Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to S. Con. Res. 31. In the attempt to correct an error in drafting, this concurrent resolution would allow for 50,000 new green cards reserved for nurses and physical therapists. Green card status is permanent resident status. Accompanying spouses and minors also will be given permanent resident status and will not be counted against the 50,000 cap.

If this concurrent resolution is passed, it will give 50,000 nursing and physical therapist jobs away to foreign workers and will be giving even more jobs away to accompanying spouses, as those with permanent resident status are granted work permits.

The argument that the current drafting of the supplemental ``recaptures unused employment-based visas'' from the past 2 years is false, since any employment-based visas that are not used are given up to meet the family-based visa quota for that year.

A recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that ``there is little evidence that immigrants take only jobs Americans don't want.''

Another recent study conducted by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University says that ``there is little empirical support for the notion that new immigrants are taking large numbers of jobs that American workers refuse to accept. There is direct competition between new immigrants and native-born workers for most of these jobs.''

At a hearing I held last week as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, the minority witness, Dr. Holzer, testified that, due to cost containment in certain fields, ``10 to 15 percent jobs in the United States potentially on the high end could face competition from engineers and computer programmers and others in India and China and other parts of the world.''

If you have any nursing or physical therapy students in your district, consider that those students who will be graduating this spring will have to compete with 50,000 foreign nurses and physical therapists who will likely work for lower wages. We will have to answer to our constituent nurses and physical therapists who cannot find a job due to the influx of foreign workers in this field.

Also, if we pass this concurrent resolution for nurses and physical therapists, who will be the next workers that we will displace? Will we add 50,000 more new visas to each supplemental, driving more and more domestic American-born workers out of a job?

Today, I ask my colleagues to support their constituents, American workers who are in the fields of nursing and physical therapy, and vote against this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not an attorney, it is my understanding that the perfect defense for a charge of libel is the truth.

We have heard no discussions today about the substance of the descriptions in the committee report, and that is because the descriptions of the effects of the amendments in the committee report were accurate.

Contrast that with the dissenting views the minority attached to the committee report. For example, the minority views state that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly hostile to families.'' The minority dissenting views in the committee report also describe the legislation as ``anti-physician and anti-family.''

Now, 270 Members of the House voted for legislation that the minority views stated was ``overtly hostile to families.'' Fifty-four Members of the other side of the aisle, the Democrat Party, voted for that bill. Surely there is no comparison between stating that broadly supported legislation, designed to protect parental rights and the health and safety of young women, is ``overtly hostile to families'' and accurately describing the consequences of poorly drafted amendments to the legislation.

Further, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who we heard from earlier in her press release last week referred to a conspiracy to ``falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment.''

First, there was no rewriting. The majority of the committee, in describing offered amendments, do not cut and paste any description of an amendment

into a committee report. The majority describes the amendment offered as it understands it.

Second, the purpose of describing an amendment is not to describe its intent. Its purpose is to describe its meaning and effect. What matters is not what is in the mind of a Member offering an amendment. It is what the text of the amendment offered would mean if it were made a part of the bill. Describing the effects of an amendment as it where is not the same as describing the subjective intent of the person offering the amendment.

A committee report should do the former, not the latter, because what matters at the end of the day are the actual words on the page of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, my flight to Washington, DC, in the early morning hours of March 21, 2005 was delayed due to circumstances beyond my control. Consequently, I arrived shortly after the vote on S. 686 closed. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of S. 686, for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Shiavo.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 are vitally important to protect our constituents from child molesters, rapists, murderers, and other criminals, as well as terrorists seeking asylum in our country.

I believe that we must keep the asylum open and honest for those who have a good-faith claim to asylum. However, we must also protect our constituents from aliens who seek to abuse our asylum processes and do harm to our citizens. For instance, because he was free after applying for asylum, Mir Aimal Kansi was able to murder two CIA employees at CIA headquarters. Ramzi Yousef took advantage of the freedom he gained by applying for asylum to mastermind the first World Trade Center attack which killed six and injured 1,000 in the amendment author's district.

The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 do not prevent aliens from seeking asylum. Those who truly have been persecuted for religious or political grounds will be allowed to present their cases just as they are able to now. These provisions merely overturn Ninth Circuit Court decisions saying that immigration judges cannot use inconsistencies in an alien's statement to determine if he or she is being untruthful.

