will not protect 
United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the 
nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on 
H.R. 6095 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, 
we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the 
House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed.
  H.R. 6095 presents a sense of Congress that the Attorney General 
should adopt, not later than three months after the date of the 
enactment, uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses 
to be followed by each United States attorney in the United States. It 
also requires the hiring of additional personnel for prosecuting alien 
smuggling cases. For each year from FY2008 through FY2013, subject to 
the availability of appropriations, the Justice Department would be 
required to increase by not less than 20 the number of attorneys in the 
offices of United States attorneys employed to prosecute alien 
smuggling cases.
  I find nothing objectionable about these provisions, but I do not 
believe that they will substantially improve our ability to deal with 
the alien smuggling problem. It would be more productive to consider an 
alien smuggling bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Commercial 
Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2003, the CASE Act. It would 
establish a three-point program that was drafted with assistance from 
government officials who are involved in the investigation, disruption, 
and prosecution of commercial alien smugglers.
  H.R. 6095 would give State and local police officers the authority to 
enforce civil immigration laws. I do not want local police forces to 
enforce immigration law. Immigration violations are different from the 
typical criminal offenses that police officers normally face. The 
typical law enforcement activities of local police officers involve 
crimes such as murders, assaults, narcotics, robberies, burglaries, 
domestic violence, and traffic violations. It would require extensive 
training to prepare them to enforce civil immigration provisions.
  If police act as immigration agents, undocumented immigrants are 
likely to be afraid to contact the police when a crime has been 
committed. If they as victims, witnesses, or concerned residents 
contact the police, they or their family members could risk 
deportation. Experience shows that this fear would extend not only to 
contact with local police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, 
and the public school system.
  H.R. 6095 also would undermine local police's role in enhancing 
national security. National security experts and State and local law 
enforcement officers agree that good intelligence and strong community 
relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets safe. 
Undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be helpful to security 
investigators would be reluctant to come forward for fear of 
immigration consequences.
  H.R. 6095 has an ``Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006,'' title, but 
the provisions under that title deal with injunctions in federal 
immigration litigation. ``Catch and release'' is a reference to the 
practice of apprehending aliens in the vicinity of the border and then 
releasing them pending removal proceedings. Apparently, the connection 
is the permanent injunction in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, No. 82-
1107KN (C.D. Cal. 1982). Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has 
claimed that the Orantes injunction interferes with efforts to end the 
catch and release practice.
  I am not aware of any provision in the Orantes injunction that would 
interfere with efforts to end the catch and release practice. In 
issuing the injunction, the court found that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service had engaged in a pattern and practice of 
coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive 
their rights to a deportation hearing and to seek asylum as a defense 
to deportation.
  H.R. 6095 appears to be an attempt to terminate the Orantes 
injunction through legislation, but its reach goes beyond the 
injunction. Among other things, a judge would not be permitted to 
provide relief in any immigration case without attaching a written 
explanation of the impact the relief would have on national security, 
border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public 
safety. It also would impose arbitrary, unreasonable time limits on 
courts attempting to provide prospective relief.
  DHS has filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. Wilfredo v. 
Gonzales, No. CV 82-1107MM (C.D. Cal. 2005).
  I urge you to vote against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 
2006.

