Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 171, 172 and 173.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on May 10, 2005. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 162 and 163.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss ways we can work together to create an immigration system that better reflects the enormous contributions immigrants make every day, respects our Nation's proud history of welcoming men and women to seek a better life, and better protects our homeland by bringing people out of the shadows. And today I thought we could continue our discussion of mending borders with a quote. The late Senator Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``Our attitude toward immigration reflects our faith in the American ideal. We have always believed it possible for men and women who start at the bottom to rise as far as their talent and energy allow. Neither race nor place of birth should affect their chances.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our current immigration system is falling far short of those ideals. But it is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our Nation's immigration policies and the practices better embody Senator Kennedy's eloquent words. Because the struggling farm worker in Washington State who endures brutal working conditions and little pay to support his family deserves the right to be treated with dignity and to have a clear path to permanency for his sacrifice. Because the restaurant worker in Chicago who each day faces endless hours of washing dishes in the dank basements of our swankiest eateries to support her children has earned the right to keep her family together without fear of deportation. And because the factory worker in North Carolina who tolerates grueling days so his loved ones may one day realize the American Dream should be protected from exploitation and discrimination. These hard-working immigrants are part of the fabric of our Nation as surely and completely as those who came before them. And from coast to coast in big cities and small farm towns, they are serving as America's economic backbone and as a source of pride and progress for the future. Mr. Speaker, our Nation depends on immigrants' labor, and I hope we can create an immigration system as dependable as they are. So tonight, rather than focusing on divisive words of people like Lou Dobbs, let us focus on the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who recently stated at a Committee on Financial Services hearing that: ``As I've said before, I'm always supportive of expanding our immigration policies. I think that immigration has been very important to the success of this country. And I fully support it.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Rather than unfairly attacking imigrants for filling jobs Americans will not do, let us focus on the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, who said, ``This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.'' President Roosevelt's words are why in cities across the country today, workers and advocates, religious and business leaders are standing together to strongly support comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Cinco de Mayo, and I can assure the Members that this town is gearing up for another party. And while the immigrants appreciate the mariachis and marching bands, the speeches and the songs, what they really want is an immigration system that works and keeps their families united. A system that allows them to be full and productive members of our society. Because, Mr. Speaker, we cannot simply just take their labor, their sweat and their toil and then subjugate them into the shadows of a second class citizenry. We need a system that allows people to come to our country in a safe, orderly, and legal manner.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 150.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to continue my ongoing efforts to offer real solutions to fix our immigration system and to highlight the real contributions of our Nation's immigrant community. Last week, we talked about CNN's Lou Dobbs and his ``Broken Borders'' segment. We talked about how Mr. Dobbs uses his show to offer a venue to anti-immigrant extremists. We talked about how, between all of his regular guests, one would be hard-pressed to find a solution to the challenges we face, because they would rather demagogue and divide than offer tangible ideas or pragmatic proposals. I guess they think it is better for ratings, better for raising money for their organizations, or better for riling up their membership. Well, let me say this: It is not better for America. It is not better for America to do nothing about an immigration system that hurts families, hampers businesses, and harms communities. So, this evening, I thought we could continue our discussion on mending borders, and I thought we could do it by answering a few questions that Mr. Dobbs left unanswered at the end of his show last week. Let me start with Ray from Michigan's comment. Ray wrote the following to Mr. Dobbs: ``Isn't hiring illegal aliens just another way to outsource labor? The money doesn't stay in the United States.'' Well, Ray from Michigan, since Mr. Dobbs did not refute the inaccuracy of your statement, let me point you to a recent study by the Inter-American Development Bank. According to the study, approximately 16.7 million U.S. workers born in Latin America had a combined gross income of $450 billion last year, of which 93 percent was spent locally. That means billions of dollars spent at local stores for local services, that means hundreds of thousands of jobs created. Just look at