Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-747

======================================================================
 
                 SECURITY AND FAIRNESS ENHANCEMENT FOR 
                          AMERICA ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

October 6, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 775]

                  [Including Committee Cost Estimate]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 775) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate the diversity immigrant program, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Vote of the Committee............................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8
Markup Transcript................................................    13
Dissenting Views.................................................    33

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 775 would eliminate the diversity immigrant visa 
program.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Immigration Act of 1990 (``IMMACT 90'') created an 
immigrant visa program for nationals of countries that have 
traditionally have had low immigration to the United States to 
apply for immigrant visas.\1\ This program began in fiscal year 
1995, following a ``transition'' program, and it makes up to 
55,000 immigrant visas available for this purpose each year. It 
is called the diversity visa, or ``DV'' program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Sec. 131 of Pub. L. No. 101-649 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IMMACT 90 set forth extremely complicated formulas for 
determining which countries could qualify for the program.\2\ 
Briefly stated, immigrant visas are apportioned among six 
geographic regions, according to a formula based on total 
immigrant admissions over the preceding 5-year period. Both 
high- and low-admission regions are identified, and a greater 
share of the available numbers is allocated to low-admission 
regions. Natives of specified high- admission countries are 
excluded from the benefits of the program.\3\ No single country 
may receive more than 7 percent of the worldwide total of 
diversity visa numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Sec. 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    \3\ For the fiscal year 2005 application period, natives of the 
following countries were ineligible to apply: Canada, China (mainland-
born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, 
Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, the United 
Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and 
Vietnam. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan were, 
however, eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Qualifying aliens must be natives of eligible countries 
(along with their spouses and children).\4\ They must have at 
least a high school education or its equivalent or have, within 
5 years of the date of application, at least 2 years of work 
experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of 
training or experience.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See INA Sec. 203(c).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The diversity visa program is also called the ``visa 
lottery'' because the winners are determined through a 
computer-generated random drawing. Approximately 13 million 
applications were submitted for the fiscal year 2002 program, 9 
million for the 2003 program, and 10 million for the 2004 
lottery. In each of these years, between 2.5 and 3 million 
applications were rejected for failing to follow directions or 
because they were received outside of the submission period. 
From the millions of qualifying applicants, the State 
Department randomly selects between 90,000 and 110,000 lottery 
``winners,'' who may then apply for visas at the consular 
offices nearest them. At these offices, about 45 percent of the 
winners fail to meet the minimum educational or work experience 
or training requirements, fail to supply the required medical 
information, or fail to complete the additional required 
paperwork either completely or on time. For the rest of the 
fiscal year after the lottery takes place, the qualifying 
winners are issued diversity visas on a first-come, first-
served basis (until such time as the requisite number are 
issued).
    The diversity visa program has been susceptible to fraud 
and manipulation. A diversity visa applicant will be 
disqualified for the year of entry if more than one application 
is filed for the applicant. Nonetheless, it is commonplace for 
aliens to file multiple applications for the lottery using 
different aliases. As the State Department's Office of the 
Inspector General (``OIG'') reported in September 2003, a 
partial check performed on applications filed in the fiscal 
year 2003 lottery identified 364,000 duplicates.\6\ Concrete 
examples of this problem abound. For example, it was reported 
in 2001 that a mailman in New Jersey had falsified hundreds of 
visa applications to bring his cousin from Bangladesh to the 
United States. The man, dressed in his postal uniform, aroused 
suspicions when he was seen dropping documents into several 
mailboxes, instead of taking them out. When he was detained, 
police found 185 applications for the visa lottery in his bag, 
and he had allegedly already tried to mail 147 applications, 
which were retrieved. He had purportedly tried to help his 
cousin by using false addresses on the multiple applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors Office of Inspector General, Diversity Visa Program (ISP-CA-
03-52) at 4 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If an alien who files under numerous aliases wins under one 
of those aliases, the alien must then support his visa 
application with fraudulent documents. This does not appear to 
pose an impediment to the filing of a fraudulent application, 
however. As the OIG found, ``[i]dentity fraud is endemic, and 
fraudulent documents are commonplace. Many countries exercise 
poor control over their vital records and identity documents, 
exacerbating the potential for program abuse. In some 
countries, this control is so poor that consular officers must 
assume that all travel, identity, and civil documents are 
unreliable.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OIG found that fraud is an ``on-going major program 
issue.'' \8\ Specifically, the OIG found that anti-fraud 
efforts are generally dominated by nonimmigrant visa fraud 
cases, and that many embassies and consulates with significant 
diversity visa fraud issues, therefore, do not routinely refer 
problem diversity visa cases to their anti-fraud units. 
Further, OIG found, some posts, such as the U.S. Embassy in 
Accra (which is a major diversity visa issuer) have no anti-
fraud officer.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id. at 8.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not to say, however, that the State Department has 
made no efforts to address fraud in the diversity visa program. 
In 2004, the State Department implemented an electronic 
registration system which was designed to enhance the security 
of the program. The primary reason for moving the program from 
a paper-based to an electronic registration system was to 
eliminate vulnerabilities related to the identity of the visa 
applicant. The system allows the State Department to run facial 
recognition checks on all entries, and share data with 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Further, Consular 
Affairs contends that a recent review showed that ``posts 
fairly routinely conducted investigations on bona fides of DV 
applicants,'' including verifying school certificates, 
employment, and claimed relationships. That being said, given 
the prevalence of fraud in the program, it is questionable, at 
best, that the State Department will be able to eliminate fraud 
in this program, despite its best efforts.
    In addition to entry fraud, the visa lottery program has 
spawned a cottage industry in the United States for sponsors 
who falsely promise success in exchange for large sums of 
money. This problem is so pervasive that the State Department's 
media notice announcing electronic filing carried the following 
``Important Notice'':

        NO fee is charged to enter the annual DV program. The 
        U.S. Government employs no outside consultants or 
        private services to operate the DV program. Any 
        intermediaries or others who offer assistance to 
        prepare DV casework for applicants do so without the 
        authority or consent of the U.S. Government. Use of any 
        outside intermediary or assistance to prepare a DV 
        entry is entirely at the applicant's discretion.

        A qualified entry submitted electronically directly by 
        an applicant has an equal chance of being selected by 
        the computer at the Kentucky Consular Center as does an 
        entry submitted electronically through a paid 
        intermediary who completes the entry for the applicant. 
        Every entry received during the lottery registration 
        period will have an equal random chance of being 
        selected within its region. However, receipt of more 
        than one entry per person will disqualify the person 
        from registration, regardless of the source of the 
        entry.

