Amendment Text: H.Amdt.465 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/25/2002)

This Amendment appears on page H1661 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1632-H1666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BARBARA JORDAN IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3231.

                              {time}  1152


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3231) to replace the Immigration and Naturalization Service with 
the Agency for Immigration Affairs, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is beyond time to restructure one of the worst-run 
agencies in the Federal Government, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. The INS has long been considered the undesirable and unwanted 
stepchild of the Justice Department. It carries out neither of its 
crucial missions well, enforcing our immigration laws and

[[Page H1633]]

providing services to immigrants playing by the rules.
  Today, we must stop being enablers, stop giving more and more money 
to an agency as a reward for squandering the money we gave it the year 
before. We must practice tough love and abolish the INS.
  In its place, we need to create two separate immigration bureaus in 
the Justice Department, a Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and a 
Bureau of Citizen and Immigration Services. This is what the Barbara 
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002 is all about.
  I am proud of the work of the Committee on the Judiciary in crafting 
this legislation on a cooperative and bipartisan basis.
  Barbara Jordan, our distinguished former colleague, chaired the U.S. 
Commission on Immigration Reform. The Commission came to the conclusion 
that the INS suffers from institutional schizophrenia, or mission 
overload. It explained that the INS must give equal weight to more 
priorities than any one agency can handle. Such a system is set up for 
failure, and with such failure, a loss of public confidence.
  That is exactly what has happened. The public no longer has faith in 
the INS. The public is right, and this bill abolishes this agency.
  Some say INS stands for ``ignoring national security.'' It is hard to 
argue with that. There are at least 8 million illegal aliens living in 
the United States, according to the Census Bureau. Over 300,000 
criminal and deportable aliens who have been ordered deported, and 
removed by immigration judges, have absconded and the INS does not have 
the slightest idea where they are.
  Mohammed Atta became a household name after September 11 to everyone 
but those in the INS, which approved Atta's visa to attend flight 
school long after he had completed it, and 6 months after he hijacked a 
plane, flew it into the World Trade Center, and killed thousands of 
people of various nationalities.
  This bill creates a new Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, headed by 
a law enforcement professional and focused singly on crafting and 
carrying out policies to enforce our immigration laws and keep 
Americans safe from terrorists, criminals, and other aliens who wish to 
do us harm. National security will be given the attention it deserves.
  Others say INS stands for ``incompetent and negligent service.'' It 
would be hard to argue with them, either. The agency had a backlog of 
almost 5 million applications and petitions at the end of fiscal year 
2001. It takes the INS years to adjudicate a green card application. It 
takes years for a naturalization applicant to become a U.S. citizen, 
and during this time, lawful immigrants trying to play by the rules 
must live in a state of purgatory.
  Let me give one example. Green card applicants must have their 
fingerprints taken on a card like this. Now, for legitimate law 
enforcement reasons, fingerprints are only valid for 15 months. 
However, when the INS takes years to process a petition, a prospective 
immigrant must take off work multiple times and often go out of the way 
to a fingerprinting center, two more cards.
  Even apart from the INS' slow-paced processing, very often they lose 
the fingerprints. And guess what? The alien has to have his 
fingerprints retaken. Here is strike four.
  This bill creates a new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, headed by a professional in adjudicating government benefits. 
It will have the sole mission of adjudicating and providing benefits to 
aliens. The Bureau will bring the attention, the independence, and the 
budget to the immigration service issues that have been neglected far 
too long.
  The bill also creates an Office of the Ombudsman, independent of the 
service bureau. Currently, when aliens and their attorneys reach their 
wit's end with the INS, they approach their Representatives and 
Senators for help. My district caseworkers spend more time dealing with 
the INS than with any other Federal agency, including the IRS. 
Thankfully, my staff and those of all of the Members can often help 
immigrant constituents, but immigrants need an effective advocate 
within the bureaucracy so they do not come to their Representatives' 
offices in the first place. The Office of the Ombudsman will be that 
advocate. It will have the duty of recommending better operating 
methods for the Bureau and monitoring its performance.
  The Office of the Ombudsman will help infuse accountability into the 
immigration bureaucracy.
  The two bureaus created by this bill will have their own set of 
offices to focus on and carry out their respective missions, including 
policy and budget shops. The bill also creates within the Justice 
Department an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs to 
oversee and to supervise the bureaus and to coordinate the 
administration of national immigration policy. This will elevate 
immigration issues to the level they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill. It 
will result in true immigration reform, better service, better 
security, and it is long overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the able gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me time. I assure him that I will 
try not to take the entire 10 minutes that he has granted to me for 
this purpose. But I did think it was important for somebody to come and 
make the case against this bill and to try to put in perspective what 
we are trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard throughout the debate on the rule and even 
the beginnings of the debate on the bill some claims about what this 
bill will do, which I think are gross overstatements and exaggerations. 
One of those during the rule debates, somebody came and said that this 
bill would do something to keep Mohammed Atta from going to flight 
school in this country. I just think that is a gross exaggeration and 
the public should not be expecting magic from this bill.
  I heard somebody say that this is a Democratic bill. My response to 
that is that immigration policy is neither Democratic nor Republican. 
We should be trying to do what is in the best interest of the public, 
and this should not be about politics. I have heard people say that 
this bill will make immigration services and enforcement more 
efficient. And I have some very, very serious reservations about that. 
In fact, I believe the bill could make matters substantially worse, and 
I think we need to spend some time talking about that.
  This bill divides administration and enforcement into two separate 
bureaus. The INS historically has been all under, and immigration has 
been all under, one agency in the Department of Justice. This bill 
would divide it into two separate bureaus. What exactly does that mean? 
It means, first of all, that you have got to have records, and those 
records have to be housed somewhere. Right now they are housed within 
the INS. I am not sure where they will get housed in this new two-
headed monster. Right now this agency is perhaps the worst agency in 
America, in the Federal Government. It is still using paper records in 
an electronic age. But the notion that somehow dividing the agency into 
two separate bureaus is going to solve that is beyond me. I just do not 
understand that. You have got one inefficient, unproductive INS now. It 
seems to me that what you are going to end up with is two inefficient 
agencies at the end of the day once this bill is passed.
  What does that do to communications? At least within this body we can 
stand here on the floor and talk to each other. Imagine if half of our 
body was in the Senate and half was on this side, would that, in fact, 
improve communications? I do not think so. They say, well this is all 
about funding. Well, I have spent some time under separate and unequal. 
It seems to me at that point what is happening now even in the existing 
INS is that enforcement is getting disproportionate amounts of money. 
Administration is not getting enough money, and now you are setting up 
a system where that can be formalized; and I guarantee you at the end 
of the day enforcement will always get the bulk of the money. 
Administration will still be inefficient, and it still will not help 
make this a better agency.

[[Page H1634]]

  The INS is inefficient. It is probably the most inefficient 
government agency in America. But moving it down the hall and making it 
a two-headed monster will not make the agency more efficient. It will 
make it arguably less efficient. Will the lines at INS be any shorter? 
No. It just means you will have to go to a different place to stand in 
line. You will be standing in line in some agency in the Justice 
Department rather than standing in line in some agency at something 
called the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Now, let me tell you, perhaps the biggest problem that I have with 
this bill is that at the end of the day everybody who supports it is 
going to go home to their congressional districts and tell America that 
we did something. We did something. Well, you did something. Maybe that 
is what you have done to keep the dissent down because we have not 
heard any dissent about this bill. People are frustrated. Yes, they are 
frustrated because the INS is inefficient. And you are telling people, 
yes, we are going to do something. But what does this bill do? It does 
not do anything. All it does is take an inefficient agency and make it 
two inefficient agencies. And let me tell you that putting Barbara 
Jordan's name on this bill will not make it a good bill. It does not 
make it a good bill. You cannot take a bad bill, give it a different 
name, and all of the sudden say that you have got a good work product. 
That does not work.
  Doing something even if it is wrong is not in the public interest. 
And we can go home and tell America that we have solved America's 
immigration problems. We have created an agency that will solve the 
problems with immigration and the problems with Mohammed Atta and all 
of the things, at the end of the day this bill does nothing. And we are 
doing a disservice to side-step the issue rather than facing it and 
dealing with it forthrightly within the agency that currently exists.
  I know that the rest of this debate will be about how great this bill 
is. But we need to search our souls in this body. Is this about 
politics? Is it about being able to go home and tell America that we 
have done something substantive to solve the immigration problems in 
this country, to solve the inefficiencies in this agency, or have we 
just transferred the problem down the hall? I believe that is what this 
bill does, and I plan to vote against it for that reason.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  First of all, I want to thank my colleague for his very sobering 
interactive examination of this bill. It pains me that we are not on 
the same side, but I promise to work with him to make it as effective 
as we can. I remind him and all of our colleagues that this is the 
administrative part, the process part of the legislation towards INS. 
This is not the substantive issues being taken care of. And I cannot 
agree with my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
more, that dividing an ineffective agency into two does not make it a 
whole or well, and putting Ms. Jordan's name on it does not help. Her 
name was not snatched up from the rolls of ex-Members. She conducted 
the study upon which this bill is built.
  If any of us are interested in why this bill was named after our 
colleague that formerly served on the Committee on the Judiciary, it is 
because she was appointed by the President to make a study.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in the country knows that the status quo in 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot be maintained. We 
must change it. We were taking a bold step today consistent with other 
studies and other precedents set that will take us down a path in which 
reform will really be possible within the purview of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service.
  I remember just like it was yesterday during the campaign of the year 
2000 where then-Governor George Bush of Texas, the candidate for 
President, actually proposed that if he should become President he 
would move towards placing on his agenda the restructuring of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Soon after the election then, 
many members, including the chairman and myself, began the work of 
restructuring the INS pursuant to what we felt was a move on the part 
of the new President based on, as was indicated, Barbara Jordan's 
commission recommendations and lo and behold today we are poised ready 
to put into practice what we have been preaching since the President 
began his movement towards new formation in the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  The beautiful part to me is, and one of the most attractive features 
of the new structure is, that we are going to be providing under this 
better service, better service in that portion of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service that deals with new immigrants, and the process 
by which a new immigrant becomes an American citizen.
  For the first time, the first time I repeat, we are elevating the art 
of citizenship to a new level to make it known to the people seeking 
citizenship that this is an important, vitally important and valuable 
step that they are seeing. So by the time they come to take the oath of 
citizenship, they are really eager new Americans ready to take their 
part in our structure in our society for the betterment of all the 
people in our country. Better service is one of the indicators in the 
new structure that we are putting into place.
  At the same time, we are providing better security because the law 
enforcement pillar of this new structure will focus, will concentrate, 
will make sure that the workings of that arm of Immigration and 
Naturalization Service will be so concentrated that we will see 
stronger border efforts at keeping illegals out, better screening of 
all of those who enter our country, and controlling of the now illegal 
portion of the populace insofar as deportation.
  So now we have in front of us a potential new system in which we can 
place our full efforts to make it work. And that is why we are taking 
the chance, but it is a calculated chance on taking two structures and 
having them fold within themselves, extra effort to make immigration 
and naturalization work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), who has worked hard on this matter.
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anybody in the 
House, or for that matter in the country, who disagrees with the 
proposition that this is an agency that is a mess. If we took a poll 
probably it would win as the worst Federal agency. It might have some 
competition from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but it is probably the 
worst Federal agency. The question is what to do about it. I voted 
against this bill because I fear that although there is no question 
that the authors and proponent have complete sincerity and have worked 
hard to fix the problem, I fear that some of the details in this bill 
may actually have the effect of making things worse. Some of the things 
that concern me, and in this case the details do very much matter, is 
the new Associate Attorney General that the bill creates to replace the 
current commissioner.
  Now, there is broad agreement that the enforcement and so-called 
benefits division would benefit from some separation, that there would 
be value in having some focus in each of those activities. After that 
is where we get the problem. Under the bill, the new Associate Attorney 
General actually has a higher position than the current commissioner, 
but unfortunately does not have very much authority.

                              {time}  1215

  He does not have line authority over the two new bureaus that would 
be created, and I think that is a serious problem when we are looking 
to a strong management to fix the problems that are in this agency.
  Furthermore, I think there is a problem with the criteria that is 
within the bill for the selection of the new bureau chiefs; and I will 
just point out one

[[Page H1635]]

concern I have, which is the bureau chief for the new benefits division 
is required to be someone with 10 years of Federal benefit processing 
experience. That is a recipe to say we have got to have a bureaucrat, a 
long-term Federal bureaucrat head up this agency. And I would argue 
that the people who are in that role are the problem, they are not the 
solution. So I have a concern that we will end up regretting that 
provision of this act.
  I also have a concern about the structure that will be embedded in 
law about the field office. One of the concerns that all of us who have 
worked with the Immigration Service have had over the years is the 
fiefdoms that exist in field offices throughout the United States. If 
someone goes to an office on the West Coast and they go to an office in 
the Midwest, they will get a different ruling on what the law is. That 
is ridiculous, but that is the way the Immigration Service is currently 
organized. It needs to be changed, and passage of this act will prevent 
that change from occurring.
  The Office of Children's Services I think is a step forward under 
current law, but it does not go as far as the bill that has been 
introduced by Senator Feinstein in the other body, and myself on this 
side, and I hope that we could go further than is encompassed in this 
bill.
  Finally, I believe that the issue of management really does need to 
be addressed in this bill. I had several amendments offered in 
committee that were withdrawn to avoid a sequential referral to another 
committee, but if we look at the culture that has grown within this 
agency, we have got middle managers who have been there for years. They 
know they are going to be there after the Commissioner or the Associate 
Attorney General, whoever it is, is gone.
  We need to clean house in the management ranks. We have in the 
manager's amendment a pilot project that will help us do that, but we 
also need to give the Commissioner or the Associate Attorney General 
real authority to select new management from the private sector without 
regard to the attenuated process that we face today. We need to clean 
house, and we have not in this bill given the tools necessary to 
completely clean house in the management ranks; and I am not talking 
about the rank and file, but the management.
  Finally, we have an amendment I will discuss when it comes up, but an 
amendment to assist with the procurement of technology, because in 
addition to management weakness in the agency and in the middle 
management ranks, this is an agency that is in the dark ages 
technologically.
  I was interested in the comments made by the chairman about the 
fingerprints. He is absolutely right. It is just crazy that we have 
people come in over and over and over again. The reason for that is, 
although the technology is available off the shelf, we have got the 
creation of microfiche and paper files. We have not implemented 
technology that is really necessary to get beyond the current state in 
this agency, and frankly I do not think there is the management 
capacity to even understand what technology is required in the agency.
  I am hopeful that as this process moves forward, we will be able to 
address the issues that I have raised today, and I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their very sincere and diligent efforts to 
reform this agency. Although I disagree on some components, I do 
recognize that they care a great deal about this, and I honor them for 
their work.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who as chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, 
has been a leader in reforming the INS.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his comment.
  This is a day that I have long waited for as have many others in this 
body and, more importantly, around the country, and I am very pleased 
and honored to support the Barbara Jordan bill. This has been a long, 
long road, but with the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), we have come together and crafted I think an excellent 
bill worthy of this Chamber's support. And I deeply appreciate the 
time, the effort, the dedication to this cause that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has invested in bringing this legislation 
forward. He should be commended by all of us.
  This bill differs a little from the reform bill that I had pending 
for a few years along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), but it is a good bill. It goes, I 
think, 90 percent of the way that we need to go.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House is an essential piece of 
legislation. It will bring some accountability to this immigration 
system, and reforming and reorganizing the INS has been an issue near 
and dear to my heart as well as many others. Having taken on the chore 
myself several years ago in the appropriations subcommittee that funds 
the INS on which I have served some 19 years, including 6 as chairman, 
we have all seen firsthand the harm this agency has caused to our 
citizens because of its dysfunction and ineptitude.
  We have seen it on the enforcement side where tens of thousands of 
illegal aliens storm our borders every year, and we have seen it on the 
service side where backlogs and mismanagement have left legitimate 
applicants waiting in line for years. I believe there is no greater 
privilege that this Nation can bestow on anyone than American 
citizenship, but unfortunately too many applicants have been let down 
by this system.
  Simply put, and I have said it a hundred times, the INS is the worst-
run agency in the United States Government. Its missions are inherently 
conflicted. On the one hand, they are to punish those who violate the 
law, but on the other hand they are supposed to help people achieve the 
rights and privileges that our country affords them. In many cases, we 
are talking about the same people. This causes confusion, frustration, 
not only among the rank-and-file employees, but the immigrants 
themselves.
  It may be Congress' ultimate failure in creating such a convoluted 
system, but we stand here before the House today, determined to fix it 
once and for all.
  The answer is not more money. We have poured money on this agency and 
agreed to its pleas and justifications. The INS budget has grown over 
300 percent in just the last 8 years, from a level of $1.58 billion in 
1994 to today's level of $5.5 billion. In fact, the INS account now 
consumes over 23 percent of the entire Department of Justice budget.
  The answer is not more staffing for border control. We have increased 
border patrol agents dramatically, from 3,900 in 1993 to over 10,000 
authorized positions today, and despite our generosity, INS over the 
years failed to completely hire the full number of agents funded by the 
Congress, diverting the money to other things.
  Simply put, INS has been unable to effectively control the borders 
and has no strategy to remove people who overstay their limited visas. 
The only answer to this agency, I have come to conclude, is to simply 
abolish it, dismantle, start over, and this bill achieves that by 
separating these conflicted missions of the INS.
  The new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service and the new 
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement will keep to their tasks and focus 
solely on their respective specialties, ultimately providing for the 
common good of the Nation. And, as has been said, a new Associate 
Attorney General will be created, giving immigration affairs the full 
credit and importance it deserves within the Justice hierarchy. This 
legislation will help secure the homeland and bring sanity to our 
immigration system.
  The legacy left behind by INS is not a pretty picture: 8 million 
illegal aliens, some 40 percent, 2.8 million, being illegal overstays 
of certified visas that came here legally; a backlog of 5 million 
unadjudicated petitions for immigration benefits.
  The citizenship U.S.A. debacle where thousands of individuals with 
criminal records were naturalized as citizens because the INS told the 
FBI we do not need the background checks, we will just go ahead and 
make them citizens.

[[Page H1636]]

  The IDENT malfunction. INS spent $68 million on a failed alien 
identification system that resulted in the Border Patrol's releasing 
serial killer Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, who was on the FBI's 10 most 
wanted list, had criminal and State prison records, and had been 
deported by the INS three different times. They let him loose.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. This is the way we 
need to go. Do away with an agency that cannot handle the mission we 
have given to it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, 
who himself has worked in this area, has introduced legislation, worked 
with the Judiciary Committee many times.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me the time, and I want to thank both the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for their commitment to drafting a bipartisan bill that 
addresses the many needs of our immigration system. Therefore, I rise 
in strong support of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform Act.
  The chairman and the ranking member are to be commended for working 
together and bringing a great bill to the House floor. As we discuss 
the issue of INS restructuring today, it is important to distinguish 
between the men and women in the field and the bureaucracy at INS 
headquarters when we talk about restructuring INS.
  INS headquarters has failed the people who work for them more than 
anyone else. As a former border patrol agent, INS inspector, and chief 
patrol agent, I know about the sense of duty to one's country and the 
pride in a job well done that the people who wear the INS uniform are 
committed to doing today. It is for the men and women in the field that 
we must restructure this agency.
  There is no escaping the fact that INS is failing. Even those very 
reluctant to restructure the INS just a year ago are now advocating 
this same change. The bill we are debating today is the type of change 
we need. This change is more dramatic and effective than the White 
House plan which has changed again since the events surrounding the 
student visa debacle of a month ago.
  Late yesterday the White House endorsed this bill with conditions, 
expressing concern with some of the components of this bill. From my 
perspective, it is time for the White House to get engaged and support 
this bill without any restrictions.
  I have seen more than five INS restructuring proposals from the 
Democratic and Republican administrations since I have been in 
Congress, and countless others during my 26 years with INS. They all 
failed because cooking the books and changing some of the titles never 
really gets the job done. We need to do more than shuffle boxes if we 
are going to reform the INS.
  Let me just say that I am today not piling on. I have a vested 
interest in the INS. I spent more than 26 years with the INS and I want 
to see our Immigration Service properly serve our country like I know 
that it can. I want to see this conflicted, struggling agency elevated 
in stature as it is the Sensenbrenner bill so that it will receive the 
kind of attention and support that it deserves. A well-functioning 
immigration system is critical to our national security.
  I have advocated for restructuring since I first arrived in Congress 
a little more than 5 years ago. I introduced two bills and have 
cosponsored many other restructuring bills with my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle. I believe that INS needs a legislative remedy, not 
the shuffling of boxes that is currently being proposed from within INS 
again.
  I strongly support restructuring the INS as a first step in the 
recovery of our national immigration system. After we restructure and 
place competent and experienced people at the head of each bureau, they 
must surround themselves with experts and they must listen.

