To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.

Mr. Chairman, every country has the right, even the obligation, to control its borders, and that includes the United States of America. Since 9/11, as many have mentioned, that obligation has taken on increased importance and significance, and all of us believe that we need to do a better job. The truth is that the bill before us today really does not do that better job.

We all watch TV, and we see the extravagant comments made, and some of them turn out to be correct. There is something called ``catch and release,'' and actually what it is, is individuals who are apprehended as they unlawfully enter the United States are cited and released with the promise that they will appear. It turns out that over 80 percent of the people who promise to appear do not show up. Now, when I was in local government, we had a failure-to-appear rate in single digits. We were alarmed at that. But even though the administration has seen this rate, they have not stopped doing it. Does this bill order the administration to go out and find those people that fail to appear and bring them in for processing to be deported or whatever the law requires? No, it does not.

When I was in local government, we would have individuals who were undocumented, without papers, who committed a crime, and they would be in our jail. And every week, the Immigration Service would come, and they would take those people away from our jail after their sentences were served, and they would deport them, which we thought was a pretty good deal. Recently, the ball has been dropped on that score. And so we have got people who have committed crimes, who should be deported, and they are not being deported. And sometimes they are being released from jail. Does this bill tell the administration to go out and find those people and bring them in, ready to be deported, as the law provides? No, it does not. It does not.

Does it order the administration to enhance its efforts so that criminals who are in jails who are supposed to be brought in for deportation are brought in? No, it does not do that either. It does not increase the resources.

And it does some things that I think are quite weird and unfortunate. I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee, and I have mentioned section 404 in both committees. Section 404 allows for the exclusion of legal residents if they were born in the following countries: China, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Eritrea or Laos. Why is that? Those countries refuse to accept or unreasonably delay the acceptance of people whom we deport. The answer is not to exclude legal residents who were born in those countries.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will have further comments as the day proceeds.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

It is interesting that in the face of a massive failure of administration of our border security, the Congress responds not with enhancing the remedies and its personnel so that we can enforce the law, but instead comes up with a bill to dramatically change the law.

I mentioned earlier, we have cited and released individuals who never showed up, 80 percent of the time or better. And what did the administration do? They just kept doing it. That is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Well, changing the law is not going to change the fact that this has been a massive failure of administration. Making 11 million people without their papers aggravated felons is not going to remedy the failure of the administration at the border.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned that there was a provision that could criminalize churches. In fact, it is section 202 in the base bill. It provides that people who assist those who do not have their papers could be guilty of a crime and, in fact, requires the seizure of property. We know that some of our churches that are helping the homeless do not ask for papers when they hand out the soup. In this bill it requires seizure of their church properties.

I want to mention another provision I touched on earlier, and that is section 404 of the bill. It does not make any sense at all when we are talking about the need to secure our borders, which every country has a right and an obligation to do, to reinstate the exclusion of legal persons based on the place they were born.

There is a sad part of American history. In 1882, the 47th Congress of the United States passed a bill called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that bill haunted this country, really, into 1943. It provided that people from China could not come.

In section 404, we are de facto reinstituting the Chinese Exclusion Act because we are saying that countries that do not cooperate with us, currently the State Department tells me it is China, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Cuba, then we have the ability to exclude people who are born in those countries.

Let me just give you an example. I have a lot of Vietnamese Americans in my district. Do you think the Communist government in Vietnam cares if we do not let a refugee from their country into the United States? Do you think that the communists in China really would be concerned if a Chinese citizen was escaping from China, because they are facing a forced abortion in China? Do you think that enhancing the Communist governments of Cuba, Vietnam and China is really about securing our Nation's borders? I think not.

This bill is defective in so many ways that a wide number of groups have opposed it. The minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, will submit the list for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who had a distinguished career in the Border Patrol before being elected to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate in Homeland Security to have two of us who serve both on the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, remember at the height of Katrina, that tragedy, and we heard the words, ``Good job, Brownie.'' Well, we have someone equally qualified now in charge of the immigration function in the Homeland Security Department, and I think it is that level of competence that has led us to the problem that we face today, and that is that we have basically dropped the ball, the administration has dropped the ball at the border. They have permitted thousands, tens of thousands, of individuals to promise to appear and then simply to escape into the country.

This bill does not direct the administration to go find them and deport them or have their matter be heard. We used to, on a regular basis during the first Bush administration, the father Bush and the Clinton administration, persistently go and grab criminals after their sentences were served out in State and local incarceration facilities and deport them. The law provides for that. The ball has been dropped on that. This bill does not direct the administration to go find those folks who should have been taken in, who should have been deported.

Mr. Chairman, I have had some questions about section 404 of the act that I have mentioned previously, and I want to spend a moment on that. Incredibly enough, it provides that legal individuals, permanent residents of the United States, could be precluded, barred from reentry if they leave. Let me give you an example of how it would work.

Say your son falls in love with a gal who was born in Cuba. She becomes a legal permanent resident because your son is an American citizen. They go on vacation to London. They try to come back in. Your son gets in, but his wife, a legal permanent resident of the United States, is refused admission. Why? Because Cuba will not accept people who we deport. Now, do you think Fidel Castro cares whether your daughter-in-law is barred or not? I do not think so.

This is a ridiculous provision, and it is punitive towards people who were born in China, in Vietnam, in Cuba and in Ethiopia. It has nothing to do with securing our borders, but it does have a lot to do with the de facto reinstatement of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and has a very pernicious, very pernicious result for those who have fled communism in Vietnam and also in Cuba.

People are calling in wondering about this bill. They cannot believe that it is true. But let me explain how other provisions would work. The proposal is that individuals who are here without their proper documents, something none of us approve of, would become aggravated felons under this bill. If you are a 10-year-old and you came in here with your parents, you do not have your papers, under this bill, you are an aggregated felon. This will not make up for the Bush administration's failure at the border.

Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I would note that we will support this amendment, and I would also like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I do not oppose the amendment. Land line and cellular telecommunications can be severely disrupted in a time of natural disaster, and it is important to have satellite communications available so that they are a reliable alternative for first responders and others involved in natural disasters.

However, I would note that while I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on the amendment; we do not actually need this amendment to have the use of satellite communications. That is something that the administration could have done on its own. There are some other things that they ought to be doing that would really make a difference.