Chicago. According to a study by the Center For Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois, the estimated 220 undocumented immigrants in the Chicago area alone added $5.5 billion to the local economy, creating more than 31,000 jobs. So I would simply and respectfully say to Ray from Michigan that immigrants make enormous contributions to our economy and to our communities, and we should work together to create a system that allows them to come out of the shadows and work here legally, safely, and humanely. Now, let's go to Judy in Belvedere, Illinois. Judy wrote the following to Mr. Dobbs: ``I feel like this country is finally waking up to the fact that the illegal population is draining our country of millions of taxpayers' money.'' Let me respond with a few points, the first being that all immigrants pay taxes, income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, every tax when they make a purchase. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 billion and $140 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. And let us not forget the Social Security system. Recent studies show that undocumented workers sustain the Social Security system with a subsidy as much as $7 billion a year. Let me repeat that: $7 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, I know I have provided a lot of facts and figures this evening, so let me close with a newspaper quote describing immigrants: ``These people are by their nature unruly and not fit for civil society and government. We have little hope of containing them, other than by force of law.'' Somebody writing to Lou Dobbs? No. The source of the quote, an editorial in the esteemed New York Times. In their defense, it was in 1895. And what unruly, ungovernable misfits was the New York Times writing about? Italian immigrants. Now, my point in reading this quote is not to be critical of the New York Times or, let me be clear, to say anything disparaging about Italian immigrants. My point, I hope, is obvious. Uncertainty and fear and ignorance about immigrants, about people who are different, has a history as old as our Nation. Boston and Philadelphia papers in the early 19th century editorialized against the Irish who they said were ruining our Nation, for the only real Americans, those, of course, being of English ancestry. It is not new or unusual for the real Americans, meaning those immigrants who came to America a little bit longer ago, to fear the outsiders, the pretenders, the newcomers. But I think we have an obligation to set the record straight. Because the truth is, today's immigrants, as they have for generation after generation, work the longest hours at the hardest jobs for the lowest pay, jobs that are just about impossible to fill. They pick our fruit, they care for our children and elderly, they change bedpans, they clear our tables and wash our dishes. And they do those jobs not because they want to take away anything from America, but because they want to give their skills, their sweat, their labor, for a better life and to help build a better America, just as those who came before them. I hope we in this body can work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our immigration system can better reflect their contributions.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 133 and 134.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to begin what I hope will be the start of a constructive dialogue about our Nation's immigration laws. There has been a lot of heated rhetoric about this topic in recent months. But what I believe has been lacking from this debate is a discussion of real solutions and an accurate portrayal of the real contribution of our Nation's immigrant community. In Congress, on cable shows and in newspaper columns across the country, we witness undocumented workers being unfairly and inaccurately blamed for all of our Nation's ills. In fact, it seems as though there are some cable show hosts out there who have made this practice the cornerstone of their programming. Just look at Lou Dobbs and his ``Broken Borders'' segment. If you ask me, it should be called the ``Broken Record'' segment. Because night after night after night, it is the same thing. It is about giving a platform to anti-immigrant extremists so they can espouse their misguided, misleading, and often malicious views. Mr. Speaker, I am the first to admit that our Nation's immigration system is simply not working. It is not meeting the needs of our Nation, it is damaging families, and it is hurting businesses. But rather than targeting Windex-wielding cleaning ladies, we should be talking about practical solutions. Do these individuals actually believe we should deport the more than 10 million undocumented working men and women working in this country? Do they think that is truly the answer? Let us say they say yes. Do they think our Nation has the will or the requisite resources to round up these individuals and ship them all off? If that is the case, I would simply ask them, what would life be without the more than 700,000 undocumented restaurant workers washing dishes and cleaning tables, 250,000 household employees, or the almost 1 million undocumented farm workers? These industries where these workers toil would literally come to a screeching halt if not for their labor. Their absence would cripple entire communities. Fruits and vegetables would rot on the vine, office buildings and hotels would go uncleaned, and children would go unattended. So this evening, I thought I would set the record straight and give the folks at CNN and other news outlets a little unsolicited editorial advice. I think we should be talking in this country about mending