The bill also says that an asylum applicant may be asked to corroborate his claim with evidence, if such evidence can be obtained without leaving the United States. One of the goals of this bill is to ensure that our asylum system is consistent with our judicial system. If a judge or criminal jury can sentence a criminal defendant to life in prison or even execution because they did not believe the defendant's story, certainly an immigration judge can deny an asylum claim to an alien for the same basis.

When an American goes to court to settle a dispute, he bears the burden of proof to prove his claim. Requiring the asylum claimant to bear the burden of proof is consistent, both with our justice system and with international law.

Permitting the judge to require an asylum claimant to produce corroborating evidence he has or can obtain without leaving the United States is just common sense. If a claimant says, for example, that he fled his country because he received a threatening letter from a government official, the judge would be remiss if he failed to ask to see the letter or at least inquire about what happened to the letter.

The asylum protections in the REAL ID Act are vitally important to ensuring the honesty of the asylum system, as well as the security of our Nation and its citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 418, and oppose this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 6 and America's Boy Scouts. Unfortunately, the assault on the Boy Scouts of America continues. In the name of tolerance and acceptance, some would force the Department of Defense to abandon America's Boy Scouts. Rather than allow this private organization to continue receiving support from the Department of Defense, they would rather compel the Department of Defense to terminate the relationship between military families and this important quality-of-life program.

It is a shame that the U.S. Congress even has to consider this bill, yet here we are actually debating whether such an organization that instills service and integrity in our Nation's boys is worthy of support from the Department of Defense.

The Scout's Law says that Scouts must be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. We can only hope that all Americans would ascribe to such a code of morality. Imagine the effect on our culture if all of us resolved to commit to the Boy Scouts Oath. Rather than condemn the Boy Scouts for such a code, this organization deserves our whole-hearted support.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge the Boy Scouts to remain unwavering in their principles as expressed in the Scout Law and Oath. Likewise, I urge my colleagues to continue to support this fine organization by voting in favor of H. Con. Res. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 418, the Real ID Act.

The REAL ID Act incorporates four of the 9/11 Commission recommendations that are necessary to effectively protect our constituents from terrorists seeking to exploit loopholes in our immigration system. This bill will close several of those dangerous loopholes.

In addition to providing important Federal security guidelines for driver's licenses, the REAL ID Act also includes other important homeland security measures, including the deportability of terrorists, preventing terrorists from gaming the asylum system, and implementing border security measures in San Diego.

Currently, the terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the United States; but as soon as they set foot into the U.S. on tourist visas, we cannot deport them for many of the very same offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. H.R. 418 makes aliens deportable for the same terrorist-related offenses as those that would prevent them from being admitted to the United States in the first place.

Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding of how terrorist organizations operate.

The Immigration and Nationality Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation if they can show that he did not know that the funds or support would further the organization's terrorist activity; i.e., his donation did not immediately go to buying explosives.

As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department, explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational structure, and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions, regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.''

Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Diane Feinstein has rightly stated that ``I simply do not accept that so- called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from their other operations. I think the money will ultimately go to bombs and bullets rather than babies, or, because money is fungible, it will free up other funds to be used on terrorist activities.''

The REAL ID Act is written so that an alien who provides funds or other material support to a terrorist organization would be deportable unless he did not know and should not reasonably have known that the organization was a terrorist organization.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the support and passage of H.R. 418.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to wholeheartedly support this common-sense resolution.

The U.S. and European Union, as we have heard, established arms embargoes against the People's Republic of China following the June, 1989, Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The U.S embargo continues today in light of the widespread human rights abuses that continue under the Communist regime. But the European Union, in a move that can only be described as reckless, is moving to lift its ban on weapons sales.

EU states are even today selling China so-called nonlethal technologies that enhance its offensive capabilities. Advanced radar systems sold to China, for example, allow its military to better target U.S. warships and aircraft.

For this reason, I introduced in the defense authorization bill last year a provision to prohibit the Defense Department from buying weapons from foreign companies that sell weapons to the People's Republic of China. My measure, which passed the House, also would have made it U.S. policy to deny China defense technology that could threaten the U.S. or destabilize the Western Pacific region.

Unfortunately, this provision was dropped in conference as a result of Senate objections. But we are here again today discussing this vitally important issue.