The U.S. Border Patrol needs additional agents, and we need new training for those agents. We need 2,000 additional agents in ICE and 250 additional detention officers. U.S. Marshals need 250 additional personnel and $50 million for vehicles, communications equipment, and miscellaneous equipment. U.S. Attorneys, we need 100 additional personnel on the southwest border and $30 million for additional office space. Why? We have talked about detention beds, but the issue is we need to be able to process these cases, not just hold people. We needs to bring charges against them, those who have an arguable claim, and then adjudicate that claim: either deport them or find that their claim is a valid one.

We need additional immigration judges. We need 2,500 additional enforcement personnel in the Coast Guard, and we need 25,000 detention beds. We need 1,000 investigators for fraudulent schemes and documents. We need at least 100 helicopters and 250 power boats for the Border Patrol and at least one police-type motor vehicle for every three agents for the Border Patrol. We need enough portable computers for every Border Patrol motor vehicle. We need hand-held global positioning systems for each Border Patrol agent.

We need night vision equipment for all Border Patrol agents working during hours of darkness. We need enough body armor appropriate for the climate and risks faced by individual Border Patrol agents. We need to reestablish the Border Patrol anti-smuggling unit. And we need to establish specialized criminal investigator occupations: one for the investigation of violations of immigration law, another for customs laws, and a third for ag laws.

We need to require foreign language training for all our officers in the Department of Homeland Security who come into contact with aliens who cross the border illegally.

Yes, this amendment is worth supporting, but we do not really need it to get satellite communications. We do need, however, to authorize the equipment and the personnel so we can enforce the laws at America's borders both north and south. Unfortunately, the underlying bill before us does not do that. It is not a real enforcement measure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this amendment. The Department of Homeland Security IG has exposed improper conduct or wrongdoing of contractors who maintain Federal contracts with the department, and I think this amendment is along the lines of trying to make sure that the American taxpayers are not going to get ripped off like they have been in the past.

Take a look at the level of fraud in contracting that has occurred in the Middle East, in Iraq; I mean, hundreds of thousand of dollars of stolen money and the stories that are coming out of the taxpayers being ripped off by contractors in the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. We know that the record is not a good one in terms of this administration choosing contractors who will not cheat us. So I do think it is important to have this amendment, and I commend the Congressman for bringing this forward.

In June, the Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from Joel Gallay who is the acting Inspector General of GSA. Mr. Gallay provided a detailed account of significant deficiencies he discovered in evaluating the efficacy of ISIS, and of particular concern to the IG was the procurement of remote surveillance equipment, the lack of progress in implementing the system and what he called the chronic inattention to the proper administration of the contract.

The IG wrote that the program was severely hampered by ineffective management that led to waste, and the report showed deficiencies in the ISIS contract management and in the training of government officials responsible for implementing the program.

Now, it is unfortunate that we need this amendment. We would like to think that our administration would not be inept; that they would have accountability; that they would know how to administer; and they would not have this rip-off of taxpayers that has been identified to the committee repeatedly. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case, and therefore, I do support this amendment to try and stop this rip-off of the taxpayers.

As the philosopher George Santayana cautioned, Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

I hope that this amendment will be adopted, and that will help us from continuing to see the rip-off of American taxpayers in the arena of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just note that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of our full committee, worked very hard on this in collaboration with the majority. I would like to thank him for his extraordinary efforts on this, along with that of the author and the chairman.

As I say, we support this, although it is a sad day that it is so needed because of the poor administration at the department overall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will note that the amendment does not really accomplish anything; although, I certainly really would not want to oppose enforcing the law.

The gentleman mentioned some things that are deficient in the administration of our immigration laws, and they are not new things.

Let me just give you an example on reporting a change of address. Do you know how that is done? You fill out a piece of paper, and you submit it. Do you think it is possible to actually find those pieces of paper, the millions of pieces of paper? Anybody who came in and who is a legal permit resident, you could file it, but no one will ever find it.

We mention often the terrorists that came into our country and did such damage to us on 9/11. You know what? Those people, most of them were not admissible to the United States, but the poor officer at the border, he did not know that. He could not know it because the piece of information that would have told him that was on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket in Florida waiting to be translated into an actual database.

There is a lack of technology in the department, and nothing in this bill changes that.

Further, nothing in this bill orders the President to order his department to go out and get the people who promised to appear and then disappeared. Let us go find those people. Let us bring them to justice. Either they will be deported or they will have their day and find their remedy.

Nothing in this bill tells the department to go out and find the people who have been convicted of crimes, who were supposed to be deported, who instead were released from county jail or from State prison because the department failed to go pick them up. There is nothing in this bill that says, go every day, check with the jails, find out who is a criminal alien and who is about to be released and deport them. There is nothing in there. There are no resources.

So this underlying bill is a failure. The amendment is well-meaning I am sure, but it accomplishes almost nothing. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to oppose it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would simply note that this amendment will not really cure the problems in this bill. It will not get the resources. It will not make the administration do its job. It will not cure the incompetence and lack of performance that we have seen at the borders, both borders, southern and northern, as well as our ports of entry.

It a good idea to enforce the laws. Unfortunately, the administration is not doing so. Nothing in this bill is going to help them do so.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment, but I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment, but I am under no illusion that the amendment will actually achieve what the author hopes.

Over 5 years ago, before there was a Department of Homeland Security, I strongly suggested to the then immigration service that we engage in a biometric study so that we would have a secure biometric system that could be deployed and would be both with our immigration screening systems and also with other databases. We were told by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that they could accomplish that in 6 months for about $2 million. Unfortunately, we never did it.

So we now have biometrics that are incompatible in various databases, law enforcement, immigration, and certain other databases that we have. Consequently, even the system that we have on US-VISIT is not fully functional. I would like to note also that the databases that are utilized by US-VISIT are also not integrated.

It is true, we have caught some people who have committed crimes who should not be admitted to the United States through US-VISIT, and I count that as a good thing. But the 9/11 Commission was looking at the need to stop terrorists. The problem is that US-VISIT is completely disconnected with our databases relative to terrorists, and I do not think this amendment is going to fix that.

I would also like to note that the amendment suggests that we accelerate, I believe, the exit component of US-VISIT.

