[House Report 105-644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-644
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 FOR THE RELIEF OF LARRY ERROL PIETERSE

_______________________________________________________________________


   July 24, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and 
                         ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 379]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 379) for the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.


                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary........................................           1
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           2
Hearings...................................................           3
Committee Consideration....................................           3
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           3
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......           3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           3
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           4
Agency Views...............................................           4

                          Purpose and Summary

    This private bill would waive the provisions of the I.N.A. 
that could cause Mr. Pieterse's deportation based on the 
offense pardoned by the Governor.

                Background and Need For the Legislation

    After a seven-year relationship, Larry Pieterse and his 
first wife Eva were married in 1981. Mr. Pieterse entered the 
United States in November 1981 as a P2-1 (2d preference: spouse 
of alien resident), and has resided here ever since.
    In 1983, the marriage began to fall apart. Mrs. Pieterse 
asked Mr. Pieterse to move out. Once he moved out, his wife 
began to stalk him--at one point slashing the tires of a woman 
he was seeing. Mr. Pieterse informed his first wife that he 
wanted a divorce. She asked to come over to talk, at which time 
she planted cocaine in his home and a call was made to the 
police. He was arrested and charged with drug possession. 
During the trial the first wife's diary was presented to the 
court in which she admitted to buying and planting the drugs in 
retaliation for Mr. Pieterse's desire to divorce her.
    After being assured by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service that deportation would not result from a misdemeanor 
conviction, because of financial concerns associated with 
further court proceedings, Mr. Pieterse accepted the plea 
negotiation arranged by his attorney with the State Attorney. 
In accordance with that plea negotiation, Mr. Pieterse entered 
a plea to the misdemeanor charge of possession of drug 
paraphernalia and adjudication of guilt and imposition of 
sentence was withheld. However, after Mr. Pieterse's plea was 
entered a provision was enacted which allows for deportation 
based on a conviction for a past or present drug offense 
(formerly Section 241(a)(11), now Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act). The new provision made 
Mr. Pieterse deportable.
    In 1991, after thorough investigation of the case by Parole 
Board investigators, the State of Florida granted Mr. Pieterse 
a full pardon. However, because Section 241(a)(11) is a Federal 
statute, a state pardon does not prevent a drug conviction from 
being utilized for deportation purposes.
    Pursuant to the recommendation of the I.N.S. agent working 
this case and I.N.S. Headquarters personnel, the Committee 
informed the sponsor of the bill that Interim Decision 3250 
decided that a state drug conviction is not a deportable 
offense if it is established that had the alien been prosecuted 
under federal law, the alien would have been eligible for 
federal first offender treatment under the provisions of 18 
U.S.C. 3607(a). Because Mr. Pieterse's case fell into those 
newly established guidelines, before the Subcommittee could 
consider a private bill for Mr. Pieterse, that administrative 
remedy needed to be exhausted.
    Mr. Pieterse filed a motion to reopen his deportation 
proceeding based on this new interim decision. However, due to 
a new regulation restricting the time period for filing a 
motion to reopen, it has been denied as untimely. Commissioner 
Meissner has refused to assist with waiving the untimeliness 
issue. The I.N.S. has indicated that a private bill is Mr. 
Pieterse's only remedy and indicated they would not object to 
enactment of a private bill.
    The Subcommittee has consulted with the parole investigator 
for the Governor of Florida and the I.N.S. agent in charge of 
this case, as well as received the confidential case analysis 
of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's Office of 
Executive Clemency. Investigations by all three sources were 
exhaustive. All found that the ex-wife clearly planted the 
drugs, and that Mr. Pieterse was guilty of no crime whatsoever.
    Mr. Pieterse remarried in 1990. Since that time, he has 
been the sole provider for his wife, Theresa and has assisted 
in the financial care of her four children from a previous 
marriage. Theresa, an American citizen, does not work and is 
chronically ill. The Pieterses have incurred over $50,000 in 
legal fees attempting to rectify this situation. Mr. Pieterse's 
has unfairly suffered as a result of a series of incidents and 
resulting circumstances beyond his control, and a private bill 
is the only way to remedy this problem.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held 
no hearings on H.R. 379.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims met in open session and ordered favorably reported the 
bill H.R.379 without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On July 16, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 379 
without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 379, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 20, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 379, a bill for 
the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,

                                           June E. O'Neill, Director.  
    Enclosure.

    cc: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
         Ranking Minority Member
H.R. 379--A bill for the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse
    H.R. 379 would grant permanent residence and relief from 
deportation to Larry Errol Pieterse. CBO estimates that 
enacting this legislation would have no significant impact on 
the federal budget. H.R. 379 would not affect direct spending 
or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(1)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8 of the 
Constitution.

                              Agency Views

    The comments of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
on H.R. 379 are as follows:
                        U.S. Department of Justice,
                    Immigration and Naturalization Service,
                                    Washington, DC., July 22, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This refers to H.R. 379 for the relief 
of Larry Errol Pieterse, who was also the beneficiary of H.R. 
765 in the 104th Congress.
    The bill would provide the beneficiary relief from 
deportation as a result of his conviction on April 25, 1984 in 
Duval County, Florida for possession of drug paraphernalia. The 
bill also provides for restoration of status of the beneficiary 
to a lawful permanent resident of the United States, and for a 
waiver of excludability, should the beneficiary depart the 
United States and seek to reenter as a returning resident and 
that his conviction may not be used as a determination that the 
beneficiary has exhibited bad moral character.
    A recent investigation has been conducted and it has been 
determined that there are no substantive changes in the 
beneficiary's situation since the last report. Mr. Pieterse is 
employed as a piping designer in Atlanta, Georgia. His salary 
is $80,000 per year. His wife is unemployed. The beneficiary 
and his spouse and two of her children reside in their 
residence in Lithonia, Georgia and they are renting their 
former residence in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
    Absent enactment of the bill, the beneficiary is subject to 
enforcement of the outstanding order of deportation which has 
been entered in his case by the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review.
            Sincerely,
                                            Allen Erenbaum,
                                                   Acting Director,
                                               Congressional Relations.

                                 