                                                  August 14, 2006.
     House of Representatives,
     Committee on Homeland Security, Sub-Committee on Immigration, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Sub-Committee Members: I am writing to respond to your 
     invitation to testify before your sub-committee hearing on 
     Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Civil 
     Courthouse 201 Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say 
     as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as 
     President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that I 
     appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege 
     of putting into the official congressional record Law 
     Enforcement's comments and concerns on Immigration prior to 
     the full enactment of any legislation on this important 
     subject. I will be submitting as an attachment to my 
     testimony today the MCC's Immigration Committee 
     Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local 
     Police Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E. 
     Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted on June 7th by the MCC for 
     inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have 
     additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due 
     to their length I have been told they can not be part of the 
     written record.
       Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal 
     legislative amendment aimed at eliminating federal law 
     enforcement funding to local police. In short, both myself 
     and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by 
     any legislative action aimed at excluding the City of Houston 
     and/or other local jurisdictions from receiving needed 
     federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put 
     more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our 
     neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes, 
     assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland 
     security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and 
     the public fervently believe local police should become 
     involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Given 
     these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent 
     legislative amendments were not written to provide increased 
     federal funding to local police to support such enforcement. 
     Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding and 
     penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris 
     County, and other local and national jurisdictions, which 
     will be negatively effected by this amendment. The end result 
     of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is 
     applied to Houston and other communities like Houston would 
     be to make our local communities less safe. In other words 
     these amendments would have the opposite effect of their 
     purported purpose.
       Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and 
     in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this 
     complex issue differ greatly and emotions run high. Extremes 
     exist on either side of the debate as represented by the 
     recent mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their 
     supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the 
     referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in 
     Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing 
     first responders to over fifty (50) million residents 
     respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate federal 
     law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded 
     mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our 
     nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the 
     federal level with securing the borders and increasing 
     enforcement by federal agencies.
       Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal, 
     logistical and resource issues for local communities and 
     their police agencies. The City of Houston's policies and 
     those of most major cities across America reflect the 
     challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency 
     that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse 
     community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal 
     residents, visitors and undocumented immigrants. The City's 
     policies seek to best protect and serve this diverse 
     community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality 
     that the City does not have unlimited resources; its officers 
     are prohibited by state law from racial profiling and 
     arresting persons without warrants and without well 
     established probable cause; is subject to civil liability for 
     violating such laws; and has the clear need to foster 
     assistance and cooperation from the public including those 
     persons who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to 
     clarify the City's reasoned and model approach to this issue 
     I have provided the following statements regarding the City's 
     policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the 
     federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens' 
     referendum.
     City does not have a sanctuary policy
       Currently, the police department is operating under General 
     Order 500-5 [See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500-5 was 
     implemented in 1992 by then Chief Nuchia, who is currently 
     serving as a Justice in the

[[Page 18875]]

     Texas Judiciary's First Court of Appeals. The General Order 
     includes the following provisions:
       Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend 
     individuals solely on the belief that they are in this 
     country illegally.
       Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship 
     status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest 
     persons solely on the belief that they are in the country 
     illegally.
       Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities] 
     regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a 
     separate criminal charge (other than Class C misdemeanor) and 
     the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.''
       The department has issued clarifications of our 
     ``immigration'' policies and implemented changes to the 
     department's enforcement policies to increase cooperation 
     between the department and federal agencies on immigration 
     matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the 
     summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant Chief Thaler, 
     Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel 
     Craig Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the 
     U.S. Attorney's office and I.C.E. to discuss the department's 
     response to immigration detainers. Based on those 
     discussions, the department developed procedures to accept 
     and act upon criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E. 
     The police department further clarified that our officers are 
     allowed to take into custody any person who the federal 
     authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they 
     will authorize detention directly into a federal detention 
     facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person 
     in custody on other criminal charges, the department will not 
     release the person from custody for up to 24 hours after we 
     have received formal notice from federal authorities that 
     they are wanted for criminal violations.
       The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other 
     federal agency wherever possible and reasonable to enforce 
     against criminal violations and address criminal matters. The 
     Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws 
     relative to criminal violations and criminal matters, 
     accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and 
     assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of whether 
     they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of 
     federal or state laws. Our officers are currently involved in 
     various federal task forces addressing criminal matters 
     including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will 
     continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations 
     against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration 
     status, the department and thus the City does not have a 
     ``sanctuary policy'' as opponents of our policies have 
     alleged. This is not only the City's or the police 
     department's opinion but also that of Robert Rutt the Deputy 
     Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he 
     stated that ``Houston is not a sanctuary City . . .'' In the 
     same article he further acknowledged the police department's 
     significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3]
     Concerns with local enforcement of federal immigration law
       Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many 
     daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues 
     for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves. 
     Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must 
     recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative 
     consequences to local policing that would be caused by 
     immigration enforcement at the local level.