There is no exit component of the US-VISIT. Basically, it does not exist.

The situation with databases and technology in the department is simply dismal. We should be filing all immigration matters by biometrics so we do not have the confusion we currently have of names that sound similar, or, in some languages, first and last names get traded back and forth rather interchangeably. It is ridiculous that we have not done that; but it is not for lack of asking, urging and insisting.

And I will say something else about getting reports. I sit on the Homeland Security Committee. We are due so many reports by this department, I cannot even begin to count them. We were due a rail security report, I believe, it was last June. We are due reports on cybersecurity; that is several years ago. The department basically thumbs its nose at the United States Congress. It does not provide the reports required under current law. I suppose hope springs internal, and we should ask again, but this resolution will not cure the massive arrogance and incompetence of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I said earlier, I plan to support the amendment. I think it is worth making clear: There is no exit system now. So why does that matter? People come into the United States, they put their fingerprints on the US-VISIT system. It catches some people, and it does not catch others. And then they come into the United States.

We have been talking earlier about making aggravated felons of those who overstay their visas, whether they be visitor or whatever. At the current time, and I do not see this changing any time soon, we do not catch those people. If they leave, we do not know if they have left or if they are here. Because we do not have a connection with our database, we do not know if they are connected with terrorism or not.

So the lack of functionality that we have in technology and the lack of deployment of additional technology has left us more vulnerable than we need to be.

I mentioned earlier this evening that some of the 9/11 terrorists were not admissible to the United States. The officer who inspected them could not know that because the fact of their ineligibility was on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. You cannot search a database if it is on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. We are not that much better off today than we were at that time. I am sure the gentleman is distraught about that. I am as well. I have been trying to get this changed for more than half a decade.

The timeline for a billion-dollar program is a good idea, but I do not have any real confidence that the department will perform any better after this amendment is adopted than it has in the past several years with a lot of pushing and insisting from Members, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. The incompetence just does not quit.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have numerous reports that are required. I sit on the committee, which is why I know this. They never do the reports. They are required by law to submit the reports. We have dozens, hundreds of reports that simply have never been delivered. I hope this is an exception, but I do not have a high level of confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Listen up. According to the 9/11 Commission, up to 15 hijackers should have been deported, but our immigration laws are not being enforced.

We cannot sit here as a body that makes laws and just watch them collect dust as our enemies plot against us.

My amendment expresses a sense of Congress that immigration laws enacted by Congress must be enforced.

This amendment sends a simple message from the Congress to the administration: Enforce the law.

We can debate how to solve the illegal immigration problem until we are blue in the face, and I see some very blue faces around the room, but if the laws we enact are not being enforced, then it is just a bunch of hot air.

I have got a four-page list of immigration laws in front of me that are currently being ignored. This is unacceptable. This non-enforcement must end. The United States Congress must demand it right now.

Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. In 2002, we enacted a law requiring implementation of a system known as Chimera. This means there will be information sharing from Federal databases in the intelligence community to any Federal official considering an immigrant's admissibility or deportability. Well, you knew as you heard information sharing, it is not happening.

Did you know we have a law forbidding public colleges from giving in- State tuition to illegals unless they offer it to every citizen in the United States? It is going on in nine States. Federal law is being violated, and guess what, the Federal Government's doing nothing about it.

Do you know that all registered aliens are required to notify DHS within 10 days of changing address? Failure to do so is a deportable offense. This has tremendous national security value, and it is not being enforced.

In 1996, we made a law requiring the Department of State to suspend all visas to any country who refuses to receive a national who has been deported from the United States. So, hypothetically, if China would not accept people we are deporting back to China, which they are, then the Federal Government is not allowed to issue anymore visas to people coming from China. Who here thinks we are not giving visas to people from China?

The list goes on and on. I will submit it for the Record at this point.

Immigration Laws the Administration is NOT Enforcing

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Integration of all databases and data systems maintained by

[DHS] that process or contain information on aliens

(Sec. 202).

DHS has no plan to accomplish this.

Implementation of an interoperable electronic data system

(also known as the ``Chimera'' system) to provide current and

immediate access to information in databases of Federal law

enforcement agencies and the intelligence community that is

needed to determine whether to issue a visa or to determine

the admissibility or deportability of an alien (Sec. 202).

Chimera is to incorporate the integrated alien data system;

information in Chimera must be readily and easily

accessible--

to any consular officer responsible for the issuance of

visas;

to any Federal official responsible for determining an

alien's admissibility to or deportability from the United

States; and

to any Federal law enforcement or intelligence officer

determined by regulation to be responsible for the

investigation or identification of aliens.

DHS has no plan to accomplish this.

Make interoperable all security databases relevant to

making determinations of admissibility under section 212 of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sec. 302).

DHS has no plan to accomplish this.

Not later than October 26, 2004, DHS and the State

Department shall issue to aliens only machine-readable,

tamper-resistant visas and other travel and entry documents

that use biometric identifiers (Sec. 303).

DHS still issues easily counterfeited temporary cards until

a more secure card is mailed to the alien.

Not later than October 26, 2004, the Attorney General, in

consultation with the Secretary of State, shall install at

all ports of entry of the United States equipment and

software (i.e., machine readers) to allow biometric

comparison and authentication of all United States visas and

other travel and entry documents issued to aliens, and

passports (Sec. 303).

About 500 readers have been put in place in only some POEs,

and all are in secondary, rather than primary, inspection.

Beginning upon implementation of Chimera, not later than 72

hours after receiving notification of the loss or theft of a

United States or foreign passport, DHS and State, as

appropriate, shall enter into Chimera the corresponding

identification number for every lost or stolen passport

(Sec. 308).

illegal immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

An alien presenting a border crossing identification card

(i.e., a laser visa) is not permitted to cross over the

border into the United States unless the biometric identifier

contained on the card matches the appropriate biometric

characteristic of the alien (Sec. 104).

The Administration exempted Mexico from participation in

US-VISIT, so biometrics are not being verified and border

crossing cards are merely inspected visually.

Process all aliens through US-VISIT (the automated entry-

exit control system) so as to ``collect a record of departure

for every alien departing the United States and match the

records of departure with the record of the alien's arrival

in the United States'' (Sec. 110).