                              {time}  1230

  I believe that the new bureau should follow the FBI model and 
surround the head of the bureau with experienced field personnel.
  Congress must remain committed to these new bureaus and the new 
Associate Attorney General more than ever to ensure the success of our 
national immigration system. This bill includes language stressing 
equally important roles of the immigration service's bureau and the 
enforcement bureau and includes a sense of Congress that both bureaus 
must be adequately funded.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, to my former colleagues in INS, I say to you 
that this bill expresses a commitment from a grateful Congress to 
provide you with the tools and the kind of organizational structure 
that will make a meaningful difference in your everyday duties and 
work.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, may we find out how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 
14\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of this immigration reform. It is a long 
overdue immigration reform. This, however, is the one reform that will 
work.
  The INS has a well-documented history of being an unworkable 
bureaucracy despite the fact that there have been billions of dollars 
poured into the agency in the name of reform over the last several 
years. On a regular basis, my district offices received more complaints 
for help on immigration issues than on health care issues or Social 
Security issues combined.
  Other congressional offices have found that the complaints about the 
INS outnumbered IRS complaints six to one. That is hard to believe. 
Everyone expects that we are going to get calls about the IRS, but the 
INS? Six to one. Backlogs are the issue, undocumented aliens are the 
issue, expired visas are the issue. In fact, everything is the issue.
  Still, it seems that the problems our constituents face are not 
unique regarding this troubled agency. It is just a troubled agency. In 
fact, the problem goes beyond the everyday operations of the INS and, 
as we know, has now risen to the level of national security.
  The INS currently has a massive backlog. The recent approval of visa 
extensions for two of the deceased September 11 hijackers only serves 
to highlight the severe nature of this problem.
  At the end of fiscal year 2001, the INS had a backlog of 4.9 million 
applications. That is 4.9 million people. That is a lot larger than a 
number of a dozen congressional districts put together. That is a lot 
of people. That is a lot of applications. These numbers represent 
families and hardworking individuals who are being torn apart because 
of these ridiculous administrative delays.
  Numerous commissions, notably the Commission on Immigration Reform, 
chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, have reviewed the INS and most 
agree the major problem is mission overload. The INS is tasked with 
dual missions. It is imperative that we support this INS reform. It 
separates the missions, and it will be a real reform.
  The AIA will consist of two separate bureaus--the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau for Immigration 
Enforcement.
  The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services will work to 
improve (1) effectiveness, (2) response time and (3) service to 
immigrants.
  The Bureau for Immigration Enforcement will solely focus on 
immigration security, ensuring it receives the level of attention and 
detail that it requires.
  Separating the two bureaus will ensure a proper focus and resource 
allocation to each mission. It will relieve the problem of having an 
agency with conflicting missions.
  In addition, the legislation creates an Associate Attorney General 
for Immigration. This new position answers directly to the Attorney 
General and ensures that immigration policy is given proper attention. 
The Associate Attorney General oversees the work of each bureau, 
supervises the bureaus directors, coordinates the administration of 
national policy and reconciles conflicting policies.
  Finally, the legislation addresses many of the problems with 
processing applications. First, the bill authorizes funding to process 
the entire current backlog. Second, the legislation mandates the 
creation of an Internet-based

[[Page H1637]]

application process. Third, the legislation facilitates the sharing of 
information across all pertinent agencies.
  This legislation is a necessary step in fixing a broken immigration 
system. Efforts by prior administrations to make changes to the INS 
have failed because they did not separate the conflicting functions of 
the current agency.
  Congress has increased appropriations to the INS by $4 billion over 
the past 10 years with little to show for it as a result.
  This legislation mandates the necessary structural changes to reform 
our immigration system and protect our borders.
  It is imperative to our future--in our country of immigrants that we 
support this restructuring.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who has worked on this matter with 
us.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time to address the House. I have been a cosponsor on this bill 
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) since 1997, when he first 
came to Washington, who has much expertise, with all his years with the 
Border Patrol and INS, and in dealing with the issue in my own 
district.
  In Houston, it can take up to 3\1/2\ years to process green card 
applications. Immigrants must often wait long hours under extreme 
weather conditions before even setting foot inside the INS office. And 
for most immigrants, this is not the only time they will go. The 
separation of law enforcement from the naturalization process is so 
needed. I am glad that my colleague brought my attention to that in 
1997 and that it is in the bill we are seeing today.
  We must replace the INS and ensure all Americans their government is 
competent enough to distinguish between immigrants who are hard working 
and those who want to terrorize our citizens. This bill will replace 
the INS with an Agency for Immigration Affairs in the Department of 
Justice, headed by an Associate Attorney General for immigration 
affairs.
  The two bureaus under this agency would have different responses, and 
that is what we need. And I want to thank the Chair of the Judiciary 
and the committee for bringing this bill out.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, when terrorists were positively identified, 
the INS could not program its computers to find out if they had any 
information on those terrorists. Not only that, but they issued them 
visas.
  The story of the INS' approval of terrorist visas illustrates that 
our immigration process is a total failure. But as is often the case, 
the people back in our districts and in our home States, they realize 
this before we do.
  In fact, I got a letter from Michael Burns from my district in 
December. He describes an accident where a car hits his wife's car and 
then a car piles into both of those. Both drivers were illegal aliens, 
no driver's license and no documentation. When the police officer was 
asked what would happen to these people, how would they be kept up 
with, would they be deported, would they be held accountable, they were 
told there is not an INS representative in Birmingham; that they were 
wasting their time; we are wasting our time.
  What about a county sheriff who on this last visit home told me that 
he stopped 15 illegal aliens in a van. There were drugs in the van, 
marijuana. They had no documentation and an expired driver's license. 
He called the INS; he was told there is no one to deal with the 
problem. There is no one to deal with the problem.
  Far more disturbingly, and let me close with this, are the 
illustrations of over 100,000 illegal aliens who have been brought 
before the courts and charged with crimes, convicted of crimes, and 
told to be deported. Are they deported? No. What happens? They receive 
a letter. They receive a letter. That is all.
  This bill is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referred to 
earlier:

                                                  Liberty National


                                       Life Insurance Company,

                                Birmingham, AL, December 17, 2001.
     Congressman Spencer Bachus,
     Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bachus: On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 
     my wife was involved in a traffic accident, while this is 
     certainly not a Federal issue the events surrounding the 
     accident I feel need to be brought to your attention. Her car 
     was struck in the Hoover area by an illegal immigrant who 
     spoke no English, carried no Alabama state drivers license, 
     had no insurance, but is employed at a local Mexican 
     restaurant and has been in Alabama for over two years. The 
     individual in the third car, who was also an illegal 
     immigrant, had no driver's license at all and no insurance. 
     Additionally when my wife asked the Hoover officer at the 
     accident site what would happen to this individual she was 
     told ``probably nothing, the State of Alabama does not allow 
     us to deport them unless there is a crime committed with then 
     goes through INS''. This came as a shock to both my wife and 
     myself. When I did some checking I was told there is not even 
     an INS representative in Birmingham full time. These 
     individuals are in this country illegally, pay no U.S. taxes 
     and can hit someone and virtually walk away! While I am 
     forced to pay a $500.00 deductible on my insurance to be able 
     to get $2,100 worth of damages repaired. This is shameful. As 
     a taxpayer, constituent, and loyal financial supporter of the 
     Republican Party (in excess of $2,800 during the last 
     election, PAC National and state party contributions), quite 
     frankly I resent this type of conduct from the Federal Branch 
     of our government. While I am actively pursuing action 
     against this illegal alien through the City of Hoover I would 
     like to know what I can do, and what your stand is as my 
     congressman on this situation.
       Congressman, I know you get many letters that are 
     considered ``off the wall''. However, as a Vice-President of 
     Alabama's largest insurance company and as a longtime 
     resident of your congressional district, I want to assure you 
     that I do not write this letter lightly, but rather out of 
     concern over a situation that is apparently getting out of 
     hand in the City of Hoover. I await your response. The best 
     to you and your family for the holiday season.
           Sincerely,
                                                 G. Michael Burns,
                                    Vice President Mass Marketing.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). No one has worked harder on the Committee on 
the Judiciary than the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims; and I really want to praise her for her work.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member very much for yielding me this time and for his 
persistence and willingness to be engaged in the ongoing negotiations 
that have resulted in the legislation that is on the floor today, and I 
thank him for the kindness of his remarks.
  There are many people to thank, Mr. Chairman. It is extremely 
important, of course, to acknowledge that this is a product of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, with 32 votes of the members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary on this particular legislation; and so there 
is much appreciation to be given the chairman of the full committee and 
of the subcommittee, along with the enormous help that we received from 
the diligence of our staff. In particular, I would like to acknowledge 
Avery Brown and Leon Buck of my staff for the work they did in this 
effort.
  It seems when we come to the floor of the House on a day like today, 
talking about an agency such as the INS, we could become focused on the 
importance of the work that is being done, and I believe that this 
body, this forum, this House, is a place for vigorous debate. I 
acknowledge that we had begun this discussion with vigorous debate on 
the opposition to this legislation, and I think it is important that we 
have a full debate and that we listen to the concerns.
  Let me join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
and say that I look forward to working with any number of Members to 
make sure we concern ourselves with an ongoing process. Even though 
this debate is not about the Mideast tragedies, I have always said that 
the way to solve the tragedy of the Mideast is ongoing negotiations and 
peace negotiations.
  In order to fix the INS, after we have abolished the INS, it will 
take all of us in an ongoing oversight role to ensure that the work is 
done and that we answer the concerns. I have been gratified to have 
been able to work with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other 
Members, including the chairperson, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes), on this.
  We are grounded in the underpinnings of the U.S. Commission

[[Page H1638]]

on Immigration Reform, that our own former colleague, the late Barbara 
Jordan, headed. Her name, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
indicated, did not come randomly and is not in any way to undermine, 
diminish, or to suggest any irony in her selection. It is to recognize 
the work she did early on when we did not confront the horrors of 
terrorism and the heinous acts of September 11. Barbara Jordan's 
commission sought, in the calmness of the day and the confusion that 
abounded even then with the INS, to begin to set the Nation straight.
  I think she brought about a balance that we have tried to keep in 
this legislation. It is procedural, it is not of substance, but we do 
maintain the concept that immigration is in fact a part of a system of 
this Nation; that we are a Nation of laws, but we are a Nation of 
immigrants; that immigration does not equate to terrorism.
  In the crafting of this bill we have tried to stay away from 
castigating and denigrating hardworking immigrants who have come to 
this country simply to offer themselves, to share in the bounty but to 
work hard. Like those immigrants that I am working with in my district, 
who happen to be Palestinians, a family of nine, who are in a detention 
center now even though one of their children is a United States 
citizen. Obviously, they are under the color of the terrible politics 
of the world right now, but we are working to ensure that those 
immigrants, who owned a store that sold United States flags, can have 
the opportunity to access legalization.
  This legislation answers the concerns of those who would want to fix 
the INS. It abolishes the INS. And, yes, I stand by the words that I 
said earlier, this bill is a bill that draws together Americans, 
Democrats, Republicans, and others, because this bill is a work of a 
compromise of bills that were promoted by Republicans and Democrats in 
this House. That is the system in which we work.
  This is a bill that has at the top the Associate Attorney General and 
divides the INS into two bureaus. But it is not a bureau that is in 
conflict or in confusion. It is a bureau, of course, that will work 
together. Two consistent bureaus of enforcement and services, one 
general counsel that will coordinate the laws that will affect the 
running of the INS. There will be vertical coordination, where the 
district offices are coordinated with the Washington offices. There 
will be more support for the Border Patrol in enforcement. There will 
be a children's bureau, so that unaccompanied minors can be protected. 
And, hopefully, the amendments that we pass will, in fact, work.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, appropriations, money, will 
be guided to this agency. This service-oriented bureau, in particular, 
is fee generated, but we are going to discuss and debate an amendment 
that I hope my colleagues will accept that will provide for a study 
that will determine whether the fees that we are generating out of the 
service bureau is enough to make sure that my colleagues who have two 
and three and four staff members who are handling immigration in their 
district offices will in fact have the resources to get the job done.
  Today, we abolish the INS; but we also stand on the premise that we 
are a Nation of immigrants and laws. It is extremely important that the 
message from the United States Congress in a bipartisan way is to 
embrace the founding principles of this country, where all of us came 
here to work and seek opportunity but, at the same time, recognize that 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, this new agency, must stand 
on the underpinnings of law, protecting us against illegal immigration 
but allowing those to access legalization.
  I believe this is a bill that begins that, Mr. Chairman; and we will 
finish the job by working together.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  There is a graphic we have here that some might think is too harsh 
when describing a government agency. It shows the INS going into the 
wastebasket of history. In reality, Mr. Chairman, it is not harsh 
enough. It ought to be going through a shredder on the way to a 
wastebasket. For this agency and what it has done, we need to shred it, 
gather the shreds, burn them, gather the ashes, and distribute them 
among the four corners of the world so this agency, as it is currently 
constituted, can never again come together and endanger our security 
and be a disgrace to this country as the INS has been.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, in years past, many might have looked at the problems 
with the INS, as we have heard chronicled here during this debate, and 
deemed them an irritant, a waste of money, a frustration.
  However, now we know in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, made successful in large part by the deficiencies in the 
INS, we now know that the problems with INS are more than an irritant, 
more than a waste of money, they are a threat to our Nation's security. 
We can no longer ignore them.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is doing the right 
thing here. He is putting the horse before the cart. We are 
restructuring this agency before we tackle all of the substantive 
immigration reforms, the visa reforms, and the citizenship reforms that 
we must do. If we do not restructure the INS first, any subsequent 
substantive changes to INS and to the immigration system or immigration 
categories will be doomed to failure. We must restructure first, and 
this bill does that.
  While H.R. 3231 and its enactment cannot guarantee we will not have a 
future successful terrorist attack such as our Nation suffered on 
September 11, we can say with certainty that its passage and enactment 
into law will give us a measure of confidence and security which we 
cannot ever hope to attain without it.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for this 
legislation. I urge its passage, and I commend the administration for 
its support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
for taking us through an original bill that was not adequate. We worked 
on a substitute, and now we are able to come together in a bipartisan 
fashion that I think acquits the Committee on the Judiciary very well. 
I note that the chairman of this committee has been able to accomplish 
that on more than one occasion, so I am delighted that we will now 
consider some amendments, many of them that we think will improve the 
bill.
  But I remind my colleagues that we have the other body in which we 
will come together in a conference as soon as they finish their work 
product, and one of the key issues is going to be the relationship of 
the Associate Attorney General to that of the current Immigration and 
Naturalization Service Commissioner.
  We have met with the Commissioner. He has been before our committee 
more than once, and I think that is an important issue where we ought 
to work carefully with the Senate, and hope that we can reach harmony.
  The bill is a structural bill. It is a process bill. The substance of 
how we are going to improve the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
really awaits the further work of the committee in this body and that 
in the other body; but I am pleased that we can work with the 
administration and with our Republican colleagues on dealing with a 
matter that it is perfectly clear is long overdue for reform. Today is 
a very important first step in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
regarding two provisions in section 11 of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman on a good bill which is

[[Page H1639]]

long overdue. However, it is my understanding there are two provisions 
in section 11 that would create an additional requirement for 
discretionary appropriations. Specifically, subsection (b)(5) strikes a 
current fee collected by the INS to support the cost of processing 
certain immigrant applications, and subsection (b)(6) then authorizes 
appropriations for these applications. I further understand that this 
may require upwards of $1 billion over the next 4 years.
  Mr. Chairman, is my understanding of these provisions correct?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding of the 
provisions is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
the current House budget resolution does not assume this additional 
requirement on discretionary appropriations. As a result, any funding 
for this provision, if provided in fiscal year 2003, will have to come 
at the expense of reductions in other important funding priorities, 
including those for homeland security and the war on terrorism.
  Given the current budget environment and the demands on spending that 
we face, will the chairman be amenable to reviewing the need for these 
provisions during the conference deliberations on his bill?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I will be 
happy to review these provisions during the conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity to clarify this matter.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for offering this very important legislation, and I am proud 
to be a cosponsor of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and 
Accountability Act. This act is designed to address two very serious 
problems. The first: incompetent, negligent service that our 
constituents, the American citizens, and those who seek to comply with 
our immigration laws have faced for many decades with the INS. The INS 
had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of 
fiscal year 2001. That is totally unacceptable.
  In some congressional offices, complaints about the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service outnumber IRS complaints by a factor of 6 to 1. 
In my office, I am sure that it is several times more than that.
  To give Members an example of the nature of this problem and the 
bureaucracy involved, because fingerprints that are taken by the INS 
for processing applications are only good for 15 months, some 
immigrants must have them taken 3 or 4 times while they wait for the 
INS to process their paperwork. Some people have to travel, as they do 
in my district, great distances to do that, or wait long periods of 
time before they have somebody appear in the district when they can 
have it done.
  Over 300,000 criminal and deportable illegal immigrants were ordered 
removed by immigration judges, and have fled; 6,000 of those are from 
countries identified as al Qaeda strongholds. This is the one problem 
that we have with our current immigration system, it is ignoring our 
national security problems.
  If the INS officials were ``following their own policies, Atta would 
have never been allowed to enter the United States''; that, according 
to a 60 Minutes report on March 10 of this year.
  We need to pass this legislation to support our President's proposal. 
To break the INS into two parts is an idea whose time is long past due, 
for better security and better processing for our immigrants.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3231, the Barbara 
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, and I commend 
Chairman Sensenbrenner on his leadership in introducing this 
legislation and moving it forward.
  America has always been a nation of immigrants, people from varied 
backgrounds and distinct cultures who largely share a common desire for 
the freedoms and liberties, which are a birthright for native-born 
Americans. But with this rich heritage, vigilance is required from the 
federal government. We must be cognizant of who is entering the 
country, or we do our citizenry a disservice. With an estimated 8 
million undocumented illegal immigrants residing in the United States, 
it is clear that the INS has failed in this duty.
  There is no disagreement that the INS is in dire need of reform and 
the events of September 11 make it clear that the need for reform is 
more urgent than ever. Six months after the September 11 terrorist 
attacks, the Immigration and Naturalization Service mailed a letter to 
a flight school in Florida, notifying them that two of the hijackers, 
including alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta, had been approved for 
student visas. It would be a monumental understatement to say that the 
INS is woefully ill-equipped to handle immigration in this era of 
heightened national security.
  In addition to INS' failure to adequately perform its enforcement 
responsibilities, INS has been inept in its service functions. My 
Congressional District offices, like those of every other Member of 
Congress, are inundated with complaints about INS. The INS had a 
backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of FY 
2001. Lost files, missing fingerprints, and lengthy delays are 
complaints that we hear on a daily basis. We owe our own citizens, as 
well as documented visitors and immigrants in this country, the 
attention and support that they deserve.
  Between 1993 and 2002, Congress nearly quadrupled INS' operating 
budget. It is evident that piecemeal attempts to reform INS have been 
unsuccessful, and throwing more money and resources at INS has not 
solved its problems, which stem from competing priorities and missions 
within the agency.
  It is time to acknowledge the failure of the current structure of the 
INS and take a comprehensive approach to reorganizing the agency. By 
separating the enforcement and service functions of the INS, H.R. 3231 
will provide a clear mission, increase efficiency and ensure that the 
borders of America are protected from terrorism and other national 
security threats. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for 
this important legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, which 
will improve enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws and reduce 
the overwhelming backlog of applications for aliens wishing to enter 
the United States legally. The time has come to do away with the old 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and implement a system that 
will work more efficiently.
  Anyone wanting proof of this need only look to the March issuance of 
student visas to not one, but two of the September 11 hijackers. Six 
months after they died in their terrorist acts, the INS issued student 
visa approvals to them.
  Clearly there is not only a need to restructure the INS, but also to 
reform our Nation's immigration policies with respect to foreign 
student visas. I submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules which 
would have established a 9-month moratorium on the issue of student 
visas to allow the INS or the new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services under this legislation, time to fully implement the student 
exchange and visitor information system.
  My amendment also would have required the names, ages, and other 
appropriate information of student visa holders, accompanying spouse, 
and children to be included on the student visa documentation.
  I believe these reforms are critical if we are serious about 
preventing known terrorists from entering the United States. At least 
one of the September 11 hijackers was in the U.S. on an expired student 
visa. Had the INS fully implemented the tracking system, this terrorist 
may have been behind bars, not hijacking a commercial airplane.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my amendment was not made in order and 
cannot be considered here today. It was considered nongermane. It is my 
hope there will be an opportunity for Members to debate substantive 
immigration policy reform in the near future.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to inform the gentleman 
and Members of Congress that

[[Page H1640]]

this issue was addressed in the bill H.R. 3525, which requires the INS 
to implement a student visa tracking system. That bill was passed 
unanimously on a voice vote by the House of Representatives on December 
19. The other body passed this bill with amendments on April 18. We 
will be having a vote on concurring with those amendments some time 
shortly, and the student visa tracking legislation, together with an 
entry-exit system tracking, will be on its way to the President for his 
expected signature.
  We are going to be across the finish line with this before the 
current bill goes before the President.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
explanation. I was asking for a moratorium to give them an opportunity 
to get those things done.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to all of the 
members of the committee, to the bipartisan committee staff, to the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), to the 
ranking subcommittee member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) in putting together a bill which has huge bipartisan support.
  I also express my thanks to the President and the Attorney General 
for recognizing the need for legislative action and restructuring the 
Immigration Service so that it can be functional.
  I think we all recognize that this bill is not a panacea. The 
problems that we have heard about for the last 2.5 hours have taken 
years to develop: the 5 million backlog in processing applications for 
immigration services; the over 300,000 people who have had their day in 
court and have been ordered deported, that the INS has no idea where 
they are except that they are still in the United States of America.
  So should this bill pass and be signed into law, which I earnestly 
hope that it will before this Congress expires, it will take a long 
time for us to put our immigration affairs back in order. But this is 
the essential first start, because if we do not restructure the INS, 
telling them that they are supposed to adjudicate millions more 
applications when they are 5 million behind is just going to mean that 
new immigrants will be at the bottom of the pile and will have to wait 
much longer.
  To tell the current INS that they have to do a better job of 
enforcing against the Mohammed Attas that may still be in the country, 
when they have over 300,000 people already ordered deported and are 
still here, is going to complicate this system and have a further 
backlog. By restructuring the INS, we are on a good start. I urge 
Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I rise today in support of H.R. 3231, the 
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform & Accountability Act.
  The magnitude of the INS' problems is extraordinary--at the end of 
FY2001, it had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions, 
thus forcing aliens trying to play by the rules to wait in limbo for 
years. The Census Bureau estimates that at least 8 million undocumented 
aliens reside in the U.S. Over 300,000 criminal and deportable aliens 
ordered removed by immigration judges have absconded. Much of the INS' 
failure stems from the conflict between its enforcement and service 
missions. Mr. Chairman, the INS is unable to adequately perform either 
of its missions. Rather, the agency appears to move from one crisis to 
the next, with no coherent strategy of how to accomplish both missions 
successfully.
  Reponding to this national security crisis, H.R. 3231 would abolish 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in favor of two new 
organizations that concentrate solely on different missions--one that 
would administer immigration benefits and one that would enforce 
immigration laws. This legislation promotes law and order by increasing 
accountability and creating a position for checks and balances between 
the two bureaus.
  This bipartisan legislation ensures that the new INS bureaus will 
each have the proper mission and guidelines to assist those individuals 
who are ready to become U.S. citizens while cracking down on illegal 
immigrants and enforcing immigration laws and regulations. It will work 
to keep the terrorists out, but provide efficient and fair service to 
those that play by the rules when it comes to our immigration process. 
Additionally, this legislation will help to secure our homeland by 
placing a greater focus on immigration policy and making sure everyone 
is playing by the rules.
  The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) will 
concentrate on improving immigration services and reducing mediation 
backlogs for legal immigrants, while the Bureau of Immigration 
Enforcement (BIE) will deny admission to those that should be kept out 
of the U.S. BIE will also apprehend and remove those designated for 
deportment along the border and in the interior.
  H.R. 3231 will create an Associate Attorney General in the Department 
of Justice who will only handle immigration affairs. The Associate 
Attorney General will supervise the two bureaus, resolve conflicts 
between them and help to hold the two bureaus accountable for their 
actions.
  The INS has reorganized itself numerous times over the past two 
decades. Judging from its caseload and its failure to detect and detain 
terrorists, internal reorganization is not working. This bill creates a 
clear chain of command and greater accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
national security legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3231 and urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for an 
important piece of legislation.
  This bill, inspired by the dedication and hard work of the late 
former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas, comes before the House at 
a crucial moment in our history. During the past several months, we 
have been forced to witness the difficult truth that our Nation's 
immigrant laws and agencies are in disrepair and in need of major 
structural changes. As a free Nation and open society built on the 
strength, ingenuity, hard work, and discipline of immigrants from 
around the world, this strikes us especially hard. I am pleased that 
the bill before us takes important steps toward improving our 
Government's management of immigration while preserving the ability of 
immigrants to build new lives for themselves and their families in the 
United States.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 3231 for several reasons, not the last 
of which is its innovative approach to the reorganization of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Beyond reorganizing the 
INS into two separate bureaus within the Department of Justice, this 
bill will also create several new offices dedicated to improving the 
quality of the service provided to immigrants and protecting the rights 
of unaccompanied child immigrants. The bill, by placing the two new 
bureaus under the direct supervision of a new Associate Attorney 
General with experience in managing large and complex organizations, 
will also increase the importance placed on our immigration policies 
and the accountability of those responsible for enforcing our laws.
  With the passage of H.R. 3231, the House will take an important first 
step in reforming the way the United States deals with immigration. The 
next step, addressing the security of our borders, will hopefully be 
taken soon. Together, today's reforms along with upcoming efforts to 
strengthen border security will make America safer from those who would 
use our country's openness to do us harm. These reforms will also 
preserve America's commitment to remain open to immigrants who seeks a 
better life and will reaffirm our long tradition of finding strength in 
our diversity. This will be a key part of the legacy of the 107th 
Congress, and I am pleased to cast my vote as we begin this important 
effort.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, the 
Barbara Jordan Immigration and Reform Accountability Act. I agree that 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a broken agency that 
needs to be fixed. That is a point that has been underscored in the 
time since September 11 but was clearly a problem long before those 
tragic events. The need for reform of the INS has been clear to me 
because of the difficulty constituents in my districts have had in 
dealing with the INS. My district staff spends approximately 80% of 
casework time on cases that have to do with problems with the INS. This 
has to change. Although I will vote for this legislation, I do have 
some concerns.
  We must make the INS a better managed, more efficient, coordinated, 
and effective agency. I strongly believe, in order to accomplish those 
goals, the agency must be split into the separate bureaus for services 
and enforcement. H.R. 3231 allows the separate bureaus to focus on the 
distinct missions of providing services and enforcement.
  Another core principle to effective reorganization is the 
coordination of immigration policy, legal direction, and information 
under the authority of a strong executive. Although this legislation 
creates a high level position of an Associate Attorney General for 
Immigration Affairs, this office is not responsible for setting 
immigration policy. Policy making is left to the individual bureaus. I 
also think offices which should remain at the core of the structure 
have been relegated to the service and enforcement bureaus, leading to 
duplicity within the overall agency. For example, each bureau

[[Page H1641]]

is to have an Office of Policy and Strategy and each bureau is to have 
a Chief Budget Officer. Given this structure, I am not certain that the 
Office of the Associate Attorney General will have the authority to 
effectively manage and coordinate the functions of these offices and 
create a coherent national immigration policy.
  Although I am pleased we have made strides toward elevating the 
Office of Children's Affairs, I do not think this legislation 
adequately addresses the needs of unaccompanied minors. I am 
particularly concerned with the conditions under which children will be 
detained and held and whether they will have legal representation. 
These are children. We must create safeguards to protect them, not 
further traumatize them through imprisonment. We must also ensure that 
they are appropriately counseled and represented as they navigate our 
extremely complicated immigration courts and system. The only thing 
this legislation specifies is that the Director of the OCA is 
responsible for ``compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually 
a state-by-state list of professionals or other entities qualified to 
provide guardian and attorney representation services for unaccompanied 
alien children.'' How will that benefit an infant or a toddler who can 
not speak much less read? I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work 
to strengthen this provision and push for language that is reflected in 
the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.

