John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I would be very happy to yield to answer my question.

Mr. CONYERS. Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. While my neighbor and friend J.D. Hayworth is on the floor, let me gain his attention for just a moment. I am sorry that you do not want a comprehensive bill. Most people do in the Congress. And I would like you to respond to this inquiry: Were there hearings held on this bill in the Homeland Security Committee?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CONYERS. So, in other words, you do not know.

Mr. CONYERS. No. Let us ask the gentleman another question---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CONYERS. Taking my time back, I assume that the gentleman knows that the Judiciary Committee did not hold hearings either. And so we have this very urgent, important bill that has not had one hearing anywhere that I know of, and I think it explains something about the gentleman from Arizona's comment about what the American people want. Because in today's newspaper, I am reading that only 25 percent in a poll voice approval of the Congress, an echo of 1994 findings. Links to special interests are cited. Standing of Bush also lags. So I do not know if we are doing what the people really want that much. I think it is because we are not doing what the people want and are not moving an immigration bill which has passed this House, the counterpart has passed in the Senate, and we have not gone to conference yet. Somebody in the course of this discussion and debate ought to be able to explain why that is. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield with pleasure to the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, as much time as she may consume. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and recognize the 15th anniversary of Armenia's independence. Armenia's independence was first recognized on September 21, 1991, marking it as one of the first nations to declare its independence from the former Soviet Union. Building upon the foundations of the first Armenian Republic of 1918, today's Armenian Government has, in the years since independence, strengthened democracy and the rule of law, promoted free-market reforms, and sought a just and lasting peace in the region. Since declaring independence from the former Soviet Union, Armenia emerged from its Soviet-styled centrally planned economy, based on industry and highly dependent on outside resources, to an economy developing and relying on new sectors, such as precious stone processing and jewelry making, information and communication technology, and even tourism. With its steady economic progress, Armenia has rightfully earned increasing support from international institutions. As the 2005 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index chart, where Armenia ranked 88th out of 158th, shows, Armenia has earned this support. Furthermore, according to the 2005 U.N. Human Development Report, Armenia has a Human Development Index of 83 out of 177, and ranks the highest among the Transcaucasian republics. Finally, in recognizing the country's continuing efforts to move away from its Soviet past, it cannot be overlooked that in this year's Index of Economic Freedom, Armenia ranked 27th best, tied with Japan and ahead of countries like Norway, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The rank puts Armenia in the category of ``Mostly Free'' countries, making it the most economically free state in the Commonwealth of Independent States. No recognition of Armenia would be complete without acknowledging the fantastic contributions of the Armenian diaspora living here in America. It is estimated that the Armenian community in the United States numbers in the hundreds of thousands and represents the largest Armenian community in the world outside Armenia. In Michigan, my hometown of Detroit was itself one of the great historical centers where Armenians set down roots after they came to our great Nation. Armenian-Americans have also made contributions to every aspect of American life. Among the most notable have been William Saroyan, Academy Award and Pulitzer Prize winning author; Howard Kazanjian, producer of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark; Raffi, children's singer and songwriter; System of a Down, multi-platinum alternative/ metal group; Steve Zallian, Academy Award winning screenwriter of Schindler's List; Ray Damadian, inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and, of course, Andre Agassi, professional tennis player. However, our relationship with Armenia has certainly been by no means a one-way street. Our Nation's Armenian diaspora has provided the greatest number of high ranking officials in the new republic: the young Minister of Foreign Affairs, Raffi Hovannisian, a lawyer and political scientist, whose father, Richard, professor of Armenian history at UCLA, is the foremost authority on the first republic; the minister of energy, Sebuh Tashjian, also from Los Angeles; Jirair Libaridian, historian and former director of the Zoryan Institute, who is a personal advisor to President Levon Ter Petrosian; and Mathew Der Manuelian, a Boston lawyer with a high post in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I'll conclude my statement by wishing Armenia and Armenian-Americans a happy independence day.