Only about 20 percent of nonimmigrants are being processed

through the entry part of US-VISIT; the other 80 percent of

nonimmigrants have been exempted; immigrants (lawful

permanent residents) also have been exempted; and the exit

part of the system is still being tested in pilots at a

handful of POEs.

Aliens who have resided illegally in the United States for

more than six months but less than one year and voluntarily

departed are barred from re-entry for three years; aliens who

have resided illegally in the United States for more than one

year are barred from re-entry for ten years (Sec. 301).

Only about 12,000 aliens were subjected to these bars on

re-entry during the first four years after this provision

took effect: it is estimated that the bars could have been

applied to up to 2.5 mi11ion aliens during that period.

Mandatory detention pending removal of all aggravated

felons and other aliens who are inadmissible or removable due

to criminal convictions (Sec. 303).

Limited detention space and mismanagement of budgets result

in criminal aliens being routinely released from detention

prior to removal: more than 80,000 criminal aliens are free

in American communities.

Mandatory detention of aliens from the time they are issued

a final order of removal until the alien is actually removed

or until 90 days have passed if the alien cannot be removed

within that period (Sec. 305).

In 2004, almost half (34,800) of the more than 75,000

``other than Mexicans'' apprehended by the Border Patrol were

released on their own recognizance pending removal: an

estimated 90 percent of nondetained aliens abscond after

being issued an order of removal.

Upon notification by DHS or the AG that a foreign

government refuses or unreasonably delays the return a

national of that country who is ordered removed from the

United States, the State Department shall suspend the

issuance of immigrant and/or nonimmigrant visas to nationals

of that country (Sec. 307).

A handful of governments routinely refuse to issue travel

documents to their nationals who have been ordered removed

from the United States, but this provision is not invoked.

Each Department of the Federal Government shall elect to

participate in a pilot program to verify employment

authorization of its employees and shall comply with the

terms and conditions of such election (Sec. 402).

The 1996 law created three different pilot programs from

which government agencies could choose; when two of them were

allowed to lapse and only one, the Basic Pilot, was extended,

agencies using one of the lapsed pilots simply stopped

participating rather than sign up for the remaining one.

Public institutions of higher education may not offer in-

state tuition to illegal aliens unless they also offer it to

every citizen of the United States (Sec. 505).

Neither DHS nor the Justice Department has challenged any

of the nine states that have passed laws that violate this

law, despite the fact that Federal law clearly supersedes

state law in the area of immigration.

Any alien seeking admission to the United States or a

change of status who is likely to become a public charge or

who is a public charge is excludable, if seeking admission,

or removable, if already here and seeking adjustment of

status (Sec. 531).

DHS has yet to come up with a definition of ``public

charge'' to implement this provision.

Upon notification that a sponsored alien has received any

means-tested public benefit, the entity (nongovernmental,

Federal, state or local) that provided the benefit shall

request full reimbursement by the sponsor (Sec. 551).

Only one lawsuit seeking reimbursement has been filed, and

it was filed by private citizens trying to force the Los

Angeles public hospital system to seek reimbursement from

sponsors: the case was dismissed on technical, not

substantive, grounds.

States and localities may not adopt policies, formally or

informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with

DHS regarding the immigration status of individuals

(sanctuary policies) (Sec. 642).

Neither of the two sanctuary states, Maine and New Mexico,

nor any of the multitude of sanctuary cities have been

challenged by DHS or DOJ for violating this provision: soon

after this law passed, the City of New York challenged the

law in court and the court upheld the law and ordered the

City to rescind its sanctuary policy: instead, the City

modified its policy slightly, but the Federal Government has

not challenged it.

DHS shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or

local government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the

citizenship or immigration status of any individual within

the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by

law (Sec. 642).

This law also required the establishment by then-INS of the

Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which is available 24/

7 to state and local police seeking information on alienage

and citizenship: however, state and local police who contact

ICE about illegal aliens they have taken into custody are

routinely rebuffed and told to simply release the aliens.

immigration and Nationality Act

The Secretary of DHS is authorized to expand expedited

removal procedures to any or all aliens who have not been

admitted or paroled into the United States and who have not

affirmatively shown to the satisfaction of an immigration

officer that they have been physically present in the United

States continuously for two years immediately prior to this

determination (Sec. 235).

The Secretary has only recently used this authority to

expand expedited removal to nine Border Patrol sectors. The

fact that our Federal court system is clogged with appeals of

removal orders--the number of cases filed in Federal court

rose from just over 2,000 in 1994 to more than 14,500 in

2004--and the fact that the illegal alien population in the

United States continues to grow would suggest that expedited

removal needs to be expanded along the entire land border of

the United States.

Once an alien is apprehended and removal proceedings are

initiated, DHS may detain the alien, release him on a minimum

$1,500 bond, or release him on conditional parole (Sec. 236).

Since on estimated 90 percent of non-detained aliens

abscond after being issued an order of removal, and since DHS

has the authority to detain aliens pending removal, it makes

no sense that almost half (34,800) of the more than 75,000

``other than Mexicans'' apprehended by the Border Patrol were

released on their own recognizance pending removal in 2004.

Marriage fraud, used in the past by at least nine

terrorists to prolong their stay in the United States, is a

deportable offense (Sec. 237).

ICE has announced that single-instance marriage fraud is a

low priority and so will not be investigated or prosecuted.

Domestic violence, false claims to US citizenship and

voting illegally are deportable offenses (Sec. 237).

Illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence can

obtain green cards through the Violence Against Women Act,

but the abuser is rarely prosecuted and even more rarely

deported; as happened in New York City with Mayor Giuliani's

``broken-window policing,'' stepped up enforcement of these

``low priority'' violations would begin to reassert the rule

of law in our immigration system.

Failure of an alien intending to remain in the United

States for thirty days or longer to apply for registration

and fingerprinting during that thirty-day period is a

deportable offense (Sec. 262).

Enforcement of this provision would be of obvious national

security value, and it would send a clear message that

security is our top priority.

All registered aliens are required to notify DHS within ten

days of changing addresses; failure to do so is a deportable

offense (Sec. 266).

This, too, has important national security value.

Any individual or entity that ``encourages or induces an

alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States,

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming

to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law''

is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment (Sec. 274).

