Amendment Text: H.Amdt.646 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (12/15/2005)

This Amendment appears on page H11850 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H11845-H11858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT 
                                OF 2005

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


             Part B Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

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

       Part B amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia:
       At the end of title I, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 118. SUSPENSION OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the visa waiver program established under section 217 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187)is hereby 
     suspended until such time as the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security determines and certifies to Congress that--
       (1) the automated entry-exit control system authorized 
     under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is 
     fully implemented and functional;
       (2) all United States ports of entry have functional 
     biometric machine readers; and
       (3) all nonimmigrants, including Border Crossing Card 
     holders, are processed through the automated entry-exit 
     control system.
       (b) Repeal.--Subparagraph (B) of section 217(a)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is 
     hereby repealed.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Border Protection, 
Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 needs to 
address a loophole in our immigration system. I have introduced this 
amendment which suspends, not cancels, but suspends temporarily the 
Visa Waiver Program until the machine-readable and tamper-resistant 
biometric identification system mandated by the PATRIOT Act to be the 
cornerstone of the entry-exit system is fully operational.
  Until we have the technical and human resources to secure our points 
of entry, we cannot afford to allow visitors to come to the United 
States without prescreening them prior to arrival. Despite the fact 
that the United Kingdom is one of our Nation's closest friends and 
allies, the London subway bombings earlier this year were executed in 
large part by British citizens with known ties to terrorism.
  We know that terrorists like Zacharias Moussaui and Richard Reid 
exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United States. Do we 
want individuals like these to fly to America unchecked and to attack 
our subway system in the name of terrorist groups like al Qaeda under 
the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program? Do we want French citizens with 
Islamofascist mindsets to get a free pass through Customs? If not, we 
need to suspend this program until we are equipped to check the 
criminal and terrorist backgrounds of every visitor who arrives at a 
point of entry and to confirm the identity of each visitor using 
biometric identifiers.
  The success and failure of the Visa Waiver Program can trace its 
roots back to 1986 when it was passed as part of the Immigration Reform 
Control Act. As many of my colleagues know, what we left undone in 1986 
is in large part why we need to consider a new immigration reform law 
in 2005 that is consistent with the recent reauthorization of the 
PATRIOT Act. The Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a 
temporary program for a small and select group of nations. Today, 27 
countries are eligible under visa waivers, opening the door widely, 
widely, Mr. Chairman, for an unscreened terrorist to attack the United 
States.
  Yesterday, the United States USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 passed by a vote of 251-174, a strong 
endorsement for securing our Nation against terrorism. The PATRIOT Act 
acknowledges the problem of the Visa Waiver Program, and I have 
introduced this amendment to suspend the program until the solution 
made possible by the PATRIOT Act can realistically take effect. This is 
an issue that extends beyond apprehending illegal immigrants and 
actually works to secure our points of entry from those who desire to 
attack our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the 9/11 
Families for a Secure America in full support of this amendment.

        9/11 Families for a Secure America, December 15, 2005.

                                                Staten Island, NY,
     Hon. Phil Gingrey,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Gingrey, 9/11 Families for a Secure America fully 
     supports your amendment to H.R. 4437 to suspend the Visa 
     Waiver Program until the automated entry-exit control system 
     authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 is fully implemented.
       The recent civil disturbances in France make it quite clear 
     that the time is past when citizens of particular countries 
     should be granted blanket permission to enter the United 
     States without first applying for a visa. Many of the nations 
     of Europe, after decades of permitting mass immigration from 
     nations that sponsor terrorism have created a situation where 
     large numbers of Islamic extremists, though closely connected 
     to the terrorism that originates in countries such as Saudi 
     Arabia, are themselves citizens or native born in any of a 
     dozen European nations. The result is that Islamic extremism 
     is no longer limited to persons born

[[Page H11846]]

     in or citizens of Middle Eastern nations. For this reason, 
     citizens of European countries should be subject to the same 
     visa application process which applies to the other nations 
     of the world.
       If Islamic extremists commit another 9/11 it will not make 
     any difference to the victims of that attack that the people 
     responsible carried French passports rather than ones issued 
     by Iran, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Board of Directors,
                                9/11 Families for a Secure America
       Bruce DeCell, Sergeant, NYPD (retired), Father-in-law of 
     Mark Petrocelli, age 29.
       Bill Doyle, father of Joseph, age 24, WTC North Tower.
       Lynn Faulkner, husband of Wendy, WTC South Tower.
       Peter and Jan Gadiel, parents of James, age 23, WTC, North 
     Tower 103rd floor.
       Grace Godshalk, mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC 
     South Tower 89th floor.
       Joan Molinaro, mother of firefighter Carl Molinaro.
       Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, father of 
     Jason Sekzer, age 31, WTC North Tower 105th floor.

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, these are issues that must be 
addressed, and I will assure the gentleman that, as chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, that I will work on these issues and 
address the very real concerns that you have. I would ask in that 
context you consider withdrawing the amendment with that pledge I make 
to you.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation. I 
know there are some concerns about the amendment. Indeed, a major 
airline in my district, in my State, has some concern over it, and 
people who are concerned about tourism and the economic effects of this 
amendment.
  But I think this is a situation where, when we look back and think 
about
9/11, it would probably cost our economy $3 trillion if we have another 
attack of that magnitude. The cost of that, of reduced tourism, would 
pale in comparison to another $3 trillion cost to our economy if that 
should occur. I sincerely appreciate the chairman's willingness to 
cooperate with us, and I look forward to working with him on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


      Part B Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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

       Part B amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 308. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1373) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' 
     and inserting ``Department of Homeland Security'' each place 
     it appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Ineligibility for federal law enforcement aid.--Upon 
     a determination that any person, or any Federal, State, or 
     local government agency or entity, is in violation of 
     subsection (a) or (b), the Attorney General shall not provide 
     to that person, agency, or entity any grant amount pursuant 
     to any law enforcement grant program carried out by any 
     element of the Department of Justice, including the program 
     under section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 241(i)), and shall ensure that no such grant 
     amounts are provided, directly or indirectly, to such person, 
     agency, or entity. In the case of grant amounts that 
     otherwise would be provided to such person, agency, or entity 
     pursuant to a formula, such amounts shall be reallocated 
     among eligible recipients.
       ``(2) Violations by government officials.--In any case in 
     which a Federal, State, or local government official is in 
     violation of subsection (a) or (b), the government agency or 
     entity that employs (or, at the time of the violation, 
     employed) the official shall be subject to the sanction under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Duration.--The sanction under paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until the Attorney General determines that 
     the person, agency, or entity has ceased violating 
     subsections (a) and (b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to grant requests pending on or or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are cities around this country that have laws or 
executive orders under which they prohibit law enforcement officials 
from reporting to the Department of Homeland Security when they 
encounter, through the normal course of law enforcement practice, 
individuals who are aliens, who are foreign nationals and who are in 
this country illegally. That, first of all, is a violation of Federal 
law. Both the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 both prohibit cities from adopting that sort 
of ordinance.
  But secondly, it is just wrong. We have Federal law here, and we have 
people in the ordinary course of their law enforcement activities 
encountering people who are foreign nationals and in this country 
illegally, and cities are passing ordinances making it a crime 
basically for those law enforcement officials to let Department of 
Homeland Security know that.
  The reason this happens is there is no enforcement mechanism on this 
Federal law right now. What this amendment would do is simply provide 
an enforcement mechanism by making those law enforcement agencies in 
those areas not eligible for Federal grants if they have such a 
prohibition which is in violation of Federal law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) that it is interesting that we come to 
the floor and try to make like there is a divide in the arresting and 
detaining of criminals. Every jurisdiction, outside of the Federal 
jurisdiction, has the right and responsibility to arrest criminals, 
whether they be documented or undocumented. There is no divide on that 
question. Local law enforcement, local sheriffs, local constables, 
local police, can, in fact, arrest criminals, detain them and even send 
them through our judicial system.
  Your amendment, however, breaks the back of our local jurisdiction, 
and it creates an enormous unfunded mandate. It would force cash-
strapped State and local governments to enforce civil immigration laws. 
We want the criminals off the street. But you would force our local 
governments to take on extra responsibilities without funding.
  Let me remind you that the idea of enforcement of terrorism really 
begins outside of our borders. That is what we are here to talk about, 
to ensure that we have strong border security enforcement.
  I would also offer to say that we hope that the DeFazio-Lungren bill 
passes in a few moments because that is what it does, it ensures that 
we protect against those who would come inside. That would protect the 
Federal jurisdiction and the State. But this amendment preempts any 
State and local laws that bar their law enforcement officers from 
assuming the Federal responsibility of enforcing civil immigration 
laws.
  But more importantly, what it does is it forces local jurisdictions 
to send private information on crime victims, possibly a rape victim, 
who may be an undocumented immigrant. And this amendment opposes 
another unfunded mandate on State and local governments. It undermines 
effective community policing, increases racial profiling. As well, let 
me suggest that it requires local government to give information that 
it might not even have. Then you eliminate their opportunities to 
secure their own communities.
  And so, frankly, this is a bill that most of the law enforcement are 
against, and it is enormously burdensome, and it breaks up the 
responsibility, or it stops the responsibility of

