Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006

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

Today, my colleagues, we are going through an exercise to convince the American people that now is the time for comprehensive reform, a week before recess, with continued disagreement between the House, the Senate, and the administration, and with narrowly repackaged bills.

These bills, and this one before us introduced just 2 days ago, are substantively flawed and do not provide for comprehensive reform.

H.R. 6095 is touted as a law enforcement bill, but it is opposed by our State and local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the comments of law enforcement associations and departments, police chiefs, sheriff associations, department heads across this country, and other law enforcement individuals to demonstrate how the policy is considered dangerous in this proposal.

This bill, opposed by State and local law enforcement raises the question: Why would they be opposed to a bill in which they are being invited in to take over some national law enforcement responsibilities?

Well, it is because it will strain the relationship between the police and immigrants and citizens. It will obstruct police in their mission of keeping our streets safe. Essentially the bill is asking the State and local police to pick up the slack for the Federal Government.

Now, title II of this same measure, the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act, should really be examined carefully. Increasing resources for alien smuggling prosecution is quite appropriate; however, this bill will not decrease immigrant smuggling, and it will not resolve any of the fundamental flaws in our immigration system. The bill has nothing to do with the practice known as ``catch and release'' which has been referred to already. This proposal does little more than tie the hands of courts in immigration cases. Judges will be burdened with new requirements, and other civil cases will be denied their day in court.

Just like the field hearings between the bills passed in the House and the immigration bills passed in the Senate, today's bills are clearly meant to distract the American public. Too bad, though, this country has already gotten wise to the smoke-and-mirrors show. Americans want comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders, and once again this body is failing to deliver.

Proposals To Expand the Immigration Authority of State and Local

Police--Dangerous Public Policy According to Law Enforcement,

Governments, Opinion Leaders, and Communities

LAw ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS

International Association of Chiefs of Police, President

Joseph Estey--``Many leaders in the law enforcement community

have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure

of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens

reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal

investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the

ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively

their communities and protect the public they serve.'' (IACP

press release, 12/1/2004)

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislative

Counsel Gene Voegtlin--``A key concern is that state and

local enforcement involvement in immigration can have a

chilling effect on the relationship with the immigrant

community in their jurisdiction.'' (``Cities and States Take

on Difficult Duty of Handling Undocumented Workers,'' The

Wall Street Journal, 2/2/2006)

Major Cities Chiefs Association--``Such a divide between

the local police and immigrant groups would result in

increased crime against immigrants and in the broader

community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the

potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or

preventing future terroristic acts.'' (Immigration Committee

Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws By Local

Police Agencies, adopted June 2006)

California State Sheriffs' Association, President Bruce

Mix--``CSSA is concerned that the proposed CLEAR Act will

undermine our primary mission of protecting the public. In

order for local and state law enforcement associations to be

effective partners with their communities, we believe it is

imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining

and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their

immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 3/10/

2004)

California Police Chiefs Association, President Rick

TerBorch--``It is the strong opinion of the California Police

Chiefs'' Association that in order for local and state law

enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their

communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the

role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a

change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator

Feinstein, 9/19/2003)

Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association, President James

Strillacci--``We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce

the law in those communities. With this [legislation],

there's no protection for them.'' (``Mayor asks for federal

help,'' Danbury News-Times, 3/26/2004)

El Paso (TX) Municipal Police Officers' Association,

President Chris McGill--``From a law-enforcement point of

view, I don't know how productive it would be to have police

officers ask for green cards. It's more important that people

feel confident calling the police.'' (``Immigration proposal

puts burden on police,'' El Paso Times, 10/9/2003)

Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive

Director Dana Schrad--``There's a real concern among [the

immigrant community] that [a new Virginia law] means police

are going to sweep through neighborhoods and pick up anyone

with immigration violations and deport them; that isn't true.

We are concerned we'll loose cooperation of law-abiding

residents who have helped solve crimes.'' (``Some Immigrants

Can Be Held For Up To Three Days,'' Daily News-Record, 6/30/

2004)

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association,

National President Elvin Crespo--``The CLEAR Act jeopardizes

public safety, it undermines local police roles in enhancing

national security, it undermines federal law Enforcement

priorities, it piles more onto state and local police

officers' already full platters, it bullies and burdens state

and local governments, it is unnecessary law-making and most

significantly, it forgets the important fact that you can't

tell by looking who is legal and who isn't.'' (letter to

National Council of La Raza, 10/21/2003)

National Latino Peace Officers Association, Founder Vicente

Calderon--``The role of police is to protect and serve. Clear

Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR Act] will

greatly contribute toward hindering police from accomplishing

these goals.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/16/

2003)

Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association,

National President Sandalio Gonzalez--``The CLEAR Act bullies

and burdens State and Local governments by coercing them into

participating, even though it means burdensome new reporting

and custody requirements, because failure to do so means

further loss of already scarce federal dollars.'' (letter to

President Bush and Congress, 9/30/2003)

Costa Mesa (CA) Police Department, Chief John Hensley--

``We're not going to be doing sweeps. We're not going to be

squeezing employers. We do not want to be the enemy of the

immigrant community.'' (``City puts itself on immigration

watch,'' USA Today, 1/26/2006)

West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department, Officer Freddy

Naranjo--``The major thing is to come out and report these

crimes, not hold back.'' (``Here Illegally, Guatemalans Are

Prime Targets of Crime,'' New York Times, 8/27/2006)

Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Sergeant Andy Hill--``As we

move out deeper into the community, especially with reaching

out to the Spanish-speaking community, we believe there may

be other victims out there that haven't come forward,'' Hill

said. ``We want that information. We need that information.

There will not be sanctions to victims who come forward as

far as their status in this community other than the fact

that they are victims.'' (``Police want Spanish speakers'

help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)

Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Chief Jack Harris--``There

are a lot of folks here in the Valley that may have limited

English skills, and they can still very much be witnesses or

know something about these crimes, so we want to step forward

and go out to that community and seek their assistance.''

(``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer

search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)

Fresno (CA) Police Department, Captain Pat Farmer--

``Sometimes folks are here illegally, and they're the victim

of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness,

we want them to trust us. [A month earlier, after a shooting

outside a convenience store] there were numerous witnesses, a

lot of folks who were probably illegal. It was critical that

they talk to our detectives.'' (``Shift Work: Should policing

illegal immigration fall to nurses and teachers?'' Washington

Monthly, April 2006)

Fairfax County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Jon

Fleischman--``Our job is to protect people. And I'm concerned

that people who are victims of a crime, whether citizens or

not, are not calling us because they're afraid we're going to

check [legal] status only.'' (``Va. Police Back off

Immigration Enforcement,'' Washington Post, 6/6/2005)

Gilroy (CA) Police Department, Assistant Chief Lanny

Brown--``We're not going out and doing sweeps for illegal

immigrants or anything like that, because we don't believe

that's the right thing to do. But it sure makes sense to us

if people are here--committing crimes, convicted of crimes,

and are here illegally--to turn them over to ICE so they can

be deported.'' (``Immigration Officials Ask for Police

Assistance,'' The Gilroy Dispatch (CA), 9/12/2005)

Princeton (NJ) Police Department, Chief Anthony V.

Federico--``Local police agencies depend on the cooperation

of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of

crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without

assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration

investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with

critical information would not come forward, even when

heinous crimes are committed against them or their

families.'' (``State orders cops to help U.S. immigration

agents,'' The Record, 9/20/2005)

El Paso (TX) Police Department, Chief Richard Wiles--

``There is no way that we would be able to take any time away

from an officer's busy day to enforce immigration laws.''

