Criminal Alien Accountability Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 211 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule providing for consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

The rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration, and it provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 211.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy reform is overdue for passage. Despite its critics, S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, does not exclude anyone from filing for bankruptcy. Instead, it implements a simple means test to shield debtors who make below their State's median income and to determine if a higher income debtor has the ability to partially pay back his or her creditors.

To phrase it simply, bankruptcy reform is financial accountability. It protects our system against fraud and abuse. And it asks those who have the means to repay as much of their debts as they can.

For at least four previous Congresses, members have been trying to reform our ``when in doubt, bail out society'' in favor of personal responsibility. Bankruptcy should not be a financial planning tool, and it should be available for legitimate emergency situations only. Our bankruptcy system should fit the needs of the individual, no more, no less. With this rule, and

passage of the underlying legislation, S. 256 we will finally see some movement in the right direction.

Bankruptcy reform is important to help speed up court hearings, because it only takes a few fraudulent or misdirected cases to stall a court for hundreds of other legitimate bankruptcy filings. Federal bankruptcy filings per judgeship have increased by 71 percent from 2,998 in 1992 to 5,130 in 2003; and it represents the largest case load in our Federal court system. This creates a backlog that slows down the process for those really in need of bankruptcy protection.

Bankruptcy reform provisions found in S. 256 include, but are not limited to: abuse prevention so debtors who have committed crimes of violence or engaged in drug trafficking are no longer able to use bankruptcy to hide their finances;

Needs-based credentials, where if a debtor has the ability to partially repay debts, he or she must either be channeled into a form of bankruptcy relief that requires repayment or risk having the bankruptcy case dismissed as an abusive filing;

Spousal and child support protections to help single parents and their children by closing a loophole used by some spouses currently avoiding their child support responsibilities. This would put child support and alimony payments as a first priority, ahead of credit card debt and attorney's fees. Child support and alimony payments are currently seventh in the priority list of payments;

Closing the mansion loophole require a debtor to live in a State for at least 2 years before he or she can claim that State's homestead exemption. The current requirement is 91 days, allowing some debtors to shield themselves from creditors by putting all of their equity into their homes;

Debtor protections requiring potential debtors to receive credit counseling before they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief, allowing them to make an informed choice about bankruptcy considering all alternatives and consequences;

Further, small business protections to defend against needless bankruptcy lawsuits. Under current law, a business can be sued by a bankruptcy trustee and forced to pay back monies previously paid by a firm that later files for bankruptcy protection;

Additionally, family farm relief by doubling debt eligibility for chapter 12 filing, allowing periodic inflation adjustment of this debt, and lowering the required percentage of a farmer's income that must be derived from farming operations.

There are business privacy protections to prohibit the disclosure of names of a debtor's minor children with privileged information kept in a nonpublic record. Current law allows nearly every item of information supplied by a debtor in connection with his or her bankruptcy case to be made available to the public.

S. 256 passed the Senate with a clear 74 to 25 majority. The House judiciary markup on March 16 included rollcall votes on 11 amendments. The reforms included in this legislation will be very beneficial to our society without ignoring the need of those suffering financial uncertainty. This legislation deserves a clean up-or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and pass S. 256 bankruptcy reform.

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

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

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida that medical expenses are specifically covered in the bill, and all other extenuating circumstances are covered in section 102 of the bill allowing judicial latitude.

At this point, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing forth those statistics and that stack of documents that he just went over; and I want to add one more statistic to that, and this is that since the 105th Congress, the House and the Senate have passed bankruptcy reform legislation a dozen times, with a vote tally of 2,455 for and 871 against.

To my distinguished colleague from Florida, in regard to the amendment process in the Committee on Rules, my colleague knows that the other side was offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. That substitute amendment could have included all 35 Democrats, who my colleagues allege were shut out. Every one of those 35 amendments could have been included in an amendment in the nature of a substitute; but apparently they just could not get their act together, did not have an amendment and passed on that opportunity.