  I am pleased that there are provisions to create an ombudsman office. 
It is essential that immigrants have someone at a high level addressing 
concerns and problems they are having with their cases. This office 
will also look at systemic problems in the INS structure. Advocates 
with whom I work in my district suggested language that would elevate 
the level ombudsman and I hope the other body will consider those 
suggestions in its deliberations on similar legislation. I believe it 
is critical that an ombudsman not be restricted in accomplishing their 
job. It may be more effective to remove the office of the Ombudsman 
from the entire INS structure, placing it in the Department of Justice.
  I am also pleased with provisions that require separate 
appropriations for asylum and refugee benefits to be processed. This 
will stop the unfair cost shifting that has been occurring where fees 
from other INS benefits are being used to adjudicate asylum and refugee 
cases. I also understand there will be a study to further investigate 
how much services actually cost. I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering that very important amendment to this 
bill.
  I think it is important that we move to pass legislation to 
restructure the INS. We must take steps towards fixing the agency. 
While I support this bill, I urge the Senate to work on the concerns I 
have raised, and I look forward to seeing a better bill come out of 
conference and back to this chamber. I commend all members who have 
worked to bring this measure to floor.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that for decades, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been beleaguered with 
complaints of mismanagement, ineffective border control and a growing 
backlog of immigrant applications and petitions. The events of 
September 11th underscored the need for an immigration overhaul. H.R. 
3231 is a step in the right direction to improve this institution.
  However, unless Congress and the Administration make immigration a 
priority and are willing to adequately fund its mission, then this 
structural division of INS will not make a difference.
  In order for immigration to be successful, the Administration must 
support:
  The front end of the State Department. From Mexico City to Manila the 
consular corps are understaffed and overburdened. As people apply for 
entry in the U.S. abroad, we cannot strengthen INS without commensurate 
support for the State Dept.
  Adequate funding for services and law enforcement measures. Far too 
often, INS employees are being asked to do more and more without 
sufficient resources. The Federal Government must make it a priority to 
provide them with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and 
efficiently.
  Only when the several agencies involved in immigration--from the 
State Dept. to INS--can cooperate and implement a clear, concise, and 
consistent mission will immigration control redeem itself from a 
history of mismanagement and ineffective border control. I support the 
passage of H.R. 3231.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, 
Subcommittee Chairman Gekas and the House Leadership for bringing up 
this legislation today to improve and revamp the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS), and I am pleased to see that President 
Bush is behind the measure.
  The United States must do a better job of protecting America's 
borders, tracking foreign students and visitors, dealing with illegal 
aliens and serving those who are served daily by the INS. Over seven 
months have passed since the attacks of September 11, and many of the 
loopholes that the terrorists utilized to harm our nation, have not 
been addressed.
  I am hopeful the President will have the opportunity to sign enhanced 
border security legislation regarding student visa reforms, smart card 
technology, reform of the visa waiver program, shared databases and 
integrated entry-exit data systems. These are good reforms but the 
reforms and technology are only as good as the people who administer 
the various programs and utilize the technology.
  The INS has been a maligned agency that has had major difficulties 
implementing visa tracking programs and integrated entry-exit systems. 
A recent review by the Department of Justice Inspector General found 
that INS officials mismanaged $31 million aimed at automating a visa 
tracking system. To this day we are unable to seriously determine who 
is in this country at any given time. At the same time it is trying to 
address its enforcement procedures, the INS is not properly serving 
those who rely on the INS to process their various immigration 
documents. The INS has long backlogs of Visa and other petitions. 4.9 
million petitions were pending before the INS at the end of September 
2001--this is a sevenfold increase since 1993.

  The INS on several occasions has attempted to reform itself, but in 
the light of the immigration problems associated with the September 11 
attacks, internal organizational changes will not work. Long time 
supervisors who have resisted change in the past are today not in a 
better position to internally reform the INS. While I believe 
Commissioner Ziglar is working hard to address the organizational and 
morale problems that have plagued the agency, legislation is the only 
way to turn the INS in the right direction.
  Only legislative restructuring like H.R. 3231 can create two separate 
agencies that concentrate on different missions--administering 
immigration benefits and enforcing immigration laws. The two new 
organizations will have their own budgets and dedicated employees who 
will be focused on their own distinct mission. I applaud this 
legislation because it will also create a new Ombudsman to monitor and 
improve the services side of the agency, create clear chains of 
commands at the INS, and eliminate mission overload that is crippling 
the agency.
  We owe it to the American people to improve our border security, 
track who is entering and exiting our country and expedite the process 
of timely immigration petitions. H.R. 3231 passed the House Judiciary 
Committee with great bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 3231 today.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3231, The 
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, important 
legislation that makes much-needed reforms to our immigration system. 
For years, my immigration caseworker has related to me countless horror 
stories about the red tape and inefficiency at the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS). That agency has managed to send visa 
approval notices to two September 11 hijackers, and at the same time 
routinely enormous hurdles in the path of citizens-in-training.
  Today's legislation, which will address these many concerns, is the 
realization of the hard work and tireless efforts of the late Barbara 
Jordan. As chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR), 
Barbara Jordan recommended that the Federal immigration system be 
fundamentally restructured by, among other things, dismantling the INS. 
In 1997, the commission found that the INS suffered from conflicting 
priorities and mission overload, and its service and enforcement 
missions were incompatible.
  More importantly, Barbara Jordan once said that the key to creating a 
harmonious society out of so many kinds of people ``is tolerance--the 
one value that is indispensable in creating community.'' Here today, we 
have the chance to give effect to her recommendations and fundamentally 
restructure the INS. Over the past decade, Congress has substantially 
increased the budget for the INS--from $1.4 Billion in FY 1992 to $5.6 
Billion in FY 2002--in hopes of improving the agency's performance. 
However, problems continue to plague the agency, particularly in the 
processing of immigration applications, the inability of the agency to 
stem the flow of undocumented workers and to track workers, students 
and visitors once they arrive in the country.
  Many of these problems result from the INS performing dual functions, 
holding the responsibility for enforcing immigration laws and 
adjudicating applications for non-immigrants and immigrants. Since 
1990, when the Commission on Immigration Reform recommended 
restructuring the INS, several legislative reform proposals have been 
introduced in Congress. One proposal which I co-sponsored, H.R. 3918, 
introduced by Representatives Harold Rogers and Silvestre Reyes in the 
106th Congress, would have separated the two functions of the INS into 
separate agencies. H.R. 3231 builds on that by abolishing the INS and

[[Page H1642]]

replacing it with two separate bureaus--the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The two 
bureaus would be under the supervision of an associate attorney 
general, who would rank below the attorney general and deputy attorney 
general. The measure transfers authority for implementing immigration 
law directly to the two bureau directors, and authorizes such sums as 
may be necessary to abolish the INS an establish the immigration 
service an enforcement bureaus.

  Additionally, the measure establishes an Office of Children's 
Affairs, which would be responsible for coordinating and implementing 
law and policy for unaccompanied alien children who come into the 
custody of the Justice Department. Under the measure, the office would 
ensure that the interests of unaccompanied children are considered in 
the department's care, custody and placement determinations. I am 
pleased to note that this provision embodies legislation I am co-
sponsoring, H.R. 1904, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act.
  This is a long overdue reform. I know in my state of Texas, and in 
the city of Houston, the backlog for citizenship applications can last 
upwards of 1 year, and adjustment of status--or greencard 
applications--have a backlog as long as 3 years or more. I am hopeful 
that the funding provided in this bill will address the backlog issue, 
which has presented a significant problem for hundreds-of-thousands of 
otherwise-eligible immigrants in Texas and across the Nation. Working 
with the Administration and my colleagues in the House, I look forward 
to enacting thoughtful immigration reforms that maintains the integrity 
of the naturalization process, while providing effective safeguards at 
our Nation's borders.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in support of H.R. 3231, to honor the memory and accomplishments of the 
great Barbara Jordan, and to imbue efficiency and structure to our 
immigration system.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Barbara Jordan INS Immigration 
Reform and Accountability Act, which is supported by the 
Administration, provides a long-awaited solution to the problems within 
the INS.
  At the end of 2001, the INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications 
and petitions. With those numbers, no one should be surprised at the 
recent mishandling of terrorist visas. In fact, if the INS had been 
following their own policies, Mohammed Atta would have never been 
allowed even to enter the United States.
  For years INS officials have promised reform--but have given us only 
talk with no action. This bill will provide that much-needed action.
  H.R. 3231 will abolish the INS and replace it with two agencies--one 
to handle security and one to handle services. This will not only give 
immigration security the attention it deserves, but also will improve 
the quality of services provided to immigrants.
  No longer will we hear of cases where an immigrant waited in line for 
2 days to get a form and was never told that they could obtain it by 
simply calling a 1-800 number. No longer will we have student visas 
approved six months after the fact for the very terrorists who attacked 
our nation. No longer will we have criminal aliens mistakenly or 
intentionally released.
  We must act before it's too late. Ensuring we have an effective 
immigration system is vital to our homeland defense. We must pass this 
bill today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. 
Therefore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the Ranking Member of the Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their efforts 
in crafting the bipartisan bill before the House today.
  Certainly, this Member certainly supports efforts to restructure the 
system through which critical immigration functions which are executed 
as provided in H.R. 3231. For many years, this Member has argued that 
strong immigration policies and well-functioning infrastructure are 
necessary to protect U.S. citizens from outbreaks of infectious disease 
and from crime, certainly including terrorism. As more information 
becomes available about the terrorists who conducted the unspeakable 
and horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there is 
increasing momentum to revamp the current immigration process.
  Despite this Member's support for restructuring, this Member would 
like to register his concerns about how immigration resources have been 
allocated in the past and how they might be allocated in the future as 
restructuring plans are implemented.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of the Nebraska and Iowa 
congressional delegation, the changing immigration patterns in this 
country's heartland often go unexamined by Federal and congressional 
authorities. As a result, interior states such as Nebraska do not 
receive the resources they need to provide the necessary legal 
immigration services and to combat illegal immigration. Therefore, this 
Member is concerned that throughout the restructuring process, 
immigration resources for both services and enforcement will continue 
to be allocated, as some Federal agencies have done, on the basis of 
the overall population of a given region and without regard to 
geographic circumstances, including the vast regions of some of our 
more sparsely settled states. Indeed, this Member requests that the 
House apply very careful oversight to any immigration restructuring 
measures so that all legal immigrants, regardless of where they live in 
the U.S., can access the immigration services they need without having 
to travel extraordinary distances. Additionally, this Member request 
similar oversight with regard to immigration enforcement resources so 
that the tools to enforce immigration policies are available in 
interior states, including Nebraska where alien smuggling along 
Interstate 80 and other national highways has become far too routine.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member also wants to register his very strong 
support for the Nebraska Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. 
Currently, the center efficiently and effectively processes over 1.5 
million immigration applications and documents each year. In fact, the 
center is often called upon to handle special, out-of-region projects 
due to its fine record and well-earned reputation for efficiency. 
Additionally, due to a well-educated and professional workforce located 
in Lincoln, it is able to recruit and retain good employees. (Indeed, 
the retention of good employees will be the key to success for the 
overall restructuring efforts!) For these reasons, this Member believes 
it is critical that, as any immigration restructuring efforts are 
implemented, the Nebraska Service Center to remain in Lincoln, 
Nebraska.
  Again, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3231.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I commend Judiciary Committee Chairman 
James Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member John Conyers for their work on 
bringing this important bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3231--The Barbara 
Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002--to the House 
floor for consideration.
  H.R. 3231 creates a new immigration system. It ensures that terrorist 
and illegal immigrants are kept out of our country. For too long our 
immigration system has been stuck in the dark ages allowing illegal 
immigrants and terrorists to slip silently into our nation. H.R. 3231 
recognizes this and requires that Internet-based technologies be 
implemented to track immigration applications--technologies that can 
alert Americans now, not later when it's already to late, about illegal 
and terrorists threats to our liberties and homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans have trusted and been patient with INS for 
far too long as they have attempted numerous internal reorganizations--
reorganizations that have obviously not worked. INS's present mission 
to both administer immigration benefits and enforce immigration law is 
blatantly at odds with each other.
  Therefore, today we vote today to abolish the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS).
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize 
what Americans have already concluded--that American's immigration 
system needs a clear chain of command coupled with greater 
accountability. America demands an immigration system that secures our 
homeland by keeping illegal immigrants and terrorists out, while 
offering an efficient process for those legal immigrants coming to 
America to start a better life.
  H.R. 3231 secures our American principles of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3231, the 
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is charged with 
enforcing immigration laws, such as deporting criminal or illegal 
aliens. It is also charged with processing those who lawfully immigrate 
to our country to partake of the American dream. These conflicting 
missions under one government agency have resulted in confusion and 
inefficiency.
  In my home town of Omaha, Nebraska, for example, there is widespread 
frustration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 
People must wait in long lines for hours on end to be served, and then 
wait months or even years for their applications to be processed. Last 
year alone, the Nebraska INS received more than fourteen thousand new 
immigration applications. At the end of the year it was running a 
backlog of almost seven hundred cases. With only three employees 
working four days a week, the service problems have not been adequately 
resolved.
  Border and immigration security is of paramount importance as we 
find, arrest, and

[[Page H1643]]

prosecute terrorists in order to protect the American public. On the 
other hand, legal immigrants seeking better jobs and family life in 
America must be treated with respect. Nationwide problems of law 
enforcement are consuming larger and larger portions of the INS budget. 
This occurs at the cost of the legal immigrant, who sees less and less 
of the INS devoted to service.
  When legal immigrants become less important in the eyes of the INS, 
they become victims of the process. Law enforcement should not be 
funded at the cost of service, and service should not compromise 
enforcement of our immigration laws. Dividing these responsibilities by 
passing H.R. 3231 is a necessary, common-sense, cost-saving measure. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to improve 
homeland defense and protect the American dream.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231. 
I am a cosponsor of this bill, which will help us begin to address 
chronic and longstanding problems at the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. The recent discoveries that the INS processed visa extensions 
for two of the dead September 11th hijackers and that INS inspectors 
allowed Pakistani seamen to come ashore in Virginia (after which three 
of them disappeared) are only two of the latest embarrassments 
attributable to INS mismanagement.
  I know that efforts to overhaul INS predate my time here in Congress 
by several decades. But I'm glad that I'm here to witness the beginning 
of this long overdue restructuring. I think we can all agree that an 
agency that is expected to wear two distinct hats--one to serve our 
immigrant population, and one to watch our borders and enforce 
immigration laws--is bound to run into problems. And indeed, the INS 
has run into problems wearing both hats simultaneously, especially as 
we have asked it to accomplish disparate tasks using the same tools and 
the same staff. This bill would change that, and that's why it deserves 
support.
  H.R. 3231 would effectively abolish the INS as we know it, 
establishing separate enforcement and service divisions. But it would 
maintain important coordinating functions through a new associate 
attorney general for immigration affairs to oversee both bureaus.
  I know there are concerns that the coordinating role the bill 
establishes won't be strong enough to enable the two bureaus to share 
information and work closely together. I also want to ensure that 
resource allocation is fair and that the appropriate amount of funding 
goes both to adjudication and to enforcement. There are also calls for 
the long backlogs at INS to be reduced before any reorganization goes 
into effect. There is some merit to these ideas, and I am hopeful that 
the version of this bill that emerges from House and Senate 
consideration will address them and any other concerns about the bill 
that might arise. At the same time, I think it's important we pass this 
bill now. We need to send a strong message that the days of the INS as 
we know it are over, and that soon there will be changes for the 
better--both in how immigrants are served, and in how we enforce 
immigration laws that are already on the books.
  Mr. Chairman, passage of this bill today is yet another step the 
House has taken in the months after September 11th to try to fix a 
system that doesn't work as well as it should. Other steps we have 
taken include passing H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa 
Entry Reform Act, a bill I supported to strengthen U.S. border controls 
and to improve our ability to screen and keep track of those who enter 
this country. That bill would also allow those who already quality for 
immigration because of their family or employer ties to complete the 
process in the U.S. Also known as Section 245(i), this provision does 
not grant an amnesty, give immigrants the right to work, or protect 
them from deportation if they are living in the U.S. illegally. What it 
does do is keep families together and encourage those who qualify for 
permanent residency to continue filling an economic need and to become 
part of a regulated system.
  Restructuring the INS--as H.R. 3231 would do--is just one part of 
comprehensive immigration reform. Strengthening our border security 
mechanisms is another. A third part involves modernizing our 
immigration laws to be enforceable as well as responsive to our 
country's labor needs. This is where some of the toughest decisions 
will lie. The Administration and the Congress need to work together to 
find workable and sound answers for some of these broader issues--such 
as determining whether our legal immigration levels are sustainable; 
figuring out how best to stem illegal immigration, both for security 
reasons and to ensure that American workers are not displaced; and 
addressing questions about the status of people already in this 
country.
  The challenge we face is to implement measures that will make our 
country more secure without turning away from our tradition as a nation 
of immigrants. I support H.R. 3231 because I believe this bill will 
begin to take us in this direction.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3231

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Barbara 
     Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Abolishment of Immigration and Naturalization Service; 
              establishment of Office of Associate Attorney General for 
              Immigration Affairs.
Sec. 3. Positions within Office of Associate Attorney General for 
              Immigration Affairs.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
              Services.
Sec. 5. Office of the Ombudsman.
Sec. 6. Establishment of Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
Sec. 7. Office of Immigration Statistics within Bureau of Justice 
              Statistics.
Sec. 8. Exercise of authorities.
Sec. 9. Savings provisions.
Sec. 10. Transfer and allocation of appropriations and personnel.
Sec. 11. Authorization of appropriations; prohibition on transfer of 
              fees; leasing or acquisition of property; sense of 
              Congress.
Sec. 12. Reports and implementation plans.
Sec. 13. Application of Internet-based technologies.
Sec. 14. Definitions.
Sec. 15. Effective date; transition.
Sec. 16. Conforming amendment.

     SEC. 2. ABOLISHMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
                   SERVICE; ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE 
                   ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS.

       (a) Abolishment of INS.--The Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service of the Department of Justice is abolished.
       (b) Establishment of Office of Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Department of 
     Justice an office to be known as the ``Office of the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs''.
       (2) Associate attorney general.--The head of the Office 
     shall be the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs. The Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs--
       (A) shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 
     consent of the Senate; and
       (B) shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience in 
     managing a large and complex organization.
       (3) Compensation at level iii of executive schedule.--
     Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.''.
       (c) Functions.--The Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs shall be responsible for--
       (1) overseeing the work of, and supervising, the Director 
     of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement;
       (2) coordinating the administration of national immigration 
     policy, including coordinating the operations of the Bureau 
     of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, and reconciling conflicting policies 
     of such bureaus; and
       (3) allocating and coordinating resources involved in 
     supporting shared support functions for the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, through the Office of Shared 
     Services established by section 3.

     SEC. 3. POSITIONS WITHIN OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
                   FOR IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS.