(``EP chief opposes bill to let police go after immigrants,''

El Paso Times, 10/6/2005)

San Diego (CA) Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne--

``The only time we work with the Border Patrol is if there is

a criminal nexus.'' (Police Chief William Lansdowne, ``Local

Police, U.S. Agents Differ on Raids,'' Los Angeles Times, 6/

6/2005)

Muscatine (IA) Police Department, Chief Gary Coderoni--

``These proposals are unnecessary, and counterproductive to

the public safety of our city residents. They will place an

added burden in our department and instill fear and non-

cooperation in the community.'' (letter to Congress, 6/2004)

Nashville (TN) Metropolitan Police Department, Chief Ronal

Serpas--``With great respect and deference to our federal

partners, we are not the INS (Immigration and Naturalization

Service). As long as I am chief of the Nashville police

department, I'm going to be steadfastly against police being

INS agents. It's just not our job.'' (``Hispanics press

police for more help,'' Tennessean, 2/24/2004)

Boston (MA) Police Department, Commissioner Paul Evans--

``The Boston Police Department, as well as state and local

police departments across the nation have worked diligently

to gain the trust of immigrant residents and convince them

that it is safe to contact and work with police. By turning

all police officers into immigration agents, the CLEAR Act

will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report

crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe

as a result.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 9/30/2003)

Arlington County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Matt

Martin--``[A] very likely outcome of local enforcement of

immigration laws is] an entire segment of the population

shutting down because they are afraid of you. And what you

create is a group of people who's ripe for additional

victimization.'' (``Some Laborers Arrested In Va. Face

Deportation,'' Washington Post, 10/27/2004)

Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Chief Timothy Strutz--``In

my opinion, the best way to fight criminals of all types,

including terrorists, would be to have an excellent,

trusting, working relationship with the community, with them

being your eyes and ears. I think much of that important

information would be stifled [if the CLEAR Act passed].''

(``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,''

Detroit News, 5/11/2004)

Seattle (WA) Police Department, Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske--

``Traditionally we have seen that reporting of crime is much

lower in

immigrant communities because many are leaving countries

where the police cannot be trusted for good reason. Adding

the fear of arrest or deportation to this could have a

tremendous impact on the rate of reporting. At a time when

trusting relationships between immigrant communities and the

police are vital, the CLEAR Act would have just the opposite

effect.'' (letter, 3/4/2004)

Clearwater (FL) Police Department, Chief Sid Klein--``It

doesn't take very long for that open door of communication to

be slammed shut. Then we in local law enforcement (pay the

price).'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St.

Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Leroy

Baca--``I am responsible for the safety of one of the largest

immigrant communities in this country. My Department prides

itself in having a cooperative and open relationship with our

immigrant community. [The CLEAR] act would undermine this

relationship.'' (letter to Los Angeles County Neighborhood

Legal Services, 10/6/2003)

Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Chief Ronald Miller--

``Our Police Department has taken the lead in establishing a

meaningful relationship with our minority communities,

especially the Hispanic community. If the CLEAR Act becomes

law, it will have a devastating effect on how we provide law

enforcement/police service.'' (letter to Senators Brownback

and Roberts, 11/19/2003)

Hillsborough (FL) Sheriff's Office, Spokesman Rod Reder--

``We obviously need [immigrants] to trust us. Our main focus

is on the crime itself. We're not immigration experts.''

(``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg

Times, 7/19/2004)

Montgomery County (MD) Police Department, Captain John

Fitzgerald--``We absolutely do not enforce any immigration

law. We encourage our residents to trust their police

department regardless of their immigration status. We want

them to know that if they are victims, we'll help them, and

if they're witnesses, we need their help.'' (``Groups Fret

Over Giving Police Immigration Control,'' Fox News Channel,

10/29/2003)

Tampa Police Department, Officer Brenda Canino-Fumero--

``[If the CLEAR Act passes], (immigrants) are not going to

come to police and report anything.'' (``Immigration duty a

burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)

Lowell (MA) Police Department, Police Superintendent Edward

Davis III--``If the CLEAR Act were passed into law, residents

would be less likely to approach local law enforcement for

fear of exposing themselves or their immigrant family members

to deportation. This would make state and local law

enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible.'' (letter to

Senator Kennedy, 3/9/2004)

Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Corporal Daniel Saab--

``[If the CLEAR Act passed] people would not work with us. It

would make it very hard for us to do our job.'' (``Metro

police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit

News, 5/11/2004)

Ann Arbor (MI) Police Department, Chief Dan Oates--``I have

a great deal of concern about altering hard-won relationships

with immigrant communities. Having those communities think we

are agents of the federal government--that can do real

harm.'' (``Police could get more power,'' Detroit Free Press,

6/1/2004)

San Jose Police Department, Chief Rob Davis--``We have been

fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the

willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if

they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't

know if they'd do that anymore. That would affect our

mission, which I thought was to protect and serve our

community.'' (``CLEAR Act puts cuffs on police; Giving them

another duty, immigration enforcement, would make us all less

safe,'' San Jose Mercury News editorial, 4/15/2004)

Hamtramck (MI) Police Department, Chief Jim Doyle--``It is

important that people learn to trust us without looking over

their shoulders and thinking, These are the guys that are

going to deport us.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt

illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004)

Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Office, Assistant Sheriff

George Jaramillo--``We wouldn't be interested in pulling

people over and trying to figure out what their status is.''

(``Police May Join Hunt for Illegal Migrants; Advocates see a

way to boost enforcement, but officers and civil rights

groups fear abuses,'' Los Angeles Times, 11/11/2003)

Bexar County (TX) Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ralph Lopez--

``I'm totally against [the CLEAR Act]. It plays the race

card, and from that perspective it is just a bad act. We will

not go out and create probable cause just because we think

this person, who is dark-completed or speaks with an accent

or dresses different, should be automatically questioned

about their legal status. That is a total violation of due

process.'' (``Politicians are using fear to push through the

CLEAR Act, one of the most sinister changes in immigration

policy,'' The San Antonio Current, 12/11/2003)

Overland Park (KS) Police Department, Chief John Douglass--

``The CLEAR Act would be a detriment to all who live, work,

and visit Overland Park. We want all to know that the police

are available to protect them no matter whom they are or

where they come from.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 10/

29/2003)

Portland (ME) Police Department, Chief Michael Chitwood--

``As Police Chief of Portland, Maine and someone who has been

involved in law enforcement for nearly forty years, I can

tell you with certainty that the CLEAR Act is a bad idea.''

(letter to Congress, 11/11/2003)

St. Paul (MN) Police Department, Chief William Finney--

``How am I supposed to decide as a police officer who I

should ask for papers? `Well can't you look at them and tell

you should be asking them for papers?' No, I can't! . . . .

So I'd just have to ask everybody. All the `real Americans'

would be very offended, because they've got First Amendment

rights. But people that are brand new here don't. Well,

that's not what the Constitution says; everybody in this

country's got First Amendment rights.'' (``This is your

ministry,'' Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, 12/11/2003)

Los Angeles Police Commission, President David S.

Cunningham III--``There are safety mechanisms in place for

deporting people who are criminally inclined. In the end, the

policy position on Special Order 40 is that we are a nation

of immigrants and we don't want to dissuade them from having

contact with police.'' (``Is L.A. soft on illegals?'' Los

Angeles Daily News, 11/15/2003)

Lenexa (KS) Police Department, Chief Ellen T. Hanson--``We

are, like many jurisdictions across the country, short on

resources and manpower and struggling to meet our citizen's

service demands. This mandate will magnify that problem and

force us to make cuts in other areas to comply with the CLEAR

Act. . . . The most troubling aspect of this act is that it

would cause members of certain groups to not report crimes or

come forward with information about crimes for fear of being

deported.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 8/26/2003)

South Tucson (AZ) Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina--

``We don't have the time and the personnel to be immigration

agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers

present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.''