borders. Rather than a segment about broken borders, why not create a segment about mending borders on your stations? How about a segment where elected officials, policy analysts, and immigration experts on all sides of the political spectrum discuss ideas and proposals for fixing our flawed immigration policy? How about, instead of endless footage of workers crossing the border, we see footage of real contributions of immigrants to our agricultural industry? I wish I could turn on the television set one night and see scenes like this, by Rick Nahmias. This is the face of our immigrant community, right here, Mr. Speaker. It is back-breaking, thankless labor. These men and women are exposed to dangerous pesticides and punished by brutal working conditions. They lack safety equipment and have no place to send their children to school. Many of these workers wake up at 2 in the morning to take a bus to our fields, and they do not return until long after dark. But this is why we have fresh fruits and vegetables at our grocery stores and on our kitchen tables. It is men and women like this in this poster who sustain our $30 billion agricultural industry. According to the Department of Labor, at least half the 1.8 million crop workers in the U.S. are undocumented. That is the Federal Government. I would like to show the next poster, one we never see on TV. The subtitle of the article is ``Jobs Americans Won't Do.'' I wish everybody would read the front page of The Wall Street Journal on March 11. The Wall Street Journal article focuses on the challenges growers have finding workers. For example, ahead of a recent lettuce harvest, one grower took out ads in local papers for field workers to pick up the lettuce. He needed about 350 workers. The grower got one reply, just one reply. Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is our aging, more educated workforce is unwilling to pick the lettuce. I do not blame them. It is truly arduous work. So rather than attacking immigrants for filling these important jobs and for sustaining our vital agricultural industry, let us talk about creating a system that allows them to come out of the shadows and work here legally and safely and humanely. Rather than unfairly attacking immigrants for draining entitlements, let us talk about the undocumented workers who are here in this country and, according to the Social Security Administration, subsidize our Social Security system by $7 billion. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a segment about this on the cable channels. Mr. Speaker, rather than focusing on the fiery rhetoric that boosts cable ratings, I would rather we focus on the words of the late Pope, John Paul II, who said, Undocumented migrants are the most vulnerable of foreigners. With those words as our guide, I hope we can work together to create an immigration system that is reflective of their enormous contribution and the greatness of this Nation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 107 and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 108.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 94 (H. Res. 190--Honoring the life and achievements of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and expressing profound sorrow on his death) and 95 (H. Res. 148-- Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month).

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on March 14, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea,'' on rollcall votes 66, 67 and 68.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 418. The proponents of this dangerous and divisive bill have mischaracterized and misrepresented it as a measure that focuses on national security. This could not be further from the truth. I would urge my colleagues today to listen beyond the harsh rhetoric and to closely examine this legislation. Because further study will reveal that H.R. 418 is really nothing more than a bill designed to bash immigrants and punish refugees. H.R. 418 ignores our Nation's proud history of protecting those fleeing brutal human rights abuses, torture and persecution. It would force our country to turn its back on women, children, and victims of religious persecution. The bill would create insurmountable hurdles for legitimate asylum-seekers and slam the door shut on refugees who have fled brutal human rights abuses. That is not America. H.R. 418 also ignores the reality that there are an estimated 10 million or more undocumented immigrants living in our country. This bill would do nothing to prevent undocumented migration to the United States. If anything, this bill will only further compound the flaws in our Nation's immigrations laws. And it would make the job of protecting our homeland even more challenging. H.R. 418 will make the vital job of law enforcement to arrest criminals and root out potential terrorists almost impossible. In short, immigration enforcement will continue to expend their valuable, but limited, resources and energy in pursuing hardworking busboys and nannies, instead of bad actors who mean us real harm. Immigration officers represent our frontline forces in protecting our homeland. Let's not make their jobs even more demanding. Let's give them the policies, the resources and the tools they need to succeed. Mr. Chairman, imagine your neighbors, the families who live across the street, the men and women who join us at church--all of the hard working people who share the roads with us. Now imagine these hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, driving without a license, without car insurance or registration. Such a policy will wreak havoc on our streets and highways. It also will do nothing to address our broken