I strongly encourage the EU to place international security and human rights ahead of any monetary benefits from selling weapons to China, and I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, forty years is a long time to wait for anything But sometimes a dream deferred is all the sweeter when it finally comes true.

Nobody knows that better than Dan Beery, a native of Oaktown, Indiana and a member of the U.S. Men's Elite Eight rowing team. It was Dan and his teammates who won the gold medal at the Olympic Games in Athens on Aug. 22. They set a world record when they did it. It had been 40 years since the U.S. won that Olympic event.

Dan's story is an inspiration. He grew up in a small town in Indiana. He played football and basketball at North Knox High School. He began his college career at Vincennes University and eventually transferred to the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, where his life would be changed by a providential meeting. In 1997, Dan was playing a game of pickup basketball when the coach of the crew team walked by. The coach stopped and asked the six-foot-seven Hoosier to try out for the rowing team. Dan did and quickly showed potential. And while he became a good college rower, he failed to make the national team 5 years in a row.

But Dan would not give up. He devoted himself to his training. He had the ardent support of his parents, Jim and Merry Beery, who still live in Oaktown, and his sisters, Meredith and Marsha. And the whole community rallied behind Dan with support and fundraisers.

This small-town unity of spirit made a difference. When he returned to Knox County with his gold medal, Dan told a local newspaper that the one question people ask him the most is how he became an Olympic champion considering most in the sport are from Ivy League universities.

``My answer is how could I not?,'' Beery said. ``I came from a place with warm and loving people who supported me no matter what.''

Dan's determination paid off. He made the national team and in the 2002 World Championships won silver in the men's pair with coxswain event. At the 2003 World Championships, he won gold.

Earlier this year, Dan was a member of the four-man crew that won gold at the 2004 World Cup in Lucerne, Switzerland. Following that success, he was moved into the eight for the Olympic games in Greece. It was that crew that surged early and won the first gold for the United States in four decades.

His crew also included Jason Read, a volunteer firefighter who was at ground zero after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, Dan Beery is an inspiration to young people who dare to dream big dreams. He is the pride of his community. Dan embodies the American dream, where hard work and perseverence, combined with the encouragement and support of family and community, great things can be achieved.

Dan himself says it best: ``Just because you're from a little town in Indiana doesn't mean you can't make it to the Olympics and win.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foley- Ackerman amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This important amendment will close a longstanding gap that has allowed thousands of aliens who have tortured or otherwise abused the human rights of untold numbers in their home country to live in the United States.

They are living here in our country the lives that many of their victims will never enjoy. As we continue our war on terror, we must do everything in our power to make sure that our Federal agencies have the tools they need to ensure our safety.

The Foley-Ackerman amendment will take such a step. This amendment will keep our country safe by barring admission into the United States and authorizing the deportation of any foreigner who has committed acts of torture or other human rights abuses abroad.

These criminals have committed some of the most atrocious acts ever imagined by mankind. We can no longer be a safe haven for those who seek to do us harm and have proven this by doing grave harm to others in the countries they have fled.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend my colleague from Wisconsin for his work on this issue. Currently, terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the United States, but as soon as they set foot in the U.S. on tourist visas, for example, we cannot deport them for many of the very same offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. This amendment makes aliens deportable for terrorist-related offenses to the same extent that they would not be admitted in the first place to the United States.

Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding of how terrorist organizations operate. The Immigration and Nationality Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation if he can show that he did not know that the funds or support would further the organization's terrorist activity. That is, his donation did not immediately go to buying explosives. This notion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorist organizations operate.

As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational structure and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions, regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.''

Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Dianne Feinstein has rightly stated that, ``I simply do not accept that so- called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from their other operations.''

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate on this amendment to 20 minutes, equally divided.

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

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by leadership, including Chairman Henry Hyde, and will protect the American people from dangerous aliens while continuing our Nation's proud history of providing refuge to the innocent oppressed. This amendment will protect the American people in the same way as section 3032, which it replaces, would have. Section 3032 would have barred aliens who posed a threat to the American public from seeking our country's protection.

The courts have created a need to defend the American public against such aliens. You see, the decisions of a few judges have turned what was a clear congressional mandate authorizing the detention of dangerous aliens who are facing removal into a confused and unworkable mess. Congress has authorized the Attorney General to detain all aliens who pose a risk to the community, including aliens granted protection under the Convention Against Torture, until they can be removed from the United States. The Supreme Court has read this provision, however, to find that any alien who has been ordered deported but who cannot be removed must be released, no matter how grave a danger the alien poses, unless some ``special circumstance'' makes the alien especially dangerous.

