[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10967-10968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   TROUBLING REPORTS OF MISPLACED PRIORITIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
                      HURRICANE EVACUATIONS PLANS

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, officials recently participating in a 
Texas hurricane evacuation drill were shocked to learn that the Border 
Patrol, CBP, planned to check the citizenship or immigration status of 
the people that they were helping to evacuate. Such a policy is fraught 
with problems. One car with a flat tire can back up an evacuation for 
hundreds of miles. Just think about how disruptive and dangerous 
immigration checkpoints would be, and how many people would remain in 
harm's way for fear of arrest.
  The outrage in Texas, and across the country, was instantaneous. 
Other law enforcement agencies, State officials, and the press 
condemned the announcement, and DHS started backpedaling. But this was 
not an isolated incident or just a mistake. Rather, this comes on the 
heels of other evacuations in which DHS' priorities have been confused. 
Such as the California fires in which undocumented aliens were afraid 
to risk immigration checkpoints and died in the flames. And the 
administration's refusal to suspend immigration enforcement in the wake 
of Hurricane Katrina, as had been done after September 11. The 
immigration enforcement mission must be carried out in the proper 
context; in the face of a natural disaster or mass casualty event, 
public safety and humanitarian exigencies must take priority.
  We asked for an immediate briefing to get to the bottom of this. Just 
hours before they were supposed to come brief us, the Border Patrol 
suddenly said that they had reassessed the policy in light of last 
week's exercise. They told us that CBP's ``primary role in such events 
will be the safeguarding of life. No enforcement role will be 
undertaken that will in any way impede the safe and orderly evacuation 
of any member of the south Texas population.'' Frankly, I would have 
been more reassured if the CBP's purported change in policy had not 
been couched in such equivocal terms.
  Later yesterday, Secretary Chertoff stated that ``Priority Number 
One'' will be ``the safe evacuation of people who are leaving the 
danger zone.'' He said that clear instructions have been given to the 
Border Patrol ``to do nothing to impede a safe and speedy evacuation of 
a danger zone.''
  So the message seems to have been heard. Rest assured that we will be 
watching to make sure that the focus truly is on having all hands on 
deck for humanitarian and evacuation needs, as opposed to diverting DHS 
resources into ill-conceived--and dangerous--immigration enforcement.
  I am very troubled by this episode. It comes on the heels of 
revelations in recent weeks about medical abuse of immigration 
detainees. And it comes in the wake of a massive raid in Iowa that 
disrupted a Department of Labor investigation and resulted in assembly 
line arrest and prosecution of workers, but not of those who may have 
abused them. This cascade of controversy leads me to pose one 
overarching question--what kind of agency is DHS that there need to be 
congressional inquiries on so many of their actions before they take 
into account basic standards of life, safety, health care, due process, 
and constitutional rights?
  I am inserting into the Record a letter about the ill-conceived 
evacuation from leading national Latino and Asian-American civil rights 
groups: the Asian American Justice Center, the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the 
National Council of La Raza. I am also inserting a fact sheet from the 
United Food and Commercial Workers about the raids in Iowa, where there 
are disturbing allegations of union-busting and labor exploitation on 
the part of the factory owners.
  I look forward to working with these groups to make sure that DHS 
remembers its duty to protect the civil rights of everyone on U.S. 
soil, regardless of their race, natural origin, or immigration status.
                                                     May 20, 2008.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chertoff: We are writing to express our 
     utter outrage that the Border Patrol would jeopardize the 
     safety of residents of the Rio Grande Valley in the event of 
     a hurricane evacuation by checking the documents of evacuees 
     before they are allowed to board evacuation buses. If you are 
     interested in undercutting the safety of a large segment of 
     the community you are charged with protecting, this is 
     exactly the way to go about it. Indeed, the very news that 
     such an effort is planned, which was reported by the Rio 
     Grande Guardian on May 14, has already undercut the ability 
     of the federal government to protect the population which 
     could be affected by a hurricane or some other natural 
     disaster.
       To put it quite simply, a substantial segment of the 
     population--immigrants and U.S. citizens alike--will not 
     participate in an evacuation effort if they believe it to be 
     tainted with the goal of immigration enforcement. Americans 
     with immigrant family members will not participate for fear 
     of

[[Page 10968]]