A strong case could be made that localities like Herndon,

Virginia, that are using taxpayer funds to build and promote

day-labor sites for aliens they know to be illegal, and

government entities like the Illinois Housing Development

Authority, which has set aside taxpayer funds to provide

mortgages to illegal aliens, are ``encourag[ing illegal

aliens] to reside in the United States.'' The same case can

be made against banks that accept consular ID cards to open

accounts or allow illegal aliens to use individual taxpayer

ID numbers to get home loans.

It is unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a

fee an alien who is not authorized to work in the United

States, and it is unlawful to hire any individual without

verifying the employment authorization of that individual,

either through the I-9 process alone or combined with the

Basic Pilot program (Sec. 274A).

While it is exceedingly difficult to establish that an

employer knew an employee was illegal, it is not difficult to

establish that an employer failed to complete the I-9

process; it is also not difficult to encourage employers to

use the Basic Pilot to verify work eligibility.

Aliens who commit fraud, use false or altered documents, or

make misrepresentations on applications for immigration

benefits are ineligible for the benefits (Sec. Sec. 212, 237,

340, among others).

Not only does USCIS grant benefits to aliens despite

indications of, and sometimes even evidence of, fraud or

misrepresentation, ICE rarely investigates cases of alleged

benefits fraud referred by USCIS. USCIS estimates that ICE

declines to investigate over 70 percent of the benefits fraud

referrals it receives. It is exceedingly rare for either

agency to attempt to rescind a benefit once it is granted.

Millions of new immigrants come to America every year, and the numbers are rising. Do you know why these numbers continue to increase? Because when we don't enforce the laws, we send the message that we don't take our laws seriously.

We don't pass laws to be ignored. Join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Houston for her comments. I appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time.

And might I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner because, as I said in the Rules Committee, I believe, between the ranking chairman of the Judiciary Committee and certainly the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, there are a lot of good intentions. But, frankly, I think it is overwhelming to expect that, in this short period of time, that we can answer all of the concerns of the American people and answer the question of 20 years of shortsighted enforcement-only legislation to address this question of the enormity of illegal and undocumented individuals but, in particular, to address the question of security. That is the underpinning of this border security bill, and that is where I believe that we have a number of failures.

The American people have polled repeatedly on one concept. That is whether or not they consider the immigration question a crisis worthy of our attention. But when they are asked about solutions, they specifically suggest the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. Strong enforcement at the border, which many legislative initiatives offered by Kolbe and Gutierrez, offered by members of the Homeland Security Committee, offered in Judiciary, offered by H.R. 4044, the Rapid Response Border Protection bill, all had reasonable responses, enforcement and earned access to immigration.

But allow me to tell my colleagues why this particular bill is going to fall on its own weight and, as I heard someone say, the wheels are going to fall off, unless we turn back the bill and work together.

It is important to note that as we stand here on the floor today, there are members of the United States military on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan whose family members are undocumented. We have a program that many of us supported that would allow those who are on the frontlines of Iraq to become documented, legal permanent residents. In fact, we heard a story of a young man who was killed on his way to get fingerprinted, tragically. But it allows them to be able to be documented, and they can then access legalization for their family members.

While they are on the frontlines of Iraq, the very presence of their grandmother, their mother, their sister or their father will allow them to be incarcerated as a felon under this bill, will allow them to be detained under this bill. And then you want to ask the employers of America, who I believe should be responsible for who they hire, not to verify people whom they may question, and that means that they will think that anyone with a name that sounds unlike American should be verified.

That will be close to 146 million persons who are currently employed and then 54 million persons who are eligible for employment. The basic pilot program will fall under its own weight. Why? Because the technology is not yet able to document and detail whether one name that has a particular sounding name is equal to the other name. Our technology does not equal that kind of competence at this point.

And we have not answered the question of the funding because we require mandatory detention. The question is what kind of resources will be utilized.

There are many elements to this bill that we could find common ground on, and those are the technology aspects. I believe there should be more in there to provide for our Border Patrol agents, the equipment, the night goggles, the computers that we have been saying they need over and over again, the helicopters, power boats and training. But that, unfortunately, was not allowed in this legislation.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, might I thank those who have done the heavy lifting, might I thank the work that the Hispanic Caucus has done on behalf of all immigrants or individuals that may be undocumented. I value the fact that we as a Congress have been charged with the responsibility of securing America. Criminalizing undocumented hotel workers and restaurant workers does not do the job. Let us turn this bill back so that we will have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner.

I rise in support of my Rapid Response Border Protection Amendment, H.R. 4044, to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437, and against the underlining bill as it is presently drafted.

H.R. 4437 has a substantial number of provisions that would increase border security, but it is lacking in one very important respect. It does not provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources that it needs to secure the border. My amendment would address that deficiency.

For instance, aircraft and watercraft are invaluable tools for spotting people illegally crossing our borders and for assisting in their apprehension. They also are essential for rescue operations when people crossing the border need emergency assistance. The Secretary of the Homeland Security Department would be required to increase the number of Border Patrol helicopters by at least 100 and to increase the number of Border Patrol powerboats by at least 250.

The Border Patrol currently suffers from a severe shortage of serviceable, police-type vehicles. In many locations, agents have to wait for vehicles to be brought in from the field by other agents on the previous shift before they can begin their duties. The Secretary would be required to establish a fleet of such motor vehicles of at least one vehicle per every three Border Patrol agents.

The lack of portable computers precludes Border Patrol agents from utilizing biometric databases in the field. This results in inadequate checks being performed before suspects are released. The Secretary would be required to ensure that each police-type motor vehicle in the Border Patrol's fleet is equipped with a portable computer with access to all necessary law enforcement databases.

Smugglers and other criminals historically have used the cover of darkness to cross our borders. Although technology that enables the user to see at night has been available for many years, it is not readily available to all of the Border Patrol agents, and the Border Patrol is one of the few law enforcement agencies that conducts most of its operations in remote areas during the hours of darkness. The Secretary would be required to ensure that sufficient quantities of state-of-the-art night vision equipment are provided for every Border Patrol agent who works during the hours of darkness.

Body armor is a relatively inexpensive piece of protective equipment that has saved the lives of countless law enforcement officers. The Secretary would be required to ensure that every Border Patrol agent is issued high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the individual officers.