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 217th anniversary of the United States Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency. The men and women who proudly wear ``America's Star'' have been involved in some of the most historic events in our Nation's history, and I am proud to commend them on this significant occasion. The first 13 United States Marshals were appointed by President George Washington in 1789 with their primary mission being to support the Federal courts. As times changed, so did the mission of the U.S. Marshals Service. However, they have answered the call to duty without exception. In the early years, U.S. marshals and deputy U.S. marshals executed warrants, distributed presidential proclamations, protected the president, registered enemy aliens in times of war, pursued counterfeiters, and helped conduct the national census. The Marshals Service maintained law and order in the ``Wild West,'' kept the trains rolling during the Pullman strike, and enforced the 18th amendment during Prohibition. On November 14, 1960, four deputy U.S. marshals accompanied 6-year old Ruby Bridges to elementary school after a Federal judge ordered the desegregation of the New Orleans public school system. In 1962, when James Meredith sought to legally become the first black person to attend the University of Mississippi, the duty of upholding the Federal law allowing him to do so fell upon the shoulders of 127 deputy marshals from all over the country. They acted with the highest degree of professionalism and honor during this turbulent season in civil rights history. Their accomplishments in recent decades are too numerous to cite, but extraordinary in their commitment to law and order. The U.S. Marshals provided security to 18 airports in the hours and days following the attacks on 9/11, played an instrumental role in the ``D.C. sniper'' investigation, were deployed to the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and provided security for the trials of Oklahoma bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh and AI-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Over the past 217 years, the Marshals Service has grown and evolved into a modern law enforcement agency, still charged with protecting the Federal judiciary, but also apprehending dangerous fugitives, conducting protective operations, ensuring the security of witnesses and their dependents, providing for the custody and transportation of Federal prisoners, managing the Federal Government's seized asset program, and conducting special operations as required by the Attorney General. No other law enforcement agency has as many diverse missions as the U.S. Marshals Service. Among their most innovative efforts is their newly created Fugitive Safe Surrender Initiative, a unique fugitive apprehension program that has already netted the peaceful surrender of hundreds of fugitives across this country in a community coordinated and faith-based environment. Every day, deputy U.S. marshals carry out complex and life- threatening missions with integrity, skill, and valor. I commend Director John Clark and the 5,000 men and women of the Marshals Service, who are justifiably proud of their agency and their history. I am proud of them as well, and appreciate their contribution to this Nation as they celebrate their 217th anniversary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not focusing our attention on proposals that would actually make our Nation's borders more secure, but I think we find ourselves once again on the floor of the House engaging in a kind of a political gamesmanship that forecasts an election some 48 days from now. By now many people in our country have lost their patience for political theater and expect movement toward comprehensive immigration reform. I used that phrase earlier, and it was rejected by a Member on the other side of the aisle as not being pragmatic. The House and the Senate have passed bills on immigration reform and border security a number of months ago. Under regular order we should have had conferees appointed and been engaged in the process of reconciling the two bills. As a matter of fact, the chairman of this committee and myself as ranking member would undoubtedly have been two of the conferees. However, in a substantial deviation from what is normal practice in the House, the leadership decided to launch a traveling road show of committee hearings in the States across the country in an attempt to make citizens believe that they were being active on this subject of comprehensive immigration reform. But most Americans, or at least many of them, saw through the charade and the hearings were condemned in the media across the country as both a waste of taxpayers' money and a waste of congressional time when we should have been focused on resolving the immigration differences that we have between the two committees. Now here we are at the end of September. The nationwide hearings are over, some 21 hearings covering more than a dozen States, and we still have no notice of when we are going to have a conference on the two measures concerning immigration that have been already passed months ago by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Now, by bringing parts of these provisions to the floor again, I don't think is going to give much encouragement to the citizens who are quickly losing confidence in the Congress. I think our ratings are down to 25 percent support. That's as of today. We may fall lower after these hearings because people are tired of theater, and they would like to have a little show, a little progress, a little action. So here we are reworking many provisions that were already passed in H.R. 4437 last December. I think very few people are going to be fooled by what it is that is going on here. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a member on the Immigration Subcommittee, such time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Ms. Lofgren.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, my colleagues, we are going through an exercise to convince the American people that now is the time for comprehensive reform, a week before recess, with continued disagreement between the House, the Senate, and the administration, and with narrowly repackaged bills. These bills, and this one before us introduced just 2 days ago, are substantively flawed and do not provide for comprehensive reform. H.R. 6095 is touted as a law enforcement bill, but it is opposed by our State and local law enforcement officials. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the comments of law enforcement associations and departments, police chiefs, sheriff associations, department heads across this country, and other law enforcement individuals to demonstrate how the policy is considered dangerous in this proposal. This bill, opposed by State and local law enforcement raises the question: Why would they be opposed to a bill in which they are being invited in to take over some national law enforcement responsibilities? Well, it is because it will strain the relationship between the police and immigrants and citizens. It will obstruct police in their mission of keeping our streets safe. Essentially the bill is asking the State and local police to pick up the slack for the Federal Government. Now, title II of this same measure, the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act, should really be examined carefully. Increasing resources for alien smuggling prosecution is quite appropriate; however, this bill will not decrease immigrant smuggling, and it will not resolve any of the fundamental flaws in our immigration system. The bill has nothing to do with the practice known as ``catch and release'' which has been referred to already. This proposal does little more than tie the hands of courts in immigration cases. Judges will be burdened with new requirements, and other civil cases will be denied their day in court. Just like the field hearings between the bills passed in the House and the immigration bills passed in the Senate, today's bills are clearly meant to distract the American public. Too bad, though, this country has already gotten wise to the smoke-and-mirrors show. Americans want comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders, and once again this body is failing to deliver. Proposals To Expand the Immigration Authority of State and Local Police--Dangerous Public Policy According to Law Enforcement, Governments, Opinion Leaders, and Communities LAw ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS International Association of Chiefs of Police, President Joseph Estey--``Many leaders in the law enforcement community have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively their communities and protect the public they serve.'' (IACP press release, 12/1/2004) International Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislative Counsel Gene Voegtlin--``A key concern is that state and local enforcement involvement in immigration can have a chilling effect on the relationship with the immigrant community in their jurisdiction.'' (``Cities and States Take on Difficult Duty of Handling Undocumented Workers,'' The Wall Street Journal, 2/2/2006) Major Cities Chiefs Association--``Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.'' (Immigration Committee Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws By Local Police Agencies, adopted June 2006) California State Sheriffs' Association, President Bruce Mix--``CSSA is concerned that the proposed CLEAR Act will undermine our primary mission of protecting the public. In order for local and state law enforcement associations to be effective partners with their communities, we believe it is imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 3/10/ 2004) California Police Chiefs Association, President Rick TerBorch--``It is the strong opinion of the California Police Chiefs'' Association that in order for local and state law enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 9/19/2003) Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association, President James Strillacci--``We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce the law in those communities. With this [legislation], there's no protection for them.'' (``Mayor asks for federal help,'' Danbury News-Times, 3/26/2004) El Paso (TX) Municipal Police Officers' Association, President Chris McGill--``From a law-enforcement point of view, I don't know how productive it would be to have police officers ask for green cards. It's more important that people feel confident calling the police.'' (``Immigration proposal puts burden on police,'' El Paso Times, 10/9/2003) Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive Director Dana Schrad--``There's a real concern among [the immigrant community] that [a new Virginia law] means police are going to sweep through neighborhoods and pick up anyone with immigration violations and deport them; that isn't true. We are concerned we'll loose cooperation of law-abiding residents who have helped solve crimes.'' (``Some Immigrants Can Be Held For Up To Three Days,'' Daily News-Record, 6/30/ 2004) Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National President Elvin Crespo--``The CLEAR Act jeopardizes public safety, it undermines local police roles in enhancing national security, it undermines federal law Enforcement priorities, it piles more onto state and local police officers' already full platters, it bullies and burdens state and local governments, it is unnecessary law-making and most significantly, it forgets the important fact that you can't tell by looking who is legal and who isn't.