[[Page H11847]]

law enforcement because it is divisive and it is unworkable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman from Texas, but let me 
make it clear what this bill does and does not do, what this amendment 
does and does not do. It does not require local governments to do 
anything. All it does is tell them they should not prohibit, they 
should not actively prohibit their law enforcement officials from 
giving this information to the Department of Homeland Security. It does 
not require them to give the information. It says you may not prohibit 
or you lose Federal funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I welcome the newest 
Member of the House from California; and I, likewise, welcome this 
commonsense amendment because in this amendment the gentleman from 
California encapsulates the challenge facing this House. We claim we 
are going to enforce existing laws. Let us begin here. Thirty-two 
cities and counties have not been cooperating. They say let us carve 
out an exception. Two states in our Union are sanctuaries, Oregon and 
Maine.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if border security is national security, if we 
have found that we have illegally in this Nation over 80,000 convicted 
felons from other cultures, why should it be difficult for local law 
enforcement agencies to themselves obey the law? ``Yes'' on this 
amendment. It puts some teeth in the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, would the author please tell me what is 
broken that needs fixing? Where is the local agency not, I mean, as you 
say in your bill, you shall not provide any person, agency or entity, 
pursuant, any grant, even any formula grants. You are going to just 
bring law enforcement to a standstill here. You are going to create the 
biggest bureaucracy in the world.
  I represent a lot of local governments. I do not know any of them 
that do not share this information. But I also know that there are 
times when local law enforcement has undercover agents who are 
undocumented. I found that out from previous experiences where they may 
not want to tell anybody that is an undercover agent. And is that the 
kind of thing? I mean, this is not the law that the local city councils 
adopt. This is the way law enforcement does their business. And with 
your amendment, I see that the Attorney General has now to determine 
whether that city or county receives any formula funds of any amount, 
and that they cannot receive those amounts in the future. What are you 
going to do about Katrina? What are you going to do about all those 
cities that you are trying to bail out with the floods? I think this 
amendment is fixing something that is not even broken. I oppose it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell 
amendment. This legislation is quite straightforward. It informs our 
States and localities to enforce the law. That sounds ridiculous to us, 
I am sure. But the fact is that one of the main problems with our 
immigration laws is that we are not enforcing them. And under the 
immigration reform legislation we passed in 1996, we prohibited States 
and localities from barring their entities and barring officials from 
providing immigration information to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Now, these counties and these States have decided to defy the law. 
There should be a cost for that. And the cost, according to this 
amendment, which says we mean what we say, the cost is that they would 
receive no grant amounts made available to any Federal, State, or local 
government agency or entity that violates the law. The rule of law is 
important. Support this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  You know, I wish that we could find common ground on really securing 
America and not, if you will, unduly burdening our local and State 
jurisdictions that already comply with the law, that already arrest the 
criminals. Now you are asking them to engage in civil immigration 
issues, which should be under Federal jurisdiction.
  And my good friend suggests that this is an allowance amendment; it 
simply allows them to do this. He knows that by the very announcement 
or pronouncement coming from the Federal Government, what he does is he 
intimidates local jurisdictions and they take on burdens that they 
truly cannot fund.
  We should be focusing on securing the borders, providing an enhanced, 
pre-testing program for those who are coming into the United States, 
providing more resources for Border Patrol agents, allowing them to 
enforce the border, giving them the law enforcement authority, being 
more secure in the visa program that we have. Those are some of the 
underlying elements that are missing out of this legislation, and I am 
sad to say that the present amendment will not in any way, I believe, 
provide any more security than what we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support Mr. 
Campbell's amendment to help rid our communities of dangerous illegal 
alien criminals. I commend Mr. Campbell for his commitment to 
immigration reform. His amendment would make sure that cities do not 
get Federal taxpayer dollars if they have policies in place that harbor 
and give sanctuary to illegal alien criminals. Sanctuary policies tie 
the hands of local law enforcement officers and keep illegal aliens who 
commit crimes in our country rather than deporting criminals according 
to U.S. law. Under these so-called sanctuary policies, in certain 
cities the police officers are prohibited from reporting the illegal 
aliens who commit crimes to Federal immigration authorities for 
deportation. As a result, taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien 
prisoners who are later released back onto the streets.
  Welcome to Congress. You have had an impact right away, Mr. Campbell.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I point out to all Members the reason you 
must pass this amendment is it is against the law to have a sanctuary 
city, a sanctuary State. This amendment goes to the heart of the 
frustrations of the police and deputies. They apprehend the criminal 
aliens, are forced to turn them back onto the streets. You want to know 
what is wrong? Somebody says tell me something is wrong.
  Newlywed Dallas, Texas, police officer Brian Jackson, 28 years old, 
is the latest victim of this outrage. He was shot and killed November 
13 in the line of duty. The suspect is an illegal alien that had been 
arrested and released by Dallas Police Department on September the 11 
and again on September the 16 with the full knowledge that he was 
violating the law. That is why you need to vote for this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This bill will not work because local officials are not trained. They 
do not understand the difference between those who are undocumented or 
citizens. We are putting an unfunded mandate on it. We are keeping 
crime victims from reporting the crimes to local law enforcement. We 
are breaking community policing; and we are putting this heavy burden, 
and we are not securing America.
  Provide resources to the Border Patrol and you will secure America. 
Provide technology and you will secure America. Vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H11848]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 109-347.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The request of the gentlewoman is not timely.


       Part B Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Part B amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Amend section 402 to read as follows:

