Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent this evening from this chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 40 and 41.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 418. The proponents of this dangerous and divisive bill

have mischaracterized and misrepresented it as a measure that focuses on national security. This could not be further from the truth.

I would urge my colleagues today to listen beyond the harsh rhetoric and to closely examine this legislation. Because further study will reveal that H.R. 418 is really nothing more than a bill designed to bash immigrants and punish refugees.

H.R. 418 ignores our Nation's proud history of protecting those fleeing brutal human rights abuses, torture and persecution. It would force our country to turn its back on women, children, and victims of religious persecution. The bill would create insurmountable hurdles for legitimate asylum-seekers and slam the door shut on refugees who have fled brutal human rights abuses. That is not America.

H.R. 418 also ignores the reality that there are an estimated 10 million or more undocumented immigrants living in our country. This bill would do nothing to prevent undocumented migration to the United States. If anything, this bill will only further compound the flaws in our Nation's immigrations laws. And it would make the job of protecting our homeland even more challenging.

H.R. 418 will make the vital job of law enforcement to arrest criminals and root out potential terrorists almost impossible. In short, immigration enforcement will continue to expend their valuable, but limited, resources and energy in pursuing hardworking busboys and nannies, instead of bad actors who mean us real harm. Immigration officers represent our frontline forces in protecting our homeland. Let's not make their jobs even more demanding. Let's give them the policies, the resources and the tools they need to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, imagine your neighbors, the families who live across the street, the men and women who join us at church--all of the hard working people who share the roads with us. Now imagine these hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, driving without a license, without car insurance or registration. Such a policy will wreak havoc on our streets and highways. It also will do nothing to address our broken immigration system. It will just force hard working people further into the shadows and create an increased demand for the black market of fake identity documents.

I agree that Congress must examine how to improve enforcement of immigration law, but we first must create laws that are enforceable and in step with reality.

Let me close by saying this. I am not alone in my strong opposition to this misguided and mean-spirited legislation. Also opposing the bill are the National Governor's Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, many other national, State and local organizations, security and immigration policy experts, immigration attorneys, more than 100 religious organizations, Hispanic and Asian organizations, the U.N. Commissioner for Refugees, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union and other labor unions. The list goes on and on, and I consider myself very good company.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. The only thing ``real'' about the REAL ID Act is that it is real bad for America.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent today from this Chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent today from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 543.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize my good friend, Congressman Bill Lipinski, and to thank him for his 22 years of service and vision and leadership in Congress.

I know we use the word--friend--often in this body. Usually right before we are about to disagree with our colleagues.

We say things like, I have a lot of respect for my good friend from Illinois, but I couldn't disagree more with his staunch support of the Chicago White Sox.

But as much as we use the word ``friend'' to frame our debates, I have always felt that Congress actually is a tough place to build real, lasting friendships.

That is why Mr. Lipinski will be so missed.

Because while it's true that I hardly knew Bill Lipinski when I arrived here in 1993, it's more true now that I can hardly imagine not having Bill as one of my best friends and allies in public service.

I will miss his effectiveness and his leadership, but more than that I will miss his day-to day presence and his friendship.

And I know I am not alone.

Because Mr. Lipinski has been such a good friend to so many of us in this body, on both sides of the aisle.

And he has been such a good friend and unwavering champion for the people of Illinois.

As the late Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Steve Neal put it, Mr. Lipinski, ``gets things done.''

And that is what has been the cornerstone of his career. Getting things done for his constituents and for the people of our state. Getting things done so that people across the country have access to better roads, more reliable railways and more dependable airports.

One of the things I am most proud of during my time in Congress is working with Mr. Lipinski to secure funding for the renovation and reconstruction of the CTA Blue Line in my district.

It is this kind of leadership and hard work and perseverance that has been the foundation of Mr. Lipinski's career. He has led by action and by example. And in doing so, he has produced concrete results for our state.

