Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love the Appalachian Regional Commission. I love what it has accomplished. I have followed the work of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., when he was designated by John F. Kennedy to travel throughout the 13 States of the Appalachian region and report back to him on his findings and suggestions of what to do and how to rebuild the economies of those 13 States.

Out of that came the Appalachian Regional Commission. I was staff director on the Committee on Public Works then at the time and participated in the drafting of the ARC bill, and separately the writing of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. I have one of the pens that Lyndon

Johnson used to sign the EDA bill into law.

Years later, when it became my opportunity to be a Member of Congress and to chair the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, and the Economic Development Subcommittee prior to that, it was at a time when President Reagan had just been elected and submitted his budget to the Congress, the Budget Reconciliation Act. It called for abolishing the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Economic Development Administration.

I said that is not right. We are not going to stand and let that happen. The gentleman's predecessor, his father Bud Shuster, stood with us as we stood up to the Reagan administration, to Budget Director Stockman, and we traveled throughout the Appalachian region holding hearings.

We heard such wonderful testimony as before the Appalachian Regional Commission. The way up for people in this region was a bus ticket north to Detroit and Chicago and Cleveland. But the economy for 100 years was characterized by 80 acres and a mule.

We went to Duff, Tennessee, and heard from Tilda Kemplen, director of a child development center, who said at the conclusion of her testimony, ``Gentleman,'' and the gentleman there at the hearing were myself and Mr. Clinger of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, she said, ``Gentleman, when you go back to Washington and look at the dollar, try to look over the top of the dollar, not to see George Washington, but to see a child.''

And when we went into West Virginia, we stayed with the previous speaker. The mayor of the little town at which we held our hearing took us around the town to see what it had looked like and what it was coming to be with the investments from ARC. And as I stood in the store which the mayor owned and operated, behind the cash register on the wall was a little sign that said, ``God never put nobody in a place too small to grow.'' That is the spirit of Appalachia.

Over the years, those investments of the ARC have taken this region, which was at 45 percent of per capita income, and boosted it up to 75 percent of national capita income. That is an extraordinary accomplishment.

The Backbone Highway System that has opened the region up to trade and growth and opportunity has been critical to the growth of this region. But in 1982, the administration said, no, we don't want to continue this program. But the Congress said yes. We reported a bill from the Committee on Public Works, brought it to the House floor, passed 382 to something. But the Senate wouldn't act on it; it was a Republican majority in the Senate. They were working with the administration, and they said no.

But because the House had spoken, the House Appropriations Committee, they said the House has spoken on this, and we will appropriate the funds and the authorization with it, and for 16 years that is the way it went.

In appropriations we would in every Congress pass the reauthorization of ARC. The administration would oppose it, Reagan one and two and Bush one, and the House would speak in the appropriations, and the authorization would pass, until Chairman Shuster.

In 1998, we finally got an authorization bill through the House and through the Senate by the same 380-plus margins. But what has happened since then is the funding authorization numbers have not been matched by the appropriation numbers. A phenomenon has occurred in the last 2 fiscal years, the Appropriations Committee substituting its judgment for the judgment of the grassroots people in the Appalachian region.

This is a unique process by which people come to approval of projects. It starts at the county level, starts with the regional development commission, starts with the mayor, council. The business people meet, decide what their needs are, make recommendations. It is approved by the development district organization. It then goes to the State and then goes to the Commission, and the Commission then approves the projects and then the budget comes to the Congress.

Then the Appropriations Committee, in the last 2 years, has said, oh, you know, forget about that; we have our own priorities and we are going to designate money. But their designations dilute the funding for the other States. There are three States. Ohio doubled its share, 113 percent increase of ARC funding; West Virginia, 31 percent increase; North Carolina increase, 14 percent. What does that mean for the rest of the States? That means Alabama is down 20 percent, Georgia is down 19.6, Kentucky is down a percent and a half; Maryland is down 20 percent. I will put these all in the Record at this point and not go through every one of them because we are dealing with a closed circle.

To pay for these earmarks, most of the other 10 ARC States' formula funds are cut by 20 percent: Alabama, -20.4 percent; Georgia, -19.6 percent; Kentucky, -1.5 percent; Maryland, -20.3 percent; Mississippi, -21.1 percent; New York, -19.5 percent; Pennsylvania, -20.0 percent; South Carolina, -20.5 percent; Tennessee, -20.5 percent; and Virginia, -19.1 percent.

What does that mean to those who participate and believe in the grassroots process, that government starts from the bottom up, not from the top down? It means we disrespect your judgment. We are substituting our judgment just because we, one or another person, happens to be in an Appropriations Committee that can substitute its judgment for the grassroots.

It has been discouraging. I have talked to the development districts, and so when we fashioned our bill in the House, and in our committee, to reauthorize ARC, page 10 of the bill that was introduced in July, July 17, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania cosponsored, Chairman Young cosponsored, I will not go through all the others, section 4, subsection (b), allocation of funds: Funds approved by the Commission for a project in an Appalachian State pursuant to congressional direction shall be derived from such State's portion of the Commission's allocation of appropriated amounts among the States.

That is the anti-earmarking. That respects the grassroots process. That is the bill that we introduced but it was not reported from committee. It should have been. We could have done this in July. We could have had a bill pass through the House practically on unanimous consent, or had a recorded vote that had been 400-plus to zero, but instead we waited for the Senate to pass a bill. The Senate dropped that language.

In the suspension process, we do not have an opportunity to offer to reinstate the House language, to stand up for the House position. That is why I come with a heavy heart to oppose this bill because it is the wrong process, because it guts the House provision, because it takes away the opportunity for all States to participate equally.

