To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals, including terrorists, to enhance border security.

Madam President, I begin by thanking the staff for staying a few extra minutes to enable me to come back to the floor to make a short statement.

I have sought recognition to speak about a revised reform bill on immigration. In the course of the past 3 years, the Senate has spent a great deal of time on trying to reform our immigration system: to begin to fix the broken borders; to add more Border Patrols; to undertake some necessary fencing; to add drones; to undertake employer verification by utilizing identification which now can provide, with certainty, whether an immigrant is legal or illegal; to take care of a guest worker program to fill employment needs in the United States; and to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants.

During the 109th Congress, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, we reported out a bill. It came to the floor, and after considerable debate it was passed. The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation directed only at border patrol and employer verification, and for a variety of reasons we could not reconcile the bills and enact legislation.

This year a different procedure was undertaken: to have a group of Senators who had been deeply involved in the issue before craft a bill. It did not go through committee, and, as I said earlier on the floor, I think it probably was a mistake because the committee action of hearings and markups and refinement works out a lot of problems. At any rate, as we all know, after extensive debate, the bill went down. We could not get cloture to proceed, and it was defeated.

It was defeated for a number of reasons. But I believe the immigration issue is one of great national concern--great importance-- and ought to be revisited by the Congress and that ought to be done at as early a time as possible.

We have a very serious problem with people coming across our borders--a criminal element, and a potential terrorist element. The rule of law is broken by people who come here in violation of our laws. We have continuing problems from the 1986 legislation that employer verification is not realistic because there is no positive way of identification.

No matter how high the borders or the value of border patrol, it is not possible to eliminate illegal immigration if the magnet is present. The legislation I will be putting in as part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks is a draft of suggested proposals to be considered by the Senate. There are two major changes which have been undertaken.

Much as I dislike to, I have eliminated the automatic path to citizenship but instead deal with the fugitive status of the undocumented immigrants, the 12 million, and eliminate that fugitive status. Whether it is categorized as permanent legal resident or some other category, as a matter of nomenclature it can be worked out.

But the principal concern has not been the citizenship, although it is a desirable factor to try to integrate the 12 million into our society. But the principal concern has been that when an undocumented illegal immigrant sees a policeman on the street, there is fear of apprehension and being rounded up and deported, or the undocumented illegal is at the mercy of an unscrupulous employer who will take advantage of them and they cannot report to the police the treatment or a violation of law by an employer because they are fearful of being arrested and deported. In many places you cannot rent an apartment or undertake other activities. So I think eliminating the fugitive status is a major improvement.

The other significant change is to not tamper with or change family unification but to leave it as it is now. We had come up with, with the bill which was defeated, an elaborate point system for immigration. It was our best effort but, candidly, it turned out to be half-baked. It did not go through the hearing process to hear from experts. It did not have that kind of refinement and raised a lot of problems. That could be revisited at a later date. I have worked with the so-called interest groups representing immigration interests and have had what I consider to be a relatively good response.

I do not want to characterize it or put words in anybody's mouth. There is a certain reluctance to make any more concessions because concessions were made last year and the bottom fell out. So they made an inquiry, understandably so, that there be some realistic chance of getting the bill passed if they are to give up a path to citizenship.

I have undertaken to talk to many of my colleagues, Senators who opposed the bill, to get a sense from them as to whether, with the automatic path to citizenship out, and dealing only with the fugitive status, that there might be some greater willingness to find an accommodation and deal with the issues.

With respect to citizenship, even under the legislation that was defeated, there would not be an opportunity for citizenship until at least 8 years have passed, to take care of the backlog, and then another 5 years to work out the 12 million undocumented immigrants. So the citizenship, even under the bill which was defeated, was not something which was going to be imminent.

We have seen local governments and State governments trying to deal with the issue. Reports are more than 100 laws have been passed and ordinances enacted which would deal with the immigration problem. They cannot do it on a sensible basis. Last week the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down an opinion that the city of Hazelton, notwithstanding the understandable efforts by the mayor, program was not constitutional; that under our laws, the answer has to come from the Congress.

We have seen a lot of unrest on the issue. The front page of the Washington Post the day before yesterday had a report about groups of immigrants feeling that they had been mistreated. There was an uneasiness on all sides, uneasiness by people who are angry about the violation of our borders, by immigrants who think they are not being fairly treated, and a grave concern about the availability of workers on our farms across America, concerns of the hotel industry and landscapers and restaurateurs about the adequacy of our labor force. So there is no doubt that this is a very significant issue.

Last week I circulated to my 99 colleagues a letter, and one page summarizing the study bill--I will call it a study bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the draft proposal and the one-page letter circulated to all other Senators be printed in the Record.