During his 22 years in this body, Mr. Lipinski has fought ardently and selflessly and passionately on issues that make a real difference in ordinary people's lives.

From his first days in this body, he immersed himself in transportation and infrastructure matters. And he did so with integrity and class and the courage of his convictions.

He has helped secure hundreds of millions of dollars in vital funding for public transportation and infrastructure projects. And every day, people all across our city are better off because of his hard work, his dedication and his determination.

From the Metra train, to the CTA, to highway projects along the Stevenson or Lake Shore Drive, to O'Hare and Midway airport, Mr. Lipinski has worked to make our infrastructure safer, stronger and more secure.

And beyond his extraordinary legislative accomplishments, Mr. Lipinski has served as a role model for many of us in the Illinois delegation and for many who seek to serve at all levels of elected office.

He has been a patient mentor, an unwavering ally and a great friend.

And I know I speak for this entire body when I say that we will miss the sound of that great Southside accent filling this Chamber.

We will miss his skillful management of major transportation bills. But most of all, we will miss our friend's wisdom and leadership and guidance.

So let me close by thanking my friend, Mr. Lipinski, for his lifetime of public service. Our city and our Nation owe you a deep debt of gratitude. You will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent Tuesday, November 16, 2004, from this chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 531.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 10 with instructions that the House recede to the Senate and strike provisions 3005, 3007, 3009 and 3032 from the bill. These provisions are poison pills that will slow the process of reforming our Nation's intelligence agencies and do nothing to make us safer.

My motion further instructs House conferees to recede to the Senate by striking sections 3051 through 3056 from H.R. 10 relating to driver's licenses, identification cards and accepting the corresponding driver's licenses provisions from the Senate-passed bill.

Mr. Speaker, instead of making us safer, enactment of these provisions would impose severe hardship on aliens by subjecting at least 1 million immigrants to deportation without any administrative hearing or due process, no review; permit the United States to outsource torture by sending an individual to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured; install a number of new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States; and prohibit habeas corpus review.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind my colleagues of the very relevant details. None of these provisions were included in the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and they are extremely divisive. Insistence on these provisions could greatly complicate the task of conferencing with the Senate and producing a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Speaking on section 3005, it is very problematic, Mr. Speaker. Among other things, it would bar the use of matricula consular identification cards, a policy that the Bush administration has opposed. Not only would this affect undocumented immigrants, it would also affect Canadians. Section 3005 makes it impossible for Canadians, who currently do not have a passport to be legally in the United States, to establish their identity when encountered by Federal employees.

Last month, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to overturn the Department of Treasury regulations that permit matricula consular identification cards to be used in banking transactions. The House stripped the provision from the bill by adopting an amendment to H.R. 5025 that was offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House Committee on Financial Services chairman. The House adopted the Oxley amendment on September 14 by a vote of 222 to 177. Clearly, we should not revisit this. It has been visited not once, but at least on three occasions.

Section 3006. This section greatly expands the use of expedited removal in the United States. It would be especially harmful for women and children who are escaping a range of gender-related persecutions such as rape, sexual slavery, trafficking, honor killings, since persons scarred by such trauma often require time before they can step forward to express their claim.

I would like to think that most people in this Chamber would agree that this would cause untold grief to women and children who will no longer be able to obtain the relief to which Congress believes they are entitled, victimizing them once they are raped, victimizing them once again. This amendment in the Committee of the Whole was carried on the Smith amendment, and then we unfortunately had to revisit it for political purposes where it was defeated or it would not even be in my motion.

Furthermore, this section would reverse several decades of policy with respect to persons fleeing the tyranny in Cuba, eviscerating protections that currently are available to Cubans arriving in the United States. Section 3006 would mean that any Cuban who sets foot on United States soil would have to be placed in expedited removal. Like all others, they would be subject to mandatory detention and swift removal from the United States. This will mean that many Cubans would be returned to the dictatorship of Fidel Castro without so much as a hearing.