In regard to the gentlewoman from California and the concerns about identity theft, opponents of the means test of the bankruptcy legislation have attempted to claim that a debtor should be except from the means test if the debt is related to identity theft. This is a red herring, Mr. Speaker, because consumers who are victims of identity theft do not owe the debts that result from identity theft; and, therefore, it is not an issue addressed by the bankruptcy court.

We all understand the sentiment of trying to help identity theft victims. Amendments related to identity theft, though, are not necessary. They would inadvertently do serious harm to consumers and create a significant potential for fraud and abuse. A consumer who is victimized when an identity thief establishes credit in the consumer's name is not liable for any of the debts incurred by the identity thief. The maximum amount I think is $50, and that is even waived by the credit card companies if it is proved to be fraudulent. Bankruptcy relief is, therefore, not necessary in regard to identity theft.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

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

In the 105th Congress, H.R. 3150, bankruptcy reform, passed 306-118.

In the 106th Congress, H.R. 8333 passed the House, 313-108.

In the 107th Congress, H.R. 333 passed the House 306-108.

In the 108th Congress, H.R. 975 passed the House 315-113.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) was not one of those voting in the affirmative on any of those occasions, but I want to point out to the gentleman in regard to his concern over medical and health- related expenses for a debtor, spouse, and dependents, on line 23, page 8, continuing through line 10 page 9, this covers the treatment of medical expenses for the debtor, spouse of the debtor, and dependents of the debtor. It expressly includes not just actual medical expenses but expenses for health insurances, disability insurance, and health savings accounts.

Mr. Speaker, put another way, contrary to misrepresentations by opponents, the needs-based test not only takes into account the full range of medical expenses by the debtors, but it also covers the spouse and dependents. This is just one of three provisions for a member of the household or immediate family. The provision includes for the monthly expense of the debtor, expenses incurred for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill or disabled member of the debtor's immediate family. This includes parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren of the debtor, among others.

So medical in any situation, Mr. Speaker, medical or otherwise, no debtor is denied access to bankruptcy relief. All S. 256 says is that, in a limited range of cases, a debtor with meaningful capacity to repay may have to file in chapter 13 as opposed to chapter 7. In no case is a debtor denied access to the bankruptcy system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

In response to the gentlewoman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, a substitute amendment was offered in every other Congress that bankruptcy reform was considered. Every other Congress in which bankruptcy reform was considered, the minority submitted a substitute amendment. Why not now? I have asked that question several times, and I still have no answer.

In regard to health care expenses, and I am reading from a March 29, 2005, CRS report for Congress titled ``Treatment of Health Care Expenses under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act'':

``Conclusion. Health care expenses will generally be considered in one of two contexts in a bankruptcy filing. Significant expenses incurred prior to the bankruptcy filing may be calculated as unsecured claims; if the debtor cannot afford to pay 25 percent of unsecured claims or $100 a month, the debtor may be eligible to file under chapter 7.

``Ongoing health care expenses and health insurance premiums may be deducted from the debtor's monthly income. Factoring in these expenses may also reduce the debtor's disposable income under the means test.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentlewoman from California brought up the issue about bankruptcy reform harming veterans. In speaking to that, Senate 256 needs-based test includes several safeguards and exceptions for special circumstances, including those of veterans: a specific reference to a debtor who is subject to a call or ordered to active duty in the Armed Forces to the extent that such occurrences substantiate special circumstances.

S. 256 means test has a special exception just for debtors who are disabled veterans if the indebtedness occurred primarily during a period when the debtor was on active duty or performing a homeland security activity. The bill excuses a debtor if he or she is on active military duty in a military combat zone from the mandatory credit counseling and financial management training requirements.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker; but we are addressing, as we always have on this side of the aisle, the special needs of our great veterans of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to the gentlewoman, I have got a letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association, February 8, 2005, that I will insert for printing in the Record.