    For a number of reasons, the diversity visa program poses a 
threat to U.S. national security. The OIG report stated that 
``this program contains significant threats to national 
security from entry of hostile intelligence officers, 
criminals, and terrorists into the United States as permanent 
residents.'' \10\ One of the main national security weaknesses 
that experts have identified in the diversity visa program is 
the lack of restrictions on admissions. This plays out in two 
ways. First, there are few restrictions on the countries from 
which applicants may come. By way of contrast, aliens from 
countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism cannot be 
issued nonimmigrant visas except in limited circumstances.\11\ 
The OIG determined that between two and 4 percent of all 
diversity visa issuances go to nationals of countries 
designated as state sponsors of terrorism.\12\ For the fiscal 
year 2004 lottery, 24 Libyans, 1,183 Sudanese, 1,431 Iranians, 
four North Koreans, 64 Syrians, and 674 Cubans were selected. 
Each country is a state-sponsor of terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id. at 2.
    \11\ Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-173, prohibits nonimmigrant visa 
issuance to aliens from countries that are state sponsors of 
international terrorism unless it is determined that such aliens do not 
pose a threat to the safety and national security of the United States.
    \12\ See Diversity Visa Program, supra, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, under the program, successful applicants are chosen 
at random. Consequently, those aliens who win the diversity 
visa lottery do not necessarily have any ties to the United 
States, unlike other visa categories, which rely on family or 
business relationships. Because diversity visa winners do not 
necessarily have such ties, the program could offer an 
opportunity for individuals or groups who want to harm the 
United States, its institutions, and its people to place 
terrorists in the United States.
    In addition to the openness of the program, critics have 
asserted that the susceptibility of the program to fraud 
exposes the United States to terrorism. Any potential terrorist 
who did win the diversity visa lottery could live here freely, 
and come and go with little scrutiny. In fact, at least two 
aliens who have been accused or convicted of terrorist 
activities have entered in this manner. Hesham Hedayet, an 
Egyptian terrorist who killed two and wounded several others at 
Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002, was a lawful 
permanent resident who received his green card through the 
program. He had originally entered as a visitor, and thereafter 
applied for asylum. In his asylum application, he claimed that 
he had been accused of being a terrorist by the Egyptian 
government. When he failed to respond to the notice of intent 
to deny that application, the former INS issued a charging 
document placing him in deportation proceedings, but could not 
serve him. In 1996, Hedayet's wife won the lottery, allowing 
Hedayet to adjust his status. He was a lawful permanent 
resident at the time of the 2002 attack.
    Similarly, in August 2002, Pakistani national Imran Mandhai 
pleaded guilty to conspiring to destroy buildings affecting 
interstate commerce by means of fire or explosives. He entered 
the United States with his parents, who had won the visa 
lottery, in 1998.
    While the OIG recommended that natives of state sponsors of 
terrorism not be eligible for the diversity visa program,\13\ 
this would not significantly reduce the risk of infiltration of 
the program by terrorists. Since 1995, over 78,000 aliens from 
countries with a large terrorist infrastructure--those part of 
the NSEERS special registration program--immigrated under the 
diversity program, receiving 18% of all diversity visas 
granted. Of these, over 71,000 were from countries that were 
not designated as state sponsors of terrorism (representing 17% 
of all diversity visas granted). None of the 9/11 hijackers 
were natives of state sponsors of terrorism. At an April 2004 
hearing on the diversity visa program, Anne Patterson, Deputy 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of State, testified that the 
program ``contains significant vulnerabilities to national 
security as hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and 
terrorists attempt to use it to enter the United States as 
permanent residents.'' \14\ She specifically termed ``well 
founded'' the concern that ``[terrorists] can come in and get 
green cards from other countries who are not on the terrorist 
list.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See id. at 5.
    \14\ Diversity Visa Program and Its Susceptibility to Fraud and 
Abuse: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 10 (2004).
    \15\ Id. at 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The program is also unfair, in that it moves about 50,000 
new immigrants a year ahead of aliens on years-long waiting 
lists for family and employer-sponsored immigrant preference 
visas. This is significant considering, for example, that 
family fourth-preference visa applicants from the Philippines 
are currently oversubscribed to May 22, 1982, meaning that only 
those aliens in this class for whom visa petitions were filed 
before such date can currently come to the United States. The 
diversity program is also unfair in that it discriminates 
against natives of countries not eligible for the program--
representing a throwback to the discredited national origin 
quota system that governed immigration law until 1965.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See Diversity Visa Program and Its Susceptibility to Fraud and 
Abuse at 12 (testimony of Professor Jan Ting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, with legal immigration levels now regularly 
exceeding one million per year, the diversity visa program is 
the least justifiable of our current immigrant visa programs. 
When tens of millions of persons are competing to come to the 
United States, it makes no sense to award visas by lottery and 
not by focusing on those aliens whose entry is in the national 
interest. The program's qualification requirements are so low 
that they do nothing to ensure that the applicants have the 
skills needed to compete in the U.S. economy and do not hurt 
American workers.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims held an oversight hearing on ``The Diversity Visa 
Program, and Its Susceptibility to Fraud and Abuse'' on April 
29, 2004. Testimony was received from Anne W. Patterson, Deputy 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Steven A. 
Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies; Professor Jan Ting, 
Temple University Law School; and Charles Nyaga.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 14, 2004, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Border Security, and Claims met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 775, without amendment by a 
recorded vote of 5 to 3, a quorum being present. On September 
30, 2004, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 775 without amendment by a 
recorded vote of 18 to 8, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
following rollcall vote on final passage occurred during the 
Committee's consideration of H.R. 775:

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             18               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee believes that 
the bill will have no cost for the current fiscal year 2004 and 
that no cost would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 775 for the 
next five fiscal years. In fact, unlike the nonimmigrant visa 
process in which applicants pay a processing fee in advance, 
the State Department currently collects fees only from 
diversity visa applicants who are selected in the random 
lottery. Accordingly, millions of applicants in the diversity 
visa lottery apply for free. As a result, according to the OIG, 
``[p]rogram costs significantly exceed revenues''--by $840,000 
in fiscal year 2002.\17\ The Committee did not receive any 
estimates of the costs of this legislation from any other 
Government agency as outlined in clause 3(d)(2)(B) of rule 
XIII. The bill eliminates a program so the Committee cannot 
provide a comparison with relevant programs under current law 
as outlined in clause 3(d)(2)(C) of rule XIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Diversity Visa Program at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
775 would eliminate the diversity immigrant visa program.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section. 1. Short title.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Security and Fairness 
Enhancement for America Act of 2004'' or the ``SAFE for America 
Act.''
Sec. 2. Elimination of Diversity Immigrant Program.
    Section 2(a) strikes Sec. 201(a)(3) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act and strikes Sec. 201(e) of the INA. These 
provisions allow for and set the limits on immigration under 
the diversity visa program.
    Section 2(b) strikes Sec. 203(c) of the INA, eliminating 
the allocation of immigrant visas under the diversity visa 
program.
    Section 2(c) strikes Sec. 204(a)(1)(I) of the INA, and 
amends Sec. 204(e), accordingly. This eliminates the procedure 
by which an alien may petition for an immigrant visa under the 
diversity visa program, and the requirements on the Secretary 
of State in administering that program.
    Section 2(d) provides that the effective date for these 
amendments is October 1, 2003.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

