Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 2399, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Let me address a few basic issues about this legislation. First of all, what is alien smuggling? What is the existing law? What are the changes that we're proposing? And what, if any, are the problems that we need to fix with regard to this issue of alien smuggling?

Well, let's begin with what is alien smuggling. Alien smuggling is the process whereby people often known as ``coyotes'' take someone from a country like Mexico and sneak them in, often under the cover of darkness, into the United States for an average fee currently of approximately $1,500 per person. It requires specialized skills; and folks often feel that they can't come over, say, from Mexico to California and bypass all the border security agents without having a coyote or alien smuggler to help them. So they often have their family members pay the $1,500 fee.

I wanted to know more about this, so I personally went to the San Diego-Mexico border and spent a week traveling around at 2, 3 in the morning with Border Patrol agents as they arrested illegals and alien smugglers as they came across the border. And I learned from the Border Patrol agents that their biggest frustration is that they have arrested the same alien smugglers more than 20 times. In fact, the agents I met with were so demoralized they had what's called a wall of shame.

And it's hard to see from where you sit, Mr. Speaker, but this is a wall showing over 200 photographs of alien smugglers who they have repeatedly arrested, some of them more than 20 times, such as Antonio Amparo Lopez. And it is currently the law that if you smuggle someone into the United States for financial gain you will be sent to Federal prison for a minimum of 3 years. And yet, agent after agent told me they arrest the same people and they weren't prosecuted by the local San Diego prosecutor.

Well, the existing law, 3 years mandatory minimum if you smuggle someone into the United States. What does this bill do? It keeps the existing law at 3 years for smuggling someone in for financial gain, but adds some newer, stiffer penalties for certain people that you bring in. For example, if a smuggler brings someone in who is a known terrorist, then instead of being a mandatory 3 years in prison, you could be subjected to up to 30 years in prison.

And here is the challenge that I want to talk a little bit about this issue and why it's so important: When Attorney General Gonzales came before the Judiciary Committee on April 6, 2006, I relayed to him the story that I just relayed to you, Mr. Speaker, about the problems with these alien smugglers not being prosecuted. I happen to have a transcript, and I said on April 6 to the Attorney General, ``The pathetic

failure of your U.S. attorney in San Diego to prosecute alien smugglers who have been arrested 20 times is a demoralizing slap in the face to Border Patrol agents who risk their lives every day. It also undermines the credibility that you and President Bush have when you talk tough about enforcing laws. And it renders meaningless the laws this Congress passes to crack down on alien smugglers.''

Then I asked him, ``What, if anything, will you do to see that the U.S. attorney in San Diego prosecutes these alien smugglers, at least those that have been repeatedly arrested by Border Patrol agents?''

This is what the Attorney General said: ``I'm aware of what you're talking about with respect to the San Diego situation and we are looking into it. We're asking all U.S. attorneys, particularly those on the southern border to do more, quite frankly. We need to be doing more.

``But the U.S. attorneys along the southern border tell me that the existing law regarding alien smugglers could be tighter. There is a discussion and debate now about what the language should be. No one wants to prosecute those who are engaged in Good Samaritan activities. We are looking into the situation in San Diego, and we are directing that our U.S. attorneys do more because you're right; if people are coming across the border repeatedly, particularly those who are coyotes and they're smugglers or they're criminals or felons, they ought to be prosecuted.''

Now, I bring this up because there happen to be a few of us in Congress, and I happen to be one, who are pretty familiar with this issue of alien smuggling, familiar enough, having been there and talked with the Attorney General, talked with the Border Patrol agents. But we didn't have any input to this legislation.

I have the bill before us that we are debating. This is the last version, the one we're debating on. And the date on it is May 22, at 1:35 p.m. It is now 3:40 p.m. It's as thick as a small town phone book, and yet we've only had it for a couple of hours. There have been no hearings. No subcommittee markup. No full committee markup.

Now, I'm not someone who usually gets up and complains about process, but this is an example where someone like me and others of the committee could have been quite helpful if we had had hearings, could have had a markup. There are a couple of major flaws in this bill that I'll talk about. And I say this in good spirit. I'm going to actually vote for this bill because I think your intentions are correct. But let me just give you two examples.