                           *   *   *   *   *

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


       UNDERMINES TRUST AND COOPERATION OF IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES

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

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6095, 
the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 and to affirm the inherent 
authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the 
implementation of our immigration laws.
  This year, I had the privilege to participate in two Government 
Reform Subcommittee field hearings in North Carolina on this very 
subject, one of which took place in my district.
  Illegal immigration has consistently been the No. 1 topic prompting 
my constituents to write and call my office. It is also the No. 1 
problem expressed to me by many of the local officials I represent.
  In recent years, State and local governments have had to make 
extraordinary adjustments to accommodate illegal immigration. Over 
300,000 illegal aliens are estimated to reside in North Carolina, and 
that number is increasing. As a whole, our counties and communities, 
now saturated with illegal aliens, are spending billions of dollars on 
public health, public education, law enforcement and social services 
for people who are residing here illegally. Every dollar spent on an 
illegal alien is a dollar diverted away from a law abiding, tax-paying 
citizen. Illegal immigration affects virtually every aspect of life in 
America.
  Few States have had to struggle with this burden as much as North 
Carolina, where the illegal immigration population is rapidly 
approaching half a million. North Carolina is currently one of the six 
major destination States for illegal aliens and has one of the five 
highest ratios of illegal immigrants to legal immigrants. During the 
90s, the immigrant population of Forsyth County alone exploded by 515 
percent, meaning that two-thirds of the county's foreign-born 
population had entered in just 10 years.
  My State's government estimates that Medicaid costs due to illegal 
immigration have doubled in 5 years. The State is spending over $200 
million annually to educate the children of illegal aliens, more than a 
2,000 percent increase in 10 years. Across the State, the criminal 
justice system is disrupted as courts and law enforcement struggle, 
particularly in rural counties, to find translators to assist in 
investigations and court proceedings for foreign-speaking defendants.
  Too many stresses and strains are being put on State and local 
governments at once and there is a clear need for government officials 
at all levels to decisively reverse these trends.
  It is in cities like Winston-Salem, as well as smaller communities, 
that the presence of illegal aliens who've committed other crimes is 
most keenly felt. One solution to these dilemmas that has been growing 
in use since it was first tried in 2002 is known as the ``287(g) cross-
designation training'' program. By the authority of section 287(g) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland 
Security can enter into assistance agreements with State and local 
agencies. The 287(g) training and certification gives local law 
enforcement a vital tool in combating the growing problems from illegal 
immigration. Many illegal aliens who've committed crimes in America can 
now be held and processed for deportation or Federal prosecution 
through use of the 287(g) program. State and local officers can even 
interview suspects and prison

[[Page 18876]]

inmates to determine if immigration laws have been violated; they can 
process and fingerprint them for such violations; and they can prepare 
documents for deportation and refer criminal aliens to ICE for 
potential Federal prosecution.
  It is the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to 
protect the borders and enforce our laws. Given the scope of the 
problem of illegal immigration, the Federal Government should move 
quickly to provide authority to State and local law enforcement to 
combat illegal immigration. We will never get a handle on this growing 
problem if we don't.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the three 
bills being considered today in House. The rush to bring these bills to 
the floor for a vote makes it clear that the majority has one thing on 
its mind, election year political concerns. As far as I can tell, these 
bills were not given hearings or marked up in committee. In fact, two 
of these bills were just introduced this week. Members have had very 
little time to look at these bills, and to consider the ramifications 
should these bills be enacted into law. This is no way to craft good, 
solid legislation.
  These bills represent a half-hearted attempt at beefing up 
immigration enforcement and border security. Instead of taking a rifle 
shot approach to the immigration issue, the House and Senate should 
have went to conference on the immigration bills that passed each 
chamber. Unfortunately, rather than coming together and hashing out 
differences, the two Chambers began holding field hearings about why 
their Chamber's bill was better than the other Chamber's bill. It is 
time to stop these antics and appoint conferees so we can create a good 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we have had very little time to 
consider this legislation, and that we cannot even offer amendments on 
the floor to try and do what the committees could not, I will vote 
``no'' and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second consecutive week 
to remind the House that the time has passed for half measures on 
immigration reform.
  None of the bills we debate today will secure our border unless they 
are coupled with a more comprehensive approach. Some of them are good 
bills and should be part of wider legislation to secure the border and 
make our immigration system work. But on their own, these proposals 
fall short because they only look at the enforcement side of the 
equation. Put them together with the bill we passed last week, add the 
enforcement-only package we passed in December, and throw in any other 
enforcement measures that you like and I promise you that all of them, 
collectively, won't win the fight against illegal immigration.
  Without a total fix--one that gets at the root of the problem--we 
will continue to see people finding a way to get into the United States 
in pursuit of jobs and a better way of life. Fences won't stop them. 
And stopgap measures by this body will not stop them.
  The Senate majority leader has said that there isn't even time to 
take up all these half-measures in the other chamber; it is highly 
doubtful that any of these will become law.
  Mr. Speaker, let us put away these half measures and go to conference 
with the Senate on the bill this chamber passed--H.R. 4437--and the 
bill the Senate passed--S. 2611. We need a comprehensive fix to the 
problem and that means dealing with all parts of it, not just criminal 
aliens and the end of ``catch and release.'' Those are all part of the 
solution, but on their own, they fall short. Without a guest worker 
program and a recognition of the 12 million undocumented immigrants 
living in our midst, we will only exacerbate the problem.
  So what are we really debating here? Nothing. We've sent a bill to 
the Senate, and they've sent a bill back to us. The time for playing 
games is past. The American people want action--they want a solution 
that works.
  Let's negotiate with the Senate and find a comprehensive solution 
that will secure our borders once and for all. Let us reject these 
piecemeal bills and do what's right for the American people; let us go 
to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4437 and S. 2611.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Immigration 
Law Enforcement Act of 2006. This bill reaffirms the inherent authority 
of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily investigate, 
identify, apprehend, arrest, detain and transfer to federal custody 
aliens in the U.S. in order to assist in the enforcement of the 
immigration laws.
  Presently, many cities are enacting so-called ``sanctuary'' policies, 
which prohibit local police from asking about a person's immigration 
status or reporting illegal aliens who commit crimes to immigration 
authorities for deportation. Passed in 1996, the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act forbids localities from 
preventing their police officers from asking for or reporting 
immigration information to the Federal Government. Existing federal law 
says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or 
     local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or 
     official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any 
     government entity or official from sending to or receiving 
     information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, 
     lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