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/21/2003) National Latino Peace Officers Association, Founder Vicente Calderon--``The role of police is to protect and serve. Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR Act] will greatly contribute toward hindering police from accomplishing these goals.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/16/ 2003) Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, National President Sandalio Gonzalez--``The CLEAR Act bullies and burdens State and Local governments by coercing them into participating, even though it means burdensome new reporting and custody requirements, because failure to do so means further loss of already scarce federal dollars.'' (letter to President Bush and Congress, 9/30/2003) Costa Mesa (CA) Police Department, Chief John Hensley-- ``We're not going to be doing sweeps. We're not going to be squeezing employers. We do not want to be the enemy of the immigrant community.'' (``City puts itself on immigration watch,'' USA Today, 1/26/2006) West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department, Officer Freddy Naranjo--``The major thing is to come out and report these crimes, not hold back.'' (``Here Illegally, Guatemalans Are Prime Targets of Crime,'' New York Times, 8/27/2006) Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Sergeant Andy Hill--``As we move out deeper into the community, especially with reaching out to the Spanish-speaking community, we believe there may be other victims out there that haven't come forward,'' Hill said. ``We want that information. We need that information. There will not be sanctions to victims who come forward as far as their status in this community other than the fact that they are victims.'' (``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006) Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Chief Jack Harris--``There are a lot of folks here in the Valley that may have limited English skills, and they can still very much be witnesses or know something about these crimes, so we want to step forward and go out to that community and seek their assistance.'' (``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006) Fresno (CA) Police Department, Captain Pat Farmer-- ``Sometimes folks are here illegally, and they're the victim of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness, we want them to trust us. [A month earlier, after a shooting outside a convenience store] there were numerous witnesses, a lot of folks who were probably illegal. It was critical that they talk to our detectives.'' (``Shift Work: Should policing illegal immigration fall to nurses and teachers?'' Washington Monthly, April 2006) Fairfax County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Jon Fleischman--``Our job is to protect people. And I'm concerned that people who are victims of a crime, whether citizens or not, are not calling us because they're afraid we're going to check [legal] status only.'' (``Va. Police Back off Immigration Enforcement,'' Washington Post, 6/6/2005) Gilroy (CA) Police Department, Assistant Chief Lanny Brown--``We're not going out and doing sweeps for illegal immigrants or anything like that, because we don't believe that's the right thing to do. But it sure makes sense to us if people are here--committing crimes, convicted of crimes, and are here illegally--to turn them over to ICE so they can be deported.'' (``Immigration Officials Ask for Police Assistance,'' The Gilroy Dispatch (CA), 9/12/2005) Princeton (NJ) Police Department, Chief Anthony V. Federico--``Local police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families.'' (``State orders cops to help U.S. immigration agents,'' The Record, 9/20/2005) El Paso (TX) Police Department, Chief Richard Wiles-- ``There is no way that we would be able to take any time away from an officer's busy day to enforce immigration laws.'' (``EP chief opposes bill to let police go after immigrants,'' El Paso Times, 10/6/2005) San Diego (CA) Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne-- ``The only time we work with the Border Patrol is if there is a criminal nexus.'' (Police Chief William Lansdowne, ``Local Police, U.S. Agents Differ on Raids,'' Los Angeles Times, 6/ 6/2005) Muscatine (IA) Police Department, Chief Gary Coderoni-- ``These proposals are unnecessary, and counterproductive to the public safety of our city residents. They will place an added burden in our department and instill fear and non- cooperation in the community.'' (letter to Congress, 6/2004) Nashville (TN) Metropolitan Police Department, Chief Ronal Serpas--``With great respect and deference to our federal partners, we are not the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). As long as I am chief of the Nashville police department, I'm going to be steadfastly against police being INS agents. It's just not our job.'' (``Hispanics press police for more help,'' Tennessean, 2/24/2004) Boston (MA) Police Department, Commissioner Paul Evans-- ``The Boston Police Department, as well as state and local police departments across the nation have worked diligently to gain the trust of immigrant residents and convince them that it is safe to contact and work with police. By turning all police officers into immigration agents, the CLEAR Act will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe as a result.