Congress' clear standard has eroded to the point that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Department of Homeland Security authorities to release a dangerously insane alien who had accumulated convictions for assault, harassment and rape. Why? Because the Supreme Court had released a killer in the same circumstances, and the alien in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' case had not actually killed anyone. Under such logic, DHS cannot protect the public against an alien who has been granted torture convention protection and who therefore cannot be removed from the United States unless the alien has done something more serious than killing another person.

This amendment will address the goals of section 3032 by giving the Secretary of Homeland Security the tools to keep dangerous aliens granted protection under the torture convention out of our communities, off of our streets, and away from our children. It will authorize the Secretary, in his unreviewable discretion, to detain aliens granted such protection who pose a risk to the American people. In addition, this amendment will continue our Nation's tradition of providing aliens the opportunity to request asylum and torture convention relief while at the same time ensuring that our country's generosity is not abused.

It would also amend section 3007 to reinforce the current burdens governing asylum, with one exception. Aliens who claim that they need asylum because they have been accused in connection with terrorist, militant or guerilla activity must show that race, religion, membership in a particular social group, nationality or political opinion is a central reason for any claimed persecution. This amendment will protect innocent aliens who come to our shores fleeing thugs and dictators, while undoing an inappropriate burden imposed on our government by, once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Contrary to law and logic, the Ninth Circuit has required the government to prove that aliens claiming persecution because they have been tied to terrorism are not eligible for asylum, instead of requiring the aliens seeking protection to show that they are. My subcommittee has discovered that Hesham Hedayet, who killed two innocent bystanders at LAX on July 4, 2002, had tried to exploit this loophole.

I must underscore again, however, the most important effect of this amendment which is to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to detain aliens who would pose a risk to the American people if released.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to at this time state that the administration, as a result of the amendment to section 3032, has said that they favor the change in my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time.

I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in opposing this amendment, which would take a vital tool out of the hands of our Border Patrol in keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States.

As it is distressingly easy for aliens to illegally cross our borders, it would also be relatively easy for terrorists to enter. The Border Patrol recently released data that in just the period from last October through this June, over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were caught trying to cross the northern or southern borders, including eight from Afghanistan, six from Algeria, 13 from Egypt, 20 from Indonesia, 10 from Iran, 55 from Israel, 122 from Pakistan, six from Saudi Arabia, six from Syria, 22 from Turkey, and two from Yemen. A South African woman alleged to be a terrorist on the terrorist watch list recently indicated that she had crossed the border illegally from Mexico.

What happens to these aliens when they are intercepted? They go through a ``revolving door'' when we release them because of a lack of detention space. Then we hold out some desperate hope that they will appear for their immigration court hearings months afterward. However, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that the INS was not able to remove 87 percent of aliens with final orders of removal who were not detained. And, worse yet, 94 percent of nondetained aliens from state sponsors of terrorism who had final removal orders could not be located for their deportation. In an age of terrorism, this is just unacceptable.

There is no good reason not to subject illegal aliens who have crossed the border illegally to immediate deportation. These aliens, if they have been in the U.S. less than 10 years, have no right to seek cancellation of removal unless they are making a claim of asylum. Once again, unless they are making a claim of asylum and can show a credible fear of persecution, there is no reason not to subject them to expedited removal.

And, in fact, the amendment that just recently passed in the House, previously, removes the 1-year limitation in the base bill for convention against torture and asylum relief. So those who seek relief from convention against torture and for asylum will not be harmed by the bill.

So the amendment must be rejected so that we can allow for the expedited removal of individuals who would do us harm. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in opposing this amendment. We must remember that terrorists continually try to abuse our asylum system. For example, in 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees at CIA headquarters and Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first World Trade Center attack after they were free after applying for asylum. Just weeks ago, Shahawar Matin Siraj was arrested in New York City for plotting to bomb a subway station. Siraj was freed after applying for asylum.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a body of circuit law that is essentially preventing immigration judges from finding that asylum applicants are lying by severely limiting the factors, such as their inconsistencies and demeanor, that the immigration judge can consider in finding aliens untruthful.