In conclusion, I emphasize that I am inviting suggestions and comments for improving the bill. The one view that I do have, very strongly, is that it is our pay grade to deal with this issue. Only the Congress can deal with the immigration problem, and it is a matter of tremendous importance that we do so. We obviously cannot satisfy everyone, but I invite analysis, criticism, and modification.

I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont, one of my distinguished colleagues from Vermont, awaiting recognition.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear

I believe it is possible to enact comprehensive immigration

reform in this Congress, perhaps even in this calendar year,

if we make two significant changes in the bill we recently

had on the floor.

First, a new bill should eliminate the automatic path to

citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented

immigrants. Instead, we should just eliminate the fugitive

status for the 12 million so that they would not be fearful

every time they see a policeman, be protected from

unscrupulous employers who threaten to turn them in if they

don't do the employer's bidding, and be free to do things

like rent apartments in cities which now preclude that. From

soundings I have taken from many senators, that should take

the teeth out of the amnesty argument, which was the

principal reason for the defeat of the last bill.

Second, we should not tamper with the current provisions on

family unity with the elaborate point system which was

insufficiently thought through. If that is to be ultimately

accomplished, we need hearings and a more thoughtful

approach.

Third, although not indispensable, I believe we should

provide more green cards to assist the hitech community.

The enclosed draft bill covers these three changes and also

includes the guest worker program, the increased border

security and enhanced employer verification in the last bill.

Because it will be easier to get real border security if we

deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants, I think

this proposal presents an alternate and plausible path to

achieve comprehensive immigration reform now.

I have discussed this proposal with the senators who were

part of the core negotiating group and with the relevant

interest groups and have received a generally favorable

response and, in many cases, an enthusiastic response.

Similarly, in discussing the proposed bill with the

dissenters, I have heard no strenuous adverse response so I

believe it is worthy of a repeat effort. Although the defeat

of the bill on the Senate floor was a major disappointment, I

think that we proponents of comprehensive immigration reform

have significant momentum and these changes, perhaps

supplemented by other modifications, could put us over the

top.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter.

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

I rise today in support of legislation I have introduced, H.R. 2490, which would codify and expand a Coast Guard pilot program to collect biometric information on aliens interdicted at sea. I want to thank Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson for his willingness to move this bill through our committee and to the floor for consideration today. I also want to thank Peter King, our ranking member, for his support of this measure and his determined effort to strengthen our homeland security, first as chairman of our committee and now as ranking member. I am honored to serve with both of these great men.

The House unanimously adopted H.R. 2490 as an amendment to the Coast Guard Authorization Act several months ago. However, I believe it is important for this body to act on H.R. 2490 independently, given the uncertain prospect for enactment of the Coast Guard bill in this Congress.

My bill requires the Coast Guard to move forward on its biometrics at sea effort within 1 year and provide a cost analysis to Congress on expanding these capabilities to other Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security vessels and units. As part of this analysis, my bill also encourages DHS to give priority to expanding mobile biometric collection capability to assets and areas that are most likely to encounter illegal border crossings in the maritime environment.

The efforts of the Coast Guard in this area show great promise. Since the collection of limited biometrics on individuals interdicted at sea began, the Coast Guard has collected biometric data from 1,530 migrants, resulting in nearly 30 matches against databases of wanted criminals, immigration violators and others who have previously encountered government authorities. Instead of being released to repeat their dangerous and illegal behavior, these individuals are now detained and prosecuted. The U.S. Attorney's Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico, has prosecuted more than 118 individuals for violations of U.S. immigration laws and other offenses based substantially

on information obtained through the biometrics program.

The Coast Guard reports that illegal migration in the Mono Pass, an area between the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, has been reduced by 50 percent in just the past year as a result of the biometrics program. By leveraging its relationships with DHS, the Coast Guard now has access to millions of fingerprint files it can use to positively identify individuals encountered at sea, those who are without identification and are suspected of attempting to illegally enter the United States.

Now that the Coast Guard has determined the most effective way to collect biometrics at sea, the Department of Homeland Security needs to determine the most appropriate way to move forward and expand this effort as cost effectively as possible, which is what my bill requires. Given the success of existing efforts on biometrics by the Coast Guard, I believe that it is imperative that we move forward on this bill so that these efforts are cost effective and will do the most good.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the collection of biometrics at sea by the Coast Guard is already helping greatly deter illegal migration and prevent the capture and release of dangerous individuals so we are not releasing them anymore, and that is very important.