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 9/30/2003) Arlington County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Matt Martin--``[A] very likely outcome of local enforcement of immigration laws is] an entire segment of the population shutting down because they are afraid of you. And what you create is a group of people who's ripe for additional victimization.'' (``Some Laborers Arrested In Va. Face Deportation,'' Washington Post, 10/27/2004) Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Chief Timothy Strutz--``In my opinion, the best way to fight criminals of all types, including terrorists, would be to have an excellent, trusting, working relationship with the community, with them being your eyes and ears. I think much of that important information would be stifled [if the CLEAR Act passed].'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004) Seattle (WA) Police Department, Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske-- ``Traditionally we have seen that reporting of crime is much lower in immigrant communities because many are leaving countries where the police cannot be trusted for good reason. Adding the fear of arrest or deportation to this could have a tremendous impact on the rate of reporting. At a time when trusting relationships between immigrant communities and the police are vital, the CLEAR Act would have just the opposite effect.'' (letter, 3/4/2004) Clearwater (FL) Police Department, Chief Sid Klein--``It doesn't take very long for that open door of communication to be slammed shut. Then we in local law enforcement (pay the price).'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca--``I am responsible for the safety of one of the largest immigrant communities in this country. My Department prides itself in having a cooperative and open relationship with our immigrant community. [The CLEAR] act would undermine this relationship.'' (letter to Los Angeles County Neighborhood Legal Services, 10/6/2003) Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Chief Ronald Miller-- ``Our Police Department has taken the lead in establishing a meaningful relationship with our minority communities, especially the Hispanic community. If the CLEAR Act becomes law, it will have a devastating effect on how we provide law enforcement/police service.'' (letter to Senators Brownback and Roberts, 11/19/2003) Hillsborough (FL) Sheriff's Office, Spokesman Rod Reder-- ``We obviously need [immigrants] to trust us. Our main focus is on the crime itself. We're not immigration experts.'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004) Montgomery County (MD) Police Department, Captain John Fitzgerald--``We absolutely do not enforce any immigration law. We encourage our residents to trust their police department regardless of their immigration status. We want them to know that if they are victims, we'll help them, and if they're witnesses, we need their help.'' (``Groups Fret Over Giving Police Immigration Control,'' Fox News Channel, 10/29/2003) Tampa Police Department, Officer Brenda Canino-Fumero-- ``[If the CLEAR Act passes], (immigrants) are not going to come to police and report anything.'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004) Lowell (MA) Police Department, Police Superintendent Edward Davis III--``If the CLEAR Act were passed into law, residents would be less likely to approach local law enforcement for fear of exposing themselves or their immigrant family members to deportation. This would make state and local law enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 3/9/2004) Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Corporal Daniel Saab-- ``[If the CLEAR Act passed] people would not work with us. It would make it very hard for us to do our job.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004) Ann Arbor (MI) Police Department, Chief Dan Oates--``I have a great deal of concern about altering hard-won relationships with immigrant communities. Having those communities think we are agents of the federal government--that can do real harm.'' (``Police could get more power,'' Detroit Free Press, 6/1/2004) San Jose Police Department, Chief Rob Davis--``We have been fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't know if they'd do that anymore. That would affect our mission, which I thought was to protect and serve our community.'' (``CLEAR Act puts cuffs on police; Giving them another duty, immigration enforcement, would make us all less safe,'' San Jose Mercury News editorial, 4/15/2004) Hamtramck (MI) Police Department, Chief Jim Doyle--``It is important that people learn to trust us without looking over their shoulders and thinking, These are the guys that are going to deport us.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004) Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Office, Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo--``We wouldn't be interested in pulling people over and trying to figure out what their status is.'' (``Police May Join Hunt for Illegal Migrants; Advocates see a way to boost enforcement, but officers and civil rights groups fear abuses,'' Los Angeles Times, 11/11/2003) Bexar County (TX) Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ralph Lopez-- ``I'm totally against [the CLEAR Act]. It plays the race card, and from that perspective it is just a bad act. We will not go out and create probable cause just because we think this person, who is dark-completed or speaks with an accent or dresses different, should be automatically questioned about their legal status. That is a total violation of due process.'' (``Politicians are using fear to push through the CLEAR Act, one of the most sinister changes in immigration policy,'' The San Antonio Current, 12/11/2003) Overland Park (KS) Police Department, Chief John Douglass-- ``The CLEAR Act would be a detriment to all who live, work, and visit Overland Park. We want all to know that the police are available to protect them no matter whom they are or where they come from.