Let me just read one paragraph, the first and most important:

``The National Child Support Enforcement Association is a membership organization representing the child support community--a workforce of over 63,000 child support professionals. For the past 5 years, it has strongly supported the enactment of bankruptcy reform because the treatment of child support and alimony under present bankruptcy law so desperately needs reform. We applaud your continuing efforts since the mid-1990s to reform the bankruptcy system and welcome your introduction of S. 256. The bankruptcy bill, S. 256, like the reform bills of the last three Congresses and the signed conference report of 2002, includes provisions crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy.''

National Child Support

Enforcement Association,

Washington, DC, Feb. 8, 2005.

Re: Child Support Provisions in S. 256

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Grassley: The National Child Support

Enforcement Association is the membership organization

representing the child support community--a workforce of over

63,000 child support professionals. For the past 5 years it

has strongly supported the enactment of bankruptcy reform

because the treatment of child support and alimony under

present bankruptcy law so desperately needs reform. We

applaud your continuing efforts since the mid 1990s to reform

the bankruptcy system and welcome your introduction of S.

256. The Bankruptcy Bill, S. 256, like the reform bills of

the last three Congresses and the signed conference report of

2002, includes provisions crucial to the collection of child

support during bankruptcy.

With each day that passes under current law, countless

numbers of children of bankruptcy debtors are subject to

immediate interruption of their on-going support payments. In

addition, during the lengthy 3 to 5 years duration of

consumer bankruptcies as they happen every day under present

law, debtors often succeed in significantly delaying or even

avoiding repayment of child support and alimony arrearages

altogether. Hardest hit by these effects of current

bankruptcy law are former recipients of welfare who are owed

support arrears but are stuck waiting until the bankruptcy is

completed before such debts can be collected. Families who

are dependent on obtaining their share of marital property

for survival may now find under present bankruptcy law that

such debts are discharged. And, worst of all, under present

law significant collection tools used to require the payment

of current child support needed by the custodial parent to

feed and clothe children may be rendered ineffective after a

bankruptcy petition is filed. Today, a bankruptcy filing may

delay or halt the collection of support debts through the

federally mandated earnings withholding and tax refund

intercept programs, the license and passport revocation

procedures, and the credit reporting mandates.

S. 256 would provide these children with first priority in

the collection of support debts, allow the enforcement of

medical support obligations, prevent any interruption in the

otherwise efficient process of withholding earnings for

payment of child support, and insure that during the course

of a consumer bankruptcy all support owed to the family would

be paid, and paid timely. It will allow state court actions

involving custody and visitation, dissolution of marriage,

and domestic violence to proceed without interference from

bankruptcy court litigation.

We, therefore, urge the members of the Conference Committee

and the leadership of Congress to enact this important piece

of legislation with its long overdue bankruptcy reforms.

Sincerely,

Margot Bean,

President. National Child Support Enforcement Association

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

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to the gentleman from Illinois, the reform bill significantly limits two practices that some wealthy filers use to hide assets from bankrupt creditors. Under the current system, in States with unlimited homestead exemptions, debtors can shield the full value of their residencies from creditors. To discourage debtors from relocating to the State to hide assets prior to a bankruptcy filing, the legislation requires a 3-year residency before a debtor can take advantage of the State's full homestead exemption. Currently, that is 91 days.

In addition, the bill adds a specific provision that prevents filers from shielding funds in an asset protection trust when fraud is involved. In fact, these practices will continue unabated unless this legislation is passed.

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

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, 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time.

Before yielding myself such time as I may consume, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this closed rule and S. 256. Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason.

More than 35 Democratic amendments were offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. Yet none have been made in order. Why? There is no reason for limiting the debate in this manner.

The House came into session on Tuesday and Members will leave town later this afternoon after just 2 days of work. Even more, there was only one other bill of substance before the House this week. The time to debate this bill and its offered amendments is available. The willingness to conduct meaningful business, however, is the missing ingredient. A 1-hour debate on legislation containing such sweeping reforms is not the way to conduct the people's business.

The argument will be made that this has been 9 years in the making. But a lot of this measure has been overcome by time, and that will be discussed by others later.