                      Chapter 1--Selection System

                     worldwide level of immigration

    Sec. 201. (a) In General.--Exclusive of aliens described in 
subsection (b), aliens born in a foreign state or dependent 
area who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise 
acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United 
States for permanent residence are limited to--
            (1) family-sponsored immigrants described in 
        section 203(a) (or who are admitted under section 
        211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to 
        their accompanying parent under section 203(a)) in a 
        number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number 
        specified in subsection (c) for that year, and not to 
        exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal 
        year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such 
        subsection for all of such fiscal year; and
            (2) employment-based immigrants described in 
        section 203(b) (or who are admitted under section 
        211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to 
        their accompanying parent under section 203(b)), in a 
        number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number 
        specified in subsection (d) for that year, and not to 
        exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal 
        year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such 
        subsection for all of such fiscal year[; and].
            [(3) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 
        1995, diversity immigrants described in section 203(c) 
        (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis 
        of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying 
        parent under section 203(c)) in a number not to exceed 
        in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection 
        (e) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the 
        first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the 
        worldwide level under such subsection for all of such 
        fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--The 
worldwide level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for 
each fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     allocation of immigrant visas

    Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) Diversity Immigrants.--
            [(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
        section 201(e) for diversity immigrants shall be 
        allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:
                    [(A) Determination of preference 
                immigration.--The Attorney General shall 
                determine for the most recent previous 5-
                fiscal-year period for which data are 
                available, the total number of aliens who are 
                natives of each foreign state and who (i) were 
                admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent 
                resident status (other than under this 
                subsection) and (ii) were subject to the 
                numerical limitations of section 201(a) (other 
                than paragraph (3) thereof) or who were 
                admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent 
                resident status as an immediate relative or 
                other alien described in section 201(b)(2).
                    [(B) Identification of high-admission and 
                low-admission regions and high-admission and 
                low-admission states.--The Attorney General--
                            [(i) shall identify--
                                    [(I) each region (each in 
                                this paragraph referred to as a 
                                ``high-admission region'') for 
                                which the total of the numbers 
                                determined under subparagraph 
                                (A) for states in the region is 
                                greater than \1/6\ of the total 
                                of all such numbers, and
                                    [(II) each other region 
                                (each in this paragraph 
                                referred to as a ``low-
                                admission region''); and
                            [(ii) shall identify--
                                    [(I) each foreign state for 
                                which the number determined 
                                under subparagraph (A) is 
                                greater than 50,000 (each such 
                                state in this paragraph 
                                referred to as a ``high-
                                admission state''), and
                                    [(II) each other foreign 
                                state (each such state in this 
                                paragraph referred to as a 
                                ``low-admission state'').
                    [(C) Determination of percentage of 
                worldwide immigration attributable to high-
                admission regions.--The Attorney General shall 
                determine the percentage of the total of the 
                numbers determined under subparagraph (A) that 
                are numbers for foreign states in high-
                admission regions.
                    [(D) Determination of regional populations 
                excluding high-admission states and ratios of 
                populations of regions within low-admission 
                regions and high-admission regions.--The 
                Attorney General shall determine--
                            [(i) based on available estimates 
                        for each region, the total population 
                        of each region not including the 
                        population of any high-admission state;
                            [(ii) for each low-admission 
                        region, the ratio of the population of 
                        the region determined under clause (i) 
                        to the total of the populations 
                        determined under such clause for all 
                        the low-admission regions; and
                            [(iii) for each high-admission 
                        region, the ratio of the population of 
                        the region determined under clause (i) 
                        to the total of the populations 
                        determined under such clause for all 
                        the high-admission regions.
                    [(E) Distribution of visas.--
                            [(i) No visas for natives of high-
                        admission states.--The percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives of a high-
                        admission state is 0.
                            [(ii) For low-admission states in 
                        low-admission regions.--Subject to 
                        clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) in a 
                        low-admission region is the product 
                        of--
                                    [(I) the percentage 
                                determined under subparagraph 
                                (C), and
                                    [(II) the population ratio 
                                for that region determined 
                                under subparagraph (D)(ii).
                            [(iii) For low-admission states in 
                        high-admission regions.--Subject to 
                        clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) in a 
                        high-admission region is the product 
                        of--
                                    [(I) 100 percent minus the 
                                percentage determined under 
                                subparagraph (C), and
                                    [(II) the population ratio 
                                for that region determined 
                                under subparagraph (D)(iii).
                            [(iv) Redistribution of unused visa 
                        numbers.--If the Secretary of State 
                        estimates that the number of immigrant 
                        visas to be issued to natives in any 
                        region for a fiscal year under this 
                        paragraph is less than the number of 
                        immigrant visas made available to such 
                        natives under this paragraph for the 
                        fiscal year, subject to clause (v), the 
                        excess visa numbers shall be made 
                        available to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) of 
                        the other regions in proportion to the 
                        percentages otherwise specified in 
                        clauses (ii) and (iii).
                            [(v) Limitation on visas for 
                        natives of a single foreign state.--The 
                        percentage of visas made available 
                        under this paragraph to natives of any 
                        single foreign state for any fiscal 
                        year shall not exceed 7 percent.
                    [(F) Region defined.--Only for purposes of 
                administering the diversity program under this 
                subsection, Northern Ireland shall be treated 
                as a separate foreign state, each colony or 
                other component or dependent area of a foreign 
                state overseas from the foreign state shall be 
                treated as part of the foreign state, and the 
                areas described in each of the following 
                clauses shall be considered to be a separate 
                region:
                            [(i) Africa.
                            [(ii) Asia.
                            [(iii) Europe.
                            [(iv) North America (other than 
                        Mexico).
                            [(v) Oceania.
                            [(vi) South America, Mexico, 
                        Central America, and the Caribbean.
            [(2) Requirement of education or work experience.--
        An alien is not eligible for a visa under this 
        subsection unless the alien--
                    [(A) has at least a high school education 
                or its equivalent, or
                    [(B) has, within 5 years of the date of 
                application for a visa under this subsection, 
                at least 2 years of work experience in an 
                occupation which requires at least 2 years of 
                training or experience.
            [(3) Maintenance of information.--The Secretary of 
        State shall maintain information on the age, 
        occupation, education level, and other relevant 
        characteristics of immigrants issued visas under this 
        subsection.]
    (d) Treatment of Family Members.--A spouse or child as 
defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 
101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant 
status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection 
[(a), (b), or (c)] (a) or (b), be entitled to the same status, 
and the same order of consideration provided in the respective 
subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or 
parent.
    (e) Order of Consideration.--(1) * * *
    [(2) Immigrant visa numbers made available under subsection 
(c) (relating to diversity immigrants) shall be issued to 
eligible qualified immigrants strictly in a random order 
established by the Secretary of State for the fiscal year 
involved.]
    [(3)] (2) Waiting lists of applicants for visas under this 
section shall be maintained in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of State.
    (f) Authorization for Issuance.-- In the case of any alien 
claiming in his application for an immigrant visa to be 
described in section 201(b)(2) or in subsection [(a), (b), or 
(c)] (a) or (b) of this section, the consular officer shall not 
grant such status until he has been authorized to do so as 
provided by section 204.
    (g) Lists.--For purposes of carrying out the Secretary's 
responsibilities in the orderly administration of this section, 
the Secretary of State may make reasonable estimates of the 
anticipated numbers of visas to be issued during any quarter of 
any fiscal year within each of the categories under subsections 
[(a), (b), and (c)] (a) and (b) and to rely upon such estimates 
in authorizing the issuance of visas. The Secretary of State 
shall terminate the registration of any alien who fails to 
apply for an immigrant visa within one year following 
notification to the alien of the availability of such visa, but 
the Secretary shall reinstate the registration of any such 
alien who establishes within 2 years following the date of 
notification of the availability of such visa that such failure 
to apply was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                procedure for granting immigrant status