  Despite this ban, some cities continue to prohibit their officers 
from asking about immigration status or providing information to the 
Federal Government. Make no mistake about it: This is a situation of 
local governments blatantly violating Federal law.
  As a result, U.S. taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien 
prisoners who are later released back onto the streets. Sanctuary 
policies tie the hands of local law enforcement officers and keep 
illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country, rather than deporting 
criminals according to U.S. law. These sanctuary policies have 
disastrous consequences.
  Our State and local governments serve as the front line of defense 
against terrorism and criminal aliens. Every murder, every rape, every 
violent gang crime committed against Americans by illegal aliens is an 
utterly preventable crime. If we better enforce our immigration laws to 
keep criminals out, we will save lives. We must use the law enforcement 
resources we have, at every level, to enforce our laws, with the end 
result of making our Nation a safer place for our grandchildren to grow 
up in.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1018, the bill is considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Gutierrez

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

       Mr. Gutierrez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6095 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
       (2) In the 9/11 Act of 2004, the Republican Congress 
     promised to provide 8,000 additional detention beds and 800 
     additional immigration agents per year from fiscal year 2006 
     through fisal year 2010. Over the last two years, the 
     Republican Congress has left our Nation short 5,000 detention 
     beds, and nearly 500 immigration agents short of the promises 
     they made in the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004, 
     to the detriment of efforts to combat alien smuggling.
       (3) Alien smuggling continues to be a problem in part 
     because the Committee on the Judiciary and other relevant 
     committees have not engaged the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary in discussion on resolving the differences between 
     the House and Senate on immigration legislation that the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate have already passed 
     during the 109th Congress and has not reported the same back 
     to the House in a form agreed to by the two Committees, in 
     consultation with other relevant committees, that protects 
     United States borders, strengthens our national security, and 
     addresses the nation's immigration problem comprehensively.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 3, line 17, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 3, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 4, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       (d) Additional Resources To Protect Against Alien Smuggling 
     by Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act.--In each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2010, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase--
       (1) by 2,000 the number of immigration agents;
       (2) by 250 the number of detention officers;
       (3) by 250 the number of U.S. Marshals;
       (4) by 25,000 the number of detention beds;

[[Page 18877]]

       (5) by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent 
     schemes and documents that violate sections 274A, 274C, and 
     274D of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a, 
     1324c, 1324d).