I am particularly disappointed that an amendment I offered is not being allowed to come before this body for consideration. My amendment seeks to prevent the very bankruptcies that are

causing this Congress so much consternation and is germane to the discussion. It requires credit card companies to preserve a customer's interest rate prior to incurring medical expenses if the customer is unable to pay off the full medical expenses on time. It also prohibits hospitals from reporting delinquent patients for 5 years, provided that the patient is paying 20 percent of his or her monthly mandated medical expenses.

All the information we have available suggests that medical bills are the second leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. It is, in my opinion, hypocritical to prevent debate on an amendment that could ameliorate some of the issues facing this bankruptcy reform legislation. Is not the whole point of this bill to make bankruptcy less frequent? If Members of Congress have ideas about how to accomplish that, should they not be heard?

Many other Members sought to introduce amendments, but have also been denied their opportunity to be heard. These amendments could have improved this legislation.

For example, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offered an amendment to exempt from the means test provision of debtors who have business losses incurred by a spouse who has died or deserted the debtor.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) offered an amendment that would exempt victims of identity theft. And the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered an amendment that imposes restrictions on issuing credit cards to college students. But none of those amendments, or the 31 others, will be debated today because the rule on this bill is closed.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert a list of all 35 amendments which the Republican majority has blocked from being considered in the Congressional Record.

Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for S. 256 and Denied

Consideration by the Rule (H. Res. 211)

1) Emanuel/Delahunt/Dingell--prevents debtors from

shielding their funds from bankruptcy liquidation through so-

called ``asset protection trusts;''

2) Filner--exempts disabled veterans from the bill's means

test;

3) Filner--exempts from the bill's means test consumers who

are victimized by identity theft;

4) Inslee--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

whose debts are the result of serious medical problems;

5) Delahunt--requires debtor corporations to file for

bankruptcy where their principal place of business is

located;

6) Sanders--establishes a ``usury rate'' for credit card

companies, above which credit card companies cannot charge

consumers;

7) Sanders--caps fees credit card companies can impose on

consumers at $15;

8) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from changing

interest rates based on changes in consumers' credit

information;

9) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from raising

interest rates based on consumer credit reports;

10) Ruppersberger--requires credit card solicitations to be

accompanied by a brochure explaining the consequences of the

irresponsible use of credit;

11) Schiff--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

who are victimized by identity theft, if at least 51% of the

creditor claims against them are due to identity theft;

12) Lofgren--exempts from the bill's means test 1) families

facing bankruptcy due to a serious medical hardship that

drains at least 50% of their yearly income, and 2) families

who lose at least one month of needed pay or alimony due to

illness;

13) Lofgren--exempt from the bill's means test a single

parent who failed to receive child or spousal support

totaling more than 50% of her or his household income;

14) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions: 1) debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor 2) debtors who

have had serious illness in their family and 3) debtors who

have been laid off;

15) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor;

16) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have had serious illness in their

family;

17) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have been laid off from their jobs

through no fault of their own;

18) Nadler--sunsets the bill after 2 years;

19) Watt--prohibits annual credit card rates higher than

75%;

20) Watt--includes the costs of college in the calculation

of debtor's monthly expense;

21) Ruppersberger--exempts from the bill's means test

debtors who have declared bankruptcy due to high medical

expenses;

22) Hastings (FL)--prevents credit card companies from

increasing rates on consumers who use their credit cards to

pay for extraordinary medical expenses; also prevents

hospitals from generating negative credit information on

consumers who are paying their bills in good faith;

23) Meehan--Exempts from the means test disabled veterans

whose indebtedness occurred primarily as a result of an

injury or disability resulting from active duty or homeland

defense activities; closes a loophole in S. 256, which

exempts only disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs

primarily while on active duty while failing to exempt

disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs after they have

left active duty;

24) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of state sex

offenses non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings;

25) Jackson Lee--clarifies Congress' intent that nuclear

liabilities be covered by the Price-Anderson Act, and not by

bankruptcy laws;

26) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of penalties

imposed on businesses for false tobacco claims non-

dischargeable;

27) Jackson Lee--strikes the bill's means test provision;