       (a) Policy Advisor.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be a position of Policy 
     Advisor for the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs.
       (2) Functions.--The Policy Advisor shall be responsible 
     for--
       (A) providing advice to the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs on all matters relating to immigration 
     and naturalization policy; and
       (B) coordinating and reconciling the resolution of policy 
     issues by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
       (b) General Counsel.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be a position of General 
     Counsel to the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs.
       (2) Functions.--The General Counsel shall serve as the 
     principal legal advisor to the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs. The General Counsel shall be responsible 
     for--
       (A) providing specialized legal advice, opinions, 
     determinations, regulations, and any other assistance to the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs with 
     respect to legal matters

[[Page H1644]]

     affecting the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement;
       (B) representing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services in visa petition appeal proceedings before the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review and in other legal or 
     administrative proceedings involving immigration services 
     issues; and
       (C) representing the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement in 
     all exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings before the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review, including in 
     proceedings to adjudicate relief from exclusion, deportation, 
     or removal, and in other legal or administrative proceedings 
     involving immigration enforcement issues.
       (3) Limitation.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to the 
     functions transferred under subsection (h) to the extent that 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs does 
     not delegate such functions to the General Counsel.
       (c) Chief Financial Officer.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief 
     Financial Officer for the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs.
       (2) Functions.--The Chief Financial Officer shall be 
     responsible for--
       (A) financial management of the Office of the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement and shall have the authorities and 
     functions described in section 902 of title 31, United States 
     Code, in relation to financial activities of such office and 
     bureaus;
       (B) collecting all payments, fines, and other debts for the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau 
     of Immigration Enforcement; and
       (C) coordinating all budget and other financial management 
     issues with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
       (d) Director of Shared Services.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be a position of Director of 
     the Office of Shared Services for the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs.
       (2) Functions.--The Director of the Office of Shared 
     Services shall be responsible for the appropriate allocation 
     and coordination of resources involved in supporting shared 
     support functions for the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement, including--
       (A) facilities management;
       (B) information resources management, including computer 
     databases and information technology;
       (C) records and file management; and
       (D) forms management.
       (e) Office of the Ombudsman.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--There is established in the Office of the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an office 
     to be known as the ``Office of the Ombudsman''.
       (B) Ombudsman.--
       (i) In general.--The Office of the Ombudsman shall be under 
     the supervision and direction of an official to be known as 
     the ``Ombudsman''. The Ombudsman shall report directly to the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.
       (ii) Qualifications.--The Ombudsman shall have a background 
     in customer service as well as immigration law.
       (2) Functions of office.--The Ombudsman shall perform the 
     functions described in section 5.
       (f) Office of Professional Responsibility and Quality 
     Review.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Office of the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an office 
     to be known as the ``Office of Professional Responsibility 
     and Quality Review''. The head of the Office of Professional 
     Responsibility and Quality Review shall be the Director of 
     the Office of Professional Responsibility and Quality Review. 
     The Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility and 
     Quality Review shall be responsible for--
       (A) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of 
     misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of 
     the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     or the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that are not subject 
     to investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the 
     Inspector General;
       (B) inspecting the operations of the Office of the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and providing assessments 
     of the quality of the operations of such office and bureaus 
     as a whole and each of their components; and
       (C) providing an analysis of the management of the Office 
     of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
       (2) Special considerations.--In providing assessments in 
     accordance with paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a decision 
     of the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement, or any of their components, consideration shall 
     be given to--
       (A) the accuracy of the findings of fact and conclusions of 
     law used in rendering the decision;
       (B) any fraud or misrepresentation associated with the 
     decision; and
       (C) the efficiency with which the decision was rendered.
       (g) Office of Children's Affairs.--
       (1) In general.--There is established within the Office of 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs an 
     office to be known as the ``Office of Children's Affairs''. 
     The head of the Office of Children's Affairs shall be the 
     Director of the Office of Children's Affairs.
       (2) Functions.--
       (A) In general.--The Director of the Office of Children's 
     Affairs shall be responsible for--
       (i) coordinating and implementing law and policy for 
     unaccompanied alien children who come into the custody of the 
     Department of Justice;
       (ii) ensuring that the interests of the child are 
     considered in decisions and actions relating to the care and 
     custody of an unaccompanied alien child;
       (iii) making placement determinations for all unaccompanied 
     alien children apprehended by the Attorney General or who 
     otherwise come into the custody of the Department of Justice;
       (iv) implementing the placement determinations made by the 
     Office;
       (v) implementing policies with respect to the care and 
     placement of unaccompanied alien children;
       (vi) identifying a sufficient number of qualified 
     individuals, entities, and facilities to house unaccompanied 
     alien children;
       (vii) overseeing the infrastructure and personnel of 
     facilities in which unaccompanied alien children reside;
       (viii) reuniting unaccompanied alien children with a parent 
     abroad in appropriate cases;
       (ix) compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually 
     a state-by-state list of professionals or other entities 
     qualified to provide guardian and attorney representation 
     services for unaccompanied alien children;
       (x) maintaining statistical information and other data on 
     unaccompanied alien children in the Office's custody and 
     care, which shall include--

       (I) biographical information, such as a child's name, 
     gender, date of birth, country of birth, and country of 
     habitual residence;
       (II) the date on which the child came into the custody of 
     the Department of Justice;
       (III) information relating to the child's placement, 
     removal, or release from each facility in which the child has 
     resided;
       (IV) in any case in which the child is placed in detention 
     or released, an explanation relating to the detention or 
     release; and
       (V) the disposition of any actions in which the child is 
     the subject;

       (xi) collecting and compiling statistical information from 
     the Office of the Associate Attorney General, Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Bureau of 
     Enforcement (including Border Patrol and inspections 
     officers), on the unaccompanied alien children with whom they 
     come into contact; and
       (xii) conducting investigations and inspections of 
     facilities and other entities in which unaccompanied alien 
     children reside.
       (B) Coordination with other entities; no release on own 
     recognizance.--In making determinations described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), the Director of the Office of 
     Children's Affairs--
       (i) shall consult with appropriate juvenile justice 
     professionals, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement to ensure that such determinations 
     ensure that unaccompanied alien children described in such 
     subparagraph--

       (I) are likely to appear for all hearings or proceedings in 
     which they are involved;
       (II) are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others 
     who might seek to victimize or otherwise engage them in 
     criminal, harmful, or exploitive activity; and
       (III) are placed in a setting in which they not likely to 
     pose a danger to themselves or others; and

       (ii) shall not release such children upon their own 
     recognizance.
       (C) Transfer of functions.--There are transferred to the 
     Director of the Office of Children's Affairs functions with 
     respect to the care of unaccompanied alien children under the 
     immigration laws of the United States vested by statute in, 
     or performed by, the Commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (or any officer, employee, or 
     component thereof), immediately before the effective date 
     specified in section 15(a).
       (D) Duties with respect to foster care.--In carrying out 
     the duties described in subparagraph (A)(vii), the Director 
     of the Office of Children's Affairs shall assess the extent 
     to which it is cost-effective to use the refugee children 
     foster care system for the placement of unaccompanied alien 
     children.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to transfer the responsibility for adjudicating 
     benefit determinations under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) from the authority of any 
     official of the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, 
     the Executive Office of Immigration Review, or the Department 
     of State.
       (4) Definition.--As used in this subsection--
       (A) the term ``placement'' means the placement of an 
     unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or 
     an alternative to such a facility; and
       (B) the term ``unaccompanied alien child'' means a child 
     who--
       (i) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
       (ii) has not attained 18 years of age; and
       (iii) with respect to whom--

       (I) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United 
     States; or
       (II) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is 
     available to provide care and physical custody.

       (h) Transfer of Functions of Office of Immigration 
     Litigation.--There are transferred

[[Page H1645]]

     from the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, to the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs all 
     functions performed by the Office of Immigration Litigation, 
     and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to 
     the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, in support of 
     such functions, immediately before the effective date 
     specified in section 15(a). The Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs may, in the Associate Attorney 
     General's discretion, charge the General Counsel to the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs with such 
     functions.
       (i) Employee Discipline for Willful Deceit.--The Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs may, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, impose disciplinary action, 
     including termination of employment, pursuant to policies and 
     procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, on any employee of the Office of the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement who willfully deceives the Congress 
     or agency leadership on any matter.
       (j) References.--With respect to any function transferred 
     by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the 
     effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs or any other 
     official whose functions are described in this section, any 
     reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, 
     regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of or 
     pertaining to a component of government from which such 
     function is transferred--
       (1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs; or
       (2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Office of 
     the Associate Attorney for Immigration Affairs.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND 
                   IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment of Bureau.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Department of 
     Justice a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services''.
       (2) Director.--The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services shall be the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, who--
       (A) shall report directly to the Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs; and
       (B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional 
     experience in the rendering of adjudications on the provision 
     of government benefits or services, at least 5 of which shall 
     have been years of service in a managerial capacity or in a 
     position affording comparable management experience.
       (3) Functions.--The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services--
       (A) shall establish the policies for performing such 
     functions as are transferred to the Director by this section 
     or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law;
       (B) shall oversee the administration of such policies;
       (C) shall advise the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs with respect to any policy or operation 
     of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that 
     may affect the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, including 
     potentially conflicting policies or operations;
       (D) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman to correct 
     serious service problems identified by the Ombudsman; and
       (E) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response 
     to any recommendations submitted in the Ombudsman's annual 
     report to the Congress within 3 months after its submission 
     to the Congress.
       (4) Student visa programs.--The Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services shall designate an 
     official to be responsible for administering student visa 
     programs and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 
     System established under section 641 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1372), and successor programs and systems, until 
     September 30, 2004. The Director may continue such policy 
     after September 30, 2004, at the Director's discretion. The 
     Director shall provide any information collected by the 
     Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that is 
     necessary for the performance of the functions of the Bureau 
     of Immigration Enforcement.
       (b) Transfer of Functions From Commissioner.--There are 
     transferred from the Commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services the following functions, 
     and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to 
     the Commissioner in support of such functions immediately 
     before the effective date specified in section 15(a):
       (1) Adjudications of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa 
     petitions.
       (2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions.
       (3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications.
       (4) Adjudications performed at service centers.
       (5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service immediately before the effective 
     date specified in section 15(a).
       (c) Office of Policy and Strategy.--There is established in 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services an office 
     to be known as the ``Office of Policy and Strategy''. The 
     head of the Office of Policy and Strategy shall be the Chief 
     of the Office of Policy and Strategy. In consultation with 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel in 
     field offices, the Chief of the Office of Policy and Strategy 
     shall be responsible for--
       (1) establishing national immigration services policies and 
     priorities;
       (2) performing policy research and analysis on immigration 
     services issues; and
       (3) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief 
     of the Office of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement and the Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs through the Policy Advisor for the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, as 
     appropriate.
       (d) Legal Advisor.--There may be a position of Legal 
     Advisor for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services.
       (e) Chief Budget Officer for Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services.--There shall be a position of Chief 
     Budget Officer for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services. The Chief Budget Officer shall be responsible for 
     formulating and executing the budget of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Chief Budget 
     Officer shall report to the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and shall provide 
     information to, and coordinate resolution of relevant issues 
     with, the Chief Financial Officer for the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs.
       (f) Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public 
     Affairs.--There is established in the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services an office to be known as the 
     ``Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public 
     Affairs''. The head of such office shall be the Chief of the 
     Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public 
     Affairs. The Chief shall be responsible for--
       (1) providing information relating to immigration services 
     to the Congress, including information on specific cases 
     relating to immigration services;
       (2) serving as a liaison with other Federal agencies on 
     immigration services issues; and
       (3) responding to inquiries from the media and general 
     public on immigration services issues.
       (g) Office of Citizenship.--There is established in the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services an office to 
     be known as the ``Office of Citizenship''. The head of such 
     office shall be the Chief of the Office of Citizenship. The 
     Chief shall be responsible for promoting instruction and 
     training on citizenship responsibilities for aliens 
     interested in becoming naturalized citizens of the United 
     States, including the development of educational materials.
       (h) Sectors.--Headed by sector directors, and located in 
     appropriate geographic locations, sectors of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be responsible for 
     directing all aspects of the operations of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services within their assigned 
     geographic areas of activity. Sector directors shall provide 
     general guidance and supervision to the field offices of the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within their 
     sectors.
       (i) Field Offices.--Headed by field directors, who may be 
     assisted by deputy field directors, field offices of the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be 
     responsible for assisting the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the 
     Director's functions. Field directors shall be subject to the 
     general supervision and direction of their respective sector 
     director, except that field directors outside of the United 
     States shall be subject to the general supervision and 
     direction of the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services. All field directors shall remain 
     accountable to, and receive their authority from, the 
     Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services, in order to ensure consistent application and 
     implementation of policies nationwide.
       (j) Service Centers.--Headed by service center directors, 
     service centers of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services shall be responsible for assisting the Director of 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in 
     carrying out the Director's functions that can be effectively 
     carried out at remote locations. Service center directors are 
     subject to the general supervision and direction of their 
     respective sector director, except that all service center 
     directors shall remain accountable to, and receive their 
     authority from, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, in order to ensure consistent 
     application and implementation of policies nationwide.
       (k) Transfer and Removal.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services may, in the Director's discretion, 
     transfer or remove any sector director, field director, or 
     service center director.
       (l) Mission.--It shall be the mission of the field offices 
     and service centers of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services to directly and consistently follow all 
     instructions and guidelines of the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs in order to ensure 
     the development of a cohesive and consistent national 
     immigration policy.
       (m) References.--With respect to any function transferred 
     by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the 
     effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Director of 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, any 
     reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, 
     regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of or 
     pertaining to a component of government from which such 
     function is transferred--
       (1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services; or
       (2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services.

     SEC. 5. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

       (a) Functions.--It shall be the function of the Office of 
     the Ombudsman established under section 3--

[[Page H1646]]

       (1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving 
     problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services;
       (2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers 
     have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services;
       (3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the 
     administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services to mitigate problems identified under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (4) to identify potential legislative changes that may be 
     appropriate to mitigate such problems.
       (b) Annual Reports.--
       (1) Objectives.--Not later than June 30 of each calendar 
     year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and 
     the Senate on the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman 
     for the fiscal year beginning in such calendar year. Any such 
     report shall contain full and substantive analysis, in 
     addition to statistical information, and--
       (A) shall identify the initiatives the Office of the 
     Ombudsman has taken on improving services and responsiveness 
     of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services;
       (B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and 
     serious problems encountered by individuals and employers, 
     including a description of the nature of such problems;
       (C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been taken and 
     the result of such action;
       (D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to be 
     completed and the period during which each item has remained 
     on such inventory;
       (E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action has been taken, 
     the period during which each item has remained on such 
     inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify 
     any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services who is responsible for such inaction;
       (F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative 
     and legislative action as may be appropriate to resolve 
     problems encountered by individuals and employers, 
     including problems created by excessive backlogs in the 
     adjudication and processing of immigration benefit 
     petitions and applications; and
       (G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman 
     may deem advisable.
       (2) Report to be submitted directly.--Each report required 
     under this subsection shall be provided directly to the 
     committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior 
     review or comment from the Attorney General, Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, any other officer 
     or employee of the Department of Justice or the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       (c) Other Responsibilities.--The Ombudsman--
       (1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of 
     local offices of the Ombudsman;
       (2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all 
     officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of 
     inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;
       (3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each 
     local office of the Ombudsman is published and available to 
     individuals and employers served by the office; and
       (4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious 
     service problems and to present recommendations for such 
     administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve 
     problems encountered by individuals and employers.
       (d) Personnel Actions.--
       (1) In general.--The Ombudsman shall have the 
     responsibility and authority--
       (A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least 
     1 such ombudsman for each State; and
       (B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including 
     dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local office 
     of the Ombudsman.
       (2) Consultation.--The Ombudsman may consult with the 
     appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the 
     Ombudsman's responsibilities under this subsection.
       (e) Responsibilities of Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services.--The Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish 
     procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations 
     submitted to such director by the Ombudsman within 3 months 
     after submission to such director.
       (f) Operation of Local Offices.--
       (1) In general.--Each local ombudsman--
       (A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;
       (B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel 
     of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     regarding the daily operation of the local office of such 
     ombudsman;
       (C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or 
     employer seeking the assistance of such local office, notify 
     such individual or employer that the local offices of the 
     Ombudsman operate independently of any other component in the 
     Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs and report directly to the Congress through the 
     Ombudsman; and
       (D) at the local ombudsman's discretion, may determine not 
     to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services contact with, or information provided by, such 
     individual or employer.
       (2) Maintenance of independent communications.--Each local 
     office of the Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile, 
     and other means of electronic communication access, and a 
     post office address, that is separate from those maintained 
     by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any 
     component of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Establishment of Bureau.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Department of 
     Justice a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement''.
       (2) Director.--The head of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement shall be the Director of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, who--
       (A) shall report directly to the Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs; and
       (B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional 
     experience in law enforcement, at least 5 of which shall have 
     been years of service in a managerial capacity.
       (3) Functions.--The Director of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement--
       (A) shall establish the policies for performing such 
     functions as are transferred to the Director by this section 
     or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law;
       (B) shall oversee the administration of such policies; and
       (C) shall advise the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs with respect to any policy or operation 
     of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement that may affect the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, including 
     potentially conflicting policies or operations.
       (b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred from the 
     Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
     the Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement all 
     functions performed under the following programs, and all 
     personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the 
     Commissioner in support of such programs immediately before 
     the effective date specified in section 15(a):
       (1) The Border Patrol program.
       (2) The detention and removal program.
       (3) The intelligence program.
       (4) The investigations program.
       (5) The inspections program.
       (c) Office of Policy and Strategy.--There is established in 
     the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement an office to be known 
     as the ``Office of Policy and Strategy''. The head of the 
     Office of Policy and Strategy shall be the Chief of the 
     Office of Policy and Strategy. In consultation with Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement personnel in field offices, the Chief 
     of the Office of Policy and Strategy shall be responsible 
     for--
       (1) establishing national immigration enforcement policies 
     and priorities;
       (2) performing policy research and analysis on immigration 
     enforcement issues; and
       (3) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief 
     of the Office of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs through the Policy 
     Advisor for the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, as appropriate.
       (d) Legal Advisor.--There may be a position of Legal 
     Advisor for the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
       (e) Chief Budget Officer for the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement.--There shall be a position of Chief Budget 
     Officer for the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. The Chief 
     Budget Officer shall be responsible for formulating and 
     executing the budget of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement. The Chief Budget Officer shall report to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and 
     shall provide information to, and coordinate resolution of 
     relevant issues with, the Chief Financial Officer for the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs.
       (f) Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public 
     Affairs.--There is established in the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement an office to be known as the ``Office of 
     Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs''. The 
     head of such office shall be the Chief of the Office of 
     Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs. The 
     Chief shall be responsible for--
       (1) providing information relating to immigration 
     enforcement to the Congress, including information on 
     specific cases relating to immigration enforcement;
       (2) serving as a liaison with other Federal agencies on 
     immigration enforcement issues; and
       (3) responding to inquiries from the media and the general 
     public on immigration enforcement issues.
       (g) Sectors.--Headed by sector directors, and located in 
     appropriate geographic locations, sectors of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement shall be responsible for directing 
     all aspects of the operations of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement within their assigned geographic areas of 
     activity. Sector directors shall provide general guidance and 
     supervision to the field offices of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement within their sectors.
       (h) Field Offices.--Headed by field directors, who may be 
     assisted by deputy field directors, field offices of the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement shall be responsible for 
     assisting the Director of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement in carrying out the Director's functions. Field 
     directors shall be subject to the general supervision and 
     direction of their respective sector director, except that 
     field directors outside of the United States shall be subject 
     to the general supervision and direction of the Director of 
     the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. All field directors 
     shall remain accountable to, and receive their authority 
     from, the Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, 
     in order to ensure consistent application and implementation 
     of policies nationwide. There shall be a field office of the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement situated in at least every 
     location where there is situated a field office of the Bureau 
     of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[[Page H1647]]

       (i) Border Patrol Sectors.--Headed by chief patrol agents, 
     who may be assisted by deputy chief patrol agents, border 
     patrol sectors of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement shall 
     be responsible for the enforcement of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other laws 
     relating to immigration and naturalization within their 
     assigned geographic areas of activity, unless any such power 
     and authority is required to be exercised by higher authority 
     or has been exclusively delegated to another immigration 
     official or class of immigration officer. Chief patrol agents 
     are subject to the general supervision and direction of their 
     respective sector director, except that they shall remain 
     accountable to, and receive their authority from, the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, in order 
     to ensure consistent application and implementation of 
     policies nationwide.
       (j) Transfer and Removal.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement may, in the Director's discretion, transfer or 
     remove any sector director, field director, or chief patrol 
     officer.
       (k) References.--With respect to any function transferred 
     by this section or Act to, and exercised on or after the 
     effective date specified in section 15(a) by, the Director of 
     the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, any reference in any 
     other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, or 
     delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to 
     a component of government from which such function is 
     transferred--
       (1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement; or
       (2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement.

     SEC. 7. OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS WITHIN BUREAU OF 
                   JUSTICE STATISTICS.

       (a) In General.--Part C of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3731 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:


                   ``office of immigration statistics

       ``Sec. 305. (a) There is established within the Bureau of 
     Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice an Office of 
     Immigration Statistics (in this section referred to as the 
     `Office'), which shall be headed by a Director who shall be 
     appointed by the Attorney General and who shall report to the 
     Director of Justice Statistics.
       ``(b) The Director of the Office shall be responsible for 
     the following:
       ``(1) Maintenance of all immigration statistical 
     information of the Office of the Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, 
     and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Such 
     statistical information shall include information and 
     statistics of the type contained in the publication entitled 
     `Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service' prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service (as in effect on the day prior to the effective date 
     specified in section 15(a) of the Barbara Jordan Immigration 
     Reform and Accountability Act of 2002).
       ``(2) Establishment of standards of reliability and 
     validity for immigration statistics collected by the Office 
     of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive Office 
     for Immigration Review.
       ``(c) The Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, 
     and the Executive Office for Immigration Review shall provide 
     statistical information to the Office of Immigration 
     Statistics from the operational data systems controlled by 
     the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive 
     Office for Immigration Review, respectively, for the purpose 
     of meeting the responsibilities of the Director.''.
       (b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the 
     Office of Immigration Statistics established under section 
     305 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as added by subsection (a), the functions performed by 
     the Statistics Branch of the Office of Policy and Planning of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service on the day before 
     the effective date specified in section 15(a).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 302(c) of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3732(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (22);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) collect, maintain, compile, analyze, publish, and 
     disseminate information and statistics about immigration in 
     the United States, including information and statistics 
     involving the functions of the Office of the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, and the Executive Office for 
     Immigration Review.''.

     SEC. 8. EXERCISE OF AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by law, a 
     Federal official to whom a function is transferred by this 
     Act may, for purposes of performing the function, exercise 
     all authorities under any other provision of law that were 
     available with respect to the performance of that function to 
     the official responsible for the performance of the function 
     immediately before the effective date specified in section 
     15(a).
       (b) Preservation of Attorney General's Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Any function for which this Act vests 
     responsibility in an official other than the Attorney 
     General, or which is transferred by this Act to such an 
     official, may, notwithstanding any provision of this Act, be 
     performed by the Attorney General, or the Attorney General's 
     delegate, in lieu of such official.
       (2) References.--In a case in which the Attorney General 
     performs a function described in paragraph (1), any reference 
     in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, 
     document, or delegation of authority to the official 
     otherwise responsible for the function is deemed to refer to 
     the Attorney General.
       (c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to preclude or limit in any way the powers, 
     authorities, or duties of the Secretary of State and special 
     agents of the Department of State and the Foreign Service 
     under the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 
     U.S.C. 2651 note), the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), or any other Act, to investigate 
     illegal passport or visa issuance or use.

     SEC. 9. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Legal Documents.--All orders, determinations, rules, 
     regulations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, agreements, 
     recognition of labor organizations, certificates, licenses, 
     and privileges--
       (1) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to 
     become effective by the President, the Attorney General, the 
     Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     their delegates, or any other Government official, or by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, in the performance of any 
     function that is transferred by this Act; and
       (2) that are in effect on the effective date of such 
     transfer (or become effective after such date pursuant to 
     their terms as in effect on such effective date),
     shall continue in effect according to their terms until 
     modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in 
     accordance with law by the President, any other authorized 
     official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of 
     law.
       (b) Proceedings.--Sections 4 and 6 and this section shall 
     not affect any proceedings or any application for any 
     benefit, service, license, permit, certificate, or financial 
     assistance pending on the effective date specified in section 
     15(a) before an office whose functions are transferred by 
     this Act, but such proceedings and applications shall be 
     continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, 
     appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made 
     pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted, 
     and orders issued in any such proceeding shall continue in 
     effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by 
     a duly authorized official, by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in this section 
     shall be considered to prohibit the discontinuance or 
     modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and 
     conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could 
     have been discontinued or modified if this section had not 
     been enacted.
       (c) Suits.--This Act shall not affect suits commenced 
     before the effective date specified in section 15(a), and in 
     all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and 
     judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same 
     effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
       (d) Nonabatement of Actions.--No suit, action, or other 
     proceeding commenced by or against the Department of Justice 
     or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or by or 
     against any individual in the official capacity of such 
     individual as an officer or employee in connection with a 
     function transferred by this Act, shall abate by reason of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Continuance of Suits.--If any Government officer in the 
     official capacity of such officer is party to a suit with 
     respect to a function of the officer, and under this Act (or 
     an amendment made by this Act) such function is transferred 
     to any other officer or office, then such suit shall be 
     continued with the other officer or the head of such other 
     office, as applicable, substituted or added as a party.
       (f) Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review.--Except 
     as otherwise provided by this Act, any statutory requirements 
     relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or 
     administrative or judicial review that apply to any function 
     transferred by this Act shall apply to the exercise of such 
     function by the head of the office, and other officers of the 
     office, to which such function is transferred by this Act.