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 10/ 29/2003) Portland (ME) Police Department, Chief Michael Chitwood-- ``As Police Chief of Portland, Maine and someone who has been involved in law enforcement for nearly forty years, I can tell you with certainty that the CLEAR Act is a bad idea.'' (letter to Congress, 11/11/2003) St. Paul (MN) Police Department, Chief William Finney-- ``How am I supposed to decide as a police officer who I should ask for papers? `Well can't you look at them and tell you should be asking them for papers?' No, I can't! . . . . So I'd just have to ask everybody. All the `real Americans' would be very offended, because they've got First Amendment rights. But people that are brand new here don't. Well, that's not what the Constitution says; everybody in this country's got First Amendment rights.'' (``This is your ministry,'' Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, 12/11/2003) Los Angeles Police Commission, President David S. Cunningham III--``There are safety mechanisms in place for deporting people who are criminally inclined. In the end, the policy position on Special Order 40 is that we are a nation of immigrants and we don't want to dissuade them from having contact with police.'' (``Is L.A. soft on illegals?'' Los Angeles Daily News, 11/15/2003) Lenexa (KS) Police Department, Chief Ellen T. Hanson--``We are, like many jurisdictions across the country, short on resources and manpower and struggling to meet our citizen's service demands. This mandate will magnify that problem and force us to make cuts in other areas to comply with the CLEAR Act. . . . The most troubling aspect of this act is that it would cause members of certain groups to not report crimes or come forward with information about crimes for fear of being deported.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 8/26/2003) South Tucson (AZ) Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina-- ``We don't have the time and the personnel to be immigration agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.'' (Tucson Citizen editorial, ``Immigration role not for local police,'' 10/15/2003) Des Moines (IA) Police Department, Chief William McCarthy-- ``When we don't acknowledge the reality of who is here, we create our own problems, and we are a better society than that, frankly. They (illegal immigrants) are family-oriented people and underpin our churches and society in many ways. Plus they are human beings. They are here. And we ought to deal with them as human beings.'' (``Cops shouldn't be INS agents,'' Des Moines Register editorial, 10/13/2003)

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Becerra, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I always like to hear the gentleman from Georgia describe these bills. He says it only targets violent felons, and I would love to find that place in the bill where that is the case. Nothing in this bill says that State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce immigration law but only to focus their efforts on immigrants who are serious felons. In a news release, the gentleman from Georgia said that this bill would provide funding for training and resources for State and local enforcement agencies to voluntarily enforce immigration laws. Nothing in the bill provides any money for training or resources for State and local law enforcement. Not a dime. And that is why I have 25 pages of law enforcement officers that are opposed to the bill. Chiefs of police, mayors, sheriffs are all opposed to this bill. Republicans and Democrats, I might add. And, of course, I should remind everyone in the body that we can already detain criminals or anyone that commits a criminal act, whether they are an immigrant or a citizen, but the problem is that only the Federal Government can deport anyone. So anybody committing a crime is subject to being detained. This bill isn't about immigration reform. It is further evidence of a failure of leadership for us to have this body connect with the other body to get a conference going. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) offered to make a phone call. I would offer to bring the news of the passage of the immigration bill in the House to the majority leader of the Senate myself. I will deliver it if that would help them get the news that there ought to be a conference. I think that patently it is obvious that they know about this, and somewhere in the Republican leadership there is a huge desire not to have a conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we are witnessing in the last few days is an effort to make sure somebody believes that we have sincerely worked on immigration rather than going to conference with the two major bills left. We tried during the recent recess by holding a series of hearings across 13 States, to make sure people thought that we were working and concerned about immigration. As the newspaper reports show, it failed dismally. So what we are doing now is to say let's keep the immigrants out. Let's keep them out. Let's keep them out. But let's let them in through the back door. Republicans do not prosecute employers, but then they blame Democrats for talking about other ways to deal with those who are already working here. We all know that letting