I urge all of my colleagues to help further that effort by voting for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I urge this House to consider both the authorization and appropriations bills this year, the Homeland Security authorization and appropriations bills.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of these Homeland Security bipartisan measures. I would like to commend Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for their efforts to bring these bills to the floor today. I would also like to congratulate the authors of these bills Congresswoman Harman and Congressmen Carney, Langevin, King, Bilirakis, Reichert, and Perlmutter.

Individually, the bills presented today improve operations within the Department of Homeland Security, including issues related to privacy, information sharing and enhanced security. Collectively, they improve on the provisions of H.R. 1, the Implementing 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.

Protecting the privacy of our citizens is an important but very difficult issue to balance in our Nation's war against terrorism. Under H.R. 1570, the presence of a full-time Component Privacy Officer would ensure that privacy considerations remain at the forefront and are integrated into the decisionmaking process at all of the DHS Components.

Through our oversight work, it is clear that DHS's information systems have been penetrated and remain vulnerable to cyber attacks. H.R. 5983, the Homeland Security Network Defense and Accountability Act of 2008, represents a critical step toward improving the cybersecurity network at DHS by ensuring a robust defense of its information systems, and holding individuals at all levels accountable for mitigating vulnerabilities.

While protecting DHS information systems is critical to our Nation's security, we also need to be mindful of the importance and need for information sharing. H.R. 6193, H.R. 4806 and H.R. 3815 address the need for information sharing in a secure manner. H.R. 6193--Improving Public Access to Documents Act of 2008--dovetails with H.R. 4086's effort to remove obstacles to more and better information sharing in the unclassified category.

Our offshore territories are the first point of entry to the U.S. for many foreigners and our shores are extremely vulnerable to illegal and possibly terrorist activities. I am pleased that H.R. 5531 will put in motion a plan to deploy next-generation radiological detection technology at our ports of entry to more effectively and more efficiently scan persons and cargo as they enter the United States. I fully support the ``Biometric Identification At Sea Pilot Project'' which has allowed the Coast Guard to collect biometrics from individuals interdicted in the Caribbean to run them against terrorist and criminal databases. H.R. 5531 and H.R. 2490 address the vulnerabilities of our Caribbean shores.

Madam Speaker, the implementation of these bills would not be possible without our State, local and tribal entities. Fusion Centers provide much needed support to these entities in the implementation of Homeland Security programs. H.R. 6098 requires DHS to allow State and local governments to use Homeland Security grant funding to hire and keep analysts in fusion centers--for however long State and local officials see fit.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills and their passage.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2490) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program for the mobile biometric identification in the maritime environment of aliens unlawfully attempting to enter the United States, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2490 is an important milestone in protecting our Nation's maritime security. This bill authorizes a program that has been conducted by the Coast Guard since November of 2006. The Biometric Identification at Sea Pilot Project has allowed the Coast Guard to collect biometrics from individuals interdicted in the Caribbean to run them against terrorists and criminal data bases.

Under this program, the Coast Guard has collected biometric information from over 1,100 individuals, using state-of-the-art handheld scanners. As a result, over 250 individuals with criminal records have been identified, and 72 have been brought ashore for prosecution under U.S. laws.

This program breaks the cycle of migrants with criminal histories being returned to their country of origin without prosecution. It also has proven itself to be an effective partnership between the Coast Guard and Federal law enforcement.

I would note that these provisions also are carried on H.R. 2830, the FY 2009 U.S. Coast Guard Authorization, a measure that was approved by the House in April of 2008.

I am pleased that this is being considered today as one of the key provisions that we have included in our DHS authorization package. I urge passage of this important legislation, which will significantly improve the security of our Nation's maritime environment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr. Bilirakis on what is a good bill. We enjoyed working with him on it. I look forward to working with him on future bills.

I support H.R. 2490, Mr. Speaker, because it breaks the cycle of migrants with criminal histories being returned to their country of origin without prosecution. This bill also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to analyze the cost of expanding the biometrics program outside the Caribbean.

Every day, the United States Coast Guard men and women are valiantly protecting our Nation's 95,000 miles of shoreline with aging infrastructure. This legislation will provide them with the additional high-tech tools they so desperately need.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2490.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on July 29, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House.

If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 534, a motion by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2490, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program for the mobile biometric identification in the maritime environment of aliens unlawfully attempting to enter the United States, as amended.

I would have also voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 535, a motion by Mr. Davis of Illinois to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6113, a bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to require each agency to include a contact telephone number in its collection of information in order to assist people with filling out government forms.

Finally, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 536, a motion by Mr. Hare of Illinois to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2192, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish an Ombudsman within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the appropriate place in the record.