     SEC. 10. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--The personnel of the Department of Justice 
     employed in connection with the functions transferred by this 
     Act (and functions that the Attorney General determines are 
     properly related to the functions of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement and would, if transferred, further 
     the purposes of the bureau to which the function is 
     transferred), and the assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, 
     used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to, 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Office of 
     Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division in connection 
     with the functions transferred by this Act, subject to 
     section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 
     1950, shall be transferred to the Associate Attorney General 
     for Immigration Affairs for allocation to the appropriate 
     component or bureau. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be used only for the purposes for which 
     the funds were originally authorized and appropriated. The 
     Attorney General shall have the

[[Page H1648]]

     right to adjust or realign transfers of funds and personnel 
     effected pursuant to this Act for a period of 2 years after 
     the effective date specified in section 15(a).
       (b) Delegation and Assignment.--Except as otherwise 
     expressly prohibited by law or otherwise provided in this 
     Act, of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, the person to whom functions are 
     transferred under this Act may delegate any of the functions 
     so transferred to such officers and employees of the Office 
     of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, 
     the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, respectively, as the 
     person may designate, and may authorize successive 
     redelegations of such functions as may be necessary or 
     appropriate. No delegation of functions under this subsection 
     or under any other provision of this Act shall relieve the 
     official to whom a function is transferred under this Act of 
     responsibility for the administration of the function.
       (c) Authorities of Attorney General.--The Attorney General 
     (or a delegate of the Attorney General), at such time or 
     times as the Attorney General (or the delegate) shall 
     provide, may make such determinations as may be necessary 
     with regard to the functions transferred by this Act, and may 
     make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel, 
     assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, 
     and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, 
     allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from, 
     available to, or to be made available in connection with such 
     functions, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     this Act. The Attorney General shall provide for such further 
     measures and dispositions as may be necessary to effectuate 
     the purposes of this Act.
       (d) Databases.--The Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs shall ensure that the databases of the 
     Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs and those of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement are integrated with the databases of the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review in such a way as to 
     permit--
       (1) the electronic docketing of each case by date of 
     service upon the alien of the notice to appear in the case of 
     a removal proceeding (or an order to show cause in the case 
     of a deportation proceeding, or a notice to alien in the case 
     of an exclusion proceeding); and
       (2) the tracking of the status of any alien throughout the 
     alien's contact with United States immigration authorities, 
     without regard to whether the entity with jurisdiction over 
     the alien is the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services, the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, or the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROHIBITION ON 
                   TRANSFER OF FEES; LEASING OR ACQUISITION OF 
                   PROPERTY; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Transition.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to effect the abolition of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, the establishment of 
     the Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement and their 
     components, and the transfers of functions required to be 
     made under this Act (and the amendments made by this Act), 
     and to carry out any other duty related to the reorganization 
     of the immigration and naturalization functions that is made 
     necessary by this Act (or any such amendment).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
       (3) Transition account.--
       (A) Establishment.--There is established in the general 
     fund of the Treasury of the United States a separate account, 
     which shall be known as the ``Immigration Reorganization 
     Transition Account'' (in this paragraph referred to as the 
     ``Account'').
       (B) Use of account.--There shall be deposited into the 
     Account all amounts appropriated under paragraph (1).
       (C) Advanced availability of funds.--To the extent provided 
     in appropriations Acts, funds in the Account shall be 
     available for expenditure before the effective date specified 
     in section 15(a).
       (b) Separation of Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be established separate 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States for 
     appropriated funds and other deposits available for the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau 
     of Immigration Enforcement.
       (2) Separate budgets.--To ensure that the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement are funded to the extent necessary to 
     fully carry out their respective functions, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall separate the budget 
     requests for each such entity.
       (3) Fees.--Fees imposed for a particular service, 
     application, or benefit shall be deposited into the account 
     established under paragraph (1) that is for the bureau with 
     jurisdiction over the function to which the fee relates.
       (4) Fees not transferable.--No fee may be transferred 
     between the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement for purposes not 
     authorized by section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1356).
       (5) Establishment of fees for adjudication and 
     naturalization services.--Section 286(m) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by striking 
     ``services, including the costs of similar services provided 
     without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants.'' 
     and inserting ``services.''.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations for refugee and asylum 
     adjudications.--There are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 207 through 209 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1157-1159). All funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be deposited into the Immigration 
     Examinations Fee Account established under section 286(m) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) 
     and shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Leasing or Acquisition of Property.--Notwithstanding 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), the Attorney General is authorized 
     to expend, from the appropriation provided for the 
     administration and enforcement of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), such amounts as may 
     be necessary for the leasing or acquisition of property in 
     the fulfillment of establishing the Office of the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement under this Act.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the missions of the Office of the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement are equally important and, accordingly, they each 
     should be adequately funded; and
       (2) the functions of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs described in section 3, the immigration 
     adjudication and service functions referred to in section 4, 
     and the immigration enforcement functions referred to in 
     section 6 should not operate at levels below that in 
     existence prior to the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Elimination of Limitation on Expenditures for Backlog 
     Reduction.--Section 204(b) of the Immigration Services and 
     Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(b)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 12. REPORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

       (a) Division of Funds.--The Attorney General, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and 
     of the Senate a report on the proposed division and transfer 
     of funds, including unexpended funds, appropriations, and 
     fees, among the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement.
       (b) Division of Personnel.--The Attorney General, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and 
     of the Senate a report on the proposed division of personnel 
     among the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement.
       (c) Implementation Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 
     months thereafter until the termination of fiscal year 2005, 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and 
     of the Senate an implementation plan to carry out this Act.
       (2) Contents.--The implementation plan should include 
     details concerning the separation of the Office of the 
     Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, including the following:
       (A) Organizational structure, including the field 
     structure.
       (B) Chain of command.
       (C) Procedures for interaction among such office and 
     bureaus.
       (D) Procedures for the Director of Shared Services to 
     perform all shared support functions, including authorizing 
     the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services and the Director of the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement to approve training curricula and to acquire such 
     supplies and equipment as may be necessary to perform the 
     daily operations of that director's bureau.
       (E) Procedures to establish separate accounts and financial 
     management systems for the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement, and to implement all provisions of section 
     11(b).
       (F) Fraud detection and investigation.
       (G) The processing and handling of removal proceedings, 
     including expedited removal and applications for relief from 
     removal.
       (H) Recommendations for conforming amendments to the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (I) Establishment of a transition team.
       (J) Ways to phase in the costs of separating the 
     administrative support systems of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service in order to provide for separate 
     administrative support systems for the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement in instances where separate systems are more 
     efficient or effective.
       (d) Report on Improving Immigration Services.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations 
     of the United

[[Page H1649]]

     States House of Representatives and of the Senate a report 
     containing a plan for how the Director of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services will complete 
     efficiently, fairly, and within a reasonable time, the 
     adjudications described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of 
     section 4(b).
       (2) Contents.--For each type of adjudication to be 
     undertaken by the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, the report shall include the following:
       (A) Any potential savings of resources that may be 
     implemented without affecting the quality of the 
     adjudication.
       (B) The goal for processing time with respect to the 
     application.
       (C) Any statutory modifications with respect to the 
     adjudication that the Attorney General considers advisable.
       (3) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State, 
     the Secretary of Labor, the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, and the Director of the Executive 
     Office for Immigration Review to determine how to streamline 
     and improve the process for applying for and making 
     adjudications described in section 4(b) and related 
     processes.
       (e) Report on Improving Enforcement Function.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General, not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary 
     of the United States House of Representatives and of the 
     Senate a report with a plan detailing how the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, after the transfer of functions 
     performed under the programs described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (5) of section 6(b), will enforce comprehensively, 
     effectively, and fairly all the enforcement provisions of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.) relating to such programs.
       (2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State, 
     the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security, the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs, the Director of the Bureau 
     of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Director of the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the heads of 
     State and local law enforcement agencies to determine how to 
     most effectively conduct enforcement operations.
       (f) Report on Shared Services.--The Attorney General, not 
     later than 3 years after the effective date specified in 
     section 15(a), shall submit to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary and Appropriations of the United States House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate a report on whether the 
     Director of Shared Services is properly serving the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement. The report should address whether it 
     would be more efficient to transfer one or more of the 
     functions described in section 3 to the Director of the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services or the 
     Director of the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, and shall 
     include an estimate of the cost of any such transfer that the 
     Attorney General recommends. The report should also address 
     whether it would be more efficient to transfer one or more of 
     the functions described in sections 4 and 6 to the Office of 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, and 
     shall include an estimate of the cost of any such transfer 
     that the Attorney General recommends.
       (g) Comptroller General Studies and Reports.--
       (1) Status reports on transition.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the effective date specified in section 15(a), and 
     every 6 months thereafter, until full implementation of this 
     Act has been completed, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and 
     on the Judiciary of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report containing the 
     following:
       (A) A determination of whether the transfers of functions 
     made by sections 4 and 6 have been completed, and if a 
     transfer of functions has not taken place, identifying the 
     reasons why the transfer has not taken place.
       (B) If the transfers of functions made by sections 4 and 6 
     have been completed, an identification of any issues that 
     have arisen due to the completed transfers.
       (C) An identification of any issues that may arise due to 
     any future transfer of functions.
       (2) Report on management.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     effective date specified in section 15(a), the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations and on the Judiciary of the United States 
     House of Representatives and the Senate a report, following a 
     study, containing the following:
       (A) Determinations of whether the transfer of functions 
     from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Bureau 
     of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement, and the transfer of functions from 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Office of 
     Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division to the Office of 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, under 
     this Act have improved, with respect to each function 
     transferred, the following:
       (i) Operations.
       (ii) Management, including accountability and 
     communication.
       (iii) Financial administration.
       (iv) Recordkeeping, including information management and 
     technology.
       (B) A statement of the reasons for the determinations under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) Any recommendations for further improvements to the 
     Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
       (h) Report on Interior Checkpoints.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report on 
     whether all permanent interior checkpoints operated by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service ought to be closed, 
     and the funds that otherwise would be expended for the 
     operation of such checkpoints ought to be reallocated for 
     protecting and maintaining the integrity of the borders of 
     the United States and increasing enforcement at other points 
     of entry into the United States.
       (i) Report on Responding to Fluctuating Needs.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report on 
     changes in law, including changes in authorizations of 
     appropriations and in appropriations, that are needed to 
     permit the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and, after 
     the effective date specified in section 15(a), the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, to ensure a prompt and 
     timely response to emergent, unforeseen, or impending changes 
     in the number of applications for immigration benefits, and 
     otherwise to ensure the accommodation of changing immigration 
     service needs.

     SEC. 13. APPLICATION OF INTERNET-BASED TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Establishment of Tracking System.--The Attorney 
     General, not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, in consultation with the Technology 
     Advisory Committee established under subsection (c), shall 
     establish an Internet-based system, that will permit a 
     person, employer, immigrant, or nonimmigrant who has filings 
     with the Attorney General for any benefit under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.), access to online information about the processing 
     status of the filing involved.
       (b) Feasibility Study for Online Filing and Improved 
     Processing.--
       (1) Online filing.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Technology Advisory Committee established under 
     subsection (c), shall conduct a feasibility study on the 
     online filing of the filings described in subsection (a). The 
     study shall include a review of computerization and 
     technology of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     relating to the immigration services and processing of 
     filings related to immigrant services. The study shall also 
     include an estimate of the timeframe and cost and shall 
     consider other factors in implementing such a filing system, 
     including the feasibility of fee payment online.
       (2) Report.--A report on the study under this subsection 
     shall be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     United States House of Representatives and the Senate not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Technology Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish, 
     not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, an advisory committee (in this section referred to 
     as the ``Technology Advisory Committee'') to assist the 
     Attorney General in--
       (A) establishing the tracking system under subsection (a); 
     and
       (B) conducting the study under subsection (b).
     The Technology Advisory Committee shall be established after 
     consultation with the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     United States House of Representatives and the Senate.
       (2) Composition.--The Technology Advisory Committee shall 
     be composed of representatives from high technology companies 
     capable of establishing and implementing the system in an 
     expeditious manner, and representatives of persons who may 
     use the tracking system described in subsection (a) and the 
     online filing system described in subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``function'' includes any duty, obligation, 
     power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, activity, 
     or program.
       (2) The term ``office'' includes any office, 
     administration, agency, bureau, institute, council, unit, 
     organizational entity, or component thereof.

     SEC. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION.

       (a) In General.--The abolishment of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, the establishment of the Office of 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the 
     Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, the transfers of functions 
     specified under this Act, and the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act. The Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Director of the Bureau of 
     Immigration Enforcement shall be appointed not later than 
     such effective date. To the extent that functions to be 
     transferred to such persons under this Act continue to be 
     performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
     the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division 
     during fiscal year 2003, the Attorney General shall provide 
     for an appropriate accounting of funds and an appropriate 
     transfer of funds appropriated to such entities to the 
     appropriate component of the Office of the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services, or the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement.
       (b) Transition Period for Certain Bureau Functions.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), during the 18-month period 
     after the transfer of functions under this Act takes effect, 
     the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs is 
     authorized to perform the functions described in subsections 
     (c), (d), and (f) of each of sections

[[Page H1650]]

     4 and 6 for both the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.

     SEC. 16. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the following:
       ``Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, 
     Department of Justice.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 107-
419. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.

                              {time}  1300

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 107-419.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 2, after the item relating to section 10, insert the 
     following (and redesignate succeeding items accordingly):

``Sec. 11. Voluntary separation incentive payments.
``Sec. 12. Authority to conduct a demonstration project relating to 
              disciplinary action.

       Page 15, line 15, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 17, line 9, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 18, line 1, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
       (5) Managerial rotation program.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective 
     date specified in section 18(a), the Director of the Bureau 
     of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall design and 
     implement a managerial rotation program under which employees 
     of such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or 
     managerial responsibility and classified, in accordance with 
     chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or 
     above, shall, as a condition on further promotion--
       (i) gain some experience in all the major functions 
     performed by such bureau; and
       (ii) work in at least one field office and one service 
     center of such bureau.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective 
     date specified in section 17(a), the Attorney General shall 
     submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of such 
     program.

       Page 21, line 4, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 21, line 13, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 25, line 20, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 32, after line 20, insert the following:
       (4) Managerial rotation program.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective 
     date specified in section 17(a), the Director of the Bureau 
     of Immigration Enforcement shall design and implement a 
     managerial rotation program under which employees of such 
     bureau holding positions involving supervisory or managerial 
     responsibility and classified, in accordance with chapter 51 
     of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or above, shall, 
     as a condition on further promotion--
       (i) gain some experience in all the major functions 
     performed by such bureau; and
       (ii) work in at least one field office and one border 
     patrol sector of such bureau.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective 
     date specified in section 17(a), the Attorney General shall 
     submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of such 
     program.
       Page 33, line 3, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 37, line 3, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 38, line 14, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 39, line 16, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 40, line 18, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 42, line 16, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 43, line 6, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 45, line 7, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 47, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 11. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who--
       (A) has completed at least 3 years of current continuous 
     service with 1 or more covered entities; and
       (B) is serving under an appointment without time 
     limitation;
     but does not include any person under subparagraphs (A)-(G) 
     of section 663(a)(2) of Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 
     note);
       (2) the term ``covered entity'' means--
       (A) the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
       (B) the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Civil 
     Division;
       (C) the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs;
       (D) the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement; and
       (E) the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
       (3) the term ``transfer date'' means the date on which the 
     transfer of functions specified under this Act takes effect.
       (b) Strategic Restructuring Plan.--Before obligating any 
     resources for voluntary separation incentive payments under 
     this section, the Attorney General shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a strategic restructuring 
     plan, which shall include--
       (1) an organizational chart depicting the covered entities 
     after their restructuring pursuant to this Act;
       (2) a summary description of how the authority under this 
     section will be used to help carry out that restructuring; 
     and
       (3) the information specified in section 663(b)(2) of 
     Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note).
     As used in the preceding sentence, the ``appropriate 
     committees of Congress'' are the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Government Reform, and the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Governmental Affairs, and the Judiciary of 
     the Senate.
       (c) Authority.--The Attorney General may, to the extent 
     necessary to help carry out the strategic restructuring plan 
     described in subsection (b), make voluntary separation 
     incentive payments to employees. Any such payment--
       (1) shall be paid to the employee, in a lump sum, after the 
     employee has separated from service;
       (2) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available 
     for the payment of basic pay of the employee;
       (3) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (A) the amount the employee would be entitled to receive 
     under section 5595(c) of title 5, United States Code; or
       (B) an amount not to exceed $25,000, as determined by the 
     Attorney General;
       (4) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying 
     employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or 
     resignation) before the end of--
       (A) the 3-month period beginning on the date on which such 
     payment is offered or made available to such employee; or
       (B) the 3-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,
     whichever occurs first;
       (5) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit; and
       (6) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be 
     entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, 
     based on any other separation.
       (d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement 
     Fund.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any payments which it is 
     otherwise required to make, the Department of Justice shall, 
     for each fiscal year with respect to which it makes any 
     voluntary separation incentive payments under this section, 
     remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in 
     the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund the amount required 
     under paragraph (2).
       (2) Amount required.--The amount required under this 
     paragraph shall, for any fiscal year, be the amount under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is greater.
       (A) First method.--The amount under this subparagraph 
     shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to the minimum amount 
     necessary to offset the additional costs to the retirement 
     systems under title 5, United States Code (payable out of the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund) resulting from 
     the voluntary separation of the employees described in 
     paragraph (3), as determined under regulations of the Office 
     of Personnel Management.
       (B) Second method.--The amount under this subparagraph 
     shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to 45 percent of the sum 
     total of the final basic pay of the employees described in 
     paragraph (3).
       (3) Computations to be based on separations occurring in 
     the fiscal year involved.--The employees described in this 
     paragraph are those employees who receive a voluntary 
     separation incentive payment under this section based on 
     their separating from service during the fiscal year with 
     respect to which the payment under this subsection relates.
       (4) Final basic pay defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``final basic pay'' means, with respect to an employee, the 
     total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year 
     of service by such employee, computed using the employee's 
     final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a 
     full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
       (e) Effect of Subsequent Employment with the Government.--
     An individual who receives a voluntary separation incentive 
     payment under this section and who, within

[[Page H1651]]