Section 3007 is nothing short of an assault on asylum. It would make sweeping changes to asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. Section 3007 would create new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States. This, in turn, would result in bona fide refugees being returned to their persecutors.

It ignores the fact that asylum applicants, particularly survivors of torture, rape or forced abortion or sterilization, may not be comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspector officer at an airport.

Section 3009 is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If this section is enacted, the constitutionally compelled remedy of habeas corpus will be eliminated, and a plainly inadequate

court of appeals review will be substituted that will leave many noncitizens without any forum to raise legitimate claims of governmental error and misconduct. At the same time, the section creates an extremely high burden for obtaining a stay of deportation, inviting government to race to deport noncitizens before a Federal court can rule on the merits of the case.

Section 3032. Supporters of section 3032 falsely contend that it would prevent the United States from deporting persons to countries where they are likely to be tortured. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, under this section, as it was amended in the Committee of the Whole by the Hostettler amendment, the United States still could outsource torture by sending individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured.

It merely provides that in order to do so the United States Government would be required to seek what amounts to a note from the torturing government, that torturing government to promise us that they will not torture that individual anymore before we send them back.

Who among our colleagues will be willing to stake their lives or the lives of their loved ones on the promise of the Government of Sudan or the Government of Syria or the People's Republic of China or North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia that they will not torture someone if we send them back after they try to get asylum here?

Mr. Speaker, our country is far better than this. This provision is unacceptable. The administration expressed the President's opposition to permitting the government to outsource torture to foreign governments in the administration's statement of administration policy on H.R. 10. The President of the United States is against this provision. Members should know that a vote against this motion to instruct would be a vote against the very wishes of the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I, at this point, would like to end my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do the proponents have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Let me, first of all, read from the 9/11 Commission because I think it is pertinent at this point. In section 3051 through 3056, in paragraph 3, it says, ``Far from calling for sweeping anti-immigration legislation, the commission understood that we should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way, including intelligence-gathering. Congress needs to pass meaningful reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission and not insist,'' and I hope the gentleman from Indiana read the 9/11 report; it says ``not insist on a divisive anti-immigrant agenda that the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing another attack.''

Not one of those individuals that committed the heinous act on 9/11 had a matricula consular. As a matter of fact, they were issued by the government of the United States of America, and they either entered this country illegally through borders, not south of here but through the Canadian border, and through other means, legally and illegally, into this country. So let us stop trying to confuse one thing with the other.

Anyone listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think that the government of Mexico issues a matricula consular, and all of a sudden you skip and jump and you are in the United States of America, and you get a Social Security card, you get all of the benefits of being here, and you have got a passport, and you are free. If an INS agent, and I would like the gentleman from Indiana to answer that, if an INS agent stops someone with a matricula consular and says, I want identification from you, prove you are legally here in the United States of America, and gives them a matricula consular, answer the question, will that person not or will that person be deported? He knows that person will be immediately deported from the United States of America because we do not recognize that as a legal means of staying in the United States. It is not a passport. It is not a visa. It does not entitle that person to legally be in the United States of America, and the gentleman from Indiana knows that. He is too smart. He knows too much about this issue to be fuzzy or wary on this issue. You cannot stay in this country with a matricula consular.

What does it allow us to do? It allows an immigrant to open up a bank account so they can send money back, hopefully in a good way, back to their loved ones in their countries. That is what it allows them to do. It allows them to take their American citizen children and enroll them in school. It allows them to communicate.

Anybody listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think the Los Angeles Police Department have lost their minds, the New York Police Department have lost their minds, the Chicago Police Department have lost their minds. They like the matricula consular, as do hundreds of police departments across this country, because it ensures the safety and allows them to gather intelligence and information and allows people to cooperate with them. That is safety on our streets and intelligence-gathering. Let me just say, because this matricula consular, anybody thinks you get one, and it is magic. I go to a job, I say: Here, I have got my matricula consular, give me a job. You know, you cannot get a job with a matricula consular.