    Sec. 204. (a)(1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(I)(i) Any alien desiring to be provided an immigrant visa 
under section 203(c) may file a petition at the place and time 
determined by the Secretary of State by regulation. Only one 
such petition may be filed by an alien with respect to any 
petitioning period established. If more than one petition is 
submitted all such petitions submitted for such period by the 
alien shall be voided.
    [(ii)(I) The Secretary of State shall designate a period 
for the filing of petitions with respect to visas which may be 
issued under section 203(c) for the fiscal year beginning after 
the end of the period.
    [(II) Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a 
visa under section 203(c) shall remain eligible to receive such 
visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which 
they were selected.
    [(III) The Secretary of State shall prescribe such 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this clause.
    [(iii) A petition under this subparagraph shall be in such 
form as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe and 
shall contain such information and be supported by such 
documentary evidence as the Secretary of State may require.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle 
an immigrant, in behalf of whom a petition under this section 
is approved, to be admitted the United States as an immigrant 
under subsection [(a), (b), or (c)] (a) or (b) of section 203 
or as an immediate relative under section 201(b) if upon his 
arrival at a port of entry in the United States he is found not 
to be entitled to such classification.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next item on the agenda is the 
adoption of H.R. 775, the Security and Fairness Enhancement for 
America Act of 2004. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for a motion.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims reports favorably the 
bill, H.R. 775, and moves its favorable recommendation to the 
full House.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana to strike the last 
word.
    [The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation introduced by our 
colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, ending the diversity visa program. 
This program, also known as the visa lottery, was ostensibly 
designed to increase diversity in the U.S. immigration 
population. Critics of the lottery have questioned its 
effectiveness in meeting this goal, however, and have raised 
concerns about threats posed by the program and its 
vulnerability to fraud, manipulation and abuse.
    Those concerns were heightened when this Committee's own 
investigation revealed that Hashem Hadayet, an Egyptian 
national who killed two at Los Angeles International Airport on 
July 4, 2002, was granted permanent residence through the 
program. The Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing to examine 
the lottery program in April. The evidence we received 
underscored the need for this legislation. Witnesses discussed 
the threats that the lottery program posed to the American 
people.
    In particular, as Ambassador Anne Patterson with the State 
Department's Inspector General's office testified, the lottery, 
quote, contains significant vulnerabilities to national 
security as hostile intelligence officers, criminals and 
terrorists attempt to use it to enter the United States as 
permanent residents, end quote.
    Why is the lottery so vulnerable to abuse by terrorists? 
There are several reasons. First, it grants permanent residence 
to aliens who have absolutely no ties to the United States. 
Second, unlike nonimmigrant visas, there are no bars to lottery 
visas for aliens from state sponsors of terrorism.
    Since 1995, over 6,000 aliens from those countries 
emigrated to the U.S. under the lottery. It should be noted 
that eliminating those countries from the lottery would not 
resolve this problem. Overwhelmingly, alien terrorists have 
come to this country from countries not on the state sponsor 
list, including Hadayet mentioned earlier. All of the 9/11 
hijackers, the shoe bomber, and the man who killed two in front 
of the CIA. As Ambassador Patterson testified, this is a, 
quote, program that can be taken advantage of by hostile 
intelligence officers or terrorists, end quote. She 
specifically termed well-founded the concern that, quote, 
people can come in and get green cards from other countries who 
are not on the terrorist list. End quote.
    Since 1995, over 78,000 aliens from countries with a large 
terrorist presence, those part of the NSEERS special 
registration program, immigrated under the diversity program, 
receiving 18 percent of all diversity visas granted over this 
period.
    Third, the susceptibility of the program to frauds and the 
ease with which lottery applications can be filed exposed the 
program to terrorist exploitation. While the national security 
risk posed by the lottery is its major flaw, it is not however 
the only one. As noted, the lottery is also susceptible to 
fraud, and critics have argued the laxity of its structure 
invites fraudulent applications.
    Further, it fails to advance any of the primary goals of 
our immigration system. It does not serve any humanitarian 
benefit, unite families or provide workers for the American 
economy. In fact, the lottery skills requirements are so low 
that they fail to ensure that the aliens selected can 
contribute to our country without displacing a citizen or 
lawfully admitted alien.
    The visa lottery has also been called unfair because 
winners get to go ahead of the spouses and children of lawful 
permanent residents and the married children of citizens who 
have waited for visas in some instances for years. With legal 
immigration now regularly exceeding one million per year, this 
is the least justifiable of our current immigration visa 
programs. When tens of millions of people are competing to come 
to the United States, it makes no sense to award visas by 
lottery and not by focusing on those aliens whose entry is in 
our national interest.
    Rather, the lottery is a throwback to the discredited 
national origin quota system that drove immigration law until 
1965, and from which we have been moving ever since the civil 
rights revolution of the 1960's. For these reasons, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 775 and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
have listened to the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, and on this one we have a completely opposite 
viewpoint. The diversity visa is a valid program and is worthy 
of consideration on the basis of fairness. Diversity visa seeks 
to respond to those countries, many of whom are allies who are 
third world developing nations who don't get the equal 
treatment opportunity of visas for education, for family 
reunification and other business opportunities as those who 
are, for example, on the visa waiver program. I believe there 
is no country that can be considered an African nation, 
countries from South America and other parts of the world where 
we have many allies that is on the visa waiver program other 
than South Africa.
    [11:00 a.m.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So I oppose the Security and Fairness 
Enhancement for America Act, H.R. 775. The objective of this 
bill is to eliminate the diversity of the visa program, and I 
am in favor of that program. In addition to being good for the 
country, it is the only hope that some people have for ever 
being able to immigrate into the United States lawfully and 
legally. Why close another door and then complain about illegal 
individuals who come here illegally.
    The INA waives the allocation of immigrant visas heavily 
towards aliens who have close family ties in the United States 
and to a lesser extent aliens who meet particular employment 
needs. The diversity program was established in 1990 to 
encourage new, more varied migration from other parts of the 
world. The diversity visa program makes available 55,000 
diversity visasannually to natives of countries from which 
immigrant admissions were lower than a total of 50,000 over the 
preceding 5 years.
    Diversity visas are limited to six geographic regions, with 
a greater number of visas going to regions with low rates of 
immigration. Within each region, no country may receive more 
than 7 percent of the available diversity visas in any 1 year.
    Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by computer 
generated and random lottery drawing. The winners who can 
qualify for immigrant visas and are eligible for admission to 
the United States are granted legal permanent resident status.
    In September 2003, the Office of the Inspector General for 
the State Department issued a report on the diversity visa 
program. According to the report, the diversity program was 
subject to widespread abuse. The report asserts that thousands 
of duplicate applications have been detected each year. It 
claims also that identity fraud is endemic and fraudulent 
documents are commonplace.
    The State Department has made changes in the application 
process to deal with the problem of duplication applications. 
We heard about those changes in our hearings. The State 
Department was committed to being more detailed and more 
diligent in its oversight.
    Technology has improved since 1990. That was 13 years ago. 
It has converted from paper to electronic applications and has 
required each applicant to include an electronic photograph, 
the same kinds of improvements that we have seen as we have 
related to the immigration system we are facing today.
    This new application process went into effect for the 
fiscal year 2005 visas. State selected approximately 80,000 