(Tucson Citizen editorial, ``Immigration role not for local

police,'' 10/15/2003)

Des Moines (IA) Police Department, Chief William McCarthy--

``When we don't acknowledge the reality of who is here, we

create our own problems, and we are a better society than

that, frankly. They (illegal immigrants) are family-oriented

people and underpin our churches and society in many ways.

Plus they are human beings. They are here. And we ought to

deal with them as human beings.'' (``Cops shouldn't be INS

agents,'' Des Moines Register editorial, 10/13/2003)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for 5\1/2\ minutes.

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

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

I always like to hear the gentleman from Georgia describe these bills. He says it only targets violent felons, and I would love to find that place in the bill where that is the case.

Nothing in this bill says that State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce immigration law but only to focus their efforts on immigrants who are serious felons. In a news release, the gentleman from Georgia said that this bill would provide funding for training and resources for State and local enforcement agencies to voluntarily enforce immigration laws. Nothing in the bill provides any money for training or resources for State and local law enforcement. Not a dime. And that is why I have 25 pages of law enforcement officers that are opposed to the bill. Chiefs of police, mayors, sheriffs are all opposed to this bill. Republicans and Democrats, I might add.

And, of course, I should remind everyone in the body that we can already detain criminals or anyone that commits a criminal act, whether they are an immigrant or a citizen, but the problem is that only the Federal Government can deport anyone. So anybody committing a crime is subject to being detained.

This bill isn't about immigration reform. It is further evidence of a failure of leadership for us to have this body connect with the other body to get a conference going.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) offered to make a phone call. I would offer to bring the news of the passage of the immigration bill in the House to the majority leader of the Senate myself. I will deliver it if that would help them get the news that there ought to be a conference.

I think that patently it is obvious that they know about this, and somewhere in the Republican leadership there is a huge desire not to have a conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

What we are witnessing in the last few days is an effort to make sure somebody believes that we have sincerely worked on immigration rather than going to conference with the two major bills left.

We tried during the recent recess by holding a series of hearings across 13 States, to make sure people thought that we were working and concerned about immigration. As the newspaper reports show, it failed dismally.

So what we are doing now is to say let's keep the immigrants out. Let's keep them out. Let's keep them out. But let's let them in through the back door. Republicans do not prosecute employers, but then they blame Democrats for talking about other ways to deal with those who are already working here. We all know that letting immigrants in helps corporations and businesses that are using immigrants as the cheapest labor that they can find to benefit their activities.

And the reason we are not at conference is because many in our business world need immigrant labor, and the companies that support the Republican Party that says, get tough on immigrants, are the same ones that then turn their back and do nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6095 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, which will allow Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to more effectively enforce our immigration laws along the border and in the interior of the United States.

Title I of the legislation is based on an amendment to H.R. 4437 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). The title reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily, and I emphasize the word ``voluntarily,'' assist in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Many local and State law enforcement officers are eager to assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws to protect their communities and serve as a valuable force multiplier to overburdened Department of Homeland Security officers. We should provide them with the clear authority they seek rather than placing obstacles in their way.

Title II of the bill contains the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act. Currently, the various United States Attorney offices do not use uniform guidelines to prosecute smuggling offenses. While border area U.S. Attorneys face a heavy workload, a lack of sufficient smuggling prosecutions in some areas has become a serious problem. This has encouraged additional smuggling and demoralized Border Patrol and DHS agents who have seen many of the smugglers they have apprehended released.

This title contains a sense of Congress that the Attorney General should adopt uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses by each U.S. Attorney's office and authorizes an increase in the number of attorneys in U.S. Attorneys' offices to prosecute such cases. The bill requires an increase of not less than 20 new attorneys over the previous years' level in each of fiscal years 2008 to 2013, to affirm the urgency of prosecuting the alien smugglers who prey on the most vulnerable.

Title III provides for ending the Catch and Release Act. DHS is subject to Federal court injunctions entered as much as 30 years ago that impact its ability to enforce immigration laws. For instance, one injunction dating from the El Salvadoran civil war of the 1980s effectively prevents DHS from placing Salvadorans in expedited removal proceedings. DHS is using expedited removal to expeditiously remove other non-Mexican illegal immigrants who are apprehended along the southern border in order to end the policy of catch and release, but not Salvadorans.

Under the catch and release policy, non-Mexican illegal aliens picked up by the Border Patrol were simply released into our communities and told to show up months later for removal hearings. They almost never attended. Catch and release made a mockery of border enforcement and has terribly demoralized Border Patrol agents.

Mr. Speaker, this provides law enforcement agencies at all levels of government with the clear authority to help ensure the integrity and enforceability of our Nation's immigration laws.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of why this bill is necessary. Again, there is a differentiation between what Republicans and Democrats are saying here. The Democrats want to have a victim first before somebody is deported. Republicans want to make sure that there isn't a victim by making them excludable and, if they are caught, kicking them out.

So let's talk about domestic violence. On Monday, 2 days ago, the strangled and battered body of an as yet unidentified woman was found in a subdivision about 20 miles south of Denver. An orange tow rope was found around her neck, and her face was unrecognizable. Preliminary autopsy results indicated that the woman died of asphyxiation and head injuries after being dragged along a road for more than a mile.

A suspect was arrested Tuesday night in that case. Jose Luis Rubi- Nava, age 36, is being held without bail on a first degree murder charge at the Douglas County, Colorado, jail. The New York Times reported this morning that Mr. Rubi-Nava is an illegal immigrant. News reports suggest that the victim was his girlfriend.

Records obtained by KUSA-TV, the Denver NBC affiliate, showed that Rubi-Nava was arrested on April 1 and charged with false identification and driving without a driver's license and proof of insurance, but was let go.

If local law enforcement had detained this illegal immigrant for ICE, he could have been removed from the United States. He was not, and now there is a woman that is dead. If this bill had been law and there had been a voluntary agreement between local law enforcement and the Federal Government, this horrible crime could have been avoided.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from California repeats the same old refrain that it is the fault of this House that a conference has not been set up.

That is not the case. The Senate never messaged their bill to the House when they passed it in May. The only place where a conference can be set up is in the other body, and they can take up the House-passed bill and strike out all after the enacting clause and set up a conference. And only they can explain why that has not been done.

Secondly, the gentleman from California says that the catch and release change is meaningless. The Secretary of Homeland Security disagrees. I have a letter supporting the changes, specifically stating that the injunction that was issued against expedited removal of Salvadorans is costing the taxpayers money. This bill changes that.

And I will include the letter sent to me by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff on September 20 in the Record at this point.

Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your support of critical

injunction reform legislation, which will significantly

support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts

to maintain ``catch and remove'' of non-Mexican illegal

aliens apprehended along our Nation's borders. DHS urgently

needs Congress to approve this legislation to ensure that

long-outdated court decisions do not frustrate efforts to

secure the border.

DHS has made great strides in increasing the number of non-

Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the

Nation's borders. In fact, DHS now detains all eligible

individuals for prompt removal upon apprehension along both

the Southwest and Northern borders. However, I am concerned

that DHS will not be able to maintain this success because of

a 1988 court order that impedes its ability to quickly remove

Salvadorans caught after illegally crossing the Nation's

borders.

The 1988 court decision hinders DHS's ability to place

aliens subject to the injunction into expedited removal

proceedings--proceedings that allow for quicker immigration

processing. Instead, these aliens must be placed into full

administrative immigration proceedings. Consequently, they

are detained for an average of 48 days prior to removal in

contrast to those aliens apprehended on the Southwest border

for illegal entry and placed into expedited removal who are

detained for an average of only 19 days prior to removal. At

an average cost of $95 per day for detention, the inability

to fully utilize expedited removal for this population costs

the taxpayer approximately $2,755 per alien.