     SEC. 402. EXPANSION AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DETENTION 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     fully utilize--
       (1) all available detention facilities operated or 
     contracted by the Department of Homeland Security; and
       (2) all possible options to cost effectively increase 
     available detention capacities, including the use of 
     temporary detention facilities, the use of State and local 
     correctional facilities, private space, and secure 
     alternatives to detention (in accordance with subsection 
     (b)).
       (b) Secure Alternatives to Detention Program.--
       (1) Nature of the program.--For purposes of this section, 
     the secure alternatives to detention referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a program under which eligible aliens are 
     released to the custody of suitable individual or 
     organizational sponsors who will supervise them, use 
     appropriate safeguards to prevent them from absconding, and 
     ensure that they make required appearances.
       (2) Program development.--The program shall be developed in 
     accordance with the following guidelines:
       (A) The Secretary shall design the program in consultation 
     with nongovernmental organizations and academic experts in 
     both the immigration and the criminal justice fields. 
     Consideration should be given to methods that have proven 
     successful in appearance assistance programs, such as the 
     appearance assistance program developed by the Vera Institute 
     and the Department of Homeland Security's Intensive 
     Supervision Appearance Program.
       (B) The program shall utilize a continuum of alternatives 
     based on the alien's need for supervision, including 
     placement of the alien with an individual or organizational 
     sponsor, a supervised group home, or in a supervised, non-
     penal community setting that has guards stationed along its 
     perimeter.
       (C) The Secretary shall enter into contracts with 
     nongovernmental organizations and individuals to implement 
     the secure alternatives to detention program.
       (c) Eligibility and Operations.--
       (1) Selection of participants.--The Secretary shall select 
     aliens to participate in the program from designated groups 
     specified in paragraph (4) if the Secretary determines that 
     such aliens are not flight risks or dangers to the community.
       (2) Voluntary participation.--An alien's participation in 
     the program is voluntary and shall not confer any rights or 
     benefits to the alien under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (3) Limitation on participation.--
       (A) In general.--Only aliens who are in expedited removal 
     proceedings under section 236 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) may participate in the 
     program.
       (B) Rules of construction.--
       (i) Aliens applying for asylum.--Aliens who have 
     established a credible fear of persecution and have been 
     referred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review for 
     an asylum hearing shall not be considered to be in expedited 
     removal proceedings and the custody status of such aliens 
     after service of a Notice to Appear shall be determined in 
     accordance with the procedures governing aliens in removal 
     proceedings under section 240 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
       (ii) Unaccompanied alien children.--Unaccompanied alien 
     children (as defined in section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland 
     Security Act (6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2))) shall be considered to be 
     in the care and exclusive custody of the Department of Health 
     and Human Services and shall not be subject to expedited 
     removal and shall not be permitted to participate in the 
     program.
       (4) Designated groups.--The designated groups referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Alien parents who are being detained with one or more 
     of their children, and their detained children.
       (B) Aliens who have serious medical or mental health needs.
       (C) Aliens who are mentally retarded or autistic.
       (D) Pregnant alien women.
       (E) Elderly aliens who are over the age of 65.
       (F) Aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings after 
     being rescued from trafficking or criminal operations by 
     Government authorities.
       (G) Other groups designated in regulations promulgated by 
     the Secretary.
       (5) Implementing regulations.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall promulgate regulations to implement the secure 
     alternatives to detention program and to standardize the care 
     and treatment of aliens in immigration custody based on the 
     Detention Operations Manual of the Department of Homeland 
     Security.
       (6) Decisions regarding program not reviewable.--The 
     decisions of the Secretary regarding when to utilize the 
     program and to what extent and the selection of aliens to 
     participate in the program shall not be subject to 
     administrative or judicial review.
       (d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate a report that details all policies, regulations, and 
     actions taken to comply with the provisions in this section, 
     including maximizing detention capacity and increasing the 
     cost-effectiveness of detention by implementing the secure 
     alternatives to detention program, and a description of 
     efforts taken to ensure that all aliens in expedited removal 
     proceedings are residing under conditions that are safe, 
     secure, and healthy.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. Amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available 
     until expended.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment is very concise and very direct. The amendment deals 
with eligible aliens who are released to the custody of suitable 
individual or organizational sponsors who will supervise them, prevent 
them from absconding, and ensure required appearances.
  Decisions on eligibility for participation are made on case-by-case 
determination by DHS with no judicial review. The various options for 
secure alternatives include placement with sponsor, group home or 
supervised environment with adequate security.
  There is a need for secure alternative programs because my good 
friends over here are criminalizing the elderly, the sick, children, 
and others who are now undocumented in the country.
  The annual population of aliens in DHS custody is more than 200,000. 
We will add another 11 million. The gap between the number of 
noncitizens in immigration proceedings on a given day and the number of 
detention beds available to the DHS continues to grow.
  This is a simple, straightforward amendment that would allow 
alternative sites to be established with criteria given by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security so that you can, in essence, provide 
secure alternatives for the elderly, the sick, the infirm, and 
children. When you make criminals out of 11 million undocumented who 
are here in the United States, by their very presence are made 
criminals, then I would assure you that this particular secure 
alternative program is needed. I would ask my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
rise in support of this very intelligent amendment. You know, most 
people do not realize that we actually have fewer beds, detention space 
in America today than we did on September 11. We have 700 fewer beds 
today than we did on September 11, 2001.
  I have a bill that has not been scheduled for action that relates to 
unaccompanied minor children, and I would like to just mention the 
plight of one young boy, Malik Jarno, who came to the United States in 
his Boy Scout uniform to go to a Boy Scout jamboree. He is slightly 
retarded and he ended up, a long story I will not bore you with, being 
arrested. He did not commit any crime and was put in a jail, a 16-year-
old boy in his Boy Scout uniform, put in a jail with adults. It is 
absolutely wrong to treat children in that manner.

[[Page H11849]]

  The gentlewoman's amendment would make sure that children are treated 
appropriately while their matters are being reviewed. It does not say 
what the outcome has got to be, but just that we do not put children in 
prison with adults. Civilized nations do not do that. And I commend the 
gentlewoman for her amendment. It would also increase the ability to 
hold those who are not currently able to be held since, for reasons we 
cannot understand, the Bush administration has 700 fewer beds today 
than we did on September 11, 2001.

                              {time}  2000

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Who claims time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me say at first, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from 
Texas, and I know this is a well intentioned amendment. However, I 
believe there are numerous problems with this amendment.
  It is unnecessary and seeks to create a class of aliens who will are 
not be detained with the rest of the alien population. However, the 
mandatory detention provision of H.R. 4377 preserves the already 
existing parole authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act that waives mandatory detention and releases aliens 
for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public benefit. In 
other words, the Secretary already is empowered and has discretion to 
release juveniles and aliens who have serious medical conditions in 
which continued detention would not be appropriate and women who have 
been medically certified as pregnant, the very classes that the 
gentlewoman seeks too release.
  Also, this amendment creates a whole new bureaucracy that is not 
necessary. It takes away power from the department and those who are 
really experienced with these issues and concerns involving the 
detention of aliens and empowers independent groups, NGOs and academic 
experts from the immigration and the criminal justice field, with the 
authority to design this program separate and apart from the Department 
of Homeland Security. This amendment also requires the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to enter into contracts with groups including the 
NGOs and individuals to implement the program.
  Simply put, this amendment applies only to illegal aliens who are in 
expedited removal, which is typically 30 to 90 days. Such individuals 
will be removed quickly from the United States. Allowing them to be 
released outside of what the statute already prescribes would only 
create more incentive for them to enter into and remain in this 
country.
  In addition, this amendment seeks to protect aliens with valid claims 
of asylum who are already protected under this bill. H.R. 4377 does not 
change current law regarding those with valid claims of asylum. They 
currently have and, if this bill passes, will still have that right. 
Detention of such aliens is still discretionary once placed into asylum 
proceedings.
  And, finally, this amendment seeks to shift the authority for 
unaccompanied alien children to the Department of Health and Human 
Services. We have a serious and significant youth alien gang problem in 
the United States, MS-13, for instance, whose members are primarily 
from El Salvador and enter illegally into the United States across our 
land borders. Some of these gangs are dangerous criminals and such 
members of alien gangs who could potentially be not only criminals but 
terrorists. This amendment provides for a sweeping shift of power from 
the Department of Homeland Security to HHS to deal with such aliens. I 
submit that DHS has the expertise to deal with aliens.
  We are in a crisis. That is why we are debating this bill today, and 
mandating this change in law is not how the government should be 
responding to these types of serious problems. This provision, simply 
put, removes all discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
where it properly resides, to determine who should be detained and not 
detained. And, therefore, for those reasons, I respectfully oppose this 
well-intentioned amendment.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is 
a decent person, and I respect that. But I do not know if he is aware 
of the government's dismal record of arresting the 16-year-old in his 
Boy Scout uniform having attended the International Boy Scout Jamboree 
and then putting him in jail with adult prisoners. The record is not a 
pretty one, and I just note that the Secretary retains full power to 
lock up anyone he wants to if they are a criminal, but we have a very 
serious problem.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure we 
can point to extreme examples, but the fact of the matter is that the 
statute does already provide and gives the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security discretion to release juveniles, aliens with 
medical conditions and aliens who are medically certified as pregnant. 
I think this is already addressed by the law. And, therefore, this 
well-intentioned amendment, I believe, is unnecessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I, too, have respect for the gentleman from Texas, but 
I think he should read the bill and see that the bill already has a 
secure alternative program in place. This amendment does not require 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to be advised or the program to be 
structured by a number of groups that he might consult with. It only 
allows the Secretary to seek advice. Also, this provides only the 
ability to set criteria for the different secure alternative programs 
that might be put in place, that might help the elderly, the infirm, 
the sick and children. And I give an example. In 1996, the INS 
contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to run a 3-year 
demonstration program in New York. It was effective, and it worked. 
These are the kinds of suggestions that could be handled by the secure 
alternative program amendment that I offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentlewoman's, again, well-intentioned amendment says that the 
Secretary shall, mandatory language, shall design a program in 
consultation with nongovernmental organizations and academic experts in 
immigration and criminal justice. Again, this is a very serious matter, 
and I believe that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
is in the best position to make these determinations, not outside 
groups. And, of course, the Secretary can get any advice he wishes, but 
this is a decision for him to make and not for outside nongovernmental 
organizations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think if my colleagues would studiously and 
deliberatively think about what this amendment stands for, they would 
understand that this is simply an advisory amendment that allows the 
Secretary to consult with very reasonable organizations who understand 
the importance of providing secure alternatives for detainees who 
happen to be infirm or children or the elderly. The Center for Gender 
and Refugee Studies, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Ethiopian 
Community Development Center, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights 
Project, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the Illinois Coalition 
for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Immigrant Children's Advocacy 
Program, the Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Midwest Immigrant and Human 
Rights Center, Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance, National 
Immigration Forum, Political Asylum Project of Austin, U.S. Committee 
on Refugees and Immigrants, and a number of other