Given that government attorneys are not allowed to ask the foreign government about the facts regarding the asylum claimants, about the only evidence available to the government on which to deny an asylum application is the perceived truthfulness of the applicant's testimony.

If a criminal jury can sentence a United States citizen who is a criminal defendant to life imprisonment or execution based on their not believing the American citizen's defendant's story, certainly an immigration judge can deny an alien asylum on the same basis.

The bill would overturn this ridiculous precedent used by the Ninth Circuit. The bill provides a list of factors that an immigration judge can consider in determining truthfulness.

Oppose the Smith amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until November 19, 2004, to file a supplemental report on H.R. 10.

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

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion on H.R. 10, the legislation that has been considered by the House over the last several days, and this motion to instruct would strike several provisions in the legislation that are vitally important to securing the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, I would offer into the Record a letter by a group called the 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

The letter was written to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is made up of a group of families who lost loved ones or were victimized on September 11 as a result of the attacks on our country. No one could speak more eloquently than they about the need for change to our immigration policy in that they write:

``We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for the provisions in title 3 of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act,'' and those are the provisions that this motion to instruct would seek to eliminate.

Reading further, ``These provisions would go a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists, all of whom had violated our immigration laws in one way or another, to enter and move freely around our country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones.

``We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions that require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents, preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID cards, insist that DHS, Department of Homeland Security, expand its use of expedited removal and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process to delay deportation and increase the number of the Border Patrol and ICE, or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, agents.

``All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and so should be enacted and implemented as quickly as possible.

``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and address the current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform in H.R. 10 while the sponsors of every other so- called 9/11 bill completely ignored it.

``It is incomprehensible to us that any reasonable person could believe that immigration reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the attacks. We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they have committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily prosecutable here in America, their use of the Convention Against Torture allows them to escape justice.

``We are strongly supportive of section 3031 and section 3032 of H.R. 10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws. Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last 3 years that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered 3 years ago by enacting reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration provisions already in the bill and by opposing any efforts to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September 11, 2001.

``Sincerely, the Board of Directors of 9/11 Families For a Secure America.''

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone who can more eloquently speak to the importance of maintaining these provisions in the House bill in H.R. 10, when in other proposals, as the families would say themselves, that every other so-called 9/11 bill has completely ignored the central focus of the 9/11 tragedy, which is that individuals from outside our country came into our country, abused the process, and murdered our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I read earlier for the Record.

9/11 Families for a

Secure America,

New York, NY, September 28, 2004.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: We are writing to express the

support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for

the provisions in Title III of H.R. 10, the 9/11

Recommendations Implementation Act. These provisions would go

a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19

terrorists--all of whom had violated our immigration laws in

one way or another--to enter and move freely around our

country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones.

We strongly urge the Members of the Judiciary Committee to

retain the immigration provisions included in H.R. 10. We

believe that implementation of Title III would improve

homeland security dramatically and help to ensure that no

other American families have to experience the devastating

grief, the debilitating loss, and the overwhelming rage that

we have known every day for more than three years now.

We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions

that: require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their

identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents;

preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID

cards; insist that DHS expand its use of expedited removal

and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process

to delay deportation; and increase the numbers of Border

Patrol and ICE agents.

All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the

9/11 Commission's recommendations, and so should be enacted

and implemented as quickly as possible. Our efforts over the

past three years to get elected officials to recognize and

address the current immigration crisis have taught us that

even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform

proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders

are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being

vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican

Leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform

in H.R. 10, while the sponsors of every other so-called ``9/

11 bill'' completely ignored it. It is incomprehensible to us

that any reasonable person could believe that immigration

reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the

attacks.

We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to

frustrate efforts to deport

them by claiming that they will be tortured upon being

returned home. Even worse, when they have committed their

heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily prosecutable

here in America, their use of the Convention Against Torture

allows them to escape justice. We are strongly supportive of

sections 3031 and sections 3032 of H.R. 10, which would end

this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws.

There is, however, one glaring omission in H.R. 10. The 9/

11 Commission specifically recommended enhanced cooperation

with and training of state and local law enforcement officers

on immigration law, yet H.R. 10 includes no mention of this

recommendation. We hope you will bring up the CLEAR Act, H.R.

2671, for a full committee markup as soon as possible in

order to complete the 9/11 Commission's work.

Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the

last three years that they would honor our loved ones who

were murdered three years ago by enacting reforms to ensure

that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope

you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration

provisions already in the bill and by opposing any effort to

protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart

our families on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors,

9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age

23, WTC, North Tower, 103rd Floor.

Monica Gabrielle, North Haven, CT, Wife of Rich Gabrielle,

WTC, South Tower.

Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, Sunnyside,

NY, Father of Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor.

Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart.

Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph.

Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Detective Sergeant, NYPD,

Retired), Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, Bronx,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to talk specifically about one of the sections that are being considered for removal as a result of the motion to instruct, section 3005, which addresses the importance of verifiable documentation for aliens and their identification.

First of all, we need to understand what the section does not do. It does not prevent aliens from presenting other foreign documents to open bank accounts in this country. And it does not prevent aliens from presenting other documents in addition to the documents listed. Thus, an alien could also present a driver's license so long as the alien presents a designated document.

What the section does do, however, it requires aliens to present secure documents. It prevents the aliens from using consular identification cards, as we have heard about earlier, issued by foreign agents to aliens present in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that those foreign agents in the United States issue them only to their nationals, but we will learn later that that is in fact not the case, and that they will issue them for purposes of getting into

the secure sections of airports or onto Federal facilities. Those documents should be secure, and they should be safe from fraud.

The FBI has told our Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims that the most commonly issued of those documents is the Mexican matricula consular. The matricula consular has been accepted in this country for over 100 years, documentation that would allow a Mexican citizen while legally present in the United States to have contact information with their government, namely, a consular office in the United States. That has happened for, as I said, a long time in this country.

But the concern that we have is the newly issued Mexican matricula consular is not reliable. It is vulnerable to forgery and, most significantly, poses a terrorist threat. We had then Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence Steve McCraw testify before our committee. He concluded that domestic acceptance of the matricula cards in the United States poses a law enforcement and national security risk. He stated that the criminal threat stems from the fact that the matriculas can be a perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity which can facilitate a wide range of crimes, including money laundering. He told of individuals who were arrested with multiple matriculas, each with the same photo but different names, and some of whom had matching driver's licenses to go with the identities proposed on the matricula cards. He concluded that the terrorist threat posed by these cards is the ``most worrisome'' to the FBI.

He went on to say, ``The ability of foreign nationals to use foreign cards to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists, those watch lists that we think are going to save us from the next round of 9/11 attacks. But these kind of cards will actually keep individuals from being cross-referenced on these lists. These lists are disseminated to local police officers.'' Nor is the danger posed by those documents only as breeder documents. For other documentation, notwithstanding their vulnerability to fraud and abuse, consular ID cards can be presented to board an airliner. We know of cases like that.

I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it is suggested that these cards, especially the matricula consular, they are the most prevalent of the consular ID cards, but quite honestly, there are several foreign governments who are witnessing, observing the success of the issuance and acceptance of these consular identification cards by Mexico, the matricula consular, and they seek to follow them in issuing their own. They are supposed to go to individuals who are nationals of these particular respective foreign governments. But we know that these cards have been issued to non-Mexican nationals in the United States, including at least one Iranian.

Mr. Speaker, at the U.S. Air Force Academy, during a particular set of arrests, employees with matricula cards were found to be employees of the Air Force Academy, but they were not Mexican nationals. They were Guatemalans. The Mexican government had either issued a matricula consular to a non-national or these cards had been so easily created by fraudulent means that they were able to obtain cards very similar to the real cards.

It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that these insecure documents not be accepted for identification purposes to enter secure areas, such as boarding an airplane. That is why we cannot strip out any of the provisions in title III and especially section 3005.

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

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

If I can just speak briefly about the gentleman's comments with regard to an individual who is in this country that presents only a matricula consular card for identification, according to former intelligence director for the FBI, Steve McCraw, his testimony before our subcommittee said that really the only people that need to use a matricula consular exclusively for identification purposes are illegal aliens, simply because those that are in the country, that are present in the country legally, have other forms of secured documentation such as a passport or a visa or the like.

But the gentleman suggested in his comments that if a person supplies exclusively a matricula consular card to a law enforcement agent that they will be immediately deported. Mr. Speaker, they will not be immediately deported if the gentleman's other provisions in this motion to instruct are taken out, and that is portion 3006, which calls for expedited removal.