In addition, the injunction requires that unrepresented

aliens subject to the court decision be detained in the same

geographic area in which they are apprehended for seven days

prior to transfer in order to afford them the opportunity to

obtain counsel. DHS acquires detention space based on current

migration trends. If aliens shift migration routes to a

jurisdiction outside of the current area where extra bed

space is available, this injunction could have serious

repercussions on DHS's ability to detain such aliens due to

the restriction on transferring them to areas of higher

detention capacity. If the shift is sudden and large, the

injunction could place enormous strain on available detention

space, potentially forcing a return to the recently ended

practice of ``catch and release'' until additional resources

could be obtained, if available, in appropriate locations.

This decision was issued at a time when El Salvador was in

the midst of a civil war and when immigration was governed by

very different statutes. Yet, the decision continues to

dictate the processing of Salvadorans almost 20 years later.

On November 17, 2005, DHS fully explained to the district

court the dramatic changes in the facts and the law that have

occurred since the entry of its perpetual injunction in 1988.

DHS asked the district court to lift its order; but, I have

no firm date for when this process will reach its conclusion

in the district court or upon appeal.

There are additional longstanding civil injunctions that

impede DHS' s ability to effectively enforce the Nation's

immigration laws. These district court decisions have created

onerous operating procedures that require the commitment of

vast amounts of government resources. They detrimentally

impact immigration enforcement on a daily basis, often

frustrating DHS's efforts. One such order has resulted in the

creation of extra procedures requiring substantial additional

resources for routine visa processing. Another such

injunction has resulted in certain Freedom of Information Act

requests being given priority over other pressing work.

For all practical purposes, such invasive court-ordered

requirements hamstring the President and the Congress's

authority over the borders even when the conditions that gave

rise to such requirements may have changed. Under current law

and court procedures, it can be extremely time-consuming and

difficult to end these injunctions. With this legislation,

Congress will be taking significant steps to ensure that DHS

is no longer held hostage by these antiquated court orders.

Thank you again for your support of DHS's immigration

enforcement efforts. I look forward to continuing to work

with you on this and other measures to ensure that this issue

is fully resolved.

Sincerely,

Michael Chertoff.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is right. This is an issue about papers. It is about a pretty important paper that has served our country well called the Constitution of the United States. Article I, section 7 says: ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

The ``comprehensive amnesty immigration bill'' that the Senate passed and didn't message contains $50 billion in new taxes. They ignore this sacred paper that has been the foundation of our government, and are we supposed to ignore that and thus subject anything they do to endless litigation because they deliberately violated the Constitution? I think not.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on this bill and the debate on the two previous border security and law enforcement bills, we have heard time and time again why there not a conference between the Senate and the House on the differing bills that we passed, and that this is just merely a matter of papers, and this can be solved with a couple of phone calls over to the other body.

Well, the constitutional problem cannot be solved with a couple of phone calls. Because the Constitution's mandate that revenue-raising bills originate in the House of Representatives is pretty clear, and it has been there since 1789.

Frankly, the other body has not passed a bill that can be sent to conference because of the revenue-raising provisions that were contained in their bill. They chose to do that; we did not. And it is unfair and probably unconstitutional to blame this House for not rolling over and playing dead over the fact that the Senate bill violates article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States.

Having said that, let's get down to the nub of this bill. The nub of this bill specifically authorizes voluntary agreements between the Federal Government and local law enforcement to help in the assistance and enforcement of our immigration laws. Let me say again what we are dealing with is voluntary.

No local government agency or local law enforcement agency is forced to do anything under this piece of legislation in helping the Federal Government enforce our immigration laws.

But if they do do it, they should have statutory authorization. And where are the benefits going to be if there is cooperation between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement in helping enforce our immigration laws? It is going to be in the immigrant communities themselves. Because most of the crimes that are committed by illegal immigrants in our country are against other immigrants, both legal and illegal.

As a result of the current system, which this bill hopes to encourage to change, we will be able to make those immigrant communities safer. Now, the bill specifically states that nothing in it may be construed to require State or local law enforcement personnel to report the identity of a victim or a witness to a criminal offense to the Department of Homeland Security.

So if one of the bad guys hits an illegal immigrant over the head, the local law enforcement that investigates this does not have to report to DHS the fact that the victim is an illegal immigrant, and nor does that illegal immigrant victim have to be arrested because that person is a victim or a witness, and the arrest would be for an immigration law violation.

State and local law enforcement are not going to be reporting victims of crime. And they know best how to integrate immigration law enforcement into their duties in a way that will increase the safety and well-being of immigrant communities.

Now, many immigrant communities are held hostage by violent alien gangs. Many of those gang members have already been deported for criminal activity and have returned to this country illegally. If State and local law enforcement officers identify such aliens, they can either turn a blind eye or wait until the aliens commit new crimes, or they can apprehend the gang members and turn them over to the Department of Homeland Security to get them out of this country.

Clearly, immigration communities will be safer if those vicious criminals are taken off the streets before they can kill or rob again. And what other circumstances are State and local law enforcement likely to report to DHS? As an example, they may report on illegal aliens they come across in the normal course of carrying out their duties, such as after stopping for speeding a smuggling van carrying illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps leverage the assets that we have. I am for increasing the number of ICE agents and Border Patrol agents and increasing the number of detention beds, but passing this bill is something that we can do now to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement in dealing with these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again that the communities that will be safer will be the immigrant communities, both the legal immigrants that are present there as well as those that are not legal. Pass the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit for the same reason that I made a point of order against the gentleman from Illinois' previous motion to recommit.

Clause 7 of rule XVI precludes amendments on a subject different from that under consideration.

H.R. 6095 reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States in order to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, and clarifies guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. It also ends the practice of catch and release by DHS to ensure that immigration laws are enforced in the manner in which they were intended.

This motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from the legislation under consideration. It is the same motion to recommit that the gentleman from Illinois made to the previous bill by increasing the number of U.S. marshals by 250, which is on page 2, line 15 of the motion to recommit.

The U.S. marshals do not have a role in enforcing the immigration law. Thus, the motion to recommit expands the scope of the bill and is nongermane, and it fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments are not addressing the point of order which I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on his motion to recommit as well.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. It is the same point of order that I made on the previous motion to recommit. The motion to recommit violates clause 7 of rule XVI and on page 3, lines 1 and 2, it has the same defect of increasing the number of U.S. marshals who do not have jurisdiction over immigration violations.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit guts the bill. There is no question about the fact. My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to have cooperative agreements between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement to help enforce the immigration laws.

The bill that was never messaged by the other body prohibits such a practice, and that means that our State and local law enforcement officials have their hands tied behind their back when they see violations of immigration laws. They have to see a crime actually committed, which means that if the other side has their way, you are going to have victims, and we don't want that. We want to make sure that the immigration laws are enforced, and we need the help, voluntarily, of State and local law enforcement to be able to do that.

The motion to recommit also guts the ability to ensure vigorous enforcement against alien smugglers, and it also guts the ability to end the catch and release of illegal immigrants caught along our borders. Now, in the letter from Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security that I introduced into the Record earlier in this debate, clearly shows the problem that has occurred as a result of an injunction against expedited removal of Salvadorans.

Now, what nationality are the people in the MS-13 gangs? Largely Salvadorans. So to get rid of MS-13, we have got to pass this bill and vote down the motion to recommit.

Now, this motion is ineffectual, because only the Appropriations Committee can actually fund increases in any account, whether it is the Department of Homeland Security or anyplace else.

Led by Republicans, the House and Senate Appropriations Committee have done a stellar job in increasing the funding for new agents. Over this year and next, our appropriators will increase Border Patrol strength by 2,700 agents. This is close to the maximum number of new agents who can realistically be recruited and adequately trained in this time span.

Now, the other side can have a pie-in-the-sky number, thousands or hundreds of thousands and the like, but we have a limited capacity to recruit and train new agents, and the appropriators are very close to the max in doing this.