Lastly, let me say this. He skips over one important part. You have got to be in the United States of America to have a matricula consular, so you must have evaded something. Why do you want a matricula consular if you are already legally in the United States of America? To open up a banking account. That is the purpose. Let me just

say that people, hundreds, and the gentleman knows this, hundreds of people die crossing the border between Mexico and the United States. They drown in the Rio Grande, or they die in the desert. The terrorists know, come through Canada. If we put 90 percent of our resources, that is why they are not going to come through. They are going to find other means. We should look for every possible way to stop them, but this is not going to stop them.

As the commission says in their own report, don't use a divisive, anti-immigrant agenda the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing. This is the 9/11 Commission report. We should not do that, because it has nothing to do with preventing.

Lastly, you want to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. You and I will both agree and sign on a piece of paper, and we will have the Justice Department notarize it. There are 10 million undocumented workers in the United States of America. This Congress has not shown the political will nor has it put forward the requisite resources to deport them, nor will it ever.

This country needs and thrives on their work, and we all know it. So if we really want to deal with the immigration problem, then let us get an immigration bill, at least start with what the President, George Bush, said on January 7. Let us begin a national debate and an honest discussion of the undocumented workers that live in this country and let us integrate them so that the FBI, the CIA, our police departments have their fingerprints where they work, where they bank. And then, after we have eliminated those 10 million, because we know who they are and where they work and where they bank and where their children go to school and where they live, then we can reduce the number of people down to maybe the real terrorists that hide among them.

Let us do that honestly. But let us not use another anti-immigrant attack within a bill, H.R. 10, which does such a disservice to the families of the lost ones of 9/11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, I will insert into the Record, since obviously the majority has not read it, a statement of administration policy dated October 7, 2004, from the White House, George Bush's White House. In it, it says on page 2, paragraph 3: ``The administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal . . . The administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security concerns.''

This is the President of the United States of America, the leader of your party that you went to New York and nominated, who is going to debate Senator John Kerry tonight.

So if you are right, Senator John Kerry could say tonight to President Bush, You have standards that are less secure because you believe that people should be expedited and should not be expedited.

You believe they should not be, that the matricula consular somehow allows illegal criminals, murderers, rapists and others to roam around our country; that you oppose their quick and immediate deportation; that you are giving harbor to terrorists in the United States of America.

If we are to believe what the Republican majority has just said, and President Bush has contradicted your position in his letter of official policy, then somebody is wrong and somebody is right here. But I do not think your colleague, the President of the United States, is weak on national defense. I do not think the Republican majority is saying to the President of the United States that he thinks it is a good idea to have murderers and rapists and other criminal elements freely being able to roam the United States of America. Yet, indeed, if you are right, that is what the President supports, because we have his official document of the administration policy, and he says remove this kind of language from the document, that we support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say the following. In the same letter from the George Bush administration, it states: ``The administration has concerns with overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill and unrelated security concerns, and believes that the States, as in the Senate bill, should work these things out.'' So there are provisions for securing driver's licenses and making sure that they are secure. We have that in the Senate bill.

The gentleman keeps speaking about the 9/11 families. I have an open letter from the 9/11 families, the same families that came to testify before the Congress of the United States, in which they say ``recommendations.'' ``We have heard that the House bill to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations also includes provisions to expand the U.S. PATRIOT Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by the commission and which we are against.'' This is the 9/11 families.

Look, anybody listening to this debate would think that if tomorrow somebody who works in Washington State picking apples, and I think the gentleman from Indiana and I would agree that most of the workers in the field of agriculture in Washington State are undocumented here in this country, without legal documentation, picking our apples, let us use that as one example, do you think if you do not give them a driver's license, they are going to stop coming? Do you think if you take away the matricula consular and they cannot get a bank account, they are not coming? Do you think if we pass every other kind of ID requirement, they will stop coming?

They are going to keep coming, as long as in this country there are apple growers who need their work and Americans like you and I that were born here who will not do the work. So let us face it, these are obscuring the real issues we have before us.