First, if you help smuggle in a terrorist, you can go to jail for up to 30 years. Under the language of this bill, you have to show that the smuggler knew that the person was a terrorist and knew that he intended to engage in terrorist activities.

Now, you don't have to be Johnny Cochran to successfully defend a defendant in that particular case. The standard is just almost impossible for a prosecutor to prove. For example, let's say that you have Mohammad Atta on the stand, and he's just been detained by a Border Patrol agent and we want to apply this new provision.

If I was the defense attorney, my first question to the Border Patrol agent would be, Mr. Border Patrol Agent, you've arrested my client. You want to send him to prison for 30 years. Did Mr. Atta show you his al Qaeda ID card? No? Did Mr. Atta show you the picture that he has with Bin Laden and his family? No? Did he show you some videotape showing him on the monkey bars in the Afghanistan training camps? No? Well, if not, how do you know with mathematical certainty that this guy is a terrorist?

It's almost impossible to prove.

That's an example of something we could have fixed during the markup, saying, if you brought this person into the country for financial gain and he's a member of the terrorist watch list, we're going to give you an enhanced sentence up to 30 years. But we didn't have that chance because there was no markup.

Another thing that's flawed is, it doesn't fix the Good Samaritan exception. There's language in this bill that talks about Good Samaritans. Specifically, it says it is a defense, if you are arrested for a religious organization or one of its members to provide room, board, travel, medical assistance or other basic living expenses. That's the situation of a nun, for example, helping someone who's going to die out there in the 110-degree heat. We all believe that that should be provided.

But I read you the transcript of the Attorney General; he said, because this Good Samaritan exception needs to be tightened, and it does. For example, under this law, because you didn't talk with us about fixing it, if you are a member of the Red Cross or you're a member of the United Way, which is not religious affiliated, you could still be prosecuted.

Now, none of us wants that to happen.

My point is, as this bill moves forward, I'm willing to support it because I support the intent behind it. I support getting tough with alien smugglers. But the bottom line is, we need to fix this in conference. We need to work with Republicans and Democrats to include our input to make sure that at the end the day we have a much better bill that we can be proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and terrorism or espionage.

It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.

It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders.

And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for which the penalties are less severe.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to the service men and women of the Coast Guard.

The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the President's request.

The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical shipments and report to Congress.

H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security, authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activity.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending and revoking a mariner's license.

The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to the Coast Guard commandant.

H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels. The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security.

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

I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.

I would just like to make two points in that regard. The first point is that he mentioned that this bill doesn't deal with the LNG issue. And I would beg to differ. This bill ensures that the Coast Guard will be there to ensure and protect the safety of our liquefied natural gas facilities that are built out in the deep water or out in the ocean. It's critical. Security is absolutely critical to these facilities, and that's exactly what this bill insures.

Secondly, my friend mentions that we have not done anything about energy. Well, I would respectfully say that anyone who says that, I would have to ask them where have they been for the past 16 months. We have done a great deal with respect to energy. The difference is that we haven't done anything to help large oil companies because we believe that they are part of the problem. We have done things to help develop alternative energy, because that is the future of America. It's about making America less dependent on foreign oil and less dependent on the large oil companies. That's what we have done. That's what Democrats believe in, and that's what we will continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Hall.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, one point that I would like to make at this time is that the gentleman talks about oil and talks about energy, but the thing that he fails to point out is that gas and oil are limited, they are not going to be there forever. We need to stop our reliance upon fossil fuels, upon gas and oil, and start to focus on renewable alternative energy and become less dependent on foreign oil, less reliant upon fossil fuels.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Stupak.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

That is correct. I do not have any additional speakers.

I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. We in the Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and support this language. I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may create undue burdens and delays, which will, in turn, delay the desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall costs.

The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. Under his leadership, his able leadership, I might add, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.

Having served in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, I know this armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search and rescue, homeland security, maritime safety, and aids to navigation. The list is almost endless. Each of these roles complements the other.

I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the same time, however, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand on its marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.

I'm equally concerned regarding the underlying bill which lacks provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who facilitate the government's ability to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.

I would also like to express my concern with section 720 of the underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG security.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.

I'd like to first comment on provisions in the underlying bill which affect the Deepwater program. We in Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and support this

language. I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may create undue burdens and delays which in turn will delay this desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall costs.