If the gentleman is saying that he wants those people immediately deported that only supply a matricula consular card for identification, I would accept, under unanimous consent, to have section 3006 stripped out of his motion to instruct. I do not think that is going to happen because the gentleman does wish to remove expedited removal provision from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Illinois with regard to his support of the President. It looks like Illinois this year may be in fact in play, the electoral college.

But I do want to remind the gentleman that we do have three branches of government, and we have all been sent here to represent our various constituencies with regard to these very important issues of national security.

Going back to the letter that I have submitted for the Record from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I know that the gentleman is very impassioned about his support for immigration, and I very much appreciate it. We are a Nation of immigrants. But I think it is important for us to refocus on what actually took place on 9/11 and what the American people are asking us to do.

The 9/11 Families for a Secure America said, ``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and to address the current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress.'' They do not languish in the House of Representatives, after we defeat this motion to instruct ``because our elected leaders are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being vilified by them.''

Mr. Speaker, if 9/11 repeats itself, and I have said this to our neighbors to the north in Canada who have had representatives from their government, from their legislative bodies, come and speak to us about issues important to immigration, issues important to both of our countries, if the tragedy of 9/11 repeats itself in this country, then my colleague from Illinois and others from Canada and Mexico will long for, will yearn for, the good-old-days when we considered what will then be considered minimalist reforms to our immigration policy.

To not require that anyone receive relief under the Convention Against Torture, the gentleman talks about expedited removal and the concern that he has with regard for that. Our amendment changed the underlying bill to allow for Convention Against Torture and asylum claims to go ahead unimpeded by the new provision that calls for expedited removal. So we will not be sending individuals who have a very reasonable fear of being tortured

and abused in their home countries if they are returned. Those that really do have a reason to fear for their safety in another country and for their abuse there will be able to obtain relief in this country.

But for those that abuse the immigration process, as the 19 did who perpetrated 9/11, we must maintain these immigration provisions in the bill so that we deal with that very important problem and we do not allow 9/11 to repeat itself and do not come to a point in the future where the American people require us to do much more difficult things, make much more difficult decisions, and cause us to greatly restrict the influx of immigrants into our country.

In the words of families affected most directly by 9/11, these are reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals. They should not be stripped out. I beg my colleagues not to vote for the motion to instruct, but in fact vote against the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those communities designated as All-America Cities, particularly the city of Evansville in my district.

Evansville is to be commended and should take pride for being recognized by the National Civic League as an All-America City. Evansville, like all of southwest and west central Indiana, is a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family. The city has a rich heritage and its citizens hold dear Hoosier values like faith, family and hard work.

The All-America City Award recognizes in Evansville an exemplary grass-roots community approach to problem-solving where community members, government businesses and nonprofit organizations work together to address critical local issues.

The National Civic League recognized Evansville, Indiana, as a community that cooperatively tackles challenges and achieves results.

The All-America City Award is America's original and most prestigious community recognition award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this resolution in commending Evansville and the other cities honored by the National Civic League.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Marriage is designed to be between a man and a woman, period. It is not for two women, nor for two men. It was for this reason that I authored the Marriage Protection Act, which passed in the House in July.

Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment.

I have two primary concerns.

The first is the potential this amendment has to federalize domestic relations law, that is the law of families, parents, custody, etc., all of which are now handled in the States.

Let me say at the outset that I am not among those who believe that marriage cannot be defined in our Constitution under principles of federalism.

But I am deeply concerned that we may unintentionally be doing far more than simply defining marriage.

By setting forth marriage in the Constitution will we also set forth the basis upon which some future Federal court claims the ability to enter into all forms of domestic relations law now reserved to the States? I say it is very plausible.

In fact, I thought it so plausible that I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules this week to address this issue. My amendment would have added the following new section to all text:

Nothing in this amendment grants any new legislative

authority to the Congress of the United States or any new

judicial power to the Supreme Court of the United States or

any court created by Congress.

This amendment was not made in order.

Without some limitation, I fear a future where the entire realm of domestic relations law, be it marriage, divorce, child custody, paternity determination, adoption--you name it--will become fair game for a future Supreme Court.

Without some limitation on Federal power to assume all family law, I simply cannot support the present text.

The second problem with the current amendment arises out of my concern over the nature of marriage and what we are truly trying to protect in this amendment.