Vote down this pernicious motion; pass the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, immigration and border security are not new issues. These issues have been around for a while. They are serious issues, but they have been issues that have been ignored by this Republican leadership and this Republican Congress for years.

Notwithstanding the fact that President Bush has challenged us to come up with comprehensive immigration reform, which also includes tight border security, and notwithstanding the fact that this Congress passed what I believe is an objectionable immigration reform bill and the Senate has passed a more acceptable immigration reform bill and we are supposed to go to conference and work out the differences and produce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, as the President has requested, the leaders of this House have chosen to do nothing, not a thing.

So while many of us may disagree on some of the issues, this is a high priority for all Members of Congress. But some of us are questioning, why not do what we are supposed to do? Why not go to conference and work out the differences and come out with a comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with border security and that deals with the issue that a lot of people are concerned about, what do you do with the 12 million people here in the United States who are undocumented?

Madam Speaker, the rule before us and the bills that will be considered if this rule is adopted is not about border security and immigration. That is not what we are doing here today. For those who are watching, this is not about real legislative progress. No, Madam Speaker, this rule and these bills are about politics. It is about a press release and trying to convince the voters that we in this Congress are actually doing something when, in fact, we are doing nothing.

Now, before my friends on the other side of the aisle roll their eyes and say, there he goes again, let me urge them to look at the calendar. The Republican leadership cancelled votes for tomorrow and plans to adjourn for the elections next Friday, September 29. The Senate is following a similar schedule. That gives us 1 week to consider these bills in both Chambers, pass and reconcile them before next Friday.

Now, it is not impossible, but the truth is there are competing comprehensive immigration and border security bills that have been passed by the House and Senate, as I have mentioned. The House passed its bill on December 16, 2005, and the Senate passed its version on May 25, 2006, but again, this House has refused to go to conference. It is puzzling because the Republicans, Madam Speaker, control the White House, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the Republicans control the Senate. One would think that since the Republicans control everything, they can get along with each other and actually move important legislation forward.

Madam Speaker, what we see on the issue of immigration reform and border security, quite frankly, is a failure of leadership. You have a dismal record on protecting our borders, a dismal record on dealing with illegal immigration. This is a failure of being able to legislate, to be able to do your job.

Instead, we are here again with another set of immigration and border security bills. Let us be honest with the American public. This is not a serious effort to legislate. No, Madam Speaker, this is about election politics. This is about the Republican leadership in the House trying to appeal to the cheap seats and gain some political points 1 week before we adjourn for the November election.

The gentleman from Georgia mentioned with great pride this legislative accomplishment that we passed last week, the border fence security bill which the Senate is now dealing with. It is important to point out to the American people that while it sounds nice, there is no money in it. There is no money to provide for the construction of such a fence. The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee before the Rules Committee last week could not even tell me how much it was going to cost, but we know it is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. So we pass a bill saying we want to do this, but no money. Guess what? Without the money, you cannot build it.

So what are we really doing here? Are we protecting the borders, or are we trying to put on a show for the American people before elections that somehow we are doing something meaningful when, in fact, we are not? We are wasting time.

The American people want comprehensive, compassionate immigration reform, and they want strict border security plans, not partisan legislation and not just a show to imply that somehow we are doing something when, in fact, we are not.

Madam Speaker, for 5 years the Republican-controlled House, Senate and White House have failed to move forward on comprehensive immigration and border security. Done nothing. We have a crisis today. It is a serious crisis in border security because Republican infighting has crippled anyone's ability to enact comprehensive reform.

Madam Speaker, with 1 week left before we adjourn, we should be considering meaningful legislation that will actually affect people's lives today. Where is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The Federal minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. It has been that way for 9 years. I mean, how can you live on $5.15 an hour? We need to pass an increase in the minimum wage, not a minimum wage increase tied to a tax break for millionaires, but let us all agree that $5.15 an hour is not enough for somebody to live. They cannot get out of poverty on $5.15 an hour. Why can we not pass a clean minimum wage bill today? That would be something meaningful. That would impact people's lives today. We had time this year to vote ourselves a pay raise here in the Congress. Do you not think we could take a few minutes and pass a pay raise for those workers who are earning $5.15 an hour?

Where is legislation implementing the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? The gentleman talks about homeland security and the need to protect our border security. The nonpartisan 9/11 Commission has given this Congress Ds and Fs on implementing homeland security legislation. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we have not enacted all of those recommendations. We need to do that. We could do that today. We should stay in session to tomorrow and do it.

Where is the Labor-HHS appropriation bill? Where are some of the other important pieces of legislation?

Madam Speaker, the truth is that this Republican leadership has proven that they are incapable of running the House of Representatives. Their priorities just do not mesh with those of the American people. Bringing divisive bills to the floor to be used as political ammunition in the upcoming elections is not leadership, but time and time again it is how the Republican leadership in the House operates. Instead of doing what is right for the American people, they continue to do what they think is necessary to be reelected.

Madam Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of business as usual. It is time for a change in leadership in this House. It is time for a new direction.

One other thing, Madam Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a closed rule, which means you cannot amend it. You have to take it as is. No amendments are in order, not one. If these issues are so important, why can Members not have the opportunity to deliberate and to legislate, to be able to offer amendments? Why can we not amend these bills? Why does this have to be brought up under a closed process?

This is one rule we are debating on which is a closed rule, but really it is three closed rules because there are three separate bills we are going to be taking up and all of them under a closed process; you cannot amend them.

Now, it is not surprising that it is being brought to the House in this manner because democracy is dead in the House of Representatives. This place is run poorly and cynically. It has lost the trust of the American people. Every public opinion poll out there shows that we are held in the lowest esteem possible. People have had it. They know the way this place operates. They want this to be the people's House, not the House where a few special interests get to call the shots.

Madam Speaker, over the last several years, the Democrats have tried to offer amendments to various bills to improve our border security. Over the last 5 years, if these amendments were adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds and 2,700 more immigration and enforcement agents along the border that now exists. That would be a positive thing if those things were adopted, but each and every time they have been objected to by the Republican majority in this House. They have been against increasing Border Patrol agents, against increasing detention beds, against more immigration enforcement agents along our border that now exists. Instead, we get a fence bill that is not paid for. Instead, we get these bills that are before us today that in all likelihood are going nowhere before we adjourn for Congress.

This is not the way we should run the House of Representatives. This is not the way to deal with border security issues and immigration reform. This is cynical what is going on here today. This is a rifleshot approach to a problem that needs a comprehensive approach.

We need to do so much better. So I am asking my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me again point out to everybody in this Chamber that the Republicans have controlled this place for a long time, and for the last 5 years, they have even controlled the White House. It is puzzling to me why they are all lamenting that we need to get things done when they have been in charge. Why can they not work with each other? Why can you not get things done?

The gentleman from Georgia talked about this comprehensive immigration bill. The one in the House he voted for. The one in the Senate he may not like. When the Senate passes a bill, and the House passes a bill, in this case Republican control both Houses, you get together, work out the differences and come up with a compromise.

You know, we should have a conferees meeting and work out that compromise and do what you are supposed to do, your job. This is not a radical or controversial idea. Let's work it out; let's do it right.

And he has yet to explain why all this has to be brought up under a closed process. Why can't we open this to amendments? We proposed last night in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, that this be an open rule, that Members be able to come down and amend this as they see fit. And that was voted down along party lines; all the Democrats voted for an open process, the Republicans as usual stuck together and voted to shut this process down. That is objectionable. This is so important, we should be able to, it should be open to amendments to any Member.

You know, again, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia, Democrats, if you would follow our lead and you had adopted the amendments that we proposed over the last 5 years, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, there would be 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration enforcement agents along our border than now exist. That, to me, would have been a positive accomplishment. But you rejected all that time and time again.