The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. Under his leadership, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.

Having served in the Coast Guard and Reserve, I know the armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search and rescue, homeland security, and maritime safety. Each of these roles, in my opinion, complements the others.

I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the same time, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand upon its marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.

I am equally concerned the underlying bill lacks provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who facilitate the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.

I'd also like to express my concern with section 720 of the underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG security. In my opinion, this is neither reasonable nor practicable for the Coast Guard or the communities where these facilities currently exist. In my opinion, this provision will act as a barrier to entry for future facilities and result in higher energy prices for consumers. Later today or tomorrow, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting an amendment made in order which would strike this dangerous provision.

Finally, I'd like to address the inclusion of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act. It is my understanding that upon engrossment of H.R. 2830, this language will be included in the underlying bill. I support this action as maritime alien smuggling has become a business where smugglers game the system and have little to lose under the current law. The Coast Guard confronts smugglers on a routine basis who know they can use a lack of authority to their advantage. These kinds of cases are dangerous to our Coast Guard men and women and dangerous to the smuggled aliens and occur at increasing frequency.

This measure is necessary because it provides a tool for the Coast Guard and Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of our maritime borders. Currently, there are enormous procedural and jurisdictional hurdles that protect and actually embolden alien smugglers. It will begin to deter unsafe and inhumane sea-based smuggling by delivering enhanced consequences to those who flee from or lie to our Federal law enforcement officers. Later today or tomorrow, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, will offer an amendment to clarify this authority. While I support the underlying measure, I believe the Smith amendment augments this provision and merits adoption.

It is my hope that during the amendment process some of my concerns in the underlying bill will be alleviated, but as we speak I cannot support passage of H.R. 2830. That said, I look forward to working with my colleagues as this process moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time for this important proposed rule for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Unlike my colleague, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I would like to quote a colleague whose opinions on these matters I respect to explain why.

On September 15, 2005, my Democrat Rules Committee colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, correctly stated that the modified open rule under which the Coast Guard was last reauthorized was insufficient in living up to how this House should be run.

While that Republican rule permitted Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments, he noted his disappointment ``that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claim, this legislative process which they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.''

Mr. Speaker, as imperfect and insufficient as that rule may have been to Mr. Hastings in 2005 and his minority Democrat colleagues, today's rule pales and fails in comparison--despite the often-repeated Democrat promises to run the most open, honest and ethical House in history.

This rule, which is even more restrictive, makes in order a majority of Democrat amendments and strips every Member with a new, good and germane idea of how to improve this legislation of the ability to come to the floor and even to offer it.

While the Democrats on the Rules Committee may have been following the wishes of their committee chairman by reporting out this rule, they have once again directly contradicted their campaign promises of their own leadership to run an open House of Representatives, instead choosing to become the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, while this rule and this standard of recurring policy of closing down the legislative process is bad for the House, the effect of this legislation is even worse for American consumers. It continues the same flawed ``no-energy energy policy'' that Democrats have followed blindly for the last 17 months.

A provision included in this legislation would essentially shut down the development of new LNG plants which seem counterintuitive given today's energy crisis. Natural gas is one of the most clean-burning fossil fuels, and passing this provision would only further reduce our energy supply while moving us further from energy independence for which Republicans have consistently advocated.

Time and time again this Democrat leadership has consistently promised to deliver a ``commonsense'' energy plan to reduce the cost of gasoline. However, since my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken control of Congress, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen more than a dollar, from $2.33 in January 2007 to just over $3.51 this week.

I have supported a number of this Congress's bipartisan efforts to reduce demand--like legislation to increase CAFE standards. But Americans literally cannot afford for Congress to continue to ignore the supply-side issues and problems associated with this overall issue. Specifically, that this Democrat majority continues to pursue a national energy policy that does absolutely nothing to increase our ability to produce more energy. Without a supply-side response, prices will continue to rise.

It is a fact that enough oil exists in deep waters off America's coasts and in our Federal lands to power 60 million cars for 60 years. Yet these domestic resources remain off-limits to exploration because of the Democrat policies that pervade this House.