winners from the 6 million applications it received for this 
drawing, and it compared all 80,000 winning applications to the 
entire field of 6 million applications. It has revised and it 
has converted this system into a more accurate, carefully 
monitored system using new technology.
    This new processing system is very effective in detecting 
duplicate applications. In fact, at a hearing before the 
Subcommittee on April 29, 2004, Ann W. Patterson, the Deputy 
Inspector General of the State Department, testified that the 
Department has made progress in reducing fraud and 
vulnerabilities by implementing the facial recognition system 
for diversity visa applicants.
    Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General has gone on record in 
saying that progress has been made in reducing fraud. 
Therefore, I am in favor of continuing the diversity visa 
program with absolute oversight by this larger Committee, full 
Committee and the Subcommittee. It permits the admission of 
immigrants from traditionally low-sending countries, which 
increases the diversity of immigrants, and it provides an 
avenue for nationals of those low-sending countries to legally 
come to the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, don't close the door to legal immigration. We 
are already hearing complaints about illegal immigration. Do 
not close the door. Diversity immigrants must be investigated 
like all other.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Without objection, all Members may put opening statements 
in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, 
        Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
    I oppose the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act, 
H.R. 775. The objective of this bill is to eliminate the Diversity Visa 
Program, and I am in favor of that program. In addition to being good 
for the country, it is the only hope some people have for ever being 
able to immigrate to the United States lawfully.
    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) weighs the allocation of 
immigrant visas heavily towards aliens who have close family ties in 
the United States and, to a lesser extent, aliens who meet particular 
employment needs. The diversity program was established in 1990, to 
encourage new, more varied migration from other parts of the world.
    The Diversity Visa Program makes 55,000 diversity visas available 
annually to natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were 
lower than a total of 50,000 over the preceding 5 years. Diversity 
visas are limited to 6 geographic regions with a greater number of 
visas going to regions with low rates of immigration. Within each 
region, no country may receive more than 7% of the available diversity 
visas in any one year.
    Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-generated, 
random lottery drawing. The winners who can qualify for immigrant 
visas, and are eligible for admission to the United States, are granted 
legal permanent residence status.
    In September of 2003, the Office of the Inspector General for the 
State Department issued a report on the Diversity Visa Program. 
According to the report, the Diversity Visa Program was subject to 
widespread abuse. The report asserts that thousands of duplicate 
applications have been detected each year. It claims also that identity 
fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.
    The State Department has made changes in the application process to 
deal with the problem of duplicate applications. It has converted from 
paper to electronic applications and has required each applicant to 
include an electronic photograph. This new application process went 
into effect for the FY 2005 visas. State selected approximately 80,000 
winners from the 6 million applications it received for this drawing, 
and it compared all 80,000 winning applications to the entire field of 
6 million applications. This new processing system is very effective in 
detecting duplicate applications. In fact, at a hearing before this 
subcommittee on April 29, 2004, Anne W. Patterson, the Deputy Inspector 
General of the State Department, testified that the Department has made 
progress in reducing fraud and vulnerabilities by implementing the 
facial recognition system for diversity visa applicants.
    I am in favor of continuing the Diversity Visa Program. It permits 
the admission of immigrants from traditionally low-sending countries, 
which increases the diversity of immigrants, and it provides an avenue 
for nationals of these low-sending countries to legally come to the 
United States.
    Diversity immigrants must be investigated like all other visa 
applicants and petitioners to ensure that they are not a security risk. 
When aliens with diversity-based visas seek admission to the United 
States, they are inspected by Homeland Security officers in the same 
way that other immigrants are inspected. This is done to ensure that 
they are not ineligible for visas or for admission under the exclusion 
grounds in section 212 of the INA.
    Moreover, diversity immigrants must satisfy even more rigorous 
grounds of admissibility that most other visa applicants and 
petitioners. For instance, they must have a high school diploma or the 
equivalent, or 2 years of work experience within the last 5 years in an 
occupation that requires at least 2 years of training or experience to 
perform.
    I urge you to vote against the Security and Fairness Enhancement 
for America Act.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 
                  Congress From the State of Virginia
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding a markup of this important 
legislation.
    Last February, I introduced H.R. 775, the ``Security and Fairness 
Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This important legislation would 
eliminate the controversial visa lottery program.
    This program presents a serious national security threat. Under the 
program, each successful applicant is chosen at random and given the 
status of permanent resident based on pure luck. A perfect example of 
the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the 
Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting 
spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was 
allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because 
of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.
    The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the 
national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. In a report 
issued in September of 2003, the Office of Inspector General stated 
that the visa lottery program contains ``significant threats to 
national security from entry of hostile intelligence officers, 
criminals, and terrorists into the United States as permanent 
residents.'' Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery 
program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign 
intelligence agencies from having members apply for the program who do 
not have criminal backgrounds. These types of organized efforts would 
never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-
fraud measures were enacted within the program.
    Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have 
existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the 
United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help 
ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing 
America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's 
economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to 
immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.
    In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who 
comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery 
program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to 
receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign 
nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly 
violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants 
currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program 
pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job 
skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored 
immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong 
message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the 
international community as a whole.
    Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A 
recent report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states 
that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery 
program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the 
visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors 
in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for 
large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay 
top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in 
the U.S.
    The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these 
allegations of widespread fraud in its September report. Specifically, 
the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to 
widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent 
documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that 
the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were 
detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone. The only current penalty for 
such abuse is disqualification in that year's lottery.
    The visa lottery program is also by its very nature discriminatory. 
The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily 
disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 
immigrants to the U.S. within a five-year period, which excludes 
nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others.
    In 1965, Congress repealed the discriminatory national origins 
immigration quota system, and this action resulted in an increase in 