Now, the chairman of the subcommittee, I have to respectfully disagree, the program is not going to run out in 10 days. The Appropriations Committee has included in its appropriation a continuation of the authorization, as we have done for 16 years, and will continue the authorization through the appropriation process, but it will not be as valuable as if we include the House language to stop the raid on the other States within the Appalachian region.

We are not talking hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, as we are in the transportation bill. We are talking $65 million for fiscal year 2006 and $26 million in formula funds for the coming fiscal year and $35 million total. So out of that $26 million in formula funds, $9.3 million have been earmarked. That means other States get proportionally less money than those who are fortunate to have someone on the Appropriations Committee take care of them. That is not right.

What is this, a week ago this body passed an anti-earmarking bill as rules for the House. We did even better. We are not saying list who they are for. We are saying do not do it in this particular program. That is what offends me. Process means respect for the system. Process guarantees, or should, integrity.

I am saying we ought to restore integrity. We ought to send this bill back to the Senate and have a real negotiation and do the right thing for the rest of the Appalachian States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just add to the discussion that I do not think government will come to a halt in 10 days. The House will pass a continuing resolution so that we can get through October, come back after election on November 13, and take up these appropriation bills. The Appalachian Regional Commission will continue.

Quite right, the gentleman has stood firmly against earmarking in the authorization process, but it is in the appropriation. It is where the money is delivered where the evil occurs, if you will, and in this context, this is not a bill to be tinkering with with earmarks when there is so clearly a grassroots process that is fair and equitable and has input from the people whose lives and livelihoods are affected.

It goes all the way up through the top, and when it gets up here say, oh, sorry, you do not count; your judgment is not of value. To take nearly a third of the money, a limited amount of funds in the appropriation process, and designate it for projects and thereby diminish the amount the other States get, that is not right. It is just simply not 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 thank my ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body of what we have here. We have a bill with three sections, the first of which, in the chairman's own words, reinforms the authority of the local governments to do something that he apparently believes and we all accept that they would have the authority to do anyway.

I call that one the let's use the Iraq model for dealing with the issue of illegal immigration; subcontract large functions of it, but unlike in Iraq where we overpay the subcontractors, here tell the local law enforcement people we are giving up at the Federal level trying to deal with this problem, we are not going to give you a penny for more jail cells or a penny for more resources, we are not going to give you a single dime to do anything about it, but we are here to tell you if you want to, you have the authority to arrest and detain people who are in this country illegally without regard to whatever acts they may have committed.

The second section of the bill is alien smuggling. It has a bunch of findings, it has a sense of Congress, and then says we authorize, but no funding, 20 more people to do something about alien smuggling.

And the third one is designed to deal with catch and release, the practice whereby non-Mexicans who are caught in this country in the past have been released rather than returned immediately to the country they came from because Mexico is not the country that they are from.

According to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently detaining all El Salvadorans, or virtually all, because we now have enough beds, and we have enough to significantly reduce the total number of non-Mexicans. Catch and release is over. This bill won't make it. It is over. No one should be under the illusion that we are doing anything about the program catch and release by this bill because that program has ended.

What this bill in the larger context is, it is another one-House bill. Let me quote from the September 21 Washington Post. ``With little more than a week left before the September 29 start of the Congress's scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of the bills to must-pass spending measures before they leave town. But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) appeared to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their progress in the final days before the coming recess.''

Another one-House bill. And then what will happen, a week from now we will recess, and the Republicans and the majority hope that the American people will be conned into thinking they have done something about one of the most serious national crises we have, and that is the crisis of inability to enforce our borders. There are 12 million people in this country using false identifiers, the absence of any employer verification system.

But in reality, none of that will have happened. The Republican Congress will have recessed for the elections with the mere hope that maybe when we come back with the lame duck, or maybe if you reelect us next year, we will get serious about this problem.

There is nothing in this bill or other bills that are being sent over to a House that will not take them up and not consider them that will make this crisis better.

And what do we have to do to do something serious? Back in June or July or in the beginning of September, a motion to go to conference on the two larger bills that the Senate and the House passed. This won't work. This bill is nothing. It doesn't do anything for anybody. It won't become law.

So you can have the meaningless gesture act that this bill represents. You can pass some of these other bills that are being brought up at the last minute to go into that vacuum on the other side; but one day I would like to understand how the majority explains the fact that they were not willing to make a motion to go to conference to reconcile the differences between the two bills, because in 1 week we will have done nothing to implement an employer verification system. We will have done nothing about 12 million people who are here under false identifiers, some portion of whom might be actual threats to our own national security. We will have done nothing to provide the meaningful, comprehensive approach, which is the only way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

There is only one response to my friend the chairman. If the issue is about papers and the only reason we haven't gone to conference committee is because the papers haven't been delivered, I do have Senator Frist's phone number, and I am happy to provide it. I cannot conceive that it is a matter of paperwork and process that is keeping us from going to conference committee on one of the most serious domestic issues this country has faced.

Secondly, in response to the following speaker, the reason we cannot quite unite to do something here, apparently, is because we are not going to unite on a fool's errand. Everyone on your side of the aisle, from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to the chairman to others, has acknowledged over and over again we are not going to deport 12 million people. You are not going to have local law enforcement pick up the task for you of deporting 12 million people.

A meaningful response is border security, because there are people there who are national security issues and there are people who are aiming to hurt us who want to cross this border illegally, and dealing with 12 million people who are operating under false identifiers, some of whom are bad people, and finding some system to either isolate and narrow that group or have them come forward, and most important of all, to get an employer verification system in place. None of these bills does anything about it. We are going to leave here in a week doing nothing about it. I don't understand how you are going to explain to your constituents and the people who are understandably upset about this issue that this Congress has addressed a very serious, urgent issue in a serious and coherent fashion. We haven't.