In 1995, the Clinton administration vetoed the bill that would have allowed environmentally sound domestic exploration in Alaska. During this debate, opponents of the legislation argued that the benefits would be at least 10 years away and would not be worth it. Well, it is now more than 10 years later and the cost of crude oil has gone from just under $20 a barrel to nearly $120 a barrel and we are no closer to energy independence than we were 13 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of American consumers, and for the sake of their paychecks, that it does not take this Democrat majority another 10 years to realize that now is the time that we should focus on ways to utilize our own energy resources. It is called energy independence.

For prices to fall, Congress should be considering legislation that increases supply and reduces demand, not legislation like today's, that simply reduces the supply of one of the planet's cleanest fossil fuels.

These are basic commonsense economic principles that should be part of a commonsense plan. I encourage all of my colleagues to recognize that now is the time to stop ignoring our untapped domestic supply. I oppose this rule.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman. I believe that what the gentleman from California is saying is this: Is that we need supply- side answers to a problem when America needs the energy the most right now. And supply-side answers is what we would get if we defeat this rule.

We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from North Carolina, the gentleman, Mr. Coble.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made his point: Since the Democrat Party has taken over, prices at the pump have skyrocketed.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from New York does not have any additional speakers at this time. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2399) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives Federal prosecutors and agents stronger enforcement weapons against the most pernicious forms of human smuggling, terrorism-related smuggling and smuggling that results in kidnapping, rape or an attempt to kill.

This bill is based on a provision that has been added into H.R. 1684, the Homeland Security Department Reauthorization Act, in its committee markup. The supporters of that provision agreed to withdraw it from that bill so the Judiciary Committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction, could take a closer look.

The resulting bill amends both 8 U.S.C. 1324, the alien smuggling prohibition, and 18 U.S.C. 2237, the prohibition against failure to heave to, to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, increase maximum penalties for serious offenses and clarify the necessity defense that applies to legitimate maritime rescues.

This bill applies not just to human smuggling in the maritime context, but to all cross-border human smuggling. It provides appropriately tough penalties for the kind of serious smuggling offenses I've just described, while distinguishing those from other types of transport such as noncommercial efforts to reunify families. While these practices also violate our immigration laws, they do not fall into the same category of offense, and should not be treated as harshly.

Although the bill streamlines and strengthens the current offense language, it does not abandon existing case law that applies to alien smuggling offenses. For instance, it will remain a violation of Federal law both to bring illegal aliens to the United States and to bring other aliens across the border through places other than those designated as official entry ports. This is especially critical as Congress mandates that the Department of Homeland Security institute biometric entry and exit systems. For an orderly and fair immigration system to work, people must come in through these sites.

The bill also prevents the current list of illegal activities, smuggling, recruiting, transporting and harboring, without adding new activities, such as assisting aliens in their efforts to enter our country. Again, this preserves the distinction between true smuggling and the work of groups such as faith-based organizations, who seek to serve the alien community on humanitarian grounds.

Because this important distinction is preserved, the Judiciary Committee believes the religious activities exception in current law is sufficient, and the bill doesn't expand it. The bill also preserves current law in treating the offense of helping to bring in one's close family members as a misdemeanor.

The bill also establishes for the first time in Federal law that it is illegal to transport persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine compartment, a storage compartment or other confined space; or overloaded or intentionally run ashore and grounded at high speed and left to scatter. Those kinds of inhumane practices have resulted in death or serious injury to numerous alien passengers.

Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to consider providing further sentencing enhancements for particularly egregious offenses. Such enhancements should reach the smuggling of aliens in a life-threatening manner, the abandonment of aliens in the desert or discharging them onto spits of land that will be submerged in a high tide, or those cases that involve the facilitation of terrorism.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to make two points. The gentleman from Florida gave a discussion about the legislation and put it into the context of the Southern District of San Diego, and I just did want to note for the record that the Department of Justice that decided to recommend the U.S. attorney's termination had commended her specifically for her handling of immigration cases.

And the second point I guess I wanted to make on this issue was would it be that the people in charge had ensured that the offices most impacted by illegal immigration and by illegal alien smuggling and those districts on the border of this country had been given the resources to the Justice Department disbursed to the U.S. Attorney's Office so they weren't held under hiring freezes and constrained to try to deal with an enormous issue with a very limited number of prosecutors.

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

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