the number of non-European immigrants to the United States. In his 
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims Subcommittee on April 29, 2004, Professor Jan Ting 
claimed that the visa lottery program was enacted to reverse this trend 
in immigration. Specifically, Professor Ting stated that ``the lottery 
is unfair and expressly discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity and, 
implicitly, race.''
    The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our 
country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa 
lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help 
ensure our nation's security, make the administration of our 
immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration 
fraud and opportunism.
    The serious national security threats, fraud and waste that the 
visa lottery program present beg the question--why is this program 
still in existence? I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
markup, and I urge each of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I strike the requisite number of 
words.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. I would like to ask my colleagues on Judiciary 
to consider against the elimination of a very small program 
that, regardless of what problems may have occurred, the 
Inspector General of the Department of State has indicated that 
they are being corrected and that this program should be 
improved rather than eliminated.
    Let us face it. It is for those countries who have very few 
people coming in. We now have a system where paper applications 
are no longer accepted and electronic submissions make it 
easier to identify duplicate applications. There is a great 
deal of activity going on to enhance this program, and it seems 
to me that we may be throwing baby and bath water out at the 
same time.
    We have taken strongly to the Inspector General's 
recommendation of excluding applicants from states that sponsor 
terrorism, barring countries with high rates of fraudulent 
applicants as other suggestions that could be helpful, so that 
there is a problem that I don't think requires the elimination 
of the program but merely a continuing improvement of the 
program. I think that it is overstated to think that terrorists 
are now going to use the diversity visa program to get in.
    I would like to just close with this one example of a young 
fellow that did make it and was a promise. Freddy Adu, the 14-
year-old who is now the newest star in our national soccer 
league and a professional, got into this country through the 
diversity visa program. There are not going to be a lot of 
people like him, but it attests to the openness of the program. 
It provides the diversity our country needs and supports--and 
though it is a small program, it adds to the important multi-
ethnic character of our country; and, for those reasons, I 
would urge the rejection of this measure now.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the Ranking Member yield?
    Mr. Conyers. With pleasure.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member 
for making that point about the young man Freddy, and I would 
just offer further into the record that there is a great deal 
more criteria. In fact, they must satisfy rigorous grounds for 
admissibility more so than other visa applicants. They must 
have a high school diploma or 2 years of work experience with 
at least--with the last 5 years in an occupation that requires 
at least 2 years of training.
    The main point I would like to offer, which I think the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan has already offered, they 
offer great talent to the United States; and, in many 
instances, these individuals are from newfound allies of the 
United States.
    I remember that the President has said that we don't 
condemn Islam, we condemn terrorists. Many of these countries 
are Muslim countries, and for us to slam the door in the face 
of allies who have collaborated with the United States in the 
war against terror is shameful. We ask in one instance to help 
us fight a war and the other instance we close the door of 
opportunity to come and seek an opportunity in this country.
    The State Department has gone on record. They have made the 
changes that they think are necessary to clarify whether or not 
we are allowing in individuals that would do us harm.
    But I would say this to my colleagues. We are attempting to 
secure our borders and attempting to make the right decisions. 
Nothing, no system is perfect to forever protect America from 
the desires of those who wish to do us ill. We cannot turn our 
back to the world and at the same time have our hand out for 
alliances in the wars that we are engaged in. This is a slap in 
the face of many, many friends around the world. This is a 
wrong-headed policy, and it is a mistake, and I would ask 
whether or not we have any support from the Administration for 
this kind of policy.
    I yield back, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there amendments?
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I want some clarification; and I would direct 
this question towards the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from 
Texas. What impact would this bill have on the legal entry into 
the United States from Cuba? My understanding, currently, there 
is a 20,000 annual quota of Cubans who achieve the right to 
come to this country under a visa lottery system, and I 
honestly don't know the answer, but will this have an impact if 
this legislation is passed on Cubans who wish to come to this 
country being denied that opportunity?
    With that, I yield to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That is a part of the diversity visa. It 
is a lottery, and the lottery will be eliminated, and thereby 
the Cuban process will be impacted as well. That is why I am 
suggesting we are opening a can of worms.
    I thank the gentleman for that question, and I yield back.
    Mr. Delahunt. I would then pose this question to the 
proponents of the legislation. Is it the position that you are 
prepared to deny 20,000 individuals from Cuba the right to come 
into this country?
    Mr. Goodlatte. The only thing that would impact Cubans 
would be their ability to participate in this overall lottery. 
The 20,000 will not be eliminated for Cuba. Cubans are accorded 
preferential status. If they appear at the border and say they 
are refugees from Cuba, they are admitted under our refugee----
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I am talking--there seems 
to be a discrepancy between what you are saying and what the 
Ranking Member is saying regarding legal entry into the United 
States from Cuba, not under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
    Mr. Goodlatte. There is no limit on the number of Cubans 
who come into the United States today. They have the most 
preferred immigration status.
    Mr. Delahunt. There is a limit. There is a 20,000 limit.
    Mr. Goodlatte. In addition to the visas that can be given 
to them under the refugee and political asylee programs.
    Mr. Delahunt. Those visas require a high-risk trip on a 
raft to the United States. I am talking about the 20,000 visas 
that are granted on an annual basis.
    Mr. Goodlatte. The Cubans coming under that program are not 
coming in under the visa lottery program. That is a separate 
program. And there has been no shortage of visas available to 
people from Cuba.
    Mr. Delahunt. I would ask the gentlelady to respond to the 
response of the gentleman from Virginia, because that is not my 
understanding. I think we should be very clear as to what we 
are doing here because, clearly, there could be something 
missing here that might very well impact the right of Cubans 
who have secured a visa through a lottery to come to this 
country.
    I yield to the gentlewoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I think what you are hearing on the side 
of the proponents of this legislation, Mr. Delahunt, is pure 
speculation because this eliminates the lottery program, and 
there is no specification in the legislation to my knowledge 
that eliminates or protects Cuba and, therefore, it lends 
itself to interpretation.
    I would be hesitant in this legislation to say that Cuba's 
lottery program was safe. We have already had a great deal of 
debate about the Cuban adjustment program. We don't know if 
that is safe because there is a question as to whether or not 
that is even fair. So the lottery----
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time. The Cuban adjustment 
program is different. That is for those who leave Cuba, who 
risk their lives to come here. This is the legal lottery that 
every year provides 20,000 visas to Cubans.
    Mr. Goodlatte. That is absolutely incorrect.
    Mr. Delahunt. It is not incorrect.
    Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman is absolutely incorrect.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Are there amendments? The gentlewoman from California have 
an amendment?
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have listened with great interest to this 
debate, and one of the points I would like to make is that the 
amendment adopted yesterday during our discussion of the 9/11 
Commission bill really will solve the fraud problems that had 
been raised not only with this visa issue or with any visas. To 
the extent that there is a concern--and I think we would be 
concerned if someone got into the United States who shouldn't--
having a biometric identifier is going to solve that problem. 
The technology will solve that problem, and it should, and we 
are all for that.
    So I think we need to step back from that problem which can 
be solved quite easily technologically and think about why this 