[[Page H11850]]

individuals recognize that this is a reasonable approach. It is a risk-
based approach that would allow the Secretary to consult to protect 
these detainees.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


              Part B Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Castle

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

       Part B amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware:
       At the end of title IV, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 408. REPORT ON APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF CERTAIN 
                   ALIENS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than two years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to Congress a report on--
       (1) the number of illegal aliens from noncontiguous 
     countries who are apprehended at or between ports of entry 
     since the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) the number of such aliens who have been deported since 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (3) the number of such aliens from countries the 
     governments of which the Secretary of State has determined, 
     for purposes of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (as in effect pursuant to the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act; 50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.), section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2780(d)), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or other provision of law, are 
     governments that have repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security should develop a strategy 
     for entering into appropriate security screening watch lists 
     the appropriate background information of illegal aliens from 
     countries described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer this straight-forward amendment to the legislation 
before us today.
  Following the attacks of 2001, it is essential that we improve our 
ability to track and identify terrorists attempting to cross our 
borders. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman King have drafted 
legislation to better detect terrorist infiltrators, and I applaud them 
for their hard work on this important issue.
  While most of the illegal immigrants who enter the United States do 
so for the purposes of finding work and making a better life, there are 
also those that may take advantage of our porous borders to enter the 
country and take part in terrorist activities. In fact, recent reports 
have projected that as many as 4,000 immigrants from countries 
identified as high risk will be arrested trying to enter the country 
illegally this year. As we speak, terrorists are using alien smugglers 
and document forgers to help move people through Iran and Pakistan, and 
it is only a matter of time until terrorist organizations attempt to 
use these techniques to enter the United States.
  In 2004, the Border Patrol estimated that over 55,000 illegal 
immigrants from countries other than Mexico crossed our borders during 
a 10-month period. Of the illegal aliens from countries identified by 
the Secretary of State as sponsors of terrorism who have been ordered 
deported, only about 6 percent have actually been removed, and these 
are only the ones we know about.
  This legislation takes steps to enhance our border security 
procedures and improve our ability to identify and remove potential 
terrorists. As part of this effort, it is imperative that we closely 
monitor trends in the number of immigrants from noncontiguous nations, 
other than, obviously, Mexico and Canada, who enter our country 
illegally. After 2 years of this bill's enactment, my amendment would 
provide essential oversight on the effectiveness of this system by 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on 
the number of illegal aliens from noncontiguous countries who are 
apprehended at or between ports of entry and the numbers of such aliens 
from countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of 
terrorism.
  My amendment would also encourage Homeland Security to develop a 
strategy for entering the appropriate background information of illegal 
aliens from countries sponsoring terrorism into appropriate security 
screening watch lists.
  With millions of illegal immigrants flooding over our vastly 
unsecured borders, there remains a huge vulnerability to terrorist 
attack. There is no doubt that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will 
take advantage of any area that we fail to secure. Illegal aliens from 
countries known to sponsor international terrorism, in particular, 
should raise red flags, and Congress and the Department of Homeland 
Security need to closely monitor these trends.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should get this information, and, 
actually, I believe that, under current law, the department is required 
to give us this information. In fact, there is an Office of Immigration 
Statistics buried in the bureaucracy of this department that is 
supposed to provide information to us on a variety of subjects.
  I would just note that this is an agency that not only cannot 
administer, it is an agency that cannot count. We have had, for 
example, and it is a different issue, certainly, than terrorism, but I 
think several years in the last half decade where they have failed to 
count the number of visas when there were limits on employment visas, 
and then they say a big oops; they have given too many. And sometimes 
they even try to sneak around and deduct the overassessment from the 
next year's. They cannot count because they do not have any technology.
  I think it would be quite a dandy idea to find out not only who has 
been apprehended from countries other than those who are immediately 
adjacent to us but a whole variety of other information, statistical 
information, about these individuals.
  Again, I appreciate that the author is in good faith trying to make 
this happen. I will make him a side bet, maybe lunch, that we will 
never get this information any more than we get the information on the 
H-1B program that usually is due every year and usually we get it 
somewhere between 1, 2 and even 3 years late and wrong. I would like to 
get the information, but none of this is really going to happen until 
the inept administration of this function is improved. And I, 
regrettably, do not see that with the new Brownie coming on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree, again, with the gentlewoman from California. I am worried 
about her pessimism in all this as to whether we can get these kinds of 
reports or not.

                              {time}  2015

  But I think it is important to do this. I think it is very important 
that we ask this Department to come forward with this information. This 
basically is, again, a study after 2 years. They have got to give us 
the report. But, by God, we have got to hold them to it, too. I just 
think we have to know how these systems are working.
  I do not think there is any question that the systems we have been 
talking

[[Page H11851]]