I would suggest to the gentleman that he says that maybe the State of Illinois is in play in the electoral college. We just elected a Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois and the former Republican, how ironic, the former Republican Governor of the State of Illinois is currently under indictment by the Federal Government. Do you want to know why? For issuing bogus driver's licenses and taking bribes for them. That is a fact.

Unfortunately, let us have a debate on immigration policy that is really about immigration and security concerns that are really about security.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the statement of administration policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 10 and

appreciates the efforts of the House Leadership and

Committees to bring this legislation quickly to the Floor.

The Administration looks forward to working with the House

and Senate in conference as they resolve their differences on

intelligence reform legislation so that it can be enacted as

soon as possible The Administration looks forward to working

with Congress to address its concerns with the bill,

including those described below, and to ensure prompt

enactment of necessary legislation to create a strong

National Intelligence Director (NID) with full budget

authority and other authorities to manage the Intelligence

Community, and to provide statutory authority for the newly

created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

The Administration appreciates that H.R. 10 has been

revised to clarify the authorities of the NCTC and the

definition of national intelligence. The Administration is

also pleased that H.R. 10 would prevent disclosure of

sensitive information about the intelligence budget.

Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during

wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provide

by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence

activities would be a mistake.

Legislation proposed by the President provides the NID with

full budget authority, including clear authority to determine

the national intelligence budget, strong transfer and

reprogramming authorities, explicit authority to allocate

appropriations, and the ability to influence the execution of

funds by national intelligence agencies. The Administration

is concerned that H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient

authorities to manage the Intelligence Community effectively.

The Administration looks forward to working with the House

to improve a number of provisions relating to appointments.

In particular, the Director of the NCTC should be appointed

by the President, and the appointment of certain other

officers as proposed in H.R. 10 may raise constitutional

issues.

The Administration remains concerned about other provisions

that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the

office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help,

the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and

preserve constitutional rights.

The Administration commends and supports provisions of H.R.

10 that promote the development of a secure information

sharing environment under the direction of the NID while also

providing flexibility concerning its design and

implementation. We look forward to working with Congress to

address some concerns with the degree of specificity of

provisions concerning interoperable law enforcement and

intelligence data systems.

In addition to provisions concerning the NID, the NCTC, and

other core issues responsive to the Administration's

proposal, H.R. 10 contains a number of additional provisions,

some of which are discussed below.

The Administration strongly supports those provisions of

Title II that ensure the Intelligence Community and others in

the war on terror have all the necessary tools to prevent

terrorist attacks--including provisions to prevent attack by

``lone wolf'' terrorists and enhanced provisions to deny

material support to terrorists, prevent attacks using weapons

of mass destruction, and further dry up sources of terrorist

financing. These and other additional antiterrorism tools

would help keep America safer.

The Administration also supports those provisions of Titles

II and III that will better protect our borders from

terrorists, while still maintaining our traditions as a

welcoming Nation. In particular, the Administration supports

efforts to allow visa revocations as a basis for deportation

and provisions concerning the judicial review of immigration

orders, as in Section 3009. The Administration strongly

opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal

authorities. The Administration has concerns with the

overboard alien identification standards proposed by the bill

that are unrelated to security concerns. The Administration

welcomes efforts in Congress to address the 9/11 Commission's

recommendations concerning uniform standards for preventing

counterfeiting of and tampering with drivers licenses and

birth certificates, but believes that additional consultation

with the States is necessary to address important concerns

about flexibility, privacy, and unfunded mandates.

Section 3001 acts to close a security gap by eliminating

the Western Hemisphere exception for U.S. citizens. The

Administration intends to work with the Congress to ensure

that these new requirements are implemented in a way that

does not create unintended, adverse consequences.