28) Woolsey--requires credit counseling agencies to provide

free services to recent veterans of the military who served

in combat zones;

29) Slaughter--requires credit card companies to determine,

before they approve a credit card, whether a student

applicant has the financial means to pay off a credit card

balance; it restricts the credit limit to minimum balances if

the student has no independent income; and it requires

parental approval for credit limit increases in the event

that a parent cosigns the account;

30) Slaughter--applies the highest median income of any

county or Metropolitan Statistical Area in the state to all

residents of the state petitioning for bankruptcy protection;

31) Millender-McDonald--provides the bankruptcy courts a

higher percentage of the fees collected when a debtor files

for bankruptcy;

32) Maloney--ensures that debtors emerging from bankruptcy

make child credit payments first, before payments on credit

card debt. The current version of the bill does not ensure

that child support payments will have priority over the other

types of unsecured debts, such as credit card debt;

33) Meehan and Berman--provides a modest homestead

exemption for people who have suffered a major illness or

injury;

34) Jackson Lee--provides additional protections to debtors

who are the victims of identity theft;

35) Jackson Lee--increases the means test limit on

parochial school tuition expenses from $1,500 to $3,000, so

that families Chapter 13 bankruptcy can keep their children

in schools that conform to their deeply held religious

beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, the House has adopted a new modus operandi. We saw it earlier this year with the class action bill, and we are seeing it again today.

It seems that if the Republican leadership deems legislation important, and that is their prerogative, it is willing to push through the other body's version without the opportunity for debate here in the people's House on any amendments. This new method does a great disservice to the people of this Nation. Even more, it stops Members, Democrats and Republican, from serving as thoughtful, effective legislators.

The House of Representatives is the people's House. The Founding Fathers envisioned a forum for lively debate on the issues of the day, not the controlled steering of selected legislation with no opportunity for meaningful change.

What also concerns me is the unworkable means test contained in this legislation. I am greatly disturbed, as I know all the residents of south Florida will be, that this means test includes disaster assistance as a source of revenue.

People forced into dire financial circumstances through natural disasters should find bankruptcy a source of relief. Considering disaster assistance as a source of revenue adds insult to injury and contradicts the government's efforts to help people get back on their feet.

This legislation, masquerading as protection against bankruptcy abuse, is really a protection for credit card companies and their predatory lending practices. This legislation does not protect the American people. This legislation protects the credit industry at the expense of the American people.

Increasingly, credit card companies market their product to riskier consumers, and now they want the Congress to protect them from the losses that are the foreseeable result of this ill-sighted business strategy. Why are we not debating legislation that would address those practices, instead of eviscerating a crucial safety net that Americans rely on when all else fails?

Mr. Speaker, should it pass, this bill will severely curtail the ability of Americans to obtain relief from bankruptcy without solving any of its underlying causes. Medical bills, unemployment, and predatory lending practices are at the root of this problem. In the long run, the net effect of this legislation will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken our social structure and the Nation's economy.

I will not, and cannot, support such an attack on American consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on

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

My respect for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is immense, and he has thrust all of these hearings and all that were in committee where 40 Members of the Committee on the Judiciary had an opportunity to participate.

What we are talking about is today, 35 Members of the House of Representatives, 35 amendments are not being permitted today. So I guess the 40-plus people are the ones who are representing the near 395, 40-plus none for the American people. That would be what I would put on the table from the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), our newcomer, who is making her first statement as a Committee on Rules member.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the distinguished ranking member to respond to my colleague from Georgia by indicating, the last time I looked at the rules, it allowed that individual Members have a right to make amendments, and we are not required to offer a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What was the objection about?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, what is the ruling of the Chair?

Further parliamentary inquiry, so the gentlewoman from New York's request to put in the Record the material?

Mr. Speaker, there is objection to a Member's placing in the Record, a Member who had made a statement supporting the things that she asked to be submitted, that is being denied?

Mr. Speaker, with the Speaker's permission, I ask unanimous consent that the extraneous material offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) be made a part of the Record following her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of making a privileged motion to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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.