immigrants in helps corporations and businesses that are using immigrants as the cheapest labor that they can find to benefit their activities. And the reason we are not at conference is because many in our business world need immigrant labor, and the companies that support the Republican Party that says, get tough on immigrants, are the same ones that then turn their back and do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that during the 40th Anniversary of the historic passage of the Voting Rights Act, that anyone could propose mandating nationwide photo ID requirements. Given the cost, difficulty and bureaucracy involved in obtaining photo ID for many minorities, elderly, and indigent, the idea of a national voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement amounts to nothing less than a 21st Century Poll Tax, that could disenfranchise as many as 20 million American voters. a national voter id requirement will operate as a poll tax We all know that the States will never fund an unfunded mandate, and even if they do, for many Americans it will be quite difficult, extensive, and time consuming to obtain the requisite ID cards. Georgia, which just enacted a new voter ID requirement did not even bother to provide an office in Atlanta. Data developed during the debate over the Georgia voter ID bill indicated that 36 percent of Georgians over the age of 75 do not have a driver's license and that African-Americans in Georgia are nearly five times less likely than whites to have access to a motor vehicle and thus even to need a driver's license. Moreover, in Georgia, residents who do not have a driver's license must buy a State ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card or $35 for 10 years. For many living on a fixed or low income, $20 to $35 is cost-prohibitive. People should not be forced to choose between a bag of groceries, needed medications, or the right to vote. In addition, the proof of citizenship requirements that are outlined in this bill will place on the voter the difficult, time consuming, and costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to prove citizenship in order to cast a ballot. a national voter id and proof of citizenship requirement will lead to discriminatory implementation and will disproportionately burden people of color There is strong empirical evidence that photo ID requirements disproportionately burden people of color. In 1994, the Justice Department found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents. As a result, the DoJ denied pre- clearance for that State's proposed photo ID requirement because they found that ``it would lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.'' Moreover, in 2001, the Carter-Ford National Commission on Election Reform found that identification provisions at the polls are selectively enforced. Even in places that do not require voters to show ID, poll workers are known to ask certain voters to prove their identity, in many cases demanding ID from minority voters, but not whites. many americans do not and will not have the requisite state-issued photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements In 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated that 10 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a drive's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID. That translates into as many as 20 million eligible voters who will not be allowed to vote on Election Day. Moreover, proof of citizenship requirements, such as the one proposed in this bill, are impossible for members of some communities to acquire and very hard for others. It is widely known that in certain parts of the country, elderly African-Americans and many Native Americans were born at home, under the care of midwives, and do not possess birth certificates. People of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, and low-income citizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have documents in their possession to prove citizenship. Further, for victims of natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it may be impossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents because they have been destroyed. an id card system will lead to a slippery slope of surveillance and citizen monitoring A national voter ID card system would significantly diminish freedom and privacy in the U.S. because once put in place, it is unlikely that such a system would be restricted to its original purpose. A national voter ID system would threaten the privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and will gradually increase the control that government and business wields over everyday citizens. conclusion We all want clean elections. But that is not what legislation like H.R. 4844 will accomplish. A federally mandated voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement will make it harder for people to vote, and not just people generally, but lawfully registered voters who happen to be seniors, young people, living in cities, lower-income and minorities. That is an effect clearly at odds with our most fundamental values as Americans. Voting is an invaluable right--the one that guards all of our other rights and ensures every American an opportunity to participate in our democracy. We must do everything in our power to make voting easier, not harder, and to resist the imposition of new requirements to vote that do not serve a fair and compelling purpose that actually promotes our democracy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4844--the so-called ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''.