immigration system. It will just force hard working people further into the shadows and create an increased demand for the black market of fake identity documents. I agree that Congress must examine how to improve enforcement of immigration law, but we first must create laws that are enforceable and in step with reality. Let me close by saying this. I am not alone in my strong opposition to this misguided and mean-spirited legislation. Also opposing the bill are the National Governor's Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, many other national, State and local organizations, security and immigration policy experts, immigration attorneys, more than 100 religious organizations, Hispanic and Asian organizations, the U.N. Commissioner for Refugees, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union and other labor unions. The list goes on and on, and I consider myself very good company. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. The only thing ``real'' about the REAL ID Act is that it is real bad for America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize my good friend, Congressman Bill Lipinski, and to thank him for his 22 years of service and vision and leadership in Congress. I know we use the word--friend--often in this body. Usually right before we are about to disagree with our colleagues. We say things like, I have a lot of respect for my good friend from Illinois, but I couldn't disagree more with his staunch support of the Chicago White Sox. But as much as we use the word ``friend'' to frame our debates, I have always felt that Congress actually is a tough place to build real, lasting friendships. That is why Mr. Lipinski will be so missed. Because while it's true that I hardly knew Bill Lipinski when I arrived here in 1993, it's more true now that I can hardly imagine not having Bill as one of my best friends and allies in public service. I will miss his effectiveness and his leadership, but more than that I will miss his day-to day presence and his friendship. And I know I am not alone. Because Mr. Lipinski has been such a good friend to so many of us in this body, on both sides of the aisle. And he has been such a good friend and unwavering champion for the people of Illinois. As the late Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Steve Neal put it, Mr. Lipinski, ``gets things done.'' And that is what has been the cornerstone of his career. Getting things done for his constituents and for the people of our state. Getting things done so that people across the country have access to better roads, more reliable railways and more dependable airports. One of the things I am most proud of during my time in Congress is working with Mr. Lipinski to secure funding for the renovation and reconstruction of the CTA Blue Line in my district. It is this kind of leadership and hard work and perseverance that has been the foundation of Mr. Lipinski's career. He has led by action and by example. And in doing so, he has produced concrete results for our state. During his 22 years in this body, Mr. Lipinski has fought ardently and selflessly and passionately on issues that make a real difference in ordinary people's lives. From his first days in this body, he immersed himself in transportation and infrastructure matters. And he did so with integrity and class and the courage of his convictions. He has helped secure hundreds of millions of dollars in vital funding for public transportation and infrastructure projects. And every day, people all across our city are better off because of his hard work, his dedication and his determination. From the Metra train, to the CTA, to highway projects along the Stevenson or Lake Shore Drive, to O'Hare and Midway airport, Mr. Lipinski has worked to make our infrastructure safer, stronger and more secure. And beyond his extraordinary legislative accomplishments, Mr. Lipinski has served as a role model for many of us in the Illinois delegation and for many who seek to serve at all levels of elected office. He has been a patient mentor, an unwavering ally and a great friend. And I know I speak for this entire body when I say that we will miss the sound of that great Southside accent filling this Chamber. We will miss his skillful management of major transportation bills. But most of all, we will miss our friend's wisdom and leadership and guidance. So let me close by thanking my friend, Mr. Lipinski, for his lifetime of public service. Our city and our Nation owe you a deep debt of gratitude. You will be missed.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say the following. In the same letter from the George Bush administration, it states: ``The administration has concerns with overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill and unrelated security concerns, and believes that the States, as in the Senate bill, should work these things out.'' So there are provisions for securing driver's licenses and making sure that they are secure. We have that in the Senate bill. The gentleman keeps speaking about the 9/11 families. I have an open letter from the 9/11 families, the same families that came to testify before the Congress of the United States, in which they say ``recommendations.'' ``We have heard that the House bill to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations also includes provisions to expand the U.S. PATRIOT Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by the commission and which we are against.'' This is the 9/11 families. Look, anybody listening to this debate would think that if tomorrow somebody who works in Washington State picking apples, and I think the gentleman from Indiana and I would agree that most of the workers