about tonight on a couple of occasions could work, but they do not work 
because the Department has not been able to implement very well what 
they are prescribed to do by law already. We are not asking them to do 
anything different here except to do some reporting. In that case, we 
can start to make decisions about what is working or not.
  So I understand exactly what she is saying and understand her 
frustration, as a matter of fact; and in spite of that frustration, she 
is supportive and I appreciate that also.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I once again am proud to urge adoption of his 
amendment. It is very a constructive addition to the bill. It certainly 
deserves the support of all Members, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the chairman of the committee a 
question: I understand from the Democrats on the Rules Committee that 
we have not yet received the manager's amendment that has been 
discussed so frequently on the floor today to the underlying bill. We 
have not seen anything. Do you have any idea when Members will see this 
manager's amendment that has been discussed today?
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. KING of New York. No, I cannot enlighten the gentlewoman at all. 
As soon I find out, you will be the first to know.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate that.
  Before recognizing my colleague, I just wanted to mention that on Mr. 
Castle's amendment there are several other issues that I think we need 
to consider, assuming they are going to pay any attention to this at 
all, which I have questions about. We do have expedited removal 
provisions, and the data-keeping is not very good there.
  I would note also that part of our problem is that not only do we 
have inadequate enforcement at the border; we are just not enforcing 
the laws at the border, but we do not have the personnel to actually 
adjudicate matters once we have apprehended people.
  Now, the expedited removal at the border, it is controversial among 
some, but I think not at points of entry. Judgments can be made. There 
are problems that the General Accounting Office has told us relative to 
asylum, the application asylum laws, that do need to be addressed. But 
it is not at all clear that these numbers are going to be folded into 
this, and I think we ought to be aware of that.
  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. You have made some very valid points, and I would rise to 
support Mr. Castle's amendment; but I would appreciate if he would 
recognize some of the dilemma that we face.
  One of my colleagues from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, was one of the first 
Members, I think, to raise the question of OTMs, which your amendment 
in part would give us some answers to by providing information for 
those undocumented aliens who would be coming through the southern 
border who were not from contiguous countries.
  One of the issues that all of us are concerned about is the route of 
terrorism that might occur and might be utilized by individuals coming 
from places other than Mexico. As you well know, over the years, 
unfortunately, we have had a gap in our enforcement, and those 
individuals have been released on their own recognizance.
  My concern is as you have this thoughtful amendment, and I ask you to 
consider this, we, frankly, do not have the detainee space, detention 
beds, and the enforcement, internal enforcement officers, and also 
Border Patrol officers, even though this is a report, to deal with the 
large numbers of those who are coming in that we have been able to 
ascertain. In fact, 110,000 OTMs have been released last year due to 
lack of detention facilities. Legislation that I offered asked for 
100,000 detention beds.
  So I just raise that with the gentleman. I think the amendment is 
thoughtful, but we still are without the resources to do what we need 
to do on these particular detainees or undocumented aliens.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just respond for a moment, if I may, to the 
gentlewoman from Texas. I do not disagree with what you are saying. 
Part of the reason to get reports is to understand exactly where the 
problems are, do we have insufficient detainee and foot patrol officers 
and a whole variety of other things, for all that matter, judicial 
personnel or whatever it may be, to take care of some of the problems 
that exist.
  It is fine to make the initial detention; but if you cannot do 
anything with it, you have not really achieved much in terms of perhaps 
preventing terrorism. So I do not disagree at all, and that is part of 
my goal.
  I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from California. I think there 
are a lot of holes in all this; and I do not expect immediate, strong, 
good reports. As a matter of fact, I think we are going to have to prod 
to get some of these reports. But I think it is going to give us 
information that is helpful. That is the reason we have come forward 
with the amendment, probably to underline a lot of what you are 
concerned about and saying in terms of what we have to improve with 
respect to this whole situation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think as long as we 
collectively, the gentlewoman from California, myself, are raising 
concerns, and you accept or at least recognize that they exist, I do 
think getting a handle on the numbers and maybe seeing that they are 
larger than, and it would be wonderful if they are less than, but if we 
at least have a definition of the problem. I thank the gentleman for 
his amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do recognize the 
problems you have raised, and I do think those are things that we have 
to consider.
  I do appreciate everybody's support for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Part B Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
       At the end of title VI, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 615. DECLARATION OF CONGRESS.

       Congress condemns rapes by smugglers along the 
     international land border of the United States and urges in 
     the strongest possible terms the Government of Mexico to work 
     in coordination with United States Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security take 
     immediate action to prevent such rapes from occurring.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the reports of the lawlessness along our borders are 
unprecedented. Stories about the number of young girls and women who 
smugglers and society's dregs rape as they attempt to cross the border 
are widespread.
  Numerous recent articles have told stories of Minuteman members who 
are haunted by cries of women who are being raped and abused, who when 
they

[[Page H11852]]

first heard the cries, they actually thought they were coyotes wailing 
in the desert. These are women and young girls being raped. All along 
the southern border, the sight of women's undergarments hang from 
border fences as trophies. This is appalling, and yet it is also very 
telling. There are stories of mattresses tucked in caves for more 
convenient access to rape young girls as young as 8- and 9-years-old 
crossing the border. Violent acts against females in this manner are 
despicable. Congress cannot and should not tolerate this behavior.
  H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005, takes decisive action to reduce and 
eliminate this criminal activity. My amendment to the bill is a 
declaration that Congress condemns these rapes along the United States 
border.
  Additionally, my amendment urges the Government of Mexico and U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to work together to take immediate action 
to prevent such rapes from continuing.
  We all understand that the best mechanism for preventing these rapes 
is to encourage legal citizenship and to stop people from crossing our 
borders illegally and therefore putting themselves in harm's way. By 
including my amendment in the underlying legislation, this House is 
sending a loud and clear message of its dedication to improving all 
aspects of border security. Urging both the United States and Mexico to 
take action is a good first step toward a peaceful, safe, and secure 
border.
  The bill also provides a tremendous overhaul of the United States 
immigration policies, and I am very pleased that the House is debating 
this issue before we adjourn for the year. As a member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security, I look forward to implementing these measures, 
and I also look forward to the time when reports of rape and cruelty to 
young girls and women are not an issue on our border.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman for his recognition of this amendment's merits.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Harris).
  (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment offered by my colleague from Florida. Shockingly, thousands 
of women who cross the U.S. border illegally from Mexico are promised 
safe passage in return for sex and money. These women are not given 
safe passage, but rather become the trophies of criminal rapists as 
they hang the undergarments of their victims on the border fences.
  But human trafficking and sexual exploitation impacts every corner of 
the globe; and the United States must lead an intensive, multilateral 
effort to stop it. Last year, an estimated 27 million people were 
forced into slavery around the world. I have heard the heart-wrenching 
stories of women and children, young girls, who are tricked, kidnapped, 
and sold into sexual slavery.
  These crimes occur in many forms, from sex trafficking to involuntary 
servitude. Women, even young girls, are told they will be taken out of 
the country where restaurants and hair salons need workers. When these 
girls enter the country, their identification is taken away and there 
is no restaurant, no salon, only brothels. Furthermore, these girls are 
commonly told they must pay a debt for their transportation into the 
country, and they are forced to sell their bodies to pay off this debt. 
Our borders must not become the avenues for pimps, traffickers to make 
millions of dollars.
  These victims are left with insufficient housing, no access to social 
services, no education, or job opportunities. Sex trafficking rings are 
frequently linked to corruption, and law enforcement in some regions 
are even bribed to ignore these sex slavery rings. This must stop.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment before us today takes the necessary 
first step not only condemning the exploitation of people along our 
borders but also strongly urges immediate action to prevent such abuse 
from occurring in the future. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this amendment and condemn this lawlessness on our borders.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Who claims the time in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman will control 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The amendment calls on the 
Mexican Government to work closely with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of rape 
along the U.S.-Mexican border.
  Rape is a horrendous crime. Every 2\1/2\ minutes somewhere in the 
United States someone is sexually assaulted, and only 36 percent of the 
rapes are reported to law enforcement in the United States. It is safe 
to assume that the rate of reporting is considerably less along the 
border.
  The women who are crossing our border are extremely vulnerable, and 
they are unlikely to tell law enforcement officials that they were 
raped while trying to cross the border without their papers. The 
smugglers know that these women are vulnerable, and they take advantage 
of them. I think in many ways this amendment makes clear what many have 
been talking about today, and that is the need to gain control of the 
situation at the border.
  I have talked today a lot about how dysfunctional the administration 
of our laws has been. We do not have enough Border Patrol agents; they 
are not properly equipped; we do not have enough prosecutors; we do not 
have enough judicial personnel; we are citing and releasing individuals 
and letting them go. We have a chaotic situation at the border, and we 
need to create an orderly situation at our borders. We need to take 
control of it. It is not occurring right now.
  Part of that, and again this has been discussed, is to regularize the 
ability of individuals who want to come and be part of the American 
Dream so that they do not have to be with smugglers, vulnerable victims 
of crime, victims of rape; that there is some orderly manner for 
individuals to move back and forth across the border, to do the jobs 
that we know are not going to get done without them.
  Earlier today, not on the record, someone said, Well, you know, if 
this bill passes, that is the end of salads in America. I think we need 
to contemplate the role that immigrant labor plays in the area of 
agriculture, fast food, tourism, the hotel industry, the tourist 
industry and the like. I think it is a mistake that the underlying bill 
does not deal with that issue.
  I do agree, however, that the gentlewoman's amendment really calling 
on our two governments to coordinate, to fight this horrendous crime of 
rape is well intentioned, it is something I can support; and I hope it 
does some good.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2030


             Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. Hunter of California:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

        TITLE IX--FENCING AND OTHER BORDER SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 901. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Hundreds of people die crossing our international 
     border with Mexico every year.
       (2) Illegal narcotic smuggling along the Southwest border 
     of the United States is both dangerous and prolific.
       (3) Over 155,000 non-Mexican individuals were apprehended 
     trying to enter the United States along the Southwest border 
     in fiscal year 2005.