     5 years after the date of the separation on which the payment 
     is based, accepts any compensated employment with the 
     Government or works for any agency of the Government through 
     a personal services contract, shall be required to pay, prior 
     to the individual's first day of employment, the entire 
     amount of the incentive payment. Such payment shall be made 
     to the covered entity from which the individual separated or, 
     if made on or after the transfer date, to the Associate 
     Attorney General for Immigration Affairs (for transfer to the 
     appropriate component of the Department of Justice, if 
     necessary).
       (f) Effect on Employment Levels.--
       (1) Intended effect.--Voluntary separations under this 
     section are not intended to necessarily reduce the total 
     number of full-time equivalent positions in any covered 
     entity.
       (2) Use of voluntary separations.--A covered entity may 
     redeploy or use the full-time equivalent positions vacated by 
     voluntary separations under this section to make other 
     positions available to more critical locations or more 
     critical occupations.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 
                   RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General may, during a period 
     ending not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, conduct a demonstration project for the purpose 
     of determining whether one or more changes in the policies or 
     procedures relating to methods for disciplining employees 
     would result in improved personnel management.
       (b) Scope.--The demonstration project--
       (1) may not cover any employees apart from those employed 
     in or under a covered entity; and
       (2) shall not be limited by any provision of chapter 43, 
     75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Procedures.--Under the demonstration project--
       (1) the use of alternative means of dispute resolution (as 
     defined in section 571 of title 5, United States Code) shall 
     be encouraged, whenever appropriate; and
       (2) each covered entity shall be required to provide for 
     the expeditious, fair, and independent review of any action 
     to which section 4303 or subchapter II of chapter 75 of such 
     title 5 would otherwise apply (except an action described in 
     section 7512(5) thereof).
       (d) Actions Involving Discrimination.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, if, in the case of any 
     matter described in section 7702(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United 
     States Code, there is no judicially reviewable action under 
     the demonstration project within 120 days after the filing of 
     an appeal or other formal request for review (referred to in 
     subsection (c)(2)), an employee shall be entitled to file a 
     civil action to the same extent and in the same manner as 
     provided in section 7702(e)(1) of such title 5 (in the matter 
     following subparagraph (C) thereof).
       (e) Certain Employees.--Employees shall not be included 
     within any project under this section if such employees are--
       (1) neither managers nor supervisors; and
       (2) within a unit with respect to which a labor 
     organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter 
     71 of title 5, United States Code.
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an aggrieved employee 
     within a unit (referred to in paragraph (2)) may elect to 
     participate in a complaint procedure developed under the 
     demonstration project in lieu of any negotiated grievance 
     procedure and any statutory procedure (as such term is used 
     in section 7121 of such title 5).
       (f) Reports.--The General Accounting Office shall prepare 
     and submit to the Committees on Government Reform and the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committees 
     on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate 
     periodic reports on any demonstration project conducted under 
     this section, such reports to be submitted after the second 
     and fourth years of its operation. Upon request, the Attorney 
     General shall furnish such information as the General 
     Accounting Office may require to carry out this subsection.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Attorney General'' means the Attorney 
     General or his designee; and
       (2) the term ``covered entity'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 11(a)(2).
       Page 47, line 10, strike ``11'' and insert ``13''.
       Page 48, line 21, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 51, strike lines 16 through 20.
       Page 51, line 21, strike ``12'' and insert ``14''.
       Page 53, line 24, strike ``11(b)'' and insert ``13(b)''.
       Page 57, line 1, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 57, line 23, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 58, line 18, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 60, line 15, strike ``15(a)'' and insert ``17(a)''.
       Page 60, line 20, strike ``13'' and insert ``15''.
       Page 62, line 22, strike ``14'' and insert ``16''.
       Page 63, line 7, strike ``15'' and insert ``17''.
       Page 64, line 13, strike ``16'' and insert ``18''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment which has been worked out on a 
bipartisan basis by the Committees on the Judiciary and Government 
Reform will give the Attorney General and the Associate Attorney 
General for Immigration Affairs personnel flexibility tools needed to 
ensure that the restructuring of the INS will be a success.
  First, it requires the directors of the two immigration bureaus to 
design and implement managerial rotation programs so that their 
managers will have experience in all the major functions of their 
respective bureaus and will have worked out in the field. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for crafting this 
important provision.
  Second, this amendment permits the Attorney General to offer buyouts 
to INS employees. That is essential to reshaping the agency.
  Third, and most importantly, the amendment authorizes a 5-year 
demonstration project relating to disciplinary actions. It permits the 
AG to change policies and procedures regarding methods of disciplining 
employees in order to improve the quality of INS management. This would 
ensure discipline for both employee malfeasance and nonfeasance.
  The demonstration project must encourage the use of alternative means 
of dispute resolution, where appropriate, and require expeditious, fair 
and independent review of disciplinary actions. The amendment provides 
needed flexibility for managing the new immigration components.
  I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform for its work, 
support and patience in drafting this amendment. I want to thank three 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) who worked particularly hard to 
ensure that the Justice Department would have the personnel flexibility 
to make restructuring a success. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. During 
the committee markup there were several issues that were contentious at 
the time. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers agreed to 
work with other Judiciary Committee members and members of the 
Committee on Government Reform to reach bipartisan agreement. They were 
successful in reaching an accord on most of these issues.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I suspect that what the gentlewoman was 
determining here was the amendment having to do with representation of 
children?
  Ms. BALDWIN. No.
  Mr. GEKAS. No? Then I am in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I 
will try to regain the podium later.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 107-419.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H1652]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Baldwin:
       Page 11, line 14, insert before the semicolon at the end 
     the following: ``, including developing a plan to be 
     submitted to the Congress on how to ensure that qualified and 
     independent legal counsel is timely appointed to represent 
     the interests of each such child, consistent with the law 
     regarding appointment of counsel that is in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is simple. It would require the Office of Children's 
Affairs within the newly created Agency of Immigration Affairs to 
develop a plan on how to provide unaccompanied alien children with 
independent legal counsel.
  Think back to when you were 8 years old. For many, our biggest 
concern might have been Friday's spelling bee. Now imagine that you 
were forced against your will to go to another country, alone, without 
knowing why, without knowing for how long, and often without knowing 
the language. You would definitely have a lot more to worry about. 
Remarkably, this happens to nearly 5,000 children every year in the 
United States. These unaccompanied alien children are brought to 
America from other countries for various reasons.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I believe 
she has a very constructive amendment dealing with what is a major 
problem. We are happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I now find myself in the right spot, in the 
right place, on the right issue at the podium.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Welcome.
  Mr. GEKAS. I want to substantiate my support for the amendment and to 
urge that everyone consider the question of unaccompanied young 
children and the provision of legal assistance in their quest to remain 
in the United States. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the 
gentlewoman to complete her remarks, so I will not take up a lot of the 
time, but I do want to congratulate the gentlewoman for an excellent 
amendment. Working, of course, as I do with the Congressional 
Children's Caucus, we are always seeing the diminished rights of 
children many times when they are unequal in our systems and 
particularly the court systems. And so coming from a border State like 
Texas, I can assure you that in the detention centers we find large 
numbers of unaccompanied children. Also being familiar with Haitian 
children in the parts of the land in which they come, particularly the 
State of Florida, we have seen many tragic incidences of citizen 
Haitian children with parents who are then forced to be sent back and 
with no independent representation. It happens to many, many 
immigrants.
  And so let me say that this is an important addition to the 
children's bureau. I would like to join you as I am on the amendment in 
asking our colleagues to support it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear of the support from 
my fellow members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.
  I wanted to just explain briefly further that when the INS or the 
Justice Department takes unaccompanied alien children into custody, our 
legal system treats them unlike any citizen and unlike any adult 
noncitizen. They are provided legal counsel who are charged not only 
with deporting them as mandated by law but also with representing their 
best interests, which is also mandated by law. It has become 
increasingly clear that these dueling responsibilities cannot coexist 
effectively.
  The stories are alarming. Unaccompanied alien children are sometimes 
being left alone to fill out complex legal forms that determine their 
future, not only here in America but also their future lives in 
general. Almost one-third of the children will be forced to eat, sleep 
and live next to juvenile offenders in restrictive juvenile detention 
centers. Some will languish in these detention centers for years 
because they lack adequate legal counsel. Some will be moved to other 
detention centers without being told why and unable to notify relatives 
in their home countries where they are going.
  During this debate, we have heard a lot about why the INS has been 
unable to do its job in the way that the American people expect and 
deserve. I am pleased that today we are spending at least this brief 
time talking about the children who are affected by the shortcomings of 
the INS. These conflicts of interest and dueling responsibilities not 
only frustrate the overall mission of the INS but cause 
disproportionate harm to these unaccompanied alien children.
  This amendment begins to address the serious issue of unaccompanied 
alien children receiving legal counsel that is rife with conflicts of 
interest. I would point out that this amendment states that any plan 
developed by the new Office of Children's Affairs will be brought back 
before Congress for careful examination. It is essential that Congress 
be able to give suggestions and ask questions about how we can best 
protect these children's interests.
  In closing, I would like to make this point very clearly: Most of the 
unaccompanied alien children are here for reasons beyond their control. 
In reforming and restructuring the INS, we hope to more effectively 
separate those people who want to tear our country down, from those who 
want to build it up. By passing this amendment, we have a great chance 
of making these children want to do the latter.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment to 
claim that time?
  The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is then recognized for the balance of 
her time.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do want to include in the 
Record for the gentlewoman's amendment and for the gentlewoman's 
information that we are seeing over the last couple of weeks and months 
carriers of heroin, children being used by this terrible tragedy. I do 
want to note for the record a 12-year-old being forced to swallow 87 
condoms full of heroin and travel to the United States. He was taken 
into custody and faces charges. In that instance, obviously that child 
needs counsel, whatever your opinion is about heroin; and there are 
many cases like that, so this is so very crucial to have.
  This amendment is simple but very important. It would compel the 
Office of Children's Affairs within the newly created Agency of 
Immigration Affairs to develop a plan that would provide unaccompanied 
alien children with independent legal counsel.
  In the year 2000, the INS took approximately 4,700 alien children who 
lacked a family member or close friend here in the United States into 
custody. Many unaccompanied children are smuggled into our country and 
forced into prostitution or labor. Many are simply used as a tool for 
others to enter our country and are left behind.
  While current laws were once written to protect the child's best 
interest, it has become increasingly clear that the law's intent and 
purpose has become as blurry and as confused as the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's intent and purpose.
  While some of these unaccompanied children are deported or reunited 
with family members, many of them are placed in detention centers for 
long periods of time without receiving adequate counsel to help them 
navigate the legal process. An 18 month old infant was placed in her 
swing chair in Miami to defend herself. A lawyer present in the 
courtroom saw this ludicrous situation and offered to take the case 
free of charge. A 12 year old was forced to swallow 87 condoms full of 
heroin and travel to the United States. He was taken into custody and 
now faces a lot of charges. Here's a copy of the article.
  Everyday kids 10 years old and younger are forced to fill out complex 
legal forms that determine their future life here in the United

[[Page H1653]]

States and life in general. The forms are not even written in their 
native language. Many of the kids are forced to reside in detention 
centers for long periods of time and are transferred to other detention 
centers without being told why.
  Almost one-third of the unaccompanied alien children will be shackled 
and periodically strip-searched before being sent to detention centers 
where they will eat, sleep, and live beside juveniles who may have 
committed serious crimes. They can end up staying in these detention 
centers from anywhere between 1 month to 2 years before receiving their 
asylum hearing. Many will be transferred several times to other states 
and other detention centers without being provided legal advice, let 
alone be told in their native language where and why they are being 
moved.

  During debate on this amendment in Committee, some Members raised 
concern about the cost of providing counsel for unaccompanied alien 
children. While this may be a concern, this amendment would simply give 
the Agency for Immigration Affairs the responsibility of developing a 
plan on how to do this. Very little cost would be incurred by 
developing such a plan.
  Furthermore, this amendment would require the Office of Children's 
Affairs and the Agency of Immigration Affairs to report back to this 
Congress so Members can learn more about the plan, raise questions, and 
offer suggestions or criticism. This amendment would simply start the 
process of addressing a serious problem about how we can give 
unaccompanied alien children a fair chance in our courtrooms and in our 
country.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the language that was added at the last minute, 
``consistent with current law'' should not close the door on the 
government coming up with a serious constructive plan for providing 
legal counsel for unaccompanied minor children. This simply must be 
done.

               Officials: Boy Swallows 87 Heroin Condoms

       New York (AP).--A 12-year-old boy from Nigeria swallowed 87 
     condoms filled with heroin, flew to New York and became sick 
     before meeting whoever had promised him $1,900 to act as a 
     contraband courier, authorities said.
       The boy's father is imprisoned in the United States for 
     recruiting drug mules to smuggle heroin into Georgia.
       The boy, identified as Prince Nnaedozie Umegbolu, was 
     listed in stable condition at New York Hospital Medical 
     Center of Queens. Officials said 85 of the 87 condoms had 
     left his system as of Thursday evening.
       The boy has been charged with juvenile delinquency drug 
     possession of a controlled dangerous substance, said Steve 
     Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and 
     New Jersey, which runs area airports. His case will be 
     handled in family Court.
       Airport detectives said it is not uncommon to find adults 
     acting as drug mules, but it is rare for a child.
       The boy arrived alone at John F. Kennedy International 
     Airport at 10:30 p.m. Wednesday on a British Airways flight 
     from London, Coleman said. He hailed a cab and went to a 
     Brooklyn address, but no one was there, Coleman said. He then 
     went to LaGuardia Airport before becoming ill.
       Authorities did not know for whom Umegbolu was carrying the 
     heroin.
       Umegbolu, an American citizen, had been living with his 
     grandparents for the past two years in Abuja, Nigeria, 
     Coleman said. His mother, Alissa Walden, lives in Norcross, 
     Georgia. There was no telephone listing for her, and she 
     could not immediately be contacted for comment.
       The boy's father, Chukwunwieke Umegbolu, is imprisoned in 
     Petersburg, Virginia, according to court records. The elder 
     Umegbolu was convicted in 1995 for his role in a drug ring 
     that imported at least $33 million in heroin into Georgia 
     over a decade.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amendment.
  Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the 
Federal Government jurisdiction to establish uniform naturalization 
laws. We have been given constitutional authority to establish these 
laws, and it is our responsibility to make adequate provisions for 
children who find themselves in conflict with our laws through no fault 
of their own. This amendment requires the Office of Children's Affairs 
to report to Congress on a plan that would aid unaccompanied children 
in the naturalization process.
  While Congress has a responsibility to protect the citizens of the 
United States from enemy threats, I do not believe an unaccompanied 
child under the age of 10, for example, has the intention of 
undermining our way of life, even though the circumstances of his or 
her arrival may conflict with our laws. Some of these unaccompanied 
children find themselves in America through smuggling rings for slave 
labor or prostitution. The perpetrators are the adults who abandon them 
and break our laws, not the children themselves.
  For that reason, I strongly support finding a means of handling these 
situations when they sadly arise. This amendment does not overburden 
the government with additional cost, though it does require the 
development of a plan by the Office of Children's Affairs created by 
the underlying bill for dealing with such eventualities. This is the 
least we can do for the most vulnerable of exploited immigrant 
populations. Currently, the INS holds approximately 4,700 unaccompanied 
alien children in custody every year. Many of these children have valid 
claims to refugee and asylum status; but without adequate legal 
counsel, they are not afforded the opportunity to make such claims.
  I wonder, Mr. Chairman, just how many of these unaccompanied children 
have been shuffled through the process and have not gotten the 
procedural consideration they are due in this great country. Planning 
for these cases and the interests of the children should be one of the 
foremost priorities to be dealt with by the new Office of Children's 
Affairs. It is for this reason that I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the effort that is 
being made to make sure that children are represented and that their 
best interests are brought to the forefront. I would note that there is 
ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment because it would freeze the 
current law that prohibits the appointment of counsel. However, since 
this is a plan that is subject to further review when it comes back to 
the Congress, I would note that the Congress will have an opportunity 
to actually deal with the appointment of counsel for children as to 
their dependency status at least when that comes back. I think and I am 
hopeful that we will actually do that once this plan is put into place.
  First, the 5-year-old is a child before they are an immigrant. We 
ought to treat the child as any other child would be treated in a 
dependency case, with advocacy of their best interests. I very much 
appreciate the effort that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
has put into this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 107-419.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 59, after line 22, insert the following:
       (3) Report on fees.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report 
     examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to 
     carry out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me acknowledge that one of the crucial points of change in this 
legislation is the establishing of a bureau of services and a bureau of 
enforcement, one of the major concerns in this legislation and as well 
in the fault of the INS.

[[Page H1654]]

                              {time}  1315

  Might I just take a moment, because I believe when we talk about 
abolishing an agency, we make a global statement about all of those who 
are working there or have worked there. Let me get on record by 
acknowledging the many hard-working constituents that I have that work 
for the INS and around the Nation. Allow me to acknowledge the many 
effective and faithful district directors and center directors who have 
worked diligently with our respective staffs to ensure that some of the 
snafus that do occur can get corrected. But at the same time, allow me 
to acknowledge incidences of lost fingerprints and lost paperwork, 
incidences where people in the business community are seeking to 
generate opportunities for those who come to be productive in this 
country and generate business, are sometimes in a very complicated and 
conflicted position of not being able to pursue on behalf of their 
client the process of accessing legalization. Part of that, even though 
we know that there has been an attempt to increase the funding of the 
INS, has been the money stream.
  In this bill, we rely upon the fee structure for funding the 
services. I want to say to all of the advocates and providers of 
services before the INS, the counsel that represent the particular 
clients trying to seek legalization, and those who work in that process 
to give fair hearing to those who try to proceed in the process. Allow 
me to suggest that we can make it better if we can follow the money 
trail.
  This study will give us the insight as to whether the fees generated 
by the particular services that are granted by the INS are enough or 
effectively utilized to ensure that we do not have the problems that we 
are facing today.
  Later on today, we will have additional amendments on statistics; we 
will have additional amendments.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a constructive 
amendment because it can give us some very good data on how reliant the 
service end of the INS is on fees that it collects from immigrants. I 
would hope that the committee would speedily adopt this amendment so 
that we can go on with the consideration of this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of 
the committee for his support of this.
  To complete my explanation, let me say that this amendment will help 
us in the structure of the fee process that we have, being able to 
monitor whether or not that is sufficient money.
  Again, this goes to the point that rather than having a cosmetic 
approach to this legislation, we are truly changing the infrastructure. 
We are acknowledging that fees are utilized to fund the service 
section, but we are also acknowledging by this amendment that we are 
carefully monitoring whether or not those will be sufficient funds and 
whether or not an authorization of a money stream will be necessary, 
which will then be a request to the Committee on Appropriations in 
their wisdom to make the right decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
thank the chairman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment answers the fear that the Bureau of 
Immigration Services could wind up as a ``starved'' bureau. I am 
concerned that the division of the INS into separate and independent 
agencies could mean that the enforcement bureau will get all of the 
appropriated funds, and that the Service bureau will be forced to 
survive with only funds derived from fees. This could result in an even 
greater backlog in immigration benefit adjudication than currently 
exists.
  This is a worthwhile amendment as it mandates that the GAO conduct a 
study to ensure that the Bureau of Immigration Services is not left 
standing on its own solely relying on fees. I urge passage of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the gentlewoman is invited to consume her time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House report 107-419.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard:
       Page 38, line 16, insert the following before the period: 
     ``, including region-by-region statistics on the aggregate 
     number of applications and petitions filed by an alien (or 
     filed on behalf of an alien) and denied by such offices and 
     bureaus, and the reasons for such denials, disaggregated by 
     category of denial and application or petition type''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for all of their hard work 
on this INS restructuring bill. I also want to thank them for support 
of my amendment, which simply requires the newly created Office of 
Immigration Statistics to maintain records on denials of applications 
and petitions and the reasons for those denials.
  This information will help Members of Congress and other interested 
parties better understand the causes of the vast differences and denial 
rates for applications and petitions throughout the country.
  For example, in the first quarter of 1999, the denial rates for INS 
districts ranged from 7 percent in Portland, Maine to 67 percent in 
Miami, Florida.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the 
amendment. I think she has a very constructive amendment in giving both 
the INS and the Congress statistics relative to denials.
  What we want to see in this restructured INS is a uniform application 
of the law, which means that if one applies at one INS office or 
restructured INS office, one should not get a different result if one 
applies at another office with the same set of facts and the same 
background. I think there is a great deal of suspicion that there is 
different strokes for different folks, depending upon what office one 
goes to or, even within an office, what immigration inspector ends up 
doing the adjudication. Having these statistics I think will help both 
the restructured agency in having uniform application of the law, as 
well as giving the Congress the data that is necessary to determine 
whether any further changes in the law are necessary.
  So I am pleased to support the amendment, and I hope that it is 
speedily adopted.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the 
committee, for his words and also for his support of this amendment. I 
too believe that this is good policy that will help instill confidence 
in the system by giving credibility to this important agency, not only 
in the eyes of Congress but, more importantly, to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California, and I applaud her for her leadership on 
this legislation.
  I will simply ask that we realize what the gentlewoman is answering, 
because she creates the newly-created Office of Immigration Statistics 
to maintain statistics on denials of application petitions and the 
reasons for

[[Page H1655]]

these denials. One of the issues that we always hear is the frustration 
of those who are trying to access legalization. This will be a clear 
instruction for us to guide the INS, to answer the question of 
consistency. It will also be helpful to the new general counsel who 
will be able to note whether or not we have consistent policies 
vertically up and down the line of authority.
  So I thank the gentlewoman, and I support her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to 
H.R. 3231. During the House Judiciary Committee mark-up we added the 
new Office of Immigration Statistics, which will be headed by a 
Director who is appointed by the Attorney General and reports to the 
Director of Justice statistics. The Director will maintain all 
immigration statistical information to the Associate Attorney General 
of Immigration Affairs. The Director will establish standards of 
reliability and validity for immigration statistics collected by the 
Office of the Associate Attorney General.
  Ms. Roybal-Allard's amendment brings some needed clarity to this 
language.
  The amendment states that the newly created Office of Immigration 
Statistics must maintain statistics on denials of applications and 
petitions, and the reasons for those denials. It is too often Mr. 
Chairman that many members from many districts do not know why the 
applications that their constituents are toiling long days and nights 
working on have been denied. The amendment is needed to help Members of 
Congress and other interested parties gain a better understanding of 
the vast differences in denial rates for applications and petitions 
throughout the country.
  The Roybal-Allard amendment is the step in the direction of 
accountability, it is a step in the direction for fairness, it is a 
step in the direction for accuracy, and most importantly it is a step 
in the direction for accuracy. Let's pass the Roybal-Allard amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
for her comments, and I want to acknowledge her outstanding work on 
this bill and in the area of immigration in general.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no Member rises in opposition to the amendment, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 5 printed 
in House report 107-419.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
       (5) Pilot initiatives for backlog elimination.--The 
     Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services is authorized to implement innovative pilot 
     initiatives to eliminate any remaining backlog in the 
     processing of immigration benefit applications, and to 
     prevent any backlog in the processing of such applications 
     from recurring, in accordance with section 204(a) of the 
     Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 
     2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)). Such initiatives may include 
     measures such as increasing personnel, transferring personnel 
     to focus on areas with the largest potential for backlog, and 
     streamlining paperwork.
       Page 51, strike lines 16 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (e) Backlog Elimination.--Section 204(a) of the Immigration 
     Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 
     U.S.C. 1573(a)) is amended by striking ``October 17, 2000;'' 
     and inserting ``the effective date specified in section 15(a) 
     of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability 
     Act of 2002;''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I would like to commend and 
congratulate the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration for all of their hard 
work on the bill we have before us today, which takes the long overdue 
step of restructuring the INS.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3231 holds tremendous potential to improve an 
agency that has long been a source of frustration for Congress, 
consumers, and agency employees alike.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is also a 
very constructive amendment. Before we figure out how to deal with new 
immigrants, we have to figure out what to do with the 5 million case 
backlog we already have, and I think having innovative pilot programs, 
shuffling paperwork, seeing what works and seeing what does not but, 
more importantly, getting us automated and having a lot of the 
paperwork being changed from paper to electronic paper is going to mean 
that these adjudications take place in a timely manner and we will not 
have to have people getting fingerprinted 4 times before they can get a 
green card.
  So I would hope that this amendment would be speedily adopted.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.
  The bill before us takes bold action regarding the structure of the 
INS. We should also seize this opportunity to take bold action with 
regard to the application backlog as well, and that is what my 
amendment proposes to do.
  Specifically, my amendment will enable the Associate Attorney General 
for Immigration Affairs to explore new and innovative ways of 
addressing the backlog by authorizing the director of the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services to implement pilot programs in 
areas with large backlogs to efficiently and effectively dispense with 
pending applications and prevent the backlog of future applications. It 
will encourage initiatives such as increasing or transferring personnel 
to areas with ongoing backlog problems, streamlining regulations and 
paperwork, and providing incentives for efficient and high-quality 
work.
  This amendment recognizes that there is not a one-size-fits-all 
approach to eliminating existing backlog and, therefore, encourages 
flexibility at the local level by enabling district offices to utilize 
new strategies to deal with all problems.
  Finally, the amendment establishes the goal of eliminating the 
current backlog not later than one year after the enactment of the act. 
My amendment will allow the new Associate Attorney General for 
Immigration Affairs to think and pursue new solutions to old problems. 
It will enable the newly-formed Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services to get to a point where all immigration applications are 
processed quickly and expeditiously, and it represents an important 
step in the process of turning immigration into a policy and process of 
which we can all, Congress, consumers and agency employees alike, be 
proud.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment? If 
not, the gentlewoman is invited to exhaust her time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentlelady from New York's amendment. This amendment requires that the 
INS eliminate its enormous immigration application processing backlogs 
and requires that all backlogs be eliminated within one year. It also 
requires that the INS prevent any backlog efficiencies where problems 
are known to exist. The INS has been notorious in the past for being 
long overdue in issuing backlog reports for Congress to access. This 
has resulted in an INS backlog of 4.9 million immigration applications. 
Efforts in the past to reduce the backlog were unsuccessful. The 
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 
authorized appropriations to reduce backlogs but the appropriate 
expenditures were predicated on the INS submitting a backlog report to 
Congress. 4.9 million applications later, we're still waiting.
  As it stands, H.R. 3231 doesn't go far enough. It would eliminate the 
wait for a backlog report before using funds to start reducing the 
backlogs but it would not place a requirement on the INS to eliminate 
the backlog right away. And that's what we need if we are serious about 
this problem. 4.9 million people and their futures and maybe those of 
their families are behind those unprocessed immigration applications. 
Many are hanging in ``status limbo'' waiting for a decision on which 
way to go or

[[Page H1656]]

what to do next. And if there are security concerns, we would not know 
because these applications are not reviewed or examined.
  This is a good amendment, a practical amendment and a much needed 
amendment for the reformed and restructured INS and for the people 
trying come in and make good in America.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed 
in House report 107-419.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Issa

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Issa:
       Page 45, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate provisions accordingly):
       (b) Additional Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Positions in excepted service.--All positions in the 
     Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration 
     Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement are positions in 
     the excepted service, as defined by section 2103 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Eliminating restrictions on certain disciplinary and 
     other adverse actions taken against employees.--Section 
     7511(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement,'' after ``the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The INS has an essential role in ensuring the national security of 
the United States and is failing in that role. Reforming the INS 
without addressing the personnel reform issue is simply an error.
  This amendment extends greater management authority to deal with 
problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service and a 
greater expectation.
  The type of personnel flexibility is exactly what Commissioner 
Ziegler has asked for when testifying before Congress earlier this 
year. I believe this amendment is offered for true INS reform.
  I do not ask for much in the way of reform; I only ask for the same 
standard, the same standard as today we expect from the FBI, the CIA, 
and other agencies.
  In fact, nearly 20 percent of all agencies have the same rules I am 
asking for here today, and disproportionately, these rules are used in 
those organizations in which public trust and safety is most vital.