in the field of agriculture in Washington State are undocumented here in this country, without legal documentation, picking our apples, let us use that as one example, do you think if you do not give them a driver's license, they are going to stop coming? Do you think if you take away the matricula consular and they cannot get a bank account, they are not coming? Do you think if we pass every other kind of ID requirement, they will stop coming? They are going to keep coming, as long as in this country there are apple growers who need their work and Americans like you and I that were born here who will not do the work. So let us face it, these are obscuring the real issues we have before us. I would suggest to the gentleman that he says that maybe the State of Illinois is in play in the electoral college. We just elected a Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois and the former Republican, how ironic, the former Republican Governor of the State of Illinois is currently under indictment by the Federal Government. Do you want to know why? For issuing bogus driver's licenses and taking bribes for them. That is a fact. Unfortunately, let us have a debate on immigration policy that is really about immigration and security concerns that are really about security. Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the statement of administration policy. Statement of Administration Policy The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 10 and appreciates the efforts of the House Leadership and Committees to bring this legislation quickly to the Floor. The Administration looks forward to working with the House and Senate in conference as they resolve their differences on intelligence reform legislation so that it can be enacted as soon as possible The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to address its concerns with the bill, including those described below, and to ensure prompt enactment of necessary legislation to create a strong National Intelligence Director (NID) with full budget authority and other authorities to manage the Intelligence Community, and to provide statutory authority for the newly created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The Administration appreciates that H.R. 10 has been revised to clarify the authorities of the NCTC and the definition of national intelligence. The Administration is also pleased that H.R. 10 would prevent disclosure of sensitive information about the intelligence budget. Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provide by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence activities would be a mistake. Legislation proposed by the President provides the NID with full budget authority, including clear authority to determine the national intelligence budget, strong transfer and reprogramming authorities, explicit authority to allocate appropriations, and the ability to influence the execution of funds by national intelligence agencies. The Administration is concerned that H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the Intelligence Community effectively. The Administration looks forward to working with the House to improve a number of provisions relating to appointments. In particular, the Director of the NCTC should be appointed by the President, and the appointment of certain other officers as proposed in H.R. 10 may raise constitutional issues. The Administration remains concerned about other provisions that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help, the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and preserve constitutional rights. The Administration commends and supports provisions of H.R. 10 that promote the development of a secure information sharing environment under the direction of the NID while also providing flexibility concerning its design and implementation. We look forward to working with Congress to address some concerns with the degree of specificity of provisions concerning interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data systems. In addition to provisions concerning the NID, the NCTC, and other core issues responsive to the Administration's proposal, H.R. 10 contains a number of additional provisions, some of which are discussed below. The Administration strongly supports those provisions of Title II that ensure the Intelligence Community and others in the war on terror have all the necessary tools to prevent terrorist attacks--including provisions to prevent attack by ``lone wolf'' terrorists and enhanced provisions to deny material support to terrorists, prevent attacks using weapons of mass destruction, and further dry up sources of terrorist financing. These and other additional antiterrorism tools would help keep America safer. The Administration also supports those provisions of Titles II and III that will better protect our borders from terrorists, while still maintaining our traditions as a welcoming Nation. In particular, the Administration supports efforts to allow visa revocations as a basis for deportation and provisions concerning the judicial review of immigration orders, as in Section 3009. The Administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal authorities. The Administration has concerns with the overboard alien identification standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security concerns. The Administration welcomes efforts in Congress to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendations concerning uniform standards for preventing counterfeiting of and tampering with drivers licenses and birth certificates, but believes that additional consultation with the States is necessary to address important concerns about