Currently, fewer than 11,000 Border Patrol agents are responsible for patrolling more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders. Because of the need to provide continuous, around-the-clock coverage, no more than 25 percent of those agents are securing our borders at any given time. That averages one Border Patrol agent every 3 miles. A substantial increase in personnel is desperately needed. The Secretary would be required to hire an additional 10,000 agents.

Recruitment and retention problems make it difficult to maintain a large force of experienced Border Patrol agents. One of the key difficulties in this regard is the fact that the pay lags behind that of many other law enforcement officers. The amendment would address this problem by requiring the Secretary to raise the base pay for all journey-level Border Patrol agents to a GS-13 level.

Nonimmigrant S visas are available for aliens who assist the Government with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal organization or a terrorist organization. The amendment would establish a third category for aliens who assist the United States Government with the investigation or prosecution of a commercial alien smuggling organization or an organization engaged in the sale or production of fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully. A protection program would be available for informants who need it.

A rewards program would be established for encouraging informants to assist in the elimination or disruption of commercial alien smuggling operations or an organization engaged in the sale or production of fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully. A protection program would be available if needed.

Those who object to the cost of H.R. 4044 need to recall the enormous costs, not just in monetary terms, of the last terrorist attacks. If we want to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must be prepared to devote whatever resources are necessary to keeping terrorists out of our country.

I urge you to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what disappoints me most on this legislation is, the men and women that are on the front lines, the Border Patrol agents, are the most left out of this particular legislative vehicle.

Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that an amendment that was offered by myself and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member, specifically gives tools to those Border Patrol agents, who I believe are the people that are entrusted with the responsibility of securing the borders by the American people.

We do not have aircraft and watercraft, which are valuable tools. We do not have the helicopters that are necessary. We do not have the necessary Border Patrol agents, which in my amendment to H.R. 4044, the bill that we offered, the homeland security legislation, we would have added 10,000 more agents. We would have added provisions about recruitment and retention problems so that we would have an experienced Border Patrol agency.

Mr. Chairman, my friend, Mr. Reyes, indicated the importance of a secure homeland with the right kind of personnel. We would have raised the base pay for a journey level Border Patrol agent to a GS-13. We leave out the very men and women on the front lines, and I would hope we will go back and fix this legislation to do that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very much.

Let me just say, Mr. Johnson is a good friend from Texas, and I know that this sense of Congress reflects the attitude of the people of Texas and America that we should enforce the immigration laws. I am going to enthusiastically join and support him on this idea of enforcing the Nation's immigration laws.

But what I do want to indicate is that this is building on some enforcement laws that we have had, and that is that, over the years, we have enacted 20 enforcement laws in the last 20-years. We have increased the Border Patrol budget by a factor of 10, but it has not been enough. We have tripled the number of agents, but we need to do more, and we have created a Department of Homeland Security.

What we have not been able to do is write real, if you will, effective immigration law that brings in the comprehensive nature of immigration law which provides, if you will, an earned access to legalization and the building up and the securing of our borders by the enhancement of our Border Patrol agents, for example, scholarships, recruitment.

There is another amendment coming up about making sure that clothing comes from the right country. I think this is a good amendment, but I think that we can do better by looking at this from a comprehensive perspective and building and writing the kinds of laws that would be effective, if you will, to ensure that we are enforcing those laws.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished gentleman that offered the amendment, that is why we have suggested that we can work on these issues in a bipartisan manner. I think you have a very reasonable amendment, and might I just say that the National Border Patrol Council supports this amendment because it involves officer and public safety.

Since early last year, the Border Patrol uniforms, including the patches, the identifying patches, have been made outside of the country. It would be quite simple for someone to bribe a low-paid factory worker or truck driver in order to procure a quantity of uniforms for the purpose of masquerading as a Border Patrol agent. Obviously this makes sense, and that is why part of the problem with the underlying bill is, frankly, that it is weighted down by the criminalizing of the undocumented and not focusing on the criminalizing of the criminals. This, in fact, is a very instructive amendment because it helps to ensure the sanctity of the Border Patrol officers' uniform and their work. Inasmuch as the Border Patrol's work is done at night and low-light surroundings, it would be nearly impossible for the genuine Border Patrol agents to spot the imposters until they were close enough to harm the agents if they had a false uniform. Likewise, members of the public could easily be fooled into believing that the imposters had authority to stop and question them, and they could perpetrate crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the fact that we could be doing more on this bill. Clearly, we want our Border Patrol agents to be well equipped and well uniformed. That is the missing part of this bill. The uniform ``Made in the USA'' is a good statement to make, but you cannot have Border Patrol agents without power boats, helicopters, night goggles, computers; and you cannot have them without recruitment, scholarship, and increased numbers to secure the border.

That is what we should be doing with the underlying bill, but I do support the amendment and just wish we could do more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

The bill before us today incorporates both border security and immigration enforcement provisions and is the result of a strong collaborative effort by the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary to address these important issues.

The Committee on Homeland Security began this process last month when we introduced the bill, H.R. 4312, entitled the Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. This measure focused on border security provisions and reflected a truly bipartisan effort among members of my committee to solve lingering problems in our border defenses. I particularly appreciate the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), our ranking member, in achieving important goals in this bill. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez). Thanks to their cooperation, we were able to pass H.R. 4312 on a voice vote with absolutely no opposition.

I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and his staff for their diligence and willingness to cooperate with us in expanding and improving this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I will focus in my remarks on the border security aspects of the bill because, since September 11, it has become more and more apparent that our borders are in crisis. In addition to whatever social issues there are with immigration or whatever criminal issues there are with immigration, there are now, since September 11 brought home to us dramatically, the terrorism aspects of illegal immigration.

The homeland security provisions of this bill try to, and I believe do, very effectively address the issue of terrorism that must be confronted if we are to survive as a people.

This legislation requires 100 percent coverage of our land and maritime borders, including physical infrastructure, border patrol personnel and the use of all available technology.