The supporters of this amendment contend that they have three goals: prohibit same-sex marriage; stop courts from granting the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples; and, allow State legislatures to enact civil unions or domestic partnerships if they so desire.

Regarding the second goal, that is prohibiting the courts from granting the incidents of marriage to unmarried couples, presumably those in civil unions or domestic partnerships, I contend that here they have simply failed.

They have failed because in introducing H.J. Res. 106, they have only restricted the courts from improperly construing State or Federal constitutions.

Unlike the original H.J. Res. 56, they have dropped the requirement that courts refrain from construing State or Federal law in the granting of the incidents of marriage to same-sex couples.

Hence, under this amendment any court, for any reason short of a constitutional one, may simply grant the incidents of marriage to unmarried couples and this amendment will not stop them.

At this point, one might say, shouldn't we match our amendment to that voted upon in the Senate in July? I say why? That amendment did not even obtain a majority of votes for cloture. My friends, it is dead.

As I said, the authors of this Amendment had three goals concerning the incidents of marriage. The third goal was to allow, yes allow, the legislatures in the States to enact civil unions or domestic partnership laws.

I ask those of you from California or Vermont what this Amendment does for you? The answer is nothing. Your domestic partner law in California and your civil union law in Vermont are unaffected.

This Amendment may actually, by restricting the courts' ability to grant the incidents of marriage but remaining silent as to the legislatures, provide a constitutional basis for civil unions. I cannot support this result.

I offered amendments to the Committee on Rules to address both these issues. Again, my amendments were not made in order.

I have not yet addressed the first goal of this amendment, that is to protect marriage.

I suppose that to the extent that marriage is not a mere word, I will concede that the authors met their goal.

But is the goal sufficient?

Let me conclude.

Simply protecting the term ``marriage'' is not enough. Marriage by any name is marriage, whether we call it ``civil unions,'' ``domestic partnerships'' or any other label that may be conjured up.

Marriage is too important to be only about semantics.

We must also be cognizant that while we may today be talking about same-sex marriage, someday in the future we may be laying the groundwork for all marriage issues to become federal.

I submit that given the makeup of the House this Amendment cannot pass. I suggest that if we really care about marriage, that we focus on the other constitutional tools that our founders gave to Congress. Let us remove the federal courts' jurisdiction in this area. Let us cut off the funding of the enforcement of unconstitutional decisions.

All of these means are sufficient to control the judiciary. In fact, by specifically addressing the power of the courts to construe constitutions we are actually giving support to the myth that the courts are already the final arbiters of the constitutions.

We must now allow this to happen. I respectfully urge my colleagues to consider what they are doing here today, including all of the ramifications of this Amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him on his legislation that I am speaking in support of.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who have the honor of serving in Congress are in good hands. In the Capitol, in our office buildings, for several blocks in each direction, we enjoy the protection of the Capitol Police, the Park Police, the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police. Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting their families in this same fashion?

The D.C. police, though hardworking, do not have the resources to set up a perimeter around neighborhoods the way they do for us. In reality, D.C. police usually respond after a crime has been committed. Yet D.C. residents are forbidden by law from defending themselves.

As many residents of Indiana and Virginia and Texas and Florida and Vermont know, a firearm is an effective deterrent against crime. Even the threat of a firearm can frighten off a criminal. John Pena, born, raised and currently living with his family in southeast Washington, D.C., about 13 blocks from here, was at home recovering from eye surgery a couple of years ago when he heard a noise downstairs. Despite his severely blurred vision, he investigated and found a burglar in his living room. Mr. Pena is a Navy veteran and served in Vietnam, but he was in no condition to confront this criminal. So thinking quickly, Mr. Pena called upstairs to his retired father, ``Dad, get the gun.'' Mr. Pena was bluffing and I do not want to suggest that he had then or has today a firearm in his residence. But at the mention of a gun, the thief turned and ran out the back door in such a hurry he neglected to open the storm door, cutting himself as he crashed through it.

Mr. Speaker, we feel secure here on the Capitol grounds knowing we are protected by men and women with guns. Tens of thousands of my constituents in Indiana also keep their families safe with the presence of a gun. It seems to me that a criminal's dream would be a city where law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Preventing these law-abiding citizens, our fellow Americans of Washington, D.C., from enjoying the same protections the rest of us enjoy is unsafe and unfair.