                              {time}  1330

  Without this amendment, I do not believe true reform can take place, 
because we would not be addressing the entire organization from the 
structure of the organization to the personnel within.
  Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, we in fact would not have the 
ability to terminate people, even if once again the gross failures that 
led to the unfortunate loss of life in the tragedy in the Twin Towers 
in New York occurred. We need the authority to get rid of, not promote 
or transfer, people who in fact cannot or will not do their job.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3231, ``The 
Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.'' This 
amendment requires that all employees at the new Office of the 
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs and the two new 
bureaus be excepted service (Bureau of Citizenship and the Immigration 
Service, and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement) employees. Simply 
stated, this bill will extend greater management authority to deal with 
problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service we have 
a right to expect.
  This amendment is the type of personnel reform Commissioner Ziglar 
asked for when he testified before Congress this year. I believe this 
amendment will offer ``true'' INS reform, by making every INS employee 
a part of the excepted service, thereby assuring accountability from 
top of the agency to the lowest level employee.
  Earlier today, I spoke of Mohammed Atta and his multiple entries into 
the United States prior to his attack on our nation and INS's role. The 
employees that were responsible for his entry were not dismissed and 
still remain within the INS.
  With regards to Mohammed Atta, the INS:
  Failed to act to cancel Atta's training visa after Atta abandoned the 
application by leaving the country;
  Failed to recognize that Atta had abandoned his application even when 
his departure was established by his attempt to reenter the United 
States on January 10, 2001;
  Disregarded Atta's apparent intent to continue his flight training 
without a proper visa in January and admitted him as a visitor; and
  Ignored evidence that Atta first entered the United States intending 
to commence flight training immediately without the proper visa.
  If this amendment is adopted, we will no longer protect incompetence 
that allowed Mohammed Atta into the United States. This amendment is a 
vote for greater accountability of the INS and for national security. 
Let's not forget that there are 3,000 dead . . . and no one is held 
accountable.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously we have worked together on the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and we respect the diversity of opinion and thought that 
would generate various efforts to improve this agency.
  But I am forced to raise strong opposition to the Issa amendment 
because, by making it simple for managers to hire employees and 
summarily dismiss them outside of the civil service process, the Issa 
amendment would circumvent many of the positive reforms agreed to in 
this legislation.
  The amendment is strongly opposed by the American Federation of 
Government Employees and the AFL-CIO. Excepting INS employees from the 
civil service would return the agency back to the ages when we again 
address the questions of cronyism and patronage, which ran rampant.
  This is not to say that we do not want an improved employee, a 
professional employee, and an opportunity for the administration to be 
able to put their positive handprint on the new changes that will come 
about.
  Not too long ago, the only way to get a government job was if you 
knew someone in the government or someone owed you a favor. As a 
result, key policy and administrative decisions will be based on how it 
has affected your patron, rather than on whether it was good policy. 
The civil service program was carefully crafted to eliminate this 
egregious behavior.
  At the same time, I think if we look at the manager's amendment, we 
will find that we have implemented processes in there to ensure, again, 
the assessment of an employee's performance and to improve that 
performance.
  A couple of weeks ago, we had a hearing on the most ironic and, I 
would say, major debacle that backed up on the tragedy of September 11. 
That was the hearing on Mohammed Atta, deceased, and another one of the 
terrorists who received what we call late student visas.
  If we look at this legislation, we will know that by the amendment of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), we now have a student 
tracking office, and therefore, to cite the heinousness of the act of 
September 11, and then build it upon the idea of needing this 
particular amendment is not accurate.
  So I am rising to oppose this amendment, and would ask my colleagues 
to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Issa amendment. By 
making it simple for managers to hire employees and summarily dismiss 
them outside of the civil service process, the Issa amendment would 
circumvent many of the positive reforms agreed to in this legislation. 
The amendment is strongly opposed by the American Federation of 
Government Employees and the AFL-CIO.
  Excepting INS employees from the civil service would return the 
agency back to the

[[Page H1657]]

ages when cronyism and patronage ran rampant. Not too long ago, the 
only way to get a government job was if you knew someone in the 
government or someone owed you a favor. As a result, key policy and 
administrative decisions would be based on how it affected your patron 
rather than on whether it was good policy. The civil service program 
was carefully crafted to eliminate this egregious behavior. The INS has 
been able to hire thousands of employees year after year and there has 
been no showing that the civil service program is ineffective. Yet, the 
Issa amendment would once again allow people to be hired based on who 
they know rather than whether they are qualified.
  The Issa amendment also eliminates most of the procedures that 
protect employees from summarily being fired. All protections in 
collective bargaining agreements are superseded and the notice and 
hearing procedures in the civil service laws are also overruled. Among 
other things, this would allow whistleblowers to be fired on the mere 
allegation of wrongdoing. Moreover, persons could be fired because of 
their political affiliation. Employee attrition at the agency is 
already at an unprecedented level due to low morale and the stripping 
of these basic labor protections certainly will not help the matter 
any.
  This amendment guts labor law and civil service protections that 
remain critical to the successful restructuring of this agency. Without 
these protections, the delicate compromise reached on this bipartisan 
legislation will be jeopardized. I urge you to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:

                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2002.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation 
     of Government Employees, I strongly urge you to oppose an 
     amendment that will be offered by Representative Darrell Issa 
     (R-CA) to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and 
     Accountability Act of 2002. In our view, this amendment will 
     fundamentally jeopardize basic employee rights, limit the 
     ability of Congress to gain access to critical information 
     about agency activities and dramatically increase an already 
     severe attrition rate within the I The following is a 
     description of the amendment and the problems we believe it 
     would create:
       Paragragh (1)--(Making all I positions excepted service:
       This proposal would give the agency the authority to 
     circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes. 
     Essentially it would be a throw-back to the era of federal 
     hiring based on patronage and cronyism--which the civil 
     service system was created to prevent. The amendment, which 
     would at a minimum facilitate and possibly even encourage 
     such abuse, is particularly problematic when applied to a 
     beleaguered agency such as the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service. While it is likely the intention of this amendment 
     would be to give the agency the ability to seek outside 
     professionals to provide expertise in specific areas not 
     currently available within the agency, its sweeping nature, 
     which would include the total elimination of the Senior 
     Executive Service Corps, could well lead to widespread abuse 
     and worsen the problems at the I
       Paragraph (2)--Eliminating restrictions on certain 
     disciplinary and other adverse actions taken against 
     employees:
       The effect of this section of the Issa Amendment would be 
     to eliminate existing procedural protections for all I 
     employees for any offense ostensibly committed by any 
     employee. This includes collective bargaining protections 
     pertaining to disciplinary actions. The basic right of I 
     employees to due process protection and independent review 
     and appeal would be eliminated. The due process system 
     currently in place has served both the agency and its 
     employees well for many years, and serves as a check and 
     balance against arbitrary and capricious actions. The popular 
     misconception that it is difficult or impossible to fire 
     Federal employees is convincingly refuted by a recent study 
     released by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Further, the 
     provision would strongly discourage employee 
     ``whistleblowers'' from providing essential information to 
     Congress and even the news media for fear of losing their 
     jobs.
       As an example, the two Detroit Border Patrol agents who 
     recently expressed their views to Congress and the news media 
     on the lack of enhanced security on the northern border would 
     very likely have never told their stories had the Issa 
     amendment been in effect. Even under current law, the agency 
     viewed these honest expressions of the current situation as a 
     fundamental violation of I policy and proposed to suspend 
     and demote the agents. However, at least under current 
     circumstances, the agents would be able to avail themselves 
     of basic procedural protections, including a post-action 
     hearing and appeal process. Under the Issa amendment, no such 
     protections would exist. Ultimately this would have a 
     chilling effect on Congress' ability to gather critical 
     information in making policy decisions as they relate to the 
     agency.
       Finally, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Issa 
     Amendment will exacerbate an already critical attrition 
     problem within the agency. According to I statistics, the 
     FY 2002 loss rate for Border Patrol agents is 14% and will 
     potentially rise to 20% by the end of the year. For 
     Immigration Inspectors, the FY 2002 rate is 10.1% and is 
     predicted to go as high as 15%. Based on reliable anecdotal 
     information, over half of all current Border Patrol agents 
     have applied for air marshal positions. It is a little known 
     fact that the agency is losing agents faster than it can hire 
     them--despite all the efforts and funding directed toward 
     expanding the workforce. Such attrition rates are 
     unsustainable in any agency, much less the I Taking away 
     the basic due process protections available to similarly 
     situated employees (like Customs Service employees) would 
     turn I into an employer of last resort, leaving them to 
     recruit from a less desirable pool of potential employees.
       In the interest of protecting employee rights and the 
     effectiveness of the newly restructured I, we urge you to 
     vote no on the Issa Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Beth Moten,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

         National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation 
           of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                        Camps, CA, April 25, 2002.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Conyers: The National Border Patrol 
     Council, representing over 9,000 Border Patrol employees, 
     strongly opposes an amendment to be offered by Representative 
     Darrell Issa to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and 
     Accountability Act of 2002. In addition to making all 
     employees in the newly-created agency exempt from civil 
     service hiring and promotion procedures, it would eliminate 
     the procedural protections in disciplinary actions that are 
     currently provided to them under law and collective 
     bargaining agreements.
       Exempting employees from civil service hiring and promotion 
     procedures would not enhance the ability of the agency to 
     recruit or promote skilled employees, but would actually 
     hinder such efforts by facilitating actions based on 
     favoritism rather than merit.
       Eliminating the procedural protections currently afforded 
     to employees in disciplinary actions would subject them to 
     arbitrary and capricious disciplinary actions, and would have 
     a chilling effect on protected activities, including 
     whistleblower disclosures to Congress and the media.
       These detrimental provisions would further demoralize 
     employees and exacerbate an attrition rate that is already 
     unacceptably high. For these reasons, your opposition to this 
     amendment is encouraged.
           Sincerely,
                                                      T.J. Bonner,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment, which already has been adopted 
by the committee, was drafted with bipartisan cooperation by the 
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  This amendment authorizes the Attorney General to create a 
demonstration project to test a new employee discipline model. The 
demonstration project will provide the Attorney General with much 
flexibility in crafting the most appropriate, effective, and fair 
method in disciplining a wide range of employees handling immigration 
functions.
  The demonstration project that has already been approved by the 
committee focuses on problem managers and emphasizes alternative 
methods of dispute resolution. It calls for an expeditious, fair, and 
independent review of disciplinary actions, and it protects the settled 
expectations of collective bargaining agreements while permitting union 
members to opt out of the project.
  We should give the Attorney General the chance to utilize the 
demonstration project. If it becomes apparent that the project is not 
working as expected, and that placing immigration-related employees in 
the excepted service would be beneficial, I would be the first to 
support legislation doing so, but now is not the time to do it.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is absolutely correct in 
emphasizing the importance of having employees of the FBI, the CIA, and 
the excepted service. However, these agencies

[[Page H1658]]

are different types of organizations than the INS. The Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services created by this bill will be 
staffed mostly with clerks and adjudicators. The hiring and discipline 
rules followed by the competitive service might be most appropriate for 
these employees.
  In any event, the question of placing all immigration employees in 
the excepted service merits extensive investigation before it is done. 
A change as radical as this, by placing them in the excepted service, 
should be carefully considered.
  Before introducing this bill, I did extensive investigation and 
oversight in practically every part of the country where the 
Immigration Service has a lot of business, including in San Diego, I 
might add. And some of the most useful information that we have heard 
today and during the consideration of this bill came from the unionized 
employees that I insisted upon meeting with, apart from management, to 
find out what was really going on. If they did not have the protection 
of the civil service laws, we would not have much of this information.
  I have never had employees of the FBI or the CIA or other agencies in 
the excepted service be as frank and honest with me during the time 
that I have served in Congress as I have tried to learn how these 
agencies work.
  So keeping them out of the excepted service I think is important, at 
least in terms of having candor on the part of the employees. That is 
something that the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Issa) 
would take away. I would not have found out about all the problems in 
San Diego if the employees that met with me were afraid that they would 
be fired by their district director because they were meeting face to 
face with me and I came out with information in public on how bad 
things were.
  Finally, I would like to point out that the adoption of this 
amendment would threaten the incredible bipartisan support that is 
enjoyed by this bill. I may not, in the end, necessarily agree with 
those bills' supporters, who could not accept under any circumstances 
placing immigration employees in the excepted service, but I do not 
want an ancillary issue like this, where the time is not right for 
making a decision, and the fact that the Congress does not have all of 
the data to be able to deal with this in an intelligent way and a fair 
way and with a full deck of cards, to erode support for this important 
bill.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and 
join with the other members of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Government Reform in doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to 
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for the depth of his review on this matter and his 
concern, and the information he has gathered.
  However, I rise in support of this amendment to give personnel 
flexibility to the new immigration bureaus offered by the gentleman 
from California.
  Restructuring the INS, which we have come to call the ``ignoring 
national security,'' as opposed to whatever that actually stands for, 
is important; and changing the organizational structure is terrifically 
important. The bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) today does a great deal to move that forward.
  The issue here is in part a matter of organization. If we can get a 
chart up here on the budget, Members will see that over the last 10 
years, if we had 1992 here, we would see that the budget of the INS has 
increased almost fivefold over 10 years; and at the same time, we have 
had almost the exact same increase in the number of petitions that are 
backlogged, from about 1 million to about 5 million.
  Something more fundamental has to happen with this agency, I believe. 
The way to make that happen is to restore the responsibility of people 
who are working in the INS.
  I have worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) and many others to include language in the manager's 
amendment that will provide greater removal authority and personnel 
flexibility to the new head of the agency for supervisors and managers. 
The Issa amendment will go farther in making those changes, and making 
those in charge of immigration and our national security as accountable 
as the average employee at every American company.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Issa amendment and give the 
manager, the people who are going to run it, and the President and his 
designees, the authority to remove people who are obstructionist and 
who get in the way of the changes that we need as Americans to see in 
that agency.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may be entitled to yield part of that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for yielding time to me, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not been surprised by many amendments before, 
but here is an amendment that proposes to set aside the civil service 
laws as applied to hiring people at INS, and to set aside civil service 
law as it applies to their discharge.
  In other words, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) wants to go 
back to the bad old days. What does he have in mind, patronage, or 
what? And why would we come up with such a narrow eviscerating of civil 
service law? Nobody has attacked civil service law on either side of 
the aisle, in my memory, and now it is being done here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Led by President Bush, there has been new appreciation for civil 
servants, Mr. Chairman. This is a brazen attack on merit hiring and 
promotion. When I came to chair the EEOC, I found the same thing; 
everybody blamed the employees. It turned out what they needed was a 
new management system.
  That is what we need here. Let us deal first with the management of 
the agency. We will know if the agency is well managed if it can hire 
and keep good employees.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us are frustrated at the agency, and maybe some 
people are even tempted by this sort of ``blow it up'' amendment. But I 
think it would be unwise.
  I respect the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the efforts he 
has put in, but I think we have our pilot project in the manager's 
amendment that deals with the management, and that is the problem. It 
is not the rank and file, it is the management that is the problem.
  I commend the chairman for including that in his manager's amendment. 
I just wish that the other amendment to contract with management had 
been made in order.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 1 
minute each on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
would like to have some time to be able to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is it 2 minutes on each side that we are asking?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H1659]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Each side's time has been enlarged by 2 minutes. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 2 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) now has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think the 
intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) here is designed 
to give maximum flexibility to INS management, and I applaud that; but 
I think he is going about it the wrong way.
  First of all, the problem is in management at this point over in INS, 
and this amendment as I read it virtually wipes out the SES because of 
the safeguard that it takes away. If you are trying to recruit and 
retain the best in Federal employees, why are you going to take away 
the right to independent review, the right of appeal, and make them 
basically employees at will? No one is going to leave a job in the 
private sector or move laterally from another agency if they are going 
to be subject to those restrictions.
  If we have a problem, let us look at the overall civil service system 
in that context instead of putting pieces into different agencies. It 
is going to become unmanageable in my judgment. So I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this particular amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 45 
seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would join in the remarks made by the chairman, my 
friend from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I am sure the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella).
  The fact of the matter is that this will undermine two very important 
things. First of all, I strongly believe that employees ought to have 
the right to organize and to have a voice to which they can address 
management.
  Secondly, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is absolutely 
correct. The other provisions of the Issa amendments will in fact in my 
opinion substantially undermine the opportunity to recruit the kind of 
people you need to affect what has really been the problem and that is 
management. Not labor, but management, in this agency. And, therefore, 
I would hope that we would defeat and reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment continues Republican attempts to erode the rights of Federal 
employees.
  In his first major legislative action after taking office, President 
Bush repealed a regulation designed to protect millions of American 
workers from ergonomic injuries.
  On January 7th of this year the President issued an executive order 
denying union representation for 1,000 employees at the Department of 
Justice.
  The President cited national security concerns for this order, even 
though some of those employees have been part of a union for over 20 
years and others covered by that order hold clerical and administrative 
positions.
  This administration is also considering what rights Federal baggage 
screeners will have.
  Let there be no doubt, if the administration denies these employees 
the right to join a labor union and collectively bargain, it will do so 
for purely political reasons that have little or nothing to do with 
national security.
  Today, we consider an amendment that will eliminate existing 
procedural protections for all INS employees for any offense allegedly 
committed by an employee. There simply is no justification for denying 
them this basic democratic freedom.
  INS employees would no longer have the basic right of due process 
protection and the process of independent review and appeal would be 
eliminated.
  This amendment would strongly discourage employee ``whistleblowers'' 
from providing essential information to Congress and even the Congress 
for fear of losing their jobs.
  The large majority of INS employees are hard working federal 
employees that we should be proud of because they are on the front 
lines protecting our homeland. Let's not punish the masses for the 
mistakes of a few.
  Protect the rights of federal employees and vote ``no'' on the Issa 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I really appreciate it.
  I want to abbreviate a statement to say that actually this Issa 
amendment would really eliminate all employee protections in 
disciplinary cases, and it would worsen an already severe attrition 
problem. And it would effectively deny Congress critical information on 
a wide range of immigration issues because current employee protections 
would be removed. Consequently, employee whistle blowers would be 
discouraged from disclosing information for fear of losing their jobs. 
In addition, allowing all positions within the new agency to be 
considered ``excepted service'' positions would lead to a kind of 
political patronage and cronyism the civil service system was created 
to prevent. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I rise today to urge a no'' vote on Congressman Issa's amendment. 
This amendment has several provisions that are problematic.
  While this amendment purports to give the newly created Agency for 
Immigration Affairs more flexibility in its hiring process, it actually 
would eliminate all employees protections in disciplinary cases and 
worsen an already severe attrition problem within the ranks of the INS. 
According to INS statistics, the FY 2002 loss rate for Border patrol 
agents is 14% and could rise to 20 percent by the end of the year.
  The Issa amendment would also effectively deny Congress critical 
information on a wide range of immigration issues because current 
employee protections would be removed. Consequently, employee 
`whistleblowers' would be discouraged from disclosing information for 
fear of losing their jobs.
  In addition, allowing all positions within the new agency to be 
considered `excepted service' positions would lead to the kind of 
political patronage and cronyism the civil service was created to 
prevent.
  The problems at the INS are not the result of inadequate disciplinary 
procedures or an inability to procure outside expertise but this 
amendment sends that message and so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, all I want to say to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), is that I wish he had more 
management experience.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time in opposition to the amendment has expired.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) has 8 minutes remaining in 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in support of this measure and congratulate the Members who 
are involved in it.
  Mr. Chairman, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3231, I would like to 
congratulate Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Gekas for brining this vital 
matter to the floor and setting us on a course to finally provide a 
meaningful reform of our nation's immigration system.
  For too long, Mr. Chairman, we have watched as Immigration and 
Naturalization Service officials have vowed their commitment to reform 
in testimony, but provided little evidence that they are either willing 
or capable to see this through in practice. Congress demanded in 1986 
that illegal immigration be stopped, and yet we now have as many as 8 
million people living in our country who entered without following our 
immigration laws, and who now have no legal status. At the same time, 
the INS has chronically run backlogs of a year or more in processing 
the requests of legal immigrants to become citizens or simply renew 
their permanent resident documents.
  In California, we have dealt with the dysfunction of this agency for 
decades. Most California congressional offices must devote a full-time 
staff member just to deal with immigration issues--and much of their 
time is spent fighting with the INS bureaucracy over a blunder made by 
INS officials themselves. Thousands of INS employees are hard working 
and dedicated to service, but the system in which they operate is 
designed for failure. Our experience has convinced most California 
members that the top priority of this agency is not providing service 
to legal immigrants or deporting illegals. The top priority is self-
protection of those within the INS, which has led to gross 
inefficiency, a nearly total lack of accountability, and promotion of 
supervisors who are not respected by employees and who often display a 
disdain for those who they are charged to serve.

[[Page H1660]]

  We joined the nation in anger and disgust when all of these traits 
were revealed to the public with the issuance of visas to the September 
11 terrorists six months after they had taken thousands of American 
lives. But we were not terribly surprised, I am sorry to say. It was 
not the first time we had seen this agency fail in its responsibility, 
but I sincerely hope it will prove to be the weight that tips the 
scales in favor of reform.
  This legislation places a spotlight of accountability on both the 
enforcement and immigration services branches of the new agency. It 
should open the doors to those within the agency who display the 
leadership qualities to provide true reform, and weed out those who 
will not or cannot move the agency forward. Its passage will show the 
INS--and the nation--that Congress will insist on that reform. The 
Congress--and the nation--will no longer be satisfied with half-
measures and band-aid fixes.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will improve things over in our 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe we are doing the 
right thing by splitting this agency up. However, we cannot deceive 
ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong over there and that we 
can only point to a few people and say that they are the problem.
  We need to give those in management position and others the 
flexibility to deal with personnel, like they have at the CIA, like 
they have at the FBI, like they have at other agencies. We have big 
problems there that simply saying ``business as usual'' will not solve.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is there any evidence that the rights which 
would be undermined by this amendment were, in fact, impediments to 
management in effecting corrections of the problems that you correctly 
observe exist?
  Mr. FLAKE. We cannot know. We simply do not know. We do not know who 
is here, who is there, how many are here illegally. There is so much we 
do not know at the INS.
  Mr. HOYER. I am talking about the employees' organizational rights 
and protections that would be, in our opinion, undermined by the Issa 
amendment. Is there any evidence that they contributed in any way to 
the problems?
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, all we are seeking to do here is give 
them the flexibility that is enjoyed by other agencies. We believe that 
is needed. I commend the gentleman for doing this.
  I was pleased to support the manager's amendment. There are other 
things wrong at the INS. One of which is that little fiefdoms have been 
created over the years and managers have served sometimes in one 
position for 20 years. Whereas, in other agencies like the FBI, like 
the armed services, they are forced to move around to know what other 
parts of the agencies do. And that way little fiefdoms are not created 
as easily. I am pleased that that language was included in the 
manager's amendments, but we need to do much more. That is why I 
support my colleague from California (Mr. Issa) with this important 
amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Chairman, while they are bringing up the appropriate face of this 
amendment, I think it is important to answer the criticisms made by my 
colleagues, most of them fellow Committee on the Judiciary members. I 
agree with the chairman that this bill is an improvement, a 
considerable improvement in the characteristics of the INS. But it does 
not go far enough at all unless it addresses the question of whether 
managers can be fired.
  I, myself, was a manager for 20 years in business. And I served at 
will. You serve at will as a manager because your ineptness pays a dear 
price for many, many more people. At the present time, the people who 
allowed Mohammed Atta to come to this country wrongly, once, twice, 
three times have not been fired. The people who, in fact, failed to 
protect us have not been made accountable. They may have been moved, 
transferred or even promoted. That is not accountability. And when we 
talk about patronage, and I respect my colleagues' defense of the 
status quo of jobs for life that often exist within the Federal 
service, I might remind them that the FBI does not enjoy that and the 
FBI is not a patronage organization. The CIA does not enjoy that, and 
no one would say it was patronage. The United States Army, the United 
States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the Coast Guard does not 
enjoy the job protection that they presently have at the dysfunctional 
INS.
  I ask my colleagues one more time to ask should this man having gone 
into flight training against the regulations, continued flight training 
and learned how to fly a 757 into the World Trade Center, should he in 
fact have been admitted once, twice, and yet a third time. I have no 
doubt that there has been plenty of discussion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind.
  I just want to remind the gentleman, it is his amendment, but it not 
only affects managers, it affects every employee in the INS, everyone.
  Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, this amendment was made simple and 
understandable so in fact to be brought to the House floor. I asked 
that this kind of amendment be incorporated in the management 
amendment, but it was a deal breaker. It was a deal breaker because 
people did not want to go far enough in INS reform. It is very easy for 
this body to come back and trim around the edges as quickly as they 
would like and define those people who should be granted the ability to 
make this mistake and not be held accountable and not be fired. That 
would be the right of this body and the right of the other body and the 
right of the President.
  I am here today saying that we must today end the possibility that 
the people who allowed this to happen because of their negligence or 
because of an absence of their willingness to look at the INS agent's 
own notes that said that Atta had admitted that for 5 of the 6 months 
he was a visitor he was unlawfully getting flight training; and if they 
had called, they would have found out that he was only learning to fly, 
not to take off and land.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from San Diego County; and I have met with the 
Border Patrol agents. I have met with them in Texas. I have met with 
them in California. And I will tell you something, they are quick to 
tell you the problems, they are quick to tell you the problems, but so 
is the FBI. And the FBI has helped me in understanding why we need this 
reform. The Border Patrol has helped me, and they have not helped me 
because they have exemption from whistle blowing. They have helped me 
because they care a great deal about getting the kind of management 
reform they need so they can be proud of the jobs they do. I would 
certainly ask my Members to think twice about saying this is an 
imperfect amendment when, in fact, only with this amendment will 
management have the ability to terminate the people who should have 
been there to protect us and were not.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Issa amendment offered to H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform and 
Accountability Act. The amendment would: (1) eviscerate existing civil 
service laws that protect against hiring on the basis of patronage and 
cronyism; and (2) eliminate all employment procedural protections in 
disciplinary proceedings, including those in collective bargaining 
agreements. Among other things, this would allow whistleblowers to be 
fired as a result of their actions.
  This amendment compromises basic federal employee rights, limits the 
ability of Congress to gain access to critical information about agency 
activities, and dramatically increase the already severe attrition rate 
within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). By making it 
simple for managers to hire employees and summarily dismiss them 
outside of the civil service process, the INS would have the authority 
to circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes. It would 
bring us back to a federal hiring system based on patronage and 
cronyism, which the civil service system was created to prevent. While 
the intent of this amendment may be to provide the agency the ability 
to seek outside professionals to provide expertise in specific areas