It also requires a joint and collaborative effort between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to use all available military technology to ensure that our borders are controlled and sealed. Most importantly, I believe, and as importantly as any other provision, it ends the policy of catch and release, which has been discussed in the previous hour; and it mandates expedited removal. We no longer have the luxury; and if we are talking about, I know the gentleman from Michigan before was talking about, who has been in control and who has not been in control, I would be the first to say that we are dealing with a bipartisan problem which is why it requires a bipartisan effort. That was the bill that we attempted to pass out of the Homeland Security Committee, because we have to end such policies as catch and release and expedited removal.

I would hope that, as the debate goes forward, both sides acknowledge the good faith of the others. This is too serious an issue to be trivialized or demagogued. It is too serious an issue to be looked at in any kind of casual way. I listened very carefully to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich). I understand his concerns about there not being guest worker provisions in this bill; but I believe that if the American people are to take us seriously, they want to see us address the issue of border control before we go on to any other expansion of rights or any other legalization of those who are here already or even setting in process a motion where we make it easier for workers to come into this country. We have to show we can control the borders before we go further, and that is the purpose of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as the grandson of immigrants who grew up in an immigrant neighborhood in New York City, I yield to no one in my admiration of what immigrants have contributed, are contributing, and must continue to contribute to our country; but it has to be legal immigration. I say that. Some of the things that maybe were looked at or not looked at prior to September 11 can not longer be ignored. They have to be addressed. We have to address head on the issue of illegal immigration because of its ties to international terrorism.

So while I grew up in a neighborhood of immigrants as a child, I also saw many of my neighbors killed on September 11. So neighborhoods have changed; things have changed. What was tolerated before September 11 maybe in some quarters can no longer be tolerated now. We no longer have the luxury of looking the other way. We have to address head on this issue of illegal immigration. That is what this bill is about. Certainly the aspects passed from the Homeland Security Committee, that is what they were about, combating illegal immigration and thereby also undercutting international terrorism.

I would ask the debate go forward in a reasonable way where we can exchange ideas, confront the issues that are confronting our Nation on this issue of illegal immigration.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's reference to Santa Claus shows what a pleasure it is to deal with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) who is a former Federal prosecutor, a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, and the former attorney general of California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I, once again, admire the passion of the gentleman from New Jersey and assure the gentleman that I hold in high esteem the contributions immigrants have made, are making and will continue to make to this country. I believe, however, that it is essential that we put it on a legal basis in fairness to those who are coming here legally and also because of the situation that developed after 9/11. Having said that, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and he and I, in our own way, will be able to resolve some of our differences.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard Maritime Transportation, for the purposes of a colloquy.

I would say to the gentleman that it is my intent that maritime border security strategies called for in H.R. 4437 should be developed under the framework of the Strategy for Maritime Security and in a way that complements the maritime security strategies that are being implemented under that plan

Nothing in this act should be understood to divert existing responsibilities for maritime border security or more generally any component of security in the maritime domain from the Coast Guard to any other entities in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the new member of the committee, who, also, is back from surgery.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very lively and interesting debate. I would hope that as we go through the amendments and into tomorrow, we would keep focusing on the fact that everyone here is well-intentioned.

We face a crisis on our borders. We face a national crisis. We face a crisis involving international terrorism, and we must fix it. We must take significant first steps. That is what this bill is.

We can have honest disagreements, but it is wrong, I believe, to be impugning motives, to be suggesting someone is anti-immigrant.

For instance, the gentlewoman from California is talking about section 404. What that does is give the Secretary of Homeland Security the right, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take action if the Secretary deems it necessary.

That to me is an appropriate power, an appropriate discretionary power to be given to the Secretary of Homeland Security at a time when our homeland security is being threatened. It is irresponsible to not give the Secretary that power, and that is what this is about. It is a power, by the way, which the Secretary of State has had for many years.

As we go forward, let us keep in mind that this country was built by immigrants, that immigrants are essential. They are the life's blood of our Nation. All of us are descendents of immigrants. At the same time, for our country to survive, for our country to be secure, for our country to be safe we must be as certain as we can be that the immigrants entering this country deserve to be in this country, that they are no threat to this country.

As long as we have this mass entrance of millions and millions of illegal immigrants, we do not have that security that we need. We do not have the sense of safety that we need, and we are not protecting ourselves to the extent we must if we are going to avoid having another September 11.

I lost many people in my district on September 11. I do not want another 9/11 commission to come back in several years and say why did you not close

the borders, why did you not allow another 9/11 to go forward, to happen? Why could you not stop another 9/11? Because you did not have the guts to take the tough action.

We are being confronted here by many forces including big business. Big business does not want this. We also have advocacy groups that do not want it. We cannot yield our responsibility to any outside pressure groups, whether they be big business or advocacy groups. I urge the adoption of this legislation as we go through this process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for this very fine amendment. It is important to the bill. It is a well-intentioned and well-drawn amendment. I am willing to accept the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful consideration and for all that he does on this very, very vital issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and let me express my strong support for this amendment and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the contribution he has made, for the dedication he brings to this issue.

I also would say, parenthetically, if someone with his accent and my accent are supporting this bill, it shows how extensive and wide- ranging the support is for this bill. It shows that all Americans, from one end of the country to the other, one accent to the other, stand behind a bill which is good, an amendment which really adds substantially to the bill and does provide the level of integrity and honesty and interaction that we need.

With that, I express my strong support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that I stand in strong support of his amendment. This is just one more example of the outstanding contributions to public service made by the gentleman from Texas. I support it and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and there is no one who is not on the committee who has done more work than the gentleman from Arizona to really work on the issue of terrorism in the intelligence area, in the homeland security area, and I strongly support this amendment.

It is in keeping with the spirit of the law. It is in keeping in the spirit that we should be searching for as we try to stop illegal immigration, stand behind those on the borders who are protecting us against this massive increase of illegal immigrants.

So I am proud to stand by and endorse the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, the Castle amendment is extremely well written. I am proud to endorse it.

I also would emphasize that the points raised in the amendment do refer to points that we have been asking DHS to provide us information on. This amendment will give us more of the muscle that we need to ensure DHS is in compliance. I thank the gentleman for his amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, rise in strong opposition to this bill, which fails to provide the strengthened border security our nation needs to deter terrorists while also leaving many of our internal immigration problems unresolved. This bill claims to address the problem of illegal immigration, but it offers an enforcement-only solution, where a comprehensive strategy is needed. I planned to offer two amendments to improve this bill, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican- controlled Rules Committee refused to permit them to be debated and voted on today on the House Floor. Many of my colleagues also were blocked from offering important amendments.