  Mr. GUTIERREZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

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

                              {time}  1515

  H.R. 6095 reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law 
enforcement to voluntarily investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, 
detain or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States in 
order to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, and clarifies 
guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. It also ends the 
practice of catch and release by DHS to ensure that immigration laws 
are enforced in the manner in which they were intended.
  This motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from 
the legislation under consideration. It is the same motion to recommit 
that the gentleman from Illinois made to the previous bill by 
increasing the number of U.S. marshals by 250, which is on page 2, line 
15 of the motion to recommit.
  The U.S. marshals do not have a role in enforcing the immigration 
law. Thus, the motion to recommit expands the scope of the bill and is 
nongermane, and it fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 7 
of rule XVI.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Do other Members wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it is germane to the 
bill. When you take the whole bill subject to consideration, and we 
look at representing a number of different immigration reform 
proposals, and my sections address those same exact matters. All day, 
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing from the proponents of this and other 
immigration bills argue that the various immigration reform proposals 
included in this bill are viable alternatives to much more 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation that has stalled in the 
109th Congress.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is 
related to many other immigration reform proposals this House has 
considered over the past 2 years. Republicans are trying to pretend 
that the 109th Congress has not debated the immigration issues on many 
other occasions other than today. That is simply wrong. This House has 
debated the subject matter of this bill many times.
  My motion certainly suggests a better way to handle the subject 
matter on this bill, which is to go to conference with the 
comprehensive bills that the two Houses have already passed. The 
subject matter of this bill is immigration reform. The subject matter 
of my motion to recommit is also immigration reform. The only 
difference is that my proposal would actually require Congress to do 
something.
  Republicans are addressing the immigration issue with press releases. 
I am saying the more responsible way to address the subject matter of 
this bill is to go to conference and actually pass a law.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments are not 
addressing the point of order which I have raised.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois must confine his 
remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, it seems to me that it is germane, Mr. Speaker. 
We have heard on repeated occasions that what we are considering is the 
first step. We have heard that repeatedly here today. We have other 
bills, and simply what my motion to recommit instructs us that we go to 
conference to take it into consideration into the totality.
  We agree, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I, if we were actually to sit around 
a table and use regular order, we would find that we have much 
agreement on securing our borders, on a number of the issues that have 
been raised here today. No one on this side of the aisle is pretending 
to stand up for gang members and drug dealers. We want them out of the 
country also.
  But we also understand that like Mr. Tom Ridge, of Homeland Security, 
and Congressman Sensenbrenner referred to the current Homeland 
Secretary in his statement, we have statements from the former Director 
of Homeland Security that we need to deal with. So I think it is 
germane, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The bill is confined to matters of immigration. The motion to 
recommit addresses matters unrelated to immigration. For the reasons 
stated by the Chair earlier today, the motion is not germane.
  The point of order is sustained


                Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Reyes

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

       Mr. Reyes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6095 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
       (2) Alien smuggling is a continuing threat to our Nation's 
     security, leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorist 
     attacks.
       (3) Alien smuggling continues to be a threat to the 
     security of the United States because of, among other things, 
     the following:
       (A) The 9/11 Act of 2004 provided for 8,000 additional 
     detention beds and 800 additional immigration agents per year 
     from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010, which 
     provision has not been implemented. Over the last two years, 
     the Nation has been left short 5,000 detention beds, and 
     nearly 500 immigration agents short of the authorized amount 
     in the Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004, to the 
     detriment of efforts to combat alien smuggling.
       (B) From 1993 to 2000, there were added, on average, 642 
     new immigration agents per year. Despite the fact that 9/11 
     highlighted the heightened need for these resources, from 
     2001 to 2006, there were added, on average, only 411 new 
     immigration agents, to the detriment of efforts to combat 
     alien smuggling.
       (4) Since 2001, the Congress has not enacted legislation to 
     address the 9/11 Commission recommendations to combat alien 
     smuggling.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 3, line 17, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 3, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 4, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       (d) Additional Resources to Protect Against Alien Smuggling 
     by Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act.--In each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2010, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to increase--
       (1) by 2,000 the number of immigration agents;
       (2) by 250 the number of detention officers;
       (3) by 250 the number of U.S. Marshals to assist the courts 
     in immigration matters;
       (4) by 25,000 the number of detention beds;
       (5) by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent 
     schemes and documents which

[[Page 18878]]

     violate sections 274A, 274C, 274D of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a, 1324c, 1324d).