So I object to the manner in which you are bringing these bills up. This is all about politics. This is about trying to imply that you are doing something when you are not. And I object, once again, to a closed process. We need a little democracy in the House of Representatives. This should be an open process; it should be open to amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first let me say to my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, that I am glad he can point to an instance where he has worked with a Democrat. My question remains, why can't Republicans work with Republicans? The comprehensive Senate immigration bill has a fence provision in it. And if the Senate and the House can go to conference and start working out these differences, he could get his fence and we could also get a lot of other issues solved as well.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Again, it is frustrating that when the President of the United States is urging us to approach this issue in a comprehensive way, that the Republican leadership of this House can't get together with the Republican leadership of the Senate and address a whole range of issues.

I think it is also important to point out so that there is no misunderstanding for those who may be observing these proceedings that, even if the Senate passes the so-called fence bill, they should be under no illusion that all of a sudden a fence is going to be built along the southern border of this country. The fact of the matter is there is no money for it. This is an authorization, not an appropriation; and nobody has been able to identify where the money is going to come from.

The other thing is, again, I go back to what I said before. We need more border security agents on the border right now. We need more detention beds. We need more immigration enforcement agents along the border. We have tried, we have tried over and over and over again to get the majority to allow us just the right to offer amendments to be able to address some of these issues and have been rejected over and over and over again.

So I would simply restate what I said in the very beginning, and that is that what is going on here today is somewhat cynical, because I think the other side knows that at least with the three bills that we are talking about here today, the chances of them being enacted by the Senate are almost zero between now and a week from Friday; and we are not going to accomplish anything except a press release. And at the same time, we are not addressing the challenge that President Bush has put before us, which is comprehensive immigration reform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I think we need to be careful with words. Nobody is advocating amnesty. I don't think President Bush is advocating an amnesty. I don't think Senators Hagel or Martinez or McCain are advocating amnesty.

What people want is action. What people are frustrated with is the fact that this Republican Congress has done nothing. We passed the comprehensive immigration reform bill in the House. They passed one in the Senate. We want to go to conference to work out the differences and come up with an approach that will work.

Instead, what have you done? You have gone around the country holding hearings at taxpayers' expense, and the reviews have been dismal. The headlines from the leading newspapers from across the country are ``All Talk No Action on Immigration,'' and ``Immigration Hearings Misfire.'' ``Field Hearings a Waste of Time and Money.'' ``Immigration Hearing Staged to Run Out the Clock'' so we don't do anything meaningful. That is not what we want; we want real action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that I think he has conceded that this is a sham by virtue of the fact that it is being brought up under a closed rule, a closed process.

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

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

I hope that all Members will join me and vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider an amendment by Representative Jackson-Lee that would really take on the issue of border security rather than just pay it lip service. The proposal would amend H.R. 6095 to equip the Department of Homeland Security with the resources the 9/11 Commission says we need to secure our borders, to shut down the alien smuggling business, and to catch and hold illegal immigrants entering our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in this House continues to approach border security and immigration control in its usual ineffective and piecemeal approach, putting election-year politics ahead of real and responsible solutions. Republicans are big talkers when it comes to border security and immigration reform, but they have never been willing to put their money where their mouth is. The bills we will consider on the House floor today are more of the same. This debate and these bills are supposed to remind voters that Republicans are somehow tough on immigration, but instead they just remind all of us that Republicans have not been able to make any progress on the urgent issue of border security.

So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up this amendment to actually do something about the problems on our Nation's borders instead of just talking about it.

The 9/11 Commission has given this Congress Ds and Fs when it comes to homeland security, and we have a particularly low grade when it comes to protecting our borders. Let us not only do the right thing. Let us do something that is real.

People are cynical. They are tired of politics as usual in this House. They are tired of these last-minute bills that come up before elections to somehow imply that we are doing something when we are not. We have a serious problem on our borders. We need serious action. This is not serious action.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that vote does not prevail, vote ``no'' on a closed rule. If these issues are important, we should be able to amend these bills. We need a little democracy in this House. Let's get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1018, I call up the bill (H.R. 4830) to amend chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless permitting (on one's land) the construction or use of a tunnel or subterranean passageway between the United States and another country, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4830, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, to prohibit the construction and use of border tunnels for the purposes of smuggling.

For over a decade, drug cartels and ``coyotes'' have used border tunnels to smuggle elicit drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States. Border tunnels range from rudimentary gopher holes to more sophisticated tunnels equipped with electricity, ventilation and even rails for electric carts. These tunnels have been used to penetrate both our northern and southern borders. Fifty tunnels have been discovered along the southwest border since 1990, and 36 of them have been unearthed in just the last 5 years.

This January, a joint investigation between the U.S. and Mexican law enforcement led to the discovery of a narcotics smuggling tunnel just east of the Otay Mesa, California, port of entry. Authorities seized nearly two tons of marijuana. The tunnel, approximately 86 feet deep and nearly three-quarters of a mile long, began inside a small warehouse in Otay Mesa, Mexico, and ended inside a vacant warehouse in San Diego, California.

In 2005, Federal agents discovered a 360-foot tunnel between British Columbia, Canada, and Washington State. This tunnel was also used for illegal drug trafficking, though DEA agents noticed that it could easily have been used to smuggle persons or to facilitate terrorism. We were reminded again of the growing problem just a few days ago when another drug smuggling border tunnel was discovered between California and Mexico.

Despite the clearly illegal purposes of these border tunnels, efforts to fully and effectively prosecute the smugglers are hampered by the fact that it is not a crime to construct, finance, or use a border tunnel. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute these individuals for drug smuggling or alien trafficking, there are virtually no consequences for the criminal organizations that build and use these tunnels.

The Border Tunnel Prevention Act plugs this glaring loophole. The bill criminalizes the construction or financing of a tunnel or subterranean passage across our international border. An individual prosecuted under this offense faces a penalty of up 20 years in prison. Additionally, any person convicted of using a tunnel or subterranean passage to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods will be punished by doubling the sentence for the underlying offense.

The bill also provides for the forfeiture of assets or property traceable to the construction or use of a border tunnel and instructs the sentencing commission to adopt guidelines that properly reflect the severity of this offense.

Madam Speaker, the bill is supported by Members from both sides of the aisle. This legislation provides a critical tool for protecting our national security and combating the drug and alien smuggling that plagues our borders. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.

Madam Speaker, we hear complaints all the time about the fact that Republicans are not acting. We are acting today. We acted in December. We acted last week on the fence. We see the Democrat actions. All they do is say no, no, no, no.

They are not where the American people are. They are not where our priorities ought to be. The Senate has not messaged their bill, even though they passed it in May. We are running out of time in this Congress. The American people say border security first.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all, the gentleman from Michigan says that we have not had any hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Since I became the chairman, we have had 68 hearings on the need to strengthen border security and enforcement of immigration law, and I will include the list of all 68 hearings in the Record at this point.

109th Congress

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 7-27-2006

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Whether Attempted

Implementation of the Senate Immigration Bill Will Result in

an Administrative and National Security Nightmare.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 7-18-2006

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Should We Embrace the

Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and

Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act

of 1986?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-22-2006

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Is the Labor Department

Doing Enough to Protect U.S. Workers?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-8-2006

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``The Need to Implement WHTI

to Protect U.S. Homeland Security.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-18-2006

Hearing--Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4997, the ``Phvsicians

for Underserved Areas Act''.