The Administration strongly opposes section 3032 of the

bill. The Administration remains committed to upholding the

United States' obligations under the Convention Against

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States

does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries

where the United States believes it is more likely than not

they will be tortured. The Administration is willing to work

with the Congress on ways to address the Supreme Court's

decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), insofar

as it may constrain the detention of criminal aliens, while

they are awaiting removal, or limit the government's

authority to detain dangerous aliens who would be removed

from the United States but for the fact that they are

afforded protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Title IV contains a number of provisions that purport to

establish the policy of the United States on foreign policy

issues, require the Executive branch to negotiate certain

international agreements, direct how the President will use

the voice and vote of the United States in international

institutions, direct the content of diplomatic communications

with foreign governments, direct the make-up of U.S.

delegations to multilateral meetings and negotiations, and

require that plans and strategies to achieve specified

foreign policy objectives be submitted to the Congress. These

provisions are

inconsistent with the President's constitutional authority

with respect to foreign relations, diplomacy, and

international negotiations. Therefore, these provisions

should be eliminated or cast in precatory rather than

mandatory terms.

In Title V, the Administration commends the provisions that

add to the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility in

providing first responder grant funds to certain high-risk

areas, but has concerns about border state funding mandates

which reduce that flexibility. The Administration opposes

provisions in Title V that would create inequities in

personnel policy between the FBI and other law enforcement

agencies, and looks forward to working with the Congress on a

separate and comprehensive reform of law enforcement pay and

benefits. The Administration also opposes provisions that

would encumber the Federal rulemaking process with

duplicative and burdensome new requirements.

The Administration opposes Section 5043 of the bill, which

would eliminate the level playing field established for all

three branches of government by the Government-Wide Ethics

Reform Act of 1989, creating a new regime of non-uniform

ethics laws. The financial disclosure process should be

modernized to reflect changed circumstances. The

Administration urges Congress to adopt the bill to modernize

government-wide financial disclosure submitted by the Office

of Government Ethics to the Speaker on July 16, 2003.

The Administration is also very concerned about the dozens

of new reporting requirements contained in the bill. The

Administration will continue to work with the Congress to

eliminate or reduce the burden created by unnecessary or

duplicative statutory reporting requirements, while

respecting the responsibilities of the Congress.

The Administration is also concerned about provisions in

Title V that would, taken together, construct a cumbersome

new bureaucracy, duplicate existing legal requirements, and

risk unnecessary litigation. The Administration urges the

House to delete or significantly revise these problematic

provisions.

The Administration notes that the Committee bill did not

include Section 6 (``Preservation of Authority and

Accountability'') of the Administration's proposal; the

Administration strongly supports inclusion of this provision

in the House bill. The Administration's proposal also

provides necessary additional authorities for the NID to be

able to effectively operate the Office of NID; however, H.R.

10 does not provide the NID with these additional

authorities. The legislation should also recognize that its

provisions would be executed to the extent consistent with

the constitutional authority of the President: to conduct the

foreign affairs of the United States; to withhold information

the disclosure of which could impair the foreign relations,

the national security, deliberative processes of the

Executive, or the performance of the Executive's

constitutional duties; to recommend for congressional

consideration such measures as the President may judge

necessary or expedient; and to supervise the unitary

executive.

Finally, the Administration has concerns with a number of

other provisions in the bill and looks forward to working

with Congress to address them as the bill proceeds.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 should be about restructuring our Nation's intelligence agency, strengthening our homeland, and better protecting our citizens by following the framework recommended by the 9/11 Commission. However, as currently written, H.R. 10 violates our Constitution and attacks immigrants by subjecting immigrants living here less than 5 years to expedited deportation at the hands of overworked immigration agents and without access to a judge.

Restricting States from issuing driver's licenses to immigrant drivers, placing public safety at risk.

Prohibiting Federal acceptance of consular cards and other identity documents issued by foreign governments other than passports, no matter how secure these documents are when trying to secure a Federal entrance even to a Federal building.

Deporting asylum seekers to their torturers and authorizing the deportation of immigrants to countries that lack a functioning government, all without judicial review.