flexibility, privacy, and unfunded mandates. Section 3001 acts to close a security gap by eliminating the Western Hemisphere exception for U.S. citizens. The Administration intends to work with the Congress to ensure that these new requirements are implemented in a way that does not create unintended, adverse consequences. The Administration strongly opposes section 3032 of the bill. The Administration remains committed to upholding the United States' obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is more likely than not they will be tortured. The Administration is willing to work with the Congress on ways to address the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), insofar as it may constrain the detention of criminal aliens, while they are awaiting removal, or limit the government's authority to detain dangerous aliens who would be removed from the United States but for the fact that they are afforded protection under the Convention Against Torture. Title IV contains a number of provisions that purport to establish the policy of the United States on foreign policy issues, require the Executive branch to negotiate certain international agreements, direct how the President will use the voice and vote of the United States in international institutions, direct the content of diplomatic communications with foreign governments, direct the make-up of U.S. delegations to multilateral meetings and negotiations, and require that plans and strategies to achieve specified foreign policy objectives be submitted to the Congress. These provisions are inconsistent with the President's constitutional authority with respect to foreign relations, diplomacy, and international negotiations. Therefore, these provisions should be eliminated or cast in precatory rather than mandatory terms. In Title V, the Administration commends the provisions that add to the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility in providing first responder grant funds to certain high-risk areas, but has concerns about border state funding mandates which reduce that flexibility. The Administration opposes provisions in Title V that would create inequities in personnel policy between the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and looks forward to working with the Congress on a separate and comprehensive reform of law enforcement pay and benefits. The Administration also opposes provisions that would encumber the Federal rulemaking process with duplicative and burdensome new requirements. The Administration opposes Section 5043 of the bill, which would eliminate the level playing field established for all three branches of government by the Government-Wide Ethics Reform Act of 1989, creating a new regime of non-uniform ethics laws. The financial disclosure process should be modernized to reflect changed circumstances. The Administration urges Congress to adopt the bill to modernize government-wide financial disclosure submitted by the Office of Government Ethics to the Speaker on July 16, 2003. The Administration is also very concerned about the dozens of new reporting requirements contained in the bill. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to eliminate or reduce the burden created by unnecessary or duplicative statutory reporting requirements, while respecting the responsibilities of the Congress. The Administration is also concerned about provisions in Title V that would, taken together, construct a cumbersome new bureaucracy, duplicate existing legal requirements, and risk unnecessary litigation. The Administration urges the House to delete or significantly revise these problematic provisions. The Administration notes that the Committee bill did not include Section 6 (``Preservation of Authority and Accountability'') of the Administration's proposal; the Administration strongly supports inclusion of this provision in the House bill. The Administration's proposal also provides necessary additional authorities for the NID to be able to effectively operate the Office of NID; however, H.R. 10 does not provide the NID with these additional authorities. The legislation should also recognize that its provisions would be executed to the extent consistent with the constitutional authority of the President: to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States; to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the foreign relations, the national security, deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties; to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President may judge necessary or expedient; and to supervise the unitary executive. Finally, the Administration has concerns with a number of other provisions in the bill and looks forward to working with Congress to address them as the bill proceeds.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 10 with instructions that the House recede to the Senate and strike provisions 3005, 3007, 3009 and 3032 from the bill. These provisions are poison pills that will slow the process of reforming our Nation's intelligence agencies and do nothing to make us safer. My motion further instructs House conferees to recede to the Senate by striking sections 3051 through 3056 from H.R. 10 relating to driver's licenses, identification cards and accepting the corresponding driver's licenses provisions from the Senate-passed bill. Mr. Speaker, instead of making us safer, enactment of these provisions would impose severe hardship on aliens by subjecting at least 1 million immigrants to deportation without any administrative hearing or due process, no review; permit the United States to outsource torture by sending an individual to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured; install a number of new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States; and prohibit habeas corpus review. Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind my colleagues of the very relevant details. None of these provisions were included in the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and they are extremely divisive. Insistence on these provisions could greatly complicate the task of conferencing with the Senate and producing a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. Speaking on section 3005, it is very problematic, Mr. Speaker. Among other things, it would bar the use of matricula consular identification cards, a policy that the Bush administration has opposed. Not only would this affect undocumented immigrants, it would also affect Canadians. Section 3005 makes it impossible for Canadians, who currently do not have a passport to be legally in the United States, to establish their identity when encountered by Federal employees. Last month, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to overturn the Department of Treasury regulations that permit matricula consular identification cards to be used in banking transactions. The House stripped the provision from the bill by adopting an amendment to H.R. 5025 that was offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House Committee on Financial Services chairman. The House adopted the Oxley amendment on September 14 by a vote of 222 to 177. Clearly, we should not revisit this. It has been visited not once, but at least on three occasions. Section 3006. This section greatly expands the use of expedited removal in the United States. It would be especially harmful for women and children who are escaping a range of gender-related persecutions such as rape, sexual slavery, trafficking, honor killings, since persons scarred by such trauma often require time before they can step forward to express their claim. I would like to think that most people in this Chamber would agree that this would cause untold grief to women and children who will no longer be able to obtain the relief to which Congress believes they are entitled, victimizing them once they are raped, victimizing them once again. This amendment in the Committee of the Whole was carried on the Smith amendment, and then we unfortunately had to revisit it for political purposes where it was defeated or it would not even be in my motion. Furthermore, this section would reverse several decades of policy with respect to persons fleeing the tyranny in Cuba, eviscerating protections that currently are available to Cubans arriving in the United States. Section 3006 would mean that any Cuban who sets foot on United States soil would have to be placed in expedited removal. Like all others, they would be subject to mandatory detention and swift removal from the United States. This will mean that many Cubans would be returned to the dictatorship of Fidel Castro without so much as a hearing. Section 3007 is nothing short of an assault on asylum. It would make sweeping changes to asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. Section 3007 would create new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States. This, in turn, would result in bona fide refugees being returned to their persecutors. It ignores the fact that asylum applicants, particularly survivors of torture, rape or forced abortion or sterilization, may not be comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspector officer at an airport. Section 3009 is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If this section is enacted, the constitutionally compelled remedy of habeas corpus will be eliminated, and a plainly inadequate court of appeals review will be substituted that will leave many noncitizens without any forum to raise legitimate claims of governmental error and misconduct. At the same time, the section creates an extremely high burden for obtaining a stay of deportation, inviting government to race to deport noncitizens before a Federal court can rule on the merits of the case. Section 3032. Supporters of section 3032 falsely contend that it would prevent the United States from deporting persons to countries where they are likely to be tortured. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, under this section, as it was amended in the Committee of the Whole by the Hostettler amendment, the United States still could outsource torture by sending individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured. It merely provides that in order to do so the United States Government would be required to seek what amounts to a note from the torturing government, that torturing government to promise us that they will not torture that individual anymore before we send them back. Who among our colleagues will be willing to stake their lives or the lives of their loved ones on the promise of the Government of Sudan or the Government of Syria or the People's Republic of China or North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia that they will not torture someone if we send them back after they try to get asylum here? Mr. Speaker, our country is far better than this. This provision is unacceptable. The administration expressed the President's opposition to permitting the government to outsource torture to foreign governments in the administration's statement of administration policy on H.R. 10. The President of the United States is against this provision. Members should know that a vote against this motion to instruct would be a vote against the very wishes of the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I, at this point, would like to end my