Shutting out more than 100 amendments certainly represents serious ``sins of omission'' by this Republican Congress. There are also many ``sins of commission'' tucked into this bill. For example, the bill:

Subjects members of churches and other humanitarian organizations to criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison if they provide food, shelter, or health care to undocumented immigrants, even if they are in desperate or life-threatening circumstances; and the bill

Reclassifies 11 million undocumented immigrants--including children-- as aggravated felons who could be arrested and imprisoned for more than a year if they are caught.

These provisions do not make us safer. Mr. Chairman, and they do not reflect the values of our nation.

The first amendment I planned to offer today would have tightened security on the millions of cargo containers that enter our country from overseas, from Mexico and from Canada. Seven million cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports every year. These containers represent an important component of our economy, providing consumers with an enormous array of choices. In Massachusetts, the port of Boston--which became an international cargo port in 1630 and is the oldest continually active major port in the Western Hemisphere--handles 1.3 million tons of general cargo and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargos every year. Clearly, such global commerce is critical to the economic health of our country.

At the same, however, cargo containers represent tempting targets for terrorists. Arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'', there will be terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario for our country. Steven Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former officer in the Coast Guard, wrote in his book

America the Vulnerable about ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' delivered by a cargo ship to one of our ports. [Page 84].

To balance the need to participate in the global economy and the security concerns associated with the millions of cargo containers entering our ports every year, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Security division developed the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Under C-TPAT, shippers commit to improving the security of their cargo shipments, and in return, they receive a range of benefits from our government.

Specifically, if shippers provide information about their operations to Customs and Border Protection, their goods are less likely to be inspected at the border. They basically receive an ``E-Z Pass'' from our government, sort of like drivers who speed right through toll booths without having to stop.

The problem is that Customs and Border Protection grants these special benefits without verifying that the security information provided by the shippers--is reliable, accurate and effective. According to the GAO, Customs and Border Protection has conducted validations at the facilities of only 11 percent of all the C-TPAT members. [''Key Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved,'' May 26, 2005]

Basically, the C-TPAT program really is a ``STAND PAT'' program. It takes a complacent posture towards port security by giving companies the benefit of speedy approval at the border without checking to make sure that promised security measures actually are in place at their facilities.

Customs and Border Program also has a related program, called ``FAST'', which stands for Free and Secure Trade program. The FAST program requires that trucking companies subject their drivers to background checks and participate in the C-TPAT program. Again, the problem is that the truckers get waved through the FAST lane, but the trucking companies' facilities are rarely, if ever, inspected to validate that the security policies they've promised to implement are fact or fiction.

This makes the FAST program, really the ``FAST ONE'' program, since truckers are pulling a fast one on our country by getting benefits without having to demonstrate the promised security policies.

My amendment would have required Customs and Border Protection to verify the security measures at the facilities of each member of the C- TPAT and FAST programs within one year of the enactment of this bill and twice a year thereafter. Moreover, the amendment would require Customs and Border Protection to establish policies if members do not live up to their obligations under the C-TPAT and FAST programs.

Now, some of my colleagues may argue that we simply do not have the resources to conduct these validations. Or real validations would bring global commerce to a grinding halt.

The numbers simply do not support this assertion. Customs and Border Protection has approximately 100 inspectors to conduct validations, and there are approximately 11,000 ``STAND PAT'' and ``FAST ONE'' members.

If each inspector performed only about 2 validations per week, all the facilities could be validated in less than a year--within 45 weeks or so.

When it comes to these two programs, we should follow the Reagan Doctrine of cargo inspection and Trust and Verify that the shippers are performing as promised.

The second amendment I would have offered today, if the Republican- controlled Rules Committee it in order, deals with the issue of torture of detainees. Mr. Chairman, this issue has received considerable attention recently--and for good reason--but we cannot have a full and open debate today on the House Floor because the Republican majority has shut out my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides that if an alien is apprehended at or between a port of entry or along the interational land or maritime borders of the United States, and is then detained pursuant to the new authorities set forth in Section 301 of the bill, than that alien shall not be transferred or rendered to any country if there are substantial grounds to believe that the alien would be in danger of being tortured, or of being subjected to cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Convention Against Torture already bars the practice of torture, or of rendering persons to countries where they are likely to face torture or other forms of cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. This treaty was signed by the United States during the Reagan Administration, and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

Despite our commitments under this treaty and the statements made by the Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the U.S. sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries notorious for human rights violations. This practice known as ``Extraordinary Rendition,'' and amounts to nothing more than Outsourcing Torture.

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture explicitly requires parties to refrain from sending persons to countries where they are likely be tortured.

In order to be able to argue that it is meeting this obligation under the Convention, the Bush Administration has been engaging in a piece of legalistic fiction. The Administration obtains ``diplomatic assurances'' that the transferred detainee will not be tortured, and then based on these assurances, it argues that our obligation under the Convention has been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the person we are sending to one of these known torturing countries will, in fact, be tortured.

In other words, our government is relying on ``diplomatic assurances'' or promises from countries like Egypt or Syria that they will not torture transferred detainees. Based on the word of Syria or Libya, our government is arguing that our obligations under the Convention Against Torture are satisfied. Apparently, the Bush Administration's motto here is ``In Syria We Trust''.

This is outrageous. Is there any Member who thinks that we should accept the word of Syria and Libya--longtime human rights violators?

Here is how the State Department's annual human rights report describes typical Syrian methods of interrogation:

``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .''

My amendment reaffirmed our commitment to the Convention Against Torture. It said that we should not transfer aliens who have tried to enter this country to other countries where they are likely to face torture. It said that we should not rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' from torturers that they will refrain from engaging in torture. Torture mocks the core values on which our nation was founded. And it endangers our men and women in uniform who we send abroad to fight for our freedom.

We should not be sending aliens who have sought entry into this country, and who have been apprehended and detained by the U.S., to other countries where they are likely to be tortured and then pretend to stand against torture. This is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee made in order only 15 of the more than 120 amendments submitted to the Committee. These amendments could have substantially improved the bill on the Floor today. Without these perfecting amendments, I cannot support this flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``No.''