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-30-2006

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Should Congress Raise the

H-IB Cap?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-2-2006

Oversight--Joint Oversight Hearing on ``Outgunned and

Outmanned: Local Law Enforcement Confronts Violence Along the

Southern Border.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 11-17-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``How Illegal Immigration

Impacts Constituencies: Perspectives from Members of Congress

(Part II).''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 11-17-2005

Oversight--Joint Oversight Hearing on ``Weak Bilateral Law

Enforcement Presence at the U.S.-Mexico Border: Territorial

Integrity and Safety Issues for American Citizens.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 11-10-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``How Illegal Immigration

Impacts Constituencies: Perspectives from Members of Congress

(Part I).''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 9-29-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Dual Citizenship,

Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 9-15-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on: ``Sources and Methods of

Foreign Nationals Engaged in Economic and Military

Espionage.'' (Classified portion of hearing begins at 1 p.m.)

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 9-15-2005

Oversight--CONTINUATION of UNCLASSIFIED PORTION of

Oversight--Hearing on: ``Sources and Methods of Foreign

Nationals Engaged in Economic and Military Espionage.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 9-8-2005 Markup

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security & Claims--Markup

of H.R. 1219, the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for

America Act of 2005.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 7-28-2005 Markup

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security & Claims Markup

of H.R. 1219, the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for

America Act of 2005.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-30-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Immigration Removal

Procedures Implemented in the Aftermath ofthe September 11th

Attacks.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-28-2005 Hearing

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2933, the ``Alien Gang Removal

Act of 2005.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-21-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``Lack of Worksite

Enforcement & Employer Sanctions.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-15-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``Diversity Visa

Program.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-12-2005 Hearing

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 98, the ``Illegal Immigration

Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2005.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-5-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``New `Dual Missions' of

the Immigration Enforcement Agencies.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-4-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``New Jobs in Recession and

Recovery: Who are Getting Them and Who are Not?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-21-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``October 2005 Statutory

Deadline for Visa Waiver Program Countries to Produce

Security Passports: Why It Matters to Homeland Security.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-13-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Immigration and the Alien

Gang Epidemic: Problems and Solutions.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-10-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Interior Immigration

Enforcement Resources.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-3-2005

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``Immigration Enforcement

Resources Authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act of 2004.''

108th Congress

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-23-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Families and Businesses in

Limbo: The Detrimental Impact of the Immigration Backlog.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-17-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Families & Businesses in

Limbo: The Detrimental Impact of the Immigration Backlog.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-3-2004 Markup--

Subcommittee Markup on H.R. 4453, the ``Access to Rural

Physicians Improvement Act of 2004.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-18-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Pushing the Border Out on

Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-29-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``Diversity Visa Program,

and its Susceptibility to Fraud and Abuse.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-1-2004 Hearing--

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3191, To prescribe the oath of

renunciation and allegiance for purposes of the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-24-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``How Would Millions of Guest

Workers Impact Working Americans and Americans Seeking

Employment?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-18-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``US VISIT: A Down Payment on

Homeland Security.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-11-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Funding for Immigration in

the President's 2005 Budget.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 3-4-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Alien Removal Under

Operation Predator.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 2-25-2004

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Funding for Immigration in

the President's 2005 Budget.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 10-30-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on the ``Prospects for American

Workers: Immigration's Impact.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 10-16-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Visa Overstays: A Growing

Problem for Law Enforcement.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 10-1-2003

Hearing--Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2671, the ``Clear Law

Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003'' (CLEAR

Act).

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 9-11-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Should There Be a Social

Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico?''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 7-15-2003 Markup--

Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 2152, To amend the Immigration

and Nationality Act to extend for an additional 5 years the

special immigrant religious worker program.

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 7-11-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Immigration Relief Under

the Convention Against Torture for Serious Criminals and

Human Rights Violators.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-26-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``The Federal Government's

Response to the Issuance and Acceptance in the U.S. of

Consular Identification Cards.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-24-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``The Deadly Consequences of

Illegal Alien Smuggling.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 6-19-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``The Issuance, Acceptance,

and Reliability of Consular Identification Cards.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-13-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``John Allen Muhammad,

Document Fraud, and the Western Hemisphere Passport

Exception.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-8-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``War on Terrorism:

Immigration Enforcement Since September 11, 2001.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 5-6-2003 Hearing--

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1714, H.R. 1275, H.R. 1799, H.R.

1814, and H.R. 1685, the ``House Military Naturalization

Bills.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-10-2003

Oversight--Oversight Hearing on ``Department of Homeland

Security Transition: Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 4-2-2003

Oversight, Oversight Hearing on ``Immigration Student

Tracking: Implementation and Proposed Modifications.''

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 2-27-2003

Oversight, Oversight Hearing on ``New York City's `Sanctuary'

Policy and the Effect of Such Policies on Public Safety, Law

Enforcement, and Immigration.''

107th congress

``Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Executive

Office for Immigration Review'', 5-15-2001 Oversight Hearing

``Guestworker Visa Programs'', 6-19-2001

``United States Population and Immigration,'' 8-2-2001

``Using Information Technology to Secure America's Borders:

INS Problems with Planning and Implementation,'' 10-11-2001

``Immigration and Naturalization Service Performance: An

Examination of INS Management Problems,'' 10-17-2001

``A Review of Department of Justice Immigration Detention

Policies,'' 12-19-2001

``The Operations of the Executive Office for Immigration

Review,'' 2-6-2001

``Implications of Transnational Terrorism and the Argentine

Economic Collapse for the Visa Waiver Program,'' 2-28-2001

``The INS' March 2002 Notification of the Approval of Pilot

Training Status for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and

Marwan Al-Shehhi'', 3-19-2001

``Immigration and Naturalization Service and Office of

Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment

Practices,'' 3-21-2001

The INS' Interior Enforcement Strategy, 6-19-2002

Risk to Homeland Security from Identity Fraud and Identity

Theft (Held jointly with the Subcommittee on Crime,

Terrorism, and Homeland Security), 6-25-2002

``Role of Immigration in the Proposed Department of

Homeland Security pursuant to H.R. 5005, the Homeland

Security Act of 2002.''

``The INS's Implementation of the Foreign Student Tracking

Program,'' 9-18-2002

``Preserving the Integrity of Social Security Numbers and

Preventing Their Misuse by Terrorists and Identity Thieves

(Held jointly with the Subcommittee on Social Security of the

Committee on Ways and Means),'' 9-19-2002

``The INS's Interactions with Hesham Mohamed Mohamed Ali

Hedayet,'' 10-9-2002

``United States and Canada Safe Third Country Agreement,''

10-16-2002

Secondly, again, this Congress is running out of time. It is not the fault of anybody in the House of Representatives why a conference has not been created. We cannot set up a conference without the other body sending papers to us. They have not sent us the papers on the bill that they passed in May. Once the papers are here, then somebody can make a motion to send the bill to conference, but until the papers are here, there is nothing to send to conference.

On the other hand, when we passed our immigration bill last December, the papers had been sitting over in the other body. They can set up the conference merely by taking up the House-passed bill, striking out all after the enacting clause, inserting the Senate text and asking for a conference. They have not done it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I think we ought to get back to what this bill does so that Members are properly advised on how to cast their votes.

What the bill does is to create a criminal offense to prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless permitting on one's land the construction or use of a tunnel or subterranean passageway between the United States and another country.

Now, if you want that to be criminal, vote ``aye,'' and if you don't, vote ``no.'' I am going to vote ``aye.'' I hope all the Members do.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.

It's important to Americans that local law enforcement officials are doing everything possible to arrest and prosecute criminals.

And it's important that law enforcement officials know under exactly what circumstances they can lawfully arrest or detain a suspected criminal.

Take for instance the situation in which a police officer has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and finds out that individual is in the United States in violation of our immigration laws. It's contrary to common sense that the police officer would not be able to arrest that person simply because immigration is a Federal responsibility. But this is the argument of those who oppose this bill.

H.R. 6095 affirms the authority of State and local law enforcement officials to investigate, apprehend, and arrest illegal immigrants.

Several Federal Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, have agreed that State and local law enforcement officials have the authority to do so.

Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation believe that if a police officer comes in contact with a suspected criminal who has violated immigration law, they should simply let the person go.

This situation was addressed in the 1996 immigration legislation that I authored. Because of that law, the Immigration and Nationality Act contains section 287(g), which allows the Attorney General to enter into written agreements with States and localities to set out provisions under which State and local law enforcement officers can help enforce Federal immigration laws.

But the law does not mean that just because there is no such written agreement, the police don't have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants.

Law enforcement officers should arrest anyone who breaks the law. This bill is necessary to settle the debate once and for all.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, H.R. 6095. It will not protect United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on H.R. 6095 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed.

H.R. 6095 presents a sense of Congress that the Attorney General should adopt, not later than three months after the date of the enactment, uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses to be followed by each United States attorney in the United States. It also requires the hiring of additional personnel for prosecuting alien smuggling cases. For each year from FY2008 through FY2013, subject to the availability of appropriations, the Justice Department would be required to increase by not less than 20 the number of attorneys in the offices of United States attorneys employed to prosecute alien smuggling cases.

I find nothing objectionable about these provisions, but I do not believe that they will substantially improve our ability to deal with the alien smuggling problem. It would be more productive to consider an alien smuggling bill that I introduced a few years ago, the Commercial Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2003, the CASE Act. It would establish a three-point program that was drafted with assistance from government officials who are involved in the investigation, disruption, and prosecution of commercial alien smugglers.

H.R. 6095 would give State and local police officers the authority to enforce civil immigration laws. I do not want local police forces to enforce immigration law. Immigration violations are different from the typical criminal offenses that police officers normally face. The typical law enforcement activities of local police officers involve crimes such as murders, assaults, narcotics, robberies, burglaries, domestic violence, and traffic violations. It would require extensive training to prepare them to enforce civil immigration provisions.

If police act as immigration agents, undocumented immigrants are likely to be afraid to contact the police when a crime has been committed. If they as victims, witnesses, or concerned residents contact the police, they or their family members could risk deportation. Experience shows that this fear would extend not only to contact with local police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.

H.R. 6095 also would undermine local police's role in enhancing national security. National security experts and State and local law enforcement officers agree that good intelligence and strong community relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets safe. Undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be helpful to security investigators would be reluctant to come forward for fear of immigration consequences.

H.R. 6095 has an ``Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006,'' title, but the provisions under that title deal with injunctions in federal immigration litigation. ``Catch and release'' is a reference to the practice of apprehending aliens in the vicinity of the border and then releasing them pending removal proceedings. Apparently, the connection is the permanent injunction in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzalez, No. 82- 1107KN (C.D.Cal. 1982). Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has claimed that the Orantes injunction interferes with efforts to end the catch and release practice.

I am not aware of any provision in the Orantes injunction that would interfere with efforts to end the catch and release practice. In issuing the injunction, the court found that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had engaged in a pattern and practice of coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive their rights to a deportation hearing and to seek asylum as a defense to deportation.

H.R. 6095 appears to be an attempt to terminate the Orantes injunction through legislation, but its reach goes beyond the injunction. Among other things, a judge would not be permitted to provide relief in any immigration case without attaching a written explanation of the impact the relief would have on national security, border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public safety. It also would impose arbitrary, unreasonable time limits on courts attempting to provide prospective relief.

DHS has filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. Wilfredo v. Gonzales, No. CV 82-1107MM (C.D.Cal. 2005).

I urge you to vote against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.

August 14, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security, Sub-Committee on Immigration,

Washington, DC.

Dear Sub-Committee Members: I am writing to respond to your

invitation to testify before your sub-committee hearing on

Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Civil

Courthouse 201 Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say

as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as

President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that I

appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege

of putting into the official congressional record Law

Enforcement's comments and concerns on Immigration prior to

the full enactment of any legislation on this important

subject. I will be submitting as an attachment to my

testimony today the MCC's Immigration Committee

Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local

Police Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E.

Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted on June 7th by the MCC for

inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have

additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due

to their length I have been told they can not be part of the

written record.

Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal

legislative amendment aimed at eliminating federal law

enforcement funding to local police. In short, both myself

and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by

any legislative action aimed at excluding the City of Houston

and/or other local jurisdictions from receiving needed

federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put

more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our

neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes,

assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland

security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and

the public fervently believe local police should become

involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Given

these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent

legislative amendments were not written to provide increased

federal funding to local police to support such enforcement.

Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding and

penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris

County, and other local and national jurisdictions, which

will be negatively effected by this amendment. The end result

of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is

applied to Houston and

other communities like Houston would be to make our local

communities less safe. In other words these amendments would

have the opposite effect of their purported purpose.

Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and

in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this

complex issue differ greatly and emotions run high. Extremes

exist on either side of the debate as represented by the

recent mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their

supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the

referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in

Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing

first responders to over fifty (50) million residents

respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate federal

law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded

mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our

nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the

federal level with securing the borders and increasing

enforcement by federal agencies.

Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal,

logistical and resource issues for local communities and

their police agencies. The City of Houston's policies and

those of most major cities across America reflect the

challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency

that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse

community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal

residents, visitors and undocumented immigrants. The City's

policies seek to best protect and serve this diverse

community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality

that the City does not have unlimited resources; its officers

are prohibited by state law from racial profiling and

arresting persons without warrants and without well

established probable cause; is subject to civil liability for

violating such laws; and has the clear need to foster

assistance and cooperation from the public including those

persons who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to

clarify the City's reasoned and model approach to this issue

I have provided the following statements regarding the City's

policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the

federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens'

referendum.

City does not have a sanctuary policy

Currently, the police department is operating under General

Order 500-5 [See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500-5 was

implemented in 1992 by then Chief Nuchia, who is currently

serving as a Justice in the Texas Judiciary's First Court of

Appeals. The General Order includes the following provisions:

Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend

individuals solely on the belief that they are in this

country illegally.

Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship

status of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest

persons solely on the belief that they are in the country

illegally.

Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities]

regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a

separate criminal charge (other than Class C misdemeanor) and

the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.''

The department has issued clarifications of our

``immigration'' policies and implemented changes to the

department's enforcement policies to increase cooperation

between the department and federal agencies on immigration

matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the

summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant Chief Thaler,

Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel

Craig Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the

U.S. Attorney's office and I.C.E. to discuss the department's

response to immigration detainers. Based on those

discussions, the department developed procedures to accept

and act upon criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E.

The police department further clarified that our officers are

allowed to take into custody any person who the federal

authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they

will authorize detention directly into a federal detention

facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person

in custody on other criminal charges, the department will not

release the person from custody for up to 24 hours after we

have received formal notice from federal authorities that

they are wanted for criminal violations.

The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other

federal agency wherever possible and reasonable to enforce

against criminal violations and address criminal matters. The

Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws

relative to criminal violations and criminal matters,

accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and

assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of whether

they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of

federal or state laws. Our officers are currently involved in

various federal task forces addressing criminal matters

including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will

continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations

against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration

status, the department and thus the City does not have a

``sanctuary policy'' as opponents of our policies have

alleged. This is not only the City's or the police

department's opinion but also that of Robert Rutt the Deputy

Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs

Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he

stated that ``Houston is not a sanctuary City . . .'' In the

same article he further acknowledged the police department's

significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3]

Concerns with local enforcement of federal immigration law

Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many

daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues

for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves.

Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must

recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative

consequences to local policing that would be caused by

immigration enforcement at the local level.

* * * * *

were detained by the police were later determined to be

either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in

the country. The Katy police department faced suits from

these individuals and eventually settled their claims out of

court.

Because local police officers currently lack clear

authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their

ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from

racial profiling and lack the training and experience to

enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely

the City/police department will face the risk of civil

liability and litigation if we actively enforced federal

immigration laws.