Prohibiting habeas corpus review of a variety of immigration issues.

These anti-immigration issues do nothing to protect our homeland. In fact, leaders of the 9/11 Commission wisely called on House Republicans last week to remove these controversial provisions from the bill for fear it would slow its progress through Congress.

As if that is not enough, family members of 9/11 victims recently sent a letter to this body urging a ``no'' vote if these provisions that I have mentioned are not stripped from the bill. I applaud the commissioners and the 9/11 families for their courageously speaking out strongly against these dangerous provisions. It is unconscionable that certain Members this body would politicize national security in a misguided attempt to advance their malicious attacks on our Nation's immigrant community in the name of public safety.

Immigrants died and lost family members in the Twin Towers, they helped rebuild the Pentagon, and they serve on the front lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terror. It is shameful that legislation that rose directly from the tragedy of 9/11, legislation that bears the name of the darkest day of our Nation's history, legislation designed to ensure that we are never again attacked on our soil, would be so malicious an attempt against a group of serving, sacrificing, and helping people and try to put on their shoulders the responsibility of the post-9/11 world.

Republicans in this House still have time to do what is right and reasonable, as the Senate has done in their legislative package, by capturing the recommendations without attacking our Nation's newcomers.

Republicans and Democrats alike should vote for the Menendez substitute, the components of which have been endorsed by the commission and even the White House. If Republican leaders insist on playing politics with this critical legislation, I will vote against H.R. 10, as it is anti-immigrant, un-American, and flies in the face of 9/11 families and the commission's hard work. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent this evening from this chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 487, 488, and 489.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent this evening from this Chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 473, 474, and 475.

Mr. Speaker, on September 13, 2004, and September 21, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 441, 442, 443, 457, 458, 459, and 460.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I regret having to offer this amendment, which blocks funds to implement and enforce the OCC preemption regulations issued earlier this year. The last time we addressed this issue on the House floor was during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), my able colleagues, offered an amendment at that time that would have prevented any funds in that bill from being used to enforce these preemption regulations.

At that time the opposition did not argue against the substance of our concerns, these ill advised preemption regulations that prevent State attorneys general from protecting their consumers. Instead, those opposed to our amendment merely put forward procedural arguments and indicated that this matter should be taken up under regular order, considered in the Committee on Financial Services.

We strongly agreed with those sentiments. In fact, 10 members of the Committee on Financial Services sent a bipartisan letter to the chairman of the committee as well as to the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee. In this letter, we asked for consideration of legislation to overturn the preemption regulations that I introduced in April of this year. This letter was sent 2 months ago, July 21, 2004, and we have not received the courtesy of an acknowledgment, much less a substantive reply. Therefore, we are forced to once again address this issue on appropriation legislation.

That is truly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because many Members on both sides of the aisle believe that these regulations not only represent a drastic expansion of the OCC's power but they also greatly exceed the OCC's congressionally granted preemption authority. Furthermore, the OCC's regulations effectively deny citizens the protections of their States' predatory lending and other consumer protection laws. While the OCC claims that it can provide consumer protection equal to that currently provided by State consumer protection agencies and the State attorneys general, we are concerned that replicating the functions of 50 State consumer protection agencies would require an enormous increase in the budget and the power of the OCC, yet will still deny millions of consumers the same level of protection they currently enjoy today from their State regulatory agencies.

Perhaps the most important question regarding the preemption amendments is whether Congress intended to allow the OCC to preempt all State consumer protection laws applicable to national banks. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to create a national banking consumer protection agency when it granted the OCC limited preemption authority.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his cosponsorship in support on this issue. But there is still time to enact on this legislation before the end of session. After all, we are only asking that we have a subcommittee hearing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

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

Let me just say that we wrote this letter on July 21, after we had the appropriations markup here on the House Floor. And it was stated by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that we should go back to our committee.

Well, 10 Members, bipartisan, sent the letter and said, Let us have that markup; let us look at the OCC.