[[Page H11853]]

       (4) The number of illegal entrants into the United States 
     through the Southwest border is estimated to exceed one 
     million people a year.

     SEC. 902. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 
                   IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF 
                   MEXICO.

       Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 
     U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Near San Diego, 
     California''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Security features.--
       ``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 
     layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional 
     physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--
       ``(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, 
     California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, 
     California, port of entry;
       ``(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, 
     California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, 
     Arizona, port of entry;
       ``(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New 
     Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;
       ``(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, 
     Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, 
     Texas, port of entry; and
       ``(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, 
     port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.
       ``(B) Priority areas.--With respect to the border 
     described--
       ``(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed 
     along such area by May 30, 2006 and that fence construction 
     is completed by May 30, 2007; and
       ``(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the 
     Laredo, Texas port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, 
     Texas port of entry is completed by December 31, 2006.
       ``(C) Exception.--If the topography of a specific area has 
     an elevation grade that exceeds 10%, the Secretary may use 
     other means to secure such area, including the use of 
     surveillance and barrier tools. ''.

     SEC. 903. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study on the construction of a state-of-the-art 
     barrier system along the northern international land and 
     maritime border of the United States and shall include in the 
     study--
       (1) the necessity of constructing such a system; and
       (2) the feasibility of constructing the system.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall report to the Congress on the study described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 904. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall take all necessary steps to secure 
     the Southwest international border for the purpose of saving 
     lives, stopping illegal drug trafficking, and halting the 
     flow of illegal entrants into the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, in fact in 1994, we mandated the 
construction of a fence in San Diego California, a triple fence. And 
that fence, with a basic fence on the border, a Border Patrol road, 
then a secondary higher fence with an overhang, a second Border Patrol 
road and then a third fence were designed to stop the massive drug 
trade and the smuggling of narcotics and people across what was the 
most prolific smugglers' corridor in America, that between Tijuana and 
San Diego.
  At that time we had some 10 border murders a year. We had gangs that 
roamed that area that they called a ``no man's land'' to the point 
where Joseph Wambaugh wrote the best seller ``Lines and Shadows'' about 
the no man's land that existed between Tijuana and San Diego. We had 
some 300 drug trucks a month crashing that border and running up with 
cocaine for our children.
  We built that fence, Mr. Chairman, and in doing that we knocked down 
the murders from 10 a year to zero. We knocked down the border drive-
throughs from 300 a month to zero. We knocked down the smuggling of 
both illegal aliens and narcotics to almost zero where that fence was.
  I might say that the great Border Patrol chief, Mr. Sylvester Reyes, 
stood in testimony, even adversely to his administration, and testified 
to the sufficiency of that fence.
  This proposal, Mr. Chairman, is 700 additional miles of fence, and it 
has a great humanitarian aspect. The first piece of this fence, 361 
miles from Calexico to Douglas, Arizona, is the area through which most 
of the people come who have represented those 400 deaths a year by 
dehydration in the deserts of Arizona.
  If we had 400 college kids or high school kids or neighborhood kids a 
year dying in a lake in a city, we would immediately fence it. By 
fencing that area we are going to prevent those deaths. We cannot fence 
it by the next hot season, which will start in the end of May this 
coming year, but we have in this legislation directed interlocking 
cameras so we can see people when they come across the border while we 
are building the fence and we can respond. We can both deport them, and 
we can also save their lives, Mr. Chairman.
  The second piece that is mandatory here is the 15 miles on each side 
of Laredo. Across the river from Laredo is Nuevo Laredo where the drug 
lords reign, where they kill the local law enforcement officers within, 
some cases, a few hours of their taking office. If we can dry up that 
massive land smuggling with backpacks full of cocaine coming across 
that smugglers' jump-off point in Nuevo Laredo by fencing both sides 
with a double fence, 10 miles on each side of Nuevo Laredo, and we want 
to have it done and it is mandated by this bill by the end of the year 
this next year, we will have done great things for the people of 
America and the good citizens of Nuevo Laredo.
  This has a great humanitarian aspect to it, and we costed it out. It 
is roughly $2.2 billion. That is a fraction of what we spend each year 
to incarcerate the criminal aliens whom we currently have in massive 
numbers in our Federal penitentiaries and in our local jails.
  That is the essence of this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will control 10 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
what it says about the United States of America.
  I wish this debate had been held in committee and that something more 
than just the last-minute long list of amendments could be debated 
right here tonight, because I think most of the Members of this House 
have not read this amendment nor understand the implications.
  This amendment allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to not only 
build a wall between Mexico and the United States but to study building 
a wall across Canada, across our U.S. borders. In so doing, it gives 
the political appointee the authority to waive all laws, not only all 
environment laws but also notwithstanding any other provision of the 
law, child labor laws, laws to protect workers from ensuring safe and 
healthy workplaces, Davis-Bacon laws, civil rights provisions, ethics 
laws for clean contracting and procurement policy, laws and statutes 
that give small businesses a fighting chance for winning contracts for 
construction.
  There is no recourse to the abuse of power and certainly no good will 
come as demonstrated in this manner in safeguarding our national 
borders.
  I urge all my colleagues to be rational lawmakers and avoid 
overreacting in the hysteria of a few.
  Mexico is California's number one trading partner. Our border with 
Mexico is the busiest in the world. More people and commerce 
legitimately cross that border than any other border in the world. Why 
would the Government of the United States at a time when we are 
advocating support for enforcement of law, why would the government now 
want to forbid the use of a law to finish the fence? Not even the 
importance of securing our border can justify placing a government 
official above the law.

[[Page H11854]]