program was established to begin with. My recollection is that 
it was proposed by then Chairman Peter Rodino; and the reason 
is the way we have set up our family-based visa system means 
that since most of the visas that are allocated are based on 
family relationships, you end up with some countries who can't 
participate in immigration to the United States. That was a 
product of the 1965 act, which has not basically been changed. 
We have changed the name and we have made some differences, but 
basically you end up telescoping immigration on a family-based 
visa.
    I know Mr. Rodino was concerned that, ultimately, you 
wouldn't have Italians immigrating to the United States. That 
was one of the issues he raised. You wouldn't have Irish people 
immigrating to the United States. And one way to prevent that 
from occurring was to institute this diversity visa program.
    Now people ridicule it because it is a lottery, and there 
is no bigger prize than being able to live in the United 
States. So I guess it is a prize. But the rationale for it was 
not frivolous, and I haven't heard any reason why we wouldn't 
want to have that kind of diversity today the same way we 
wanted it when this program was put into effect.
    I just--I don't see why we wouldn't want to have people 
from Italy and Ireland adding to the rich mix of our country, 
which is a Nation of immigrants. I haven't heard why we would 
want to do that; and, until I do, I am not prepared to vote for 
this.
    I would yield to the gentlelady and the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
    Mr. Delahunt, if I can add some clarity to the point that I 
was finishing on. By no means do I suggest that the Cuban 
Adjustment Act--and I appreciate the gentlelady from 
California's remarks--is in jeopardy. What I am suggesting is 
that that is a distinctive program and aspect.
    My point that I was making is that, yes, this can impact 
the 20,000 separate program--and the reason why I say it can 
impact it, we are getting rid of lotteries. There is no 
accepting in this legislation of the distinctive Cuban lottery 
system. It is a distinct program, but there is no accepting of 
it, to my understanding. Therefore, if we are getting rid of 
the diversity visa program and the lottery system and the 
lottery concept, we may never know or it may be subjected to 
scrutiny and then be ultimately interpreted as not being viable 
and we have isolated the Cuban program for many good reasons. 
If you want to translate that to fairness even, then why are we 
eliminating the diversity program that would account for 45 
percent countries in Africa, many of them our allies, other 
parts of the world?
    So your question was very correct. I think it may have an 
extension, a detrimental impact on the Cuban format, and 
certainly it impacts Cubans over the 20,000. If we are 
indicating that they are living under a dictatorship and many 
who advocate for their freedom in this country, then we are 
capping them at 20,000 to be able to legally and safely come 
into the United States.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady from California yield?
    I merely want to thank her for her observation about what 
we did yesterday may have a very profound impact on the 
question that is bugging us right now. But, furthermore, we may 
be able to close out our session for the week if we can get to 
a final disposition of this matter before--to go to the floor. 
So I urge the Members to join with us to bring this--you prefer 
a filibuster. But there isn't anything else coming up, Bobby, 
so we are home free. Please don't filibuster where it is not 
required.
    And I thank the gentlelady.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Are there amendments?
    The Chair will announce that we will have a vote on this 
measure whether it is before or after the votes on the floor.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina 
seek recognition.
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. I don't care whether it is before or after, and I 
won't take 5 minutes. My purpose is not to filibuster but to 
make sure that we deliberate about things that are important, 
and this is an important piece of legislation. We need to pay 
whatever attention we need to pay to it. Whether we do it 
before adjournment or after adjournment, it really doesn't 
matter to me.
    I spent 3 difficult, arduous years as the Ranking Member of 
immigration and claims. It was a terrible experience for me 
because, for the first time, I had to really learn some things 
about our immigration laws.
    In the final year, one of these think tank groups invited 
me over to give a speech to them; and basically what I said to 
them was that our immigration laws reflect the same biases, 
attitudes and, in many cases, racist beliefs that are reflected 
in our society in general. I thought I was saying something 
noncontroversial, and everybody said that nobody had ever 
thought of that.
    But that is exactly what our immigration laws have done 
over the years. They have reflected biases that exist in our 
society, in our domestic society. Our international immigration 
laws have reflected those biases. And those biases have 
historically excluded people who look like me and some other 
groups and have favored people who don't look like me and some 
other groups. That is just the bottom line on it. I mean--I 
can't say it any more bluntly than that.
    So you get these programs like the visa waiver program that 
makes absolutely no sense, the criteria, and we have been 
trying to do something about--that is the program you ought to 
be eliminating if you were trying to worry about the security 
of our country. Because people are coming into the country 
without any kind of real checks in the visa waiver program just 
because they happen to be from some particular country that 
looks like somebody who historically was where the Founding 
Fathers of this country came from. This is what this is all 
about.
    Then you set up a program like this, which is a lottery 
program to give everybody an equal opportunity to get the gold 
ring of being admitted to the United States of America, and all 
of a sudden some bad apple does something and you try to do 
away with the whole program, rather than trying to solve the 
problem that created it in the first place.
    Well, if you are going to add the visa waiver program to 
this and do away with it because it exposes us to additional 
terrorism, then let us put it in here also, because I think it 
puts our country in a lot more jeopardy than this lottery 
program does, even though you could probably point to examples 
in this program, in any of our immigration programs where 
somebody has come into the country and done something that is 
outrageous and counter to our values. So I think this is a bad 
idea, it is a reactionary idea----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt.--and I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no amendments, the 
question is on reporting the bill H.R. 775 favorably. All those 
in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall will be ordered. Those in 
favor of reporting H.R. 775 favorably will, as your name is 
called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call 
the roll. A reporting quorum is present.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye.
    Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
    Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye.
    Mr. Jenkins?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    [no response.]
    Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye.
    Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye.
    Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye.
    Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye.
    Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye.
    Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye.
    Mr. Pence?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye.
    Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye.
    Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye.
    Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye.
    Mrs. Blackburn?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no.
    Mr. Berman?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no.
    Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no.
    Ms. Waters?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no.
    Mr. Wexler?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no.
    Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    Members in the chamber who wish to cast or change their 
vote? Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. 
Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 8 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes; 
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules 
in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or 
minority views.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous 
consent to speak out of order for 1 minute and submit something 
into the record, please.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner: Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to submit into the record for the Members of 
the Judiciary to be aware that included in this legislation 
that they have just supported they will exclude Argentina, 
Brazil, Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, many of our good friends, along 
with a very long list of South American, Central American and 
the Caribbean nations who have been our allies. I would like to 
submit into the record a list of countries from Central 
America, South America and Caribbean.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, that will be 
included in the record.
    [The material referred to follows:]
    