[[Page H1661]]

not currently available within the agency, the consequence of this 
amendment could eliminate the Senior Executive Service Corps and 
exacerbate problems within the INS.
  The other provision of this amendment, eliminating restrictions on 
certain disciplinary and other adverse actions taken against employees, 
would do away with the due process protection and independent review 
and appeal that has served INS and its employees well for many years.
  Mr. Chairman, INS workers deserve basic rights and freedoms as 
federal employees such as the freedom to ``blow the whistle'' on 
practices that do not serve the best intersts of the INS and of our 
nation. Adopting the Issa amendment jeopardizes the basic employee 
rights and privileges guaranteed by the civil service system, and it 
further hampers the ability of the INS to attract and retain dedicated 
and loyal employees to do the work associated with one of our country's 
most important responsibilities: immigration. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Congressman 
Issa's amendment to H.R. 3231.
  Mr. Issa's amendment would remove existing civil service laws that 
are currently in place to protect against hiring on the basis of 
patronage and cronyism and eliminate all procedural protections in 
disciplinary proceeding, including those in collective bargaining 
agreements. This proposal would give the agency the authority to 
circumvent the civil service system for hiring purposes. It would also 
eliminate existing procedural protections for all INS employees for any 
offense ostensibly committed by an employee including collective 
bargaining protections pertaining to disciplinary actions.
  After the events of September 11th, it became evident that there was 
a need to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
in order to improve our national security. I commend my colleagues for 
their leadership in bringing this bill on the floor today after months 
of investigation and hearings on this matter. I support the INS reform 
but not at the expense of protecting employee rights. Mr. Issa's 
amendment does this.
  Why would we strip INS employees from safeguards against unfair 
hiring and firing practices? As it stands today, the system that INS 
currently has in place for dealing with labor related issues is failing 
their employees. Since I have been a member of Congress I have received 
several personnel related complaints from INS employees in or from my 
district. Many others have been handled through their union. The Issa 
amendment would further exasperate these issues by leaving INS rank and 
file employees with no recourse against possible unfair practices by 
management.
  The purpose of the Barbara Jordan Reform Bill is to restructure the 
INS. It is the system that failed us and not the employees. This 
amendment undermines the intent of the Barbara Jordan Reform Bill.
  Let's not use this bill as an opportunity to punish the INS 
employees. We must continue to protect and value the employees of this 
and every other agency or business. Despite reservations about the 
current administrations policies with regard to justice and civil 
rights, I do support the base bill for its efforts to create a more 
efficient Service. I congratulate my colleagues on their efforts.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Issa amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 107-419.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
       Page 62, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 13A. PROCUREMENTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE 
                   PERFORMANCE OR EFFICIENCY.

       (a) In General.--The authorities provided in this section 
     apply to any procurement of information technology products 
     or services, including the management of information 
     technology improvement programs, necessary to improve the 
     performance or efficiency of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, the Office of the Associate Attorney 
     General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement. Such procurements of information technology 
     products or services may include those necessary to improve 
     the ability of the entities referred to in the preceding 
     sentence to share information with other public agencies and 
     law enforcement authorities authorized to receive such 
     information.
       (b) Simplified Procedures for the Procurement of 
     Information Technology.--
       (1) Deeming products and services as commercial items.--Any 
     product or service procured by the Attorney General as 
     described in subsection (a) may be deemed to be a commercial 
     item (as defined in section 4(12) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 403)) for purposes of sections 31 
     and 34 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 427, 430) and section 303(g) of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(g)).
       (2) Inapplicability of limitation on use of simplified 
     acquisition procedures.--
       (A) In general.--The $5,000,000 limitation provided in 
     section 31(a)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 427(a)(2)), and section 303(g)(1)(B) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(B)) shall not apply to purchases of products 
     or services deemed to be a commercial item under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Guidance.--The Attorney General and the Administrator 
     of Federal Procurement Policy shall jointly issue guidance 
     and procedures for the use of simplified acquisition 
     procedures for a purchase of products or services in excess 
     of $5,000,000 under the authority of this section.
       (c) Streamlined Procedures for the Procurement of 
     Information Technology.--The Attorney General shall, when 
     appropriate, use streamlined acquisition authorities and 
     procedures authorized by law for a procurement described in 
     subsection (a), including authorities and procedures that are 
     provided under the following provisions of law:
       (1) Federal property and administrative services act of 
     1949.--In title III of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949:
       (A) Paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) of subsection (c) of 
     section 303 (41 U.S.C. 253), relating to use of procedures 
     other than competitive procedures under certain circumstances 
     (subject to subsection (e) of such section).
       (B) Section 303J (41 U.S.C. 253j), relating to orders under 
     task and delivery order contracts.
       (2) Office of federal procurement policy act.--Paragraphs 
     (1)(B), (1)(D), and (2) of section 18(c) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416(c)), relating 
     to inapplicability of a requirement for procurement notice.
       (d) Nondiscrimination Against Small-Business Concerns.--
     This section shall be applied in a manner that does not 
     discriminate against small-business concerns (within the 
     meaning of such term as used in the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632 et seq.)) or any type of small-business concern.
       (e) Period of Authority.--The authorities provided in this 
     section shall apply with respect to any procurement of 
     information technology products or services described in 
     subsection (a) during fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
       (f) Review and Report by Comptroller General.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the end of fiscal year 2004, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on 
     Government Reform and the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Governmental Affairs 
     and the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the use of the 
     authorities provided in this section. The report shall 
     contain the following:
       (1) An assessment of the extent to which products and 
     services acquired using authorities provided under this 
     section contributed to the capacity of the entities referred 
     to in subsection (a) to carry out their missions.
       (2) Any recommendations of the Comptroller General taking 
     into account the assessment performed under paragraph (1).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide the time 
evenly with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed 
to control such time.
  I would note that this amendment has been offered with the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon) as well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H1662]]

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide for simplified procedures 
for acquisition of information-technology solutions to help reform the 
INS. The simplified acquisition procedures were initially created in 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and augmented under 
the Klinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
  These procedures will speed up the procurement process to allow 
agencies to acquire goods and services they need in a more efficient 
manner. There are shorter waiting periods after the notices are issued, 
more flexibility in how requests for proposals are put together, fewer 
potential bidders have to be notified. It is important to note that 
competition is still required and bids must be solicited from at least 
three bidders.
  Under current law, agencies may use simplified acquisition procedures 
to acquire goods and services worth up to 100,000 and to acquire 
commercial items up to 5 million. This amendment further adds to the 
flexibility for the acquisition of technology as well as the management 
of technology.
  It is important to note that within the amendment there is a 
nondiscrimination provision against small businesses so that we can 
continue to have small business play a vigorous and vital role in the 
provision of IT and there is also protection in the Truth and 
Negotiating Act which would continue to apply, as well as the Federal 
Cost Accounting Standards Act that would continue to protect taxpayers.
  The immigration service is an agency that is in the dark ages 
technologically. I am of the belief that until we allow and actually 
insist and give the tools to management to bring technology, they will 
never get ahead of their problem. Mr. Ziegler, the current 
commissioner, told the House Committee on the Judiciary in March that, 
``The INS is big on information but small on technology.''
  I would say that is an understatement. Recently, at home in Silicon 
Valley, there was a convention of IT professionals meeting from the 
government, the Federal Government primarily, meeting with CEOs and 
technology wizards in Silicon Valley, and I would like to read what the 
INS CIO George Bollinger said relative to his role at the INS. ``I am 
to high tech what Danny DeVito is to the NBA.''
  That is the quote of the guy who is in charge of information 
technology at the INS describing his ability to manage IT.
  This amendment would allow management to be brought in. I think if we 
failed to do this, and its proposal is for a 2-year time period only, 
INS only, we are going to continue to fall further and further behind. 
This is an agency that is still creating paper files, an agency that is 
putting material on microfiche. There are over 100 databases that 
cannot communicate with each other.

                              {time}  1400

  There is no ability within the agency to even devise an enterprise 
architecture program, something that the new Commissioner has actually 
freely admitted. When I asked the last Congress for the technology 
plan, I was told that they hope someday to update their DOS system. I 
kid my colleagues not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I oppose this amendment. The INS has had a difficulty for a long time 
in developing and fielding information systems to support its programs 
operation, but this is not the reason to deviate from the rules that 
this Congress has put in place to govern full and open competition in 
the government procurement process.
  Given the difficulties the INS has had in effectively managing and 
using information technology in the past, the Associate Attorney 
General for Immigration Affairs should be required to follow all 
pertinent procurement requirements until such time as he has shown the 
capability to manage the plan and ongoing information technology 
investments effectively.
  Only in this way can we ensure that the hundreds of millions of 
dollars that will be spent on IT by the new INS and its successors will 
be spent wisely. That is why we have procurement regulations. They are 
designed to ensure that the government, and thus the taxpayers, get the 
best possible product, while the taxpayer is charged the lowest 
possible price. They are designed to avoid the potential for contracts 
being steered to friends or relatives.
  We do not need sole-source bidding, and this is what the Lofgren 
amendment opens the door for, but open and fair competition in the 
awarding of contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, Members should know that the administration strongly 
opposes this amendment because of the detrimental impact on policies 
and procedures on procurement. I am also informed that both the 
Republican and Democratic leadership of the Committee on Government 
Reform, that has got principal jurisdiction over this topic, have got 
significant concerns about the Lofgren amendment.
  I will be happy to continue working on this issue before conference 
on this bill with the drafters of the amendment, the Committee on 
Government Reform, and the administration, but I would urge Members to 
oppose the amendment at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time.
  Everyone knows my respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren), but I hope that she will have a better answer than I do for 
the minority contractors in my district and hers, who are catching it 
right now with procurement rules, tossing them out. I just want to find 
out what we tell them if her amendment prevails.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, this is yet another example of when a 
manager's deal is done, some things get left out. And this is a very 
worthwhile part of the reform, this is just as bipartisan.
  My colleague from California, my colleague from Utah, in fact, are 
often opposed on bills, but not this time. Why? Because we want a 
streamlined organization. We want to empower this organization to do 
what it needs to do and do it efficiently. That has been the complaint 
for more than 30 years.
  INS failure is bipartisan. Administration after administration have 
failed to do what we seek to do here today, and I strongly support the 
Lofgren-Cannon amendment because it is bipartisan. It will lead to 
efficiencies. It is about making this organization do a better job for 
all of us.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 4 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment to speed up the adoption of new 
information technology by the restructured agency. I offer this 
amendment together with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
and other Members of this body, including the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Green). I believe this amendment has broad support, and I would 
urge the Members to watch who votes for it as we come to a vote, if 
that happens.
  The INS is one of the worst Federal agencies in adopting information 
technology necessary to do its job more efficiently and at a lower 
cost. The current INS and the new immigration bureaus have a core 
function of managing information about people. In that task, they are 
way behind. The INS has computers incapable of performing basic tasks, 
information systems that do not talk to each other, and still do things 
and is still doing things like putting together important documents on 
microfilm and boxing them up for storage rather than making them 
available to line officers via computer.

[[Page H1663]]

  The technology is already critical and will get worse if we do not do 
something, provide some temporary flexibility to the Attorney General 
to buy technology solutions while this agency restructures itself.
  Under the simplified acquisition procedures in this amendment, there 
are shorter waiting periods after notices are issued, more flexibility 
in how requests for proposals are put together. Fewer potential bidders 
have to be notified. The competition is still required. Bids must be 
solicited from at least three bidders.
  It is also important to note that although this amendment will speed 
it up, that is, information technology acquisitions, there are still a 
number of important safeguards that protect the agency and the 
taxpayers. Two of the most important laws that still apply are the 
Truth in Negotiating Act.
  TINA requires contractors to provide cost and pricing data to the 
Federal Government and certify their accuracy. False certifications 
result in downward adjustments. Such procurements are not exempt from 
Federal cost accounting standards that help prevent contractors from 
inflating their costs.
  I understand some Members of the Committee on Government Reform do 
not like this amendment, and I am a member of that committee myself. We 
worked with the majority staff and OMB to try to address their 
concerns. And in an ideal world, we could have hearings and studies and 
recommendations in that committee about government procurement policy 
generally to address these problems. But I urge my colleagues not to 
care more about jurisdictional turf battles than making this 
immigration agency work and giving it the technology to do so. This 
authority is what the INS has indicated before the Committee on the 
Judiciary that they need to get a handle on these problems.
  This is an opportunity to provide some temporary flexibility to get 
the right technology in place at that restructured immigration agency. 
It is a chance to solve some huge problems. So if my colleagues like 
the status quo, if they think the current technology situation at INS 
is great, then they should vote against this amendment. But the 
American people want results, and this Congress also wants results.
  We want an agency with the technology in place to prevent dead 
terrorists from getting visa documents 6 months after they have 
attacked us and died. We should want technology in place to reduce 
backlogs for legal immigrants and track the whereabouts of aliens who 
are in this country. The way to do that is to ease the restrictions and 
red tape on procuring the right technology to solve these problems.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Cannon-Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding me the time, and I just want to say I support his amendment. I 
would also like to take this opportunity to say I support the Issa 
amendment, which would make excepted employees of INS employees and 
give them, I think, more accountability in a very, very serious and 
very critical position.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me add that endorsement of the Issa 
amendment.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just point out that it has been wonderful working with the 
Chairman on this issue. We have, in fact, included some great 
provisions in the manager's amendment that allows for more flexibility 
in firing. They do not go quite as far as the Issa amendment, I will 
point out, but this is a different issue.
  This is an important issue, and this issue relates to how and when 
and how quickly we get technology into the INS.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time.
  It is a pleasure to join in a bipartisan opposition to this Lofgren-
Cannon amendment. The INS does not need a blank check from this 
Congress. If my colleagues look at the record of the INS, it has shown 
a total inability to successfully implement information technology 
advancements.
  The Inspector General at the Department of Justice said that the INS 
``made huge investments in automation technology and information 
systems that have yielded questionable results,'' and continues ``to 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars'' on information technology 
initiatives ``without being able to explain how the money was spent or 
what was accomplished.''
  This amendment would waive the requirement for full and open 
competition on information technology products and services for the INS 
through 2004. The INS would be able to purchase a multimillion-dollar 
computer technology improvement without any requirement for competitive 
bids or review under existing law.
  There are six exceptions already in law that would allow them to 
avoid the requirement of open competition if they saw fit to do so; 
things like a national security requirement; maybe there is only one 
responsible bidder. The law provides for unusual and compelling 
circumstances that would do harm to the government as an exception. 
And, finally, if the head of the INS determines that it is in the 
public interest to avoid competition, all they have to do is notify 
Congress 30 days before they award the contract to give us the 
opportunity to express our concern.
  This amendment is totally unnecessary. We have streamlined many of 
our procurement practices over the last decade, and we are now reading 
news reports that tell us we may have streamlined them too much. In one 
recent story, Charles Tiefter, the University of Baltimore professor 
who spent a decade here working as a House lawyer, said, ``Scandals are 
coming,'' referring to the procurement practices of the Federal 
Government.
  Now is not the time to give a blank check to the INS, and I hope my 
colleagues will join us in bipartisan opposition to this amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has the right to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me the time, and I join him and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in a bipartisan effort to uphold the laws 
of our country in terms of procurement which were put in place for 
better government oversight, to save taxpayers' dollars, and to be sure 
that there is full and open competition for the billions of dollars 
that this government spends in contracts.
  One of my dear friends and colleagues mentioned earlier in debate 
that we were going to get past the redtape. I would hardly call 
competitive bidding and allowing people to compete for the right to 
provide services at the best price redtape. I would call that, saving 
taxpayers' dollars, good government and what should be done in this 
Congress.
  I tell my colleagues that the fact that the INS is one of the worst-
managed systems, and it has been called by their own IG, an information 
system that has a top management challenge. The fact that it is poorly 
managed is more of a reason that we should have these safeguards that 
the gentleman before me mentioned. There are exemptions that they can 
take if they so need, but for billion-dollar, multimillion-dollar 
contracts, I would say regular order, competitive bidding, and let us 
follow the laws of this country.
  The procurement laws were put in place not only to have good 
oversight and good management and to protect taxpayers' dollars but 
also to allow small companies and small businesses a door into 
government, the ability to compete for work.
  Why should we slam the door in their face? We are just talking about 
saving taxpayers' dollars and getting the best form of government there 
to serve the people. And we must ensure that there is an opportunity 
for companies to fairly compete by allowing the INS to get around 
existing procurement laws.

[[Page H1664]]

  This amendment prohibits full and open competition on information 
technology purchases, and I urge a no vote in a bipartisan effort.
  I must conclude by commending the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) on her excellent work. In this body we usually agree, but on 
this one I come down on the side of the taxpayers. Full and open 
competition. Vote no.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time.
  I have figured this out now. This has been confusing me, why this is 
a high-tech boondoggle. That is what this is. Waive the rules so the 
high-tech people can run wild.
  The gentleman from Utah is exempt from this. They do not have many 
high-tech people or many minorities.

                              {time}  1415

  So he does not know that much about minority procurement rules, but 
the rest of my colleagues here do. Tell me what I tell the African 
American people, business persons, that have been trying to get in the 
door for 20 years?
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the gentleman that Utah is 
really one of the high-tech havens on earth; and interestingly, many of 
our minorities are running our high-tech companies. Let me also make 
two points in particular. One, they are willing to compete; and, two, 
this is a very narrow exemption. A very, very narrow exemption.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am so relieved, I 
cannot tell the gentleman how much better I feel now that he has told 
me.
  Mr. CANNON. The gentleman should come to Utah to see this.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I will conclude.
  I think there is some misunderstandings among some of the speakers 
because the amendment before us does not repeal procurement law; it 
merely applies the procurement efficiency laws, the Clinger-Cohen Act, 
to the INS, and changes the limits for a 2-year time period so that we 
can get some technology into this agency.
  Right now, Silicon Valley companies and high-tech companies across 
the country are willing to come in and do assessments for what the 
agency needs. And actually, what they are saying is have everyone come 
in, not a sole source, come in and help this agency find out what it 
needs. We lack an enterprise architecture, and under current law we 
cannot do that.
  If we do not streamline and allow for existing streamlined procedures 
to be put in place on a 2-year time frame for this agency, we are going 
to continue to hear what we have for the last 10 years. In 2 years' 
time we will have some technology. We still have 236 PCs, we still have 
an agency that is creating paper files. If we do not apply the existing 
law that allows for streamlining acquisitions to this agency, we are 
going to end up continuing to waste taxpayers' dollars; we are going to 
continue to have Americans put at risk because databases cannot 
communicate with each other.
  I have seen the picture of Mohammed Atta too many times today. The 
reason why they were admitted is because the inspector at the gate did 
not know what the other hand of the INS was doing. And unless we have 
technology deployed in this agency, that deplorable condition will 
continue to be true.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is whether the INS should go into more sole-
source procurement for information-technology issues. Competitive 
bidding keeps the cost down to the taxpayers, and it means that various 
vendors compete against one another on who can provide the best product 
for the lowest possible cost for what the government needs.
  I would remind all Members, but particularly those on the Republican 
side of the aisle, that the administration has a great deal of concern 
about this amendment, particularly the OMB. I do not think that as we 
restructure that agency we should throw out all of the procurement 
rules relative to computer and information-technology procurement.
  The time may come when the new Associate Attorney General for 
immigration affairs may find this necessary, but let us wait until we 
restructure the agency and the person who is going to be the overseer 
of the entire operation makes a determination of whether competitive 
bidding works or we should make a particular exception.
  This amendment puts the cart before the horse. I would urge a ``no'' 
vote to keep the cart after the horse.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and amendment No. 7 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Issa

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 272, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 114]

                               AYES--145

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton

[[Page H1665]]


     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--272

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baldacci
     Blagojevich
     Cooksey
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Jones (NC)
     Leach
     Matsui
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Schaffer
     Smith (WA)
     Tanner
     Traficant
     Waxman

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. SAWYER, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mrs. 
McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. REHBERG, BACHUS, BROWN of South Carolina, COLLINS, GOODLATTE, 
FRELINGHUYSEN, EVERETT, FOSSELLA, Mrs. CUBIN and Mrs. NORTHUP changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces he will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time 
period for which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the 
remaining amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 312, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               AYES--105

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Coble
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Flake
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Honda
     Horn
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Linder
     Lofgren
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Olver
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Thornberry
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm

[[Page H1666]]


     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baldacci
     Blagojevich
     Cooksey
     Dunn
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Jones (NC)
     Leach
     Murtha
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Schaffer
     Smith (WA)
     Tanner
     Traficant
     Waxman

                              {time}  1455

  Mr. KERNS and Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN and Messrs. ADERHOLT, BERMAN and GOODLATTE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). There being no further 
amendments in order, the question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3231) to replace the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the 
Agency for Immigration Affairs, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 396, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405, 
noes 9, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               AYES--405

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Abercrombie
     Clayton
     Honda
     Kolbe
     Lofgren
     Mink
     Pomeroy
     Sanders
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baldacci
     Blagojevich
     Cooksey
     Davis, Tom
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hulshof
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Smith (WA)
     Tanner
     Traficant
     Waxman

                              {time}  1513

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       A bill to replace the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service with the Office of the Associate Attorney General for 
     Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration 
     Enforcement, and for other purposes.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall 
116. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye,'' in favor of 
passage.

                          ____________________