  How can we celebrate tearing down the Berlin Wall, fight undemocratic 
regions around the world, and build respect for law here at home with 
this kind of message?
  Allowing a political appointee to waive the law and to prohibit legal 
appeals is not winning the war on terrorism; it is supporting it.
  Ronald Reagan said, ``General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, 
if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you 
seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this 
gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
  Unfortunately, someone will have to say that about this wall some day 
because an America with walls between Canada and Mexico is not an 
America that reaches out for the people of this world to come here 
legally.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention that Ronald Reagan 
closed down the border when our agent Kiki Camarena was murdered and 
the killer was not produced forthrightly by Mexican authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who is a co-author 
of this legislation and a tireless worker for the border fence in San 
Diego.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from California (Mr. 
Farr). We look forward to when we can tear this down. We want to be 
able to tear this down when we see an end to illegal drug trafficking, 
when we see an end to illegal crossings of our border, when we see 
economies of scale because of trade. But until that time, because of 
the success that we have seen with the 14-mile border fence from the 
Pacific Ocean to the Otay Mesa, it is absolutely essential that we 
build on that success.
  We are in the midst of completing that 3\1/2\ mile gap, and Mr. 
Hunter has just referred to the diminution that we have seen in cars 
running across the border and people running across the border at that 
fence.
  This is a humanitarian issue as well. It is humanitarian because when 
we look at the 1,500 people, fellow human beings, who have died in the 
desert because of the fact that they have crossed illegally into our 
country, the existence of these fences at the most dangerous spots 
along our 2,000-mile border will go a long way toward saving the lives 
of our fellow human beings.
  It is absolutely essential that we do all that we can to strengthen 
our relationship in trade, to strengthen our relationship in working 
with the Mexican Government; but when we have a problem that is killing 
people, literally killing people, and costing the United States of 
America billions of dollars, the existence of this fence is the right 
thing to do. And I do anxiously look forward when we see things 
improved to our saying that we can completely tear down this wall.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my good friend knows that the 
fence is no substitute for good intelligence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and 
the Transportation Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, they are proposing here to build an 
extensive triple-wall fence along the Mexican border, ostensibly 
building on the success of a very short section of fence, and they are 
also proposing that we should study building a fence along the entire 
2,000-plus-mile Canadian border. They are not talking much about that.
  Here is a picture of one of the world's existing fences that 
completely surrounds an area. It is in Melilla; and like Ceuta, which 
is attempting to keep Africans from getting into the Spanish parts of 
Morocco, they do not work.
  The EU paid for these double fences. They use deadly force. They kill 
people there, and people still go over it, around it, and through it. 
It is 10 feet high with concertina wire on top. They will make it 20 
feet high with concertina wire on top. It does not work.
  When Hong Kong was walled off by the Communist Chinese, again, a 
fairly extensive piece of land, and they could use deadly force, 
businesses were set up on the Communist Chinese side of the border, the 
entrepreneurs there, to guarantee to get people through in less than a 
minute. And they did. And it did not work.
  They say it is only $2.2 billion. We could do a lot more with $2.2 
billion. We could do some interior enforcement to keep illegal people 
from working here. We could hire more Border Patrol agents. There are a 
lot of things we could do with $2.2 billion, but to build or extend 
this fence, yeah, it will make someone rich like Bechtel or Halliburton 
or whoever is going to build the fence, they will get a pile of money 
out of it; but it is not going to work. It does not work in Africa. It 
did not work in Communist China, again, where they are using deadly 
force. Are we going to use deadly force?
  How about some enforcement on the Mexican side of the border? Well, 
they do not want to go there because they all voted for NAFTA. They do 
not want to say let us withdraw from NAFTA unless the Mexicans put 
enforcement on their side of the border. Right now people line up on 
the border at night and the Mexican police say, hi, how you doing? 
Okay. And then they run across.
  How about a little bit of international cooperation? There are a lot 
of things we could do here, but the things we could do that are 
effective offend big business who are the patrons of the Republican 
Party. That is interior enforcement, employer enforcement. People do 
not come here to go on vacation. They come here to go to work. If they 
could not get work, they would not sneak across the border. If we force 
the Mexican Government to do something on their side by threatening to 
withdraw from NAFTA, which we can do with 6 months' notice, again, big 
business would not allow the Republicans to do that or George Bush 
certainly would not do it because he is for open borders. But they can 
pretend here they are doing something.
  They are wasting $2.2 billion of taxpayer money to do something that 
has not worked anywhere else in the world even where they are willing 
to shoot the people that go through the fence, Communist China, 
Morocco. It is not going to work here either.
  And what about Canada? Come on, guys, talk about the Canada part. 
Tell us about the 2,000-plus-mile fence along the Canadian border. That 
is going to be a real piece of work.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce) who has been a major proponent for this 
fence.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Of 
course, the circumstance is that in San Diego this fence has worked. In 
San Diego those crossing and apprehended where we have erected this 
fence have dropped from 202,000 a year in 1992 to less than 9,000 by 
2004. So, yes, people still find a way around the fence, but not many. 
And if we are going to be serious, the establishment of a border fence 
project like this is probably going to have the same impact on these 
other communities that it has on San Diego, which is to say crime rates 
have fallen to a fraction of what they were.
  San Diego is no longer one of the most prolific drug smuggling 
corridors. So where is the fence needed? On these corridors you see 
here. This is where we can have the maximum impact.
  Why is it important? Partly because this has become post-9/11 a 
national security concern. If we do nothing to stop people attempting 
to enter illegally off our southern borders, when we know that al Qaeda 
has already indicated that its intention is to send agents over the 
southern border of the United States with the intent of carrying out an 
attack on the United States, we are not doing our jobs under the 
Constitution of the United Nations to protect the American public.
  Now, will we catch everyone? Maybe not, but 3,000 people from state 
sponsors of terrorism have been stopped to date, and this is a chance 
to make certain that al Qaeda operatives do not have an easier chance 
of getting into the United States.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the 9/11 Commission announced to 
America as one of the key elements of the disaster and tragedy of 9/11. 
Even the families of the 9/11 victims who insisted on such a commission 
acknowledged that it was faulty and failed intelligence.

[[Page H11855]]

                              {time}  2045

  In this time of 21st century technology, my good friends and 
colleagues, who I have great respect for on the other side of the 
aisle, want to put into place the old Berlin Wall, again the same wall 
that Ronald Reagan had torn down, the same wall that will be as inept 
and ineffective and destructive as the Berlin Wall.
  I think it is important to note for those who are talking about the 
area of Laredo, part of the State of Texas, and many of my colleagues 
from Texas have been champions on this issue, but my friends should 
realize that the reason for the drug cartels in Nuevo Laredo is because 
we busted the Colombian drug cartels in Colombia, and they simply moved 
to Mexico.
  So, rather than the old Berlin Wall, again, what we really need is an 
effective law enforcement at the border. We are going to put the Berlin 
Wall up, but we are not going to have 15,000 extra Border Patrol 
agents.
  I would offer to say that the Berlin Wall, without law enforcement, 
is misleading the American people into false security.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode), my great cosponsor on this.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hunter, Chairman 
Dreier and all of the supporters of this amendment.
  Will this wall, will this fence make America absolutely safe, 
absolutely secure, and will it stop every illegal alien? No, it will 
not, but it will make us more secure. It will make us safer, and it 
will surely cut down the horrific numbers that flood into this country.
  Vote to help save America. Vote yes on Hunter.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman 
from Texas has the right to close.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  I just want to make a comment to my colleagues from California. Yes, 
the fence they showed was a fence that has been built without waiving 
any laws, a fence that is in existence. It did not need to do this 
Draconian kind of legislation here where you are going to an appointed 
official and giving them the authority to waive every law.
  What really bothers me, and nobody has seen this, is one section. In 
your section 903, ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a 
study on the construction of a state-of-the-art barrier system along 
the northern international land and maritime border of the United 
States and shall include in the study,'' a whole bunch of studies.
  That northern international border, as I know it, is called the 
Canadian border. This bill is not just about building a fence across 
the Mexican border. It is also about studying and building a fence 
across the Canadian border. It is a meat-axe approach, giving all these 
waivers, and it should be rejected.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues in 
cosponsoring this important amendment.
  In many ways, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005 is a return to basics for a complete 
overhaul of our system of immigration. An integral component of the 
basics is the long overdue need for securing the most populous areas of 
our southern border with physical barriers. Like locking the door to 
your house before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin 
enforcement of our border with physical barriers.
  My colleagues, Chairman Hunter, Chairman Dreier and Mr. Royce, have 
attested to the success of the border fence in California. I believe we 
can apply this success to other parts of our borders using additional 
fencing and 21st century technology.
  We need to stop the fluidness of our border before we consider any 
other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need to stop the 
bleeding before we can stitch the wound, and constructing barriers on 
our borders is a critical first step toward curing this patient who has 
long suffered from inadequate therapy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just briefly bring to the attention of my colleagues again the 
point that we are trying to make.
  We started out by saying that border security has no divide among 
Democrats and Republicans. It has no divide among Americans, but there 
is a right way to do and to enhance border security.
  In this legislation, are going to offer the old Berlin Wall, again 
separating the north from the south, separating us from our Canadian 
neighbors.
  It is interesting, however, that when we ask for 15,000 more border 
patrol agents, increased recruitment and training of those agents, 
adding more equipment to those agents, we get a resounding no.
  We need to do sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, not one 
that simply feels good, because the American people need real security.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
the time.
  I rise in support tonight of the Hunter amendment. Nine years ago, 
Congress decided to build a 14-mile fence along the San Diego-Mexico 
border to curb drug trafficking and illegal immigration. As a result, 
the number of people caught crossing the border illegally along this 
area dropped by nearly 200,000 in 12 years.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are upset. They understand that too much of 
our border is still vulnerable. The world's a different place than it 
was 9 years ago, and illegal entry has grown well beyond that 14-mile 
stretch of land.
  By mandating construction of a security fence along the five most 
dangerous areas of the southern border, this amendment seeks to take 
the next step in making our Nation safer.
  Additionally, I would like to thank Chairman Hunter for working with 
me to include language requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the northern 
border.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hunter amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney 
General of the State of California, who understands border control.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the 
references to the Berlin Wall. There is only one problem: The Berlin 
Wall was built to keep people in, not keep people out. I do not recall 
in searching my memory a single example of people trying to jump over 
the Berlin Wall to get into East Germany.
  This is for a different purpose. It is a different thing, and your 
suggestion that this is a Berlin Wall is only off by about 180 degrees.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman for his recharacterization of the 
Berlin Wall. It kept people out, and it kept people in, and that is 
what we are saying about the largest gated community in the western 
hemisphere. It will keep the good people of Canada, the good people of 
the southern border out, the trade and commerce, the friendship that we 
have developed, and it will cause no extra security to the American 
people.
  Might I suggest to you that the 9/11 Commission reinforced the fact 
that it is intelligence, good intelligence, that keeps Americans 
secure. It is good equipment, good resources, good Border Patrol agents 
that are trained, professionally developed, not the falsehood of a 
security fence that cannot provide any security.
  Might I remind my friends that the Berlin Wall allowed people to jump 
out

[[Page H11856]]

and to jump in. The Berlin Wall was not a secure wall for the East 
Germans. People escaped from East Germany. People will escape from 
Mexico and the southern border.
  This will only injure the relationships and cause no greater 
security. I believe this amendment is doomed to fail, and it should 
fail because the falseness of a security fence will not allow any 
Americans to sleep good at night.
  Let us reinforce the intelligence community of America. Let us 
reinforce our Border Patrol agents, and let us reinforce friendship. 
Together, we can fight against terrorists, and we can fight against 
those who would come into the United States, undocumented, with real 
immigration reform and a comprehensive immigration plan as offered by 
many of our colleagues, such as Gutierrez, Kolbe, McCain and Kennedy. 
Let us talk about comprehensive reform.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) will be postponed.


             Part B Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Part B Amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 109-347 
     offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                TITLE __--PRESCREENING OF AIR PASSENGERS

     SEC. __. IMMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER PRESCREENING PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall initiate a pilot program to evaluate the use of 
     automated systems for the immediate prescreening of 
     passengers on flights in foreign air transportation, as 
     defined by section 40102 of title 49, United States Code, 
     that are bound for the United States.
       (b) Requirements.--At a minimum, with respect to a 
     passenger on a flight described in subsection (a) operated by 
     an air carrier or foreign air carrier, the automated systems 
     evaluated under the pilot program shall--
       (1) compare the passenger's information against the 
     integrated and consolidated terrorist watchlist maintained by 
     the Federal Government and provide the results of the 
     comparison to the air carrier or foreign air carrier before 
     the passenger is permitted to board the flight;
       (2) provide functions similar to the advanced passenger 
     information system established under section 431 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431); and
       (3) make use of machine-readable data elements on passports 
     and other travel and entry documents in a manner consistent 
     with international standards.
       (c) Operation.--The pilot program shall be conducted--
       (1) in not fewer than 2 foreign airports; and
       (2) in collaboration with not fewer than one air carrier at 
     each airport participating in the pilot program.
       (d) Evaluation of Automated Systems.--In conducting the 
     pilot program, the Secretary shall evaluate not more than 3 
     automated systems. One or more of such systems shall be 
     commercially available and currently in use to prescreen 
     passengers.
       (e) Privacy Protection.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the passenger data is collected under the pilot program in a 
     manner consistent with the standards established under 
     section 552a of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Duration.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot 
     program for not fewer than 90 days.
       (g) Passenger Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``passenger'' includes members of the flight crew.
       (h) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     completion of the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report containing the 
     following:
       (1) An assessment of the technical performance of each of 
     the tested systems, including the system's accuracy, 
     scalability, and effectiveness with respect to measurable 
     factors, including, at a minimum, passenger throughput, the 
     rate of flight diversions, and the rate of false negatives 
     and positives.
       (2) A description of the provisions of each tested system 
     to protect the civil liberties and privacy rights of 
     passengers, as well as a description of the adequacy of an 
     immediate redress or appeals process for passengers denied 
     authorization to travel.
       (3) Cost projections for implementation of each tested 
     system, including--
       (A) projected costs to the Department of Homeland Security; 
     and
       (B) projected costs of compliance to air carriers operating 
     flights described in subsection (a).
       (4) A determination as to which tested system is the best-
     performing and most efficient system to ensure immediate 
     prescreening of international passengers. Such determination 
     shall be made after consultation with individuals in the 
     private sector having expertise in airline industry, travel, 
     tourism, privacy, national security, and computer security 
     issues.
       (5) A plan to fully deploy the best-performing and most 
     efficient system tested by not later than January 1, 2007.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 610, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Hopefully, this will be a relatively noncontroversial amendment, 
unlike the preceding.
  We are doing something nonsensical today. We have, post-9/11, 
required that manifests be submitted to the United States of America to 
our law enforcement intelligence authorities for incoming flights for 
all passengers on board. That is good. That was only voluntarily before 
9/11.
  Unfortunately, we do not require that this be done until the flight 
has left, and we have all seen that a number of times flights have been 
turned back. They have had to land in Canada or Maine. People have had 
to be off-loaded. It would be a lot more sensible to have a program 
where we could vet the manifest before the plane leaves.
  So this amendment would set up a pilot program. The technology 
exists. It is being done in Australia and elsewhere very successfully, 
to have a pilot program so that we could show that this will work so 
that we can both make America more secure and facilitate international 
air travel.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California claim the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do claim it; 
although I do not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great 
pleasure to be involved in this bipartisan amendment with my friend 
from Oregon.
  The amendment addresses a dangerous flaw in our current system.
  Under current practices, Customs and Border Protection does not 
receive the names of passengers on board international flights bound 
for the U.S. until after the flight is in the air, as the gentleman 
explained.
  When CBP finally gets the passenger manifest, it sends it over to the 
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, so they can compare it 
against the terrorist databases. At that point, if they find a name 
match, there is no way to reconcile the situation.
  This has resulted in numerous high-profile instances where a plane 
was forced to divert from its intended destination, I believe in almost 
every case while over the Atlantic. This inconveniences passengers and 
costs the airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident. There 
have been, as I understand, seven diversions this year alone.
  What is worse, since CBP and TSA have been operating this program, 
there have been two occasions on which the individuals flagged turned 
out to be the dangerous individuals on the watch list.
  Fortunately, there is a commercially available system in use for 
flights to Australia that provides the airlines with a cleared or not 
cleared decision for each passenger in real-time, not 4 hours before or 
not 2 hours after they have taken off, but in real-time, at the time of 
check-in.
  The system has been offered free of charge to CBP on a pilot basis. 
They have declined the offer and have yet to conduct any tests. 
Instead, they have been trying to internally develop a new system for 
over a year now. I believe we are wasting valuable time.

[[Page H11857]]

  This amendment, at a minimum, will force CBP to conduct a test of the 
commercially available systems within 90 days of the date of enactment. 
If CBP can complete the development of its own proprietary system, we 
will also get a real apples-to-apples comparison of the various 
products.
  Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will speed implementation of 
this vital program to ensure that the airlines will know who can board 
the plane safely and who cannot long before the plane leaves the 
ground.
  I believe everyone agrees that is the best possible situation. We 
have, on a bipartisan basis I think, been frustrated by the responses 
we have received as to why they cannot develop their own program and 
why they then resist conducting a pilot program utilizing something 
that has already been done in another country.
  The only question it seems to me is scaleability: Can they scale up 
to the volumes we have in the United States because obviously Australia 
is a smaller country with a smaller number of people? But in this 
computerized era in which we live today, I do not believe that 
scaleability is a problem. That is the reason for this pilot project.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his efforts and 
his willingness to work with me on this language. I would urge all 
Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has spoken so eloquently that 
I don't think I can improve upon that.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
109-347 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Hunter of California.
  This will entail a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote.


       Part B Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 252, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 639]

                               AYES--162

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--252

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton (TX)
     Cantor
     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Emanuel
     Feeney
     Hyde
     LaHood
     Lynch
     McCarthy
     Meeks (NY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Saxton
     Sweeney
     Thomas
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2122

  Messrs. CARTER, LOBIONDO, HALL, LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA, MANZULLO, AND 
TANNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Part B Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hunter

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

[[Page H11858]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260, 
noes 159, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 640]

                               AYES--260

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton (TX)
     Cannon
     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Emanuel
     Hyde
     LaHood
     Lynch
     McCarthy
     Meeks (NY)
     Sweeney
     Waters
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2130

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to 
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of 
the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________