comments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, first of all, read from the 9/11 Commission because I think it is pertinent at this point. In section 3051 through 3056, in paragraph 3, it says, ``Far from calling for sweeping anti-immigration legislation, the commission understood that we should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way, including intelligence-gathering. Congress needs to pass meaningful reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission and not insist,'' and I hope the gentleman from Indiana read the 9/11 report; it says ``not insist on a divisive anti-immigrant agenda that the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing another attack.'' Not one of those individuals that committed the heinous act on 9/11 had a matricula consular. As a matter of fact, they were issued by the government of the United States of America, and they either entered this country illegally through borders, not south of here but through the Canadian border, and through other means, legally and illegally, into this country. So let us stop trying to confuse one thing with the other. Anyone listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think that the government of Mexico issues a matricula consular, and all of a sudden you skip and jump and you are in the United States of America, and you get a Social Security card, you get all of the benefits of being here, and you have got a passport, and you are free. If an INS agent, and I would like the gentleman from Indiana to answer that, if an INS agent stops someone with a matricula consular and says, I want identification from you, prove you are legally here in the United States of America, and gives them a matricula consular, answer the question, will that person not or will that person be deported? He knows that person will be immediately deported from the United States of America because we do not recognize that as a legal means of staying in the United States. It is not a passport. It is not a visa. It does not entitle that person to legally be in the United States of America, and the gentleman from Indiana knows that. He is too smart. He knows too much about this issue to be fuzzy or wary on this issue. You cannot stay in this country with a matricula consular. What does it allow us to do? It allows an immigrant to open up a bank account so they can send money back, hopefully in a good way, back to their loved ones in their countries. That is what it allows them to do. It allows them to take their American citizen children and enroll them in school. It allows them to communicate. Anybody listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think the Los Angeles Police Department have lost their minds, the New York Police Department have lost their minds, the Chicago Police Department have lost their minds. They like the matricula consular, as do hundreds of police departments across this country, because it ensures the safety and allows them to gather intelligence and information and allows people to cooperate with them. That is safety on our streets and intelligence-gathering. Let me just say, because this matricula consular, anybody thinks you get one, and it is magic. I go to a job, I say: Here, I have got my matricula consular, give me a job. You know, you cannot get a job with a matricula consular. Lastly, let me say this. He skips over one important part. You have got to be in the United States of America to have a matricula consular, so you must have evaded something. Why do you want a matricula consular if you are already legally in the United States of America? To open up a banking account. That is the purpose. Let me just say that people, hundreds, and the gentleman knows this, hundreds of people die crossing the border between Mexico and the United States. They drown in the Rio Grande, or they die in the desert. The terrorists know, come through Canada. If we put 90 percent of our resources, that is why they are not going to come through. They are going to find other means. We should look for every possible way to stop them, but this is not going to stop them. As the commission says in their own report, don't use a divisive, anti-immigrant agenda the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing. This is the 9/11 Commission report. We should not do that, because it has nothing to do with preventing. Lastly, you want to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. You and I will both agree and sign on a piece of paper, and we will have the Justice Department notarize it. There are 10 million undocumented workers in the United States of America. This Congress has not shown the political will nor has it put forward the requisite resources to deport them, nor will it ever. This country needs and thrives on their work, and we all know it. So if we really want to deal with the immigration problem, then let us get an immigration bill, at least start with what the President, George Bush, said on January 7. Let us begin a national debate and an honest discussion of the undocumented workers that live in this country and let us integrate them so that the FBI, the CIA, our police departments have their fingerprints where they work, where they bank. And then, after we have eliminated those 10 million, because we know who they are and where they work and where they bank and where their children go to school and where they live, then we can reduce the number of people down to maybe the real terrorists that hide among them. Let us do that honestly. But let us not use another anti-immigrant attack within a bill, H.R. 10, which does such a disservice to the families of the lost ones of 9/11. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.