I just want everyone to understand that they have said continuously that local government, State government at the local level are the incubators of democracy, and we should let local governments do it because they do it best, and we should get the Federal bureaucracy less and less out of people's lives. Well, guess what the OCC, the big Federal bureaucracy has just done to every Attorney General across this country? It said, Step aside, we are in charge of consumer protection. That is wrong.

Lastly, just so that my colleagues know, you only can call them Monday through Thursday, Monday through Thursday if you have a complaint. I have checked all the 50 States and all of the attorneys general of all the 50 States. Fortunately, they work 5 days a week, some of them more than 5 days a week, with local offices closely accessible.

So I am going to withdraw the amendment but suggest that we are going to continue to have these debates until we have a vote up or down on the OCC and whether it can or cannot do this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to strike the Culberson provision. It says something that this amendment is supported by such a diverse coalition, the Bush administration, the banking industry, immigration groups, Members from both sides of the aisle joining together to remove language that is at its heart designed to keep immigrants out of the regulated banking system.

This issue is one that I have worked on since I was elected 12 years ago to the Congress of the United States, and that is, how do you transfer money back to loved ones that really need it?

If we want to have a debate on immigration, let us have a debate on immigration. I think that is a substantive debate we should have. As a matter of fact, it was the President of the United States who, on January 7, said we should take people who live in obscurity and are exploited; the leader of the Republican Party, as I saw him at the convention in New York, in command of the Republican Party and your candidate for President, who said we

should deal with this immigration issue.

As a matter of fact, it is President Bush who Members are attacking here tonight who are saying is making our system unfair because it is President Bush and his administration that supports this amendment. Let us make that absolutely clear and have no quibbles about whose policy this is. This is the Bush administration's. Since the PATRIOT Act, we dealt with the regulation and the Treasury Department for more than a year before these provisions were enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how Members of the President's party can say the banking industry is trying to sugarcoat this.

Members know what they get with the matricula consular. Ten million people live in the United States who are probably undocumented. We should know something about them. Where is the political will in this country and the requisite resources to deport those 10 million people? This Congress has never had a serious debate about deporting and putting the resources towards 10 million people. We never will.

Some Members walk up here and say there are 2 million undocumented Mexicans in California as if they are just there. Do Members know what they are doing? They are cleaning bathrooms. They are picking the grapes. They are doing the arduous work that many of us born in this country will not do. Let us face up to it, they are working, and they are contributing to our economy. They are not just here stagnant.

Let us have a real debate, but the matricula consular is not the place to have debate on immigration policy. They are going to continue to come. They came before the matricula consular; they will come after the matricula consular. Let us give an identification that local economies and local administrations want. That is the matricula consular.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer along with my colleagues an amendment to increase funding by $25.5 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency that is critically important to our efforts to combat terrorist financing and money laundering.

I am pleased to work, once again, with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), my cochair on the congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force. We have also worked on these issues in our roles on the oversight subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services, and I thank her for her leadership on these issues which are so important to both of us.

Since its establishment in 1990, FinCEN has been dedicated to collecting, analyzing, and distributing financial data to help identify and trace financial intersection of potential criminal and terrorist activity. While FinCEN is a small agency with relatively little funding, the agency is at the center of our Nation's anti-money laundering infrastructure, supporting the critical work of the financial services, law enforcement and intelligence communities.

Recently, the 9/11 Commission stressed the importance of building global alliances. FinCEN also plays a key role in our country's international efforts to trace illicit money by actively promoting coordination with other countries. The agency chairs a global network of 94 countries that works to improve funding and information sharing and interaction.

Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount would have a significant impact on our government's ability to fight the global war against terrorism. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25 million to expand and improve its capabilities. It will help FinCEN secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art technology that would dramatically improve its ability to track and expose terrorist financing.

I hope we can all join in adding this very, very necessary $25.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 422 and 423.

Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 357.

I would like the record to show that, had I voted, I would have voted ``yea.''