  Mr. REYES (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
motion to recommit. It is the same point of order that I made on the 
previous motion to recommit. The motion to recommit violates clause 7 
of rule XVI and on page 3, lines 1 and 2, it has the same defect of 
increasing the number of U.S. marshals who do not have jurisdiction 
over immigration violations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit states that the assets 
would go to the immigration matters that are in the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee. It has no reference at all about going to 
conference. I think those are very germane differences.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent a border 
district in Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States 
Border Patrol, including 13 years as sector chief in McAllen and El 
Paso, Texas. I have years of experience of patrolling the tough terrain 
of the U.S.-Mexico border region, supervising thousands of dedicated 
Border Patrol agents and working to do everything in our power to 
strengthen America's borders and to reduce illegal immigration. So I 
know from firsthand personal experience what works and what doesn't 
when it comes to border security and to immigration law enforcement.
  Given my background, Mr. Speaker, I attended many of the hearings on 
the border security and immigration that were called by the majority 
this summer, along with my Republican colleagues. It is obvious from 
the bill before us today, however, that though the Republicans held 
these hearings, they did not actually do very much listening. Rather 
than charging our already overburdened local law enforcement agencies 
with enforcing immigration law, which is, I might point out, a Federal 
responsibility, we need to give the Department of Homeland Security the 
resources that they need to do their job.
  With this motion to recommit, we help rectify the failure of the 
Republican leadership to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is 5 years overdue.
  Specifically, over the next 4 years, we would authorize a total of 
8,000 new Border Patrol immigration agents, 1,000 additional 
immigration detention officers, 1,000 more U.S. marshals and 100,000 
new detention beds.
  The idea that we have here, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If we are really 
serious about helping to stop illegal immigration, we have to give the 
Department of Homeland Security the personnel and the detention space 
that they so desperately need today.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that there are some 
Members of this House who either have no idea what Congress really 
needs to do to help keep Americans safe, or they are more interested in 
scoring cheap political points with the voters back home this election 
season than in actually protecting our country.
  It is now 5 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the 
Republican leadership is still wasting our precious time. We need real 
action now. We don't need more rhetoric. The American people are 
counting on us, and we cannot fail them yet again. Let's finally give 
the Department of Homeland Security the resources that they need to 
keep this great country of ours safe.
  I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit guts the 
bill. There is no question about the fact. My friends on the other side 
of the aisle do not want to have cooperative agreements between the 
Federal Government and State and local law enforcement to help enforce 
the immigration laws.
  The bill that was never messaged by the other body prohibits such a 
practice, and that means that our State and local law enforcement 
officials have their hands tied behind their back when they see 
violations of immigration laws. They have to see a crime actually 
committed, which means that if the other side has their way, you are 
going to have victims, and we don't want that. We want to make sure 
that the immigration laws are enforced, and we need the help, 
voluntarily, of State and local law enforcement to be able to do that.
  The motion to recommit also guts the ability to ensure vigorous 
enforcement against alien smugglers, and it also guts the ability to 
end the catch and release of illegal immigrants caught along our 
borders. Now, in the letter from Secretary Chertoff of the Department 
of Homeland Security that I introduced into the Record earlier in this 
debate, clearly shows the problem that has occurred as a result of an 
injunction against expedited removal of Salvadorans.
  Now, what nationality are the people in the MS-13 gangs? Largely 
Salvadorans. So to get rid of MS-13, we have got to pass this bill and 
vote down the motion to recommit.
  Now, this motion is ineffectual, because only the Appropriations 
Committee can actually fund increases in any account, whether it is the 
Department of Homeland Security or anyplace else.
  Led by Republicans, the House and Senate Appropriations Committee 
have done a stellar job in increasing the funding for new agents. Over 
this year and next, our appropriators will increase Border Patrol 
strength by 2,700 agents. This is close to the maximum number of new 
agents who can realistically be recruited and adequately trained in 
this time span.
  Now, the other side can have a pie-in-the-sky number, thousands or 
hundreds of thousands and the like, but we have a limited capacity to 
recruit and train new agents, and the appropriators are very close to 
the max in doing this.
  Vote down this pernicious motion; pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
2-minute votes on passage of the bill, passage of H.R. 4830, and motion 
to suspend the rules on S. 2832, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, 
nays 226, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               YEAS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman

[[Page 18879]]


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

                               NAYS--226

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1552

  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, DENT, SAXTON, BROWN of South Carolina, Mrs. 
MYRICK, Mr. HALL, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. GRANGER and Mrs. EMERSON changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CLAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277, 
nays 140, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               YEAS--277

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page 18880]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--140

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1556

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

                          ____________________