     jeopardizing their loved ones. In addition, most American 
     citizens do not carry documentation that proves their 
     citizenship. If you proceed with this approach, a great many 
     U.S. citizens will be kept off of evacuation buses because 
     they failed to bring their passports and birth certificates 
     when they fled their homes. To put such people on Border 
     Patrol buses and subject them to immigration enforcement, 
     possibly separating them from their family members in a time 
     of crisis, is foolish and offensive.
       We have written to you on this subject in the past, when 
     your decision not to suspend immigration enforcement in the 
     wake of Hurricane Katrina made this the first Administration 
     of either party to jeopardize the safety of disaster victims 
     by conducting immigration enforcement during a rescue and 
     relief operation, We have pointed out publicly that insisting 
     on immigration enforcement in a time of crisis will 
     jeopardize the safety of the American public by undercutting 
     public confidence in vitally important public safety and 
     public health initiatives. To put it bluntly, if the next 
     major crisis is a flu epidemic, the actions of your agency 
     will guarantee that major segments of the population will not 
     come forward for vaccinations out of fear of immigration 
     enforcement.
       This tactic by the Border Patrol is not simply offensive, 
     it is dangerous, and we are shocked and outraged that it has 
     proceeded this far. We urge you in the strongest possible 
     terms to suspend it immediately, and reassure the public that 
     the United States will not undercut our security in a time of 
     crisis by asking for papers before taking people to safety.
           Sincerely,
     Karen Narasaki,
       Asian American Justice Center.
     Rosa Rosales,
       League of United Latin American Citizens.
     John Trasvina,
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
     Arturo Vargas,
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials.
     Janet Murguia,
       National Council of La Raza.
                                 ______
                                 

                       Agriprocessors Fact Sheet


                            Company Summary

       Agriprocessors is one of the world's largest kosher meat 
     producers. The company is based in Postville, Iowa, where it 
     employs over 800 people and produces beef, poultry, turkey, 
     and lamb. The company has a smaller plant in Gordon, 
     Nebraska, which employs roughly 100. Agriprocessors produces 
     meat products under brands such as Aaron's Best, Aaron's 
     Choice, and Rubashkin's. The company's products are sold at 
     well-known retailers such as Trader Joe's and Albertsons.
       The plant has been the center of controversy for a variety 
     of issues, including health and safety at the plant, 
     environmental issues, food safety, and animal welfare.


                        Health and Safety Issues

       In the period of April 2001 to February 2006, OSHA records 
     show no less than 20 violations at Agriprocessors, a 
     meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa. Of these, 12 were 
     identified by OSHA as serious. An examination of OSHA injury 
     logs at the plant reveals over five amputations along with 
     dozens of other serious injuries such as broken bones, eye 
     injuries, and hearing loss.
       On March 20, 2008, the Iowa Occupational Health and Safety 
     Agency (IOSHA) charged Agriprocessors with 39 new health and 
     safety violations with fines totaling $180,000. For 
     perspective, in 2007, IOSHA issued 19 violations for all 
     meatpacking plants in Iowa with fines totaling over $120,000. 
     The new citations at Agriprocessors range from amputation 
     risks, fire hazards, electric shock risks, and improperly 
     labeled hazardous chemicals.
       Numerous reports in the media and an investigation by an 
     independent commission of Rabbis have revealed numerous cases 
     of worker mistreatment including lack of training, job 
     favoritism, and unsafe conditions.
       In January 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that 
     Agriprocessors must obey a National Labor Relations Board 
     (NLRB) ruling to bargain. Agriprocessors refused to bargain 
     in September 2005, after a large majority of its distribution 
     center workers voted to join the United Food and Commercial 
     Workers International Union (UFCW). Agriprocessors argued 
     that, despite having hired them, many of these employees were 
     undocumented and therefore they could not vote or belong to a 
     union. The NLRB ruled against Agriprocessors, maintaining 
     that every employee, regardless of immigration status, has a 
     collective bargaining vote.


                              Environment

       On August 30, 2006, Agriprocessors, Inc., signed a consent 
     agreement with the United States Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA), following a lawsuit arising out of alleged 
     violations of the Clean Water Act. The agreement included 
     specific monitoring and reporting provisions by which the 
     company is required to abide. According to a document 
     obtained by the UFCW through a Freedom of Information Act 
     (FOIA) request, Agriprocessors was in violation of some or 
     all of those requirements as of March 29, 2007. A telephone 
     conversation with the EPA on August 28, 2007 indicated that 
     Agriprocessors notified the EPA that the company had recently 
     completed the required audit. It is unclear if the EPA 
     considers Agriprocessors tardy in completing the audit and 
     what penalties, if any, will be levied. Any findings and 
     recommendations from the audit are also unknown at this time.
       In a separate letter from the EPA to the Iowa Department of 
     Natural Resources (IDNR) concerning Agriprocessors' NPDES 
     permit renewal, the EPA raised concerns about compliance with 
     the Clean Water Act at the Postville plant (see attachment).


                              Food Safety

       Various food safety problems have been documented at both 
     Agriprocessors' facilities, the main plant in Postville, IA 
     and a smaller plant in Gordon, NE. These reports were based 
     on documents from the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service (FSIS) and revealed a variety of issues, including 
     multiple violations related to monitoring procedures for BSE, 
     or ``mad cow.'' The FSIS also issued citations for sewage 
     problems, fecal and bile contamination of beef and poultry 
     along with foreign objects, and some metallic found during 
     sausage and poultry production. Issues at the Postville plant 
     led one FSIS official to issue a Letter of Warning and to 
     comment in the letter, ``These findings lead us to question 
     your ability to maintain sanitary conditions, and to produce 
     a safe and wholesome product.''

                          ____________________