    
  
  
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think we put in a good day's work 
and good day's work yesterday, and the Committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                            Dissenting Views

    We oppose the Security and Fairness Enhancement for America 
Act, H.R. 775. The objective of this bill is to eliminate the 
Diversity Visa Program, and we support the continuation of that 
program. The name of this bill is a misnomer; there is nothing 
in the bill that increases fairness for Americans or immigrants 
seeking a new life here. This bill does nothing but eliminate a 
small immigration program that ensures that a small percentage 
of new immigrants are from under-represented nations that add 
to our ethnic and racial diversity. In addition to being good 
for the country, it is the only hope some people have for ever 
being able to immigrate to the United States lawfully.
    In the 20th Century, our family-reunification based system, 
along with other legal preferences we enacted, consistently 
provided open doors to many European nationals. If you were 
African, from the Caribbean, from most parts of Latin America 
or Asia it was still almost impossible to legally immigrate to 
the United States. The availability of immigrant visas is 
weighted heavily in favor of aliens who have close family ties 
to the United States and, to a lesser extent, aliens who meet 
particular employment needs. The Diversity Visa Program was set 
up to provide a limited new path to U.S. residency and 
citizenship. This is the only program that has begun to level 
the playing field by giving a chance to people who do not have 
the family members or high-level skills needed to immigrate 
here.
    The diversity program was established by the Immigration 
Act of 1990, to encourage new, more varied migration from other 
parts of the world. \1\ It provides 55,000 visas annually to 
natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were lower 
than a total of 50,000 over the preceding 5 years. \2\ 
Diversity visas are limited to 6 geographic regions with a 
greater number of visas going to regions with low rates of 
immigration. \3\ Within each region, no country may receive 
more than 7% of the available diversity visas in any one year. 
\4\ Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-
generated, random lottery drawing. The winners who can qualify 
for immigrant visas, and are eligible for admission to the 
United States, are granted legal permanent residence status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Immigration Act of 1990, (P.L. 101-649). See generally section 
203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1153.
    \2\ Sections 201(e) and 203(c)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1151(e) and 1153(c)(1)(B).
    \3\ Section 203(c)(1)(E) and (F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1153(c)(1)(E) and (F).
    \4\ Section 203(c)(1)(E)(v) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1153(c)(1)(E)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The program has been very successful, within its limited 
numbers, at increasing the diversity of legal immigrants to the 
U.S. And like almost all other immigrants, the Diversity Visa 
winners have worked hard here and contributed to our economy. 
The fact is, this program enhances our national diversity, now 
and into the future.
    In September of 2003, the Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) for the State Department issued a report on the Diversity 
Visa Program. \5\ According to the report, the Diversity Visa 
Program was subject to widespread abuse. The report asserts 
that thousands of duplicate applications have been detected 
each year. It claims also that identity fraud is endemic, and 
fraudulent documents are commonplace. Some of these concerns 
have already been addressed, as discussed below. It is telling, 
however, that instead of raising a bill that would implement 
the OIG's recommendations to improve the program, the Majority 
has sought to simply eliminate a the program. As Rep. John 
Conyers Jr. (D-MI) said during the full committee markup of 
this bill, this is an effort to throw the ``baby and bath water 
out at the same time.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ United States Department of State and Broadcasting Board of 
Governors, Office of Inspector General, Memorandum Inspection Report, 
Diversity Visa Program, Report Number ISP-CA-03-52, September 2003.
    \6\ Markup of H.R.10, H.R. 4306, S. 1194, H.R. 4547, H.Res. 568, 
H.R. 3143, H.R. 4264, H.Res. 589, and H.R. 775 Before the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. 61 (September 30, 
2004) (``There is a great deal of activity going on to enhance this 
program, and it seems to me that we may be throwing baby and bath water 
out at the same time.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The State Department has made changes in the application 
process to deal with the problem of duplicate applications. It 
has converted from paper to electronic Internet applications 
and has required each applicant to include an electronic 
photograph. This new application process went into effect for 
the FY 2005 visas. The State Department selected approximately 
80,000 winners from the 6 million applications it received for 
this drawing, and it compared all 80,000 winning applications 
to the entire field of 6 million applications. \7\ The 
Department asserts that this new system has better enabled it 
to detect and prevent patterns of fraud. In fact, at a hearing 
before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and 
Claims on April 29, 2004, Anne W. Patterson, the Deputy 
Inspector General of the State Department, testified that the 
Department has made progress in reducing fraud and 
vulnerabilities by implementing the facial recognition system 
for diversity visa applicants. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Conversation between Derwood K. Staeben, Director, Policy and 
Public Affairs, Department of State and Nolan Rappaport, Minority 
Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, 
April 2004.
    \8\ Statement of Anne W. Patterson, Deputy Inspector General, 
United States Department of State, Oversight Hearing on, The Diversity 
Visa Program, and Its Susceptibility to Fraud and Abuse, Before House 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, April 29, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Diversity immigrants must be investigated like all other 
visa applicants and petitioners to ensure that they are not a 
security risk. When aliens with diversity-based visas seek 
admission to the United States, they are inspected by Homeland 
Security officers in the same way that other immigrants are 
inspected. This is done to ensure that they are not ineligible 
for visas or for admission under the exclusion grounds in the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. \9\ Like all other immigrants, 
diversity visa applicants are subject to all of the grounds 
upon which a visa can be denied, including security, moral 
turpitude, medical condition, and criminal behavior. Moreover, 
diversity immigrants must satisfy even more rigorous 
requirements than most other visa applicants. For instance, 
they are required to have a high school diploma or the 
equivalent, or 2 years of work experience within the last 5 
years in an occupation that requires at least 2 years of 
training or experience to perform. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182.
    \10\ Section 203(c)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no evidence that this program is an open door for 
terrorists, as some critics would have you believe. Diversity 
visa winners should be, and are, carefully screened for 
criminal history or ties to terrorism, like any other 
immigrant. Enhancements were made to the screening process in 
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Act at the end of 2001 to 
fill any loopholes in security screening. There is no evidence 
that a terrorist is more likely to enter the U.S. under this 
program than any other U.S. immigration category.
    Just as many great Americans have come to this country as 
refugees, we have no doubt that many great Americans have and 
are coming through the Diversity Visa Program. You need only to 
look at the promise of young Freddy Adu, the 14-year-old boy 
who is now the newest star of the D.C. United professional 
soccer team and the youngest professional soccer player in the 
U.S. He has great promise, and but for his entry to the U.S. on 
the Diversity Visa Program, that promise may not have been 
realized. The Diversity Visa Program provides the diversity our 
country needs and, though small, the program adds to the 
important multi-ethnic character of our country. We strongly 
support the continuation of the Diversity Visa Program and